In this article, we take our starting point in the ideas of Vygotsky (1978, 2000), commonly referred to as sociocultural theory in the United States and other Western contexts (Wertsch, 1991; Wertsch et al., 1995). From this theoretical foundation, we trace the development of Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) through Leont’ev and further to Engeström’s contributions. This means that we start by emphasizing individual perspectives, then move toward learning and development as a shared, collective process. We also shift the focus from children to the collective processes of adults.

Vygotsky was concerned with the developmental process of growth and its origins, rather than with “fossilized behavior” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 63). Genetic analysis, in this context, means that the focus is placed not on the end product of development, but on the very process through which higher mental functions are formed. Artifacts hold a prominent place in sociocultural theory and are even regarded as extensions of the individual (Prawat, 1996). However, Vygotsky (2000) regarded language as the “tool of tools,” and was convinced that communicative processes are the primary medium through which individuals form their consciousness. Leont’ev (1981) expanded Vygotsky’s theory by shifting the focus from the individual to the collective, introducing the concept of division of labor. He exemplifies this through the activity of hunting for food or skins, demonstrating how various goal-directed actions contribute to fulfilling a shared collective motive related to the object of the activity.

Leont´ev (1978) defined the object concept in the following way: ‘[…] The object of the activity is twofold: first, in its independent existence as subordinating to itself and transforming the activity of the subject, second; as an image of the object, as [a] product of its property of psychological reflection that is realized as an activity of the subject’ (p. 52). The object is therefore both material and ideal. Leont’ev (1978) noted that “the meeting of need with the object is an extraordinary act” (p. 54) and later emphasized that “the object is the real motive” (Leont’ev, 1981, p. 59), meaning that in educational settings, practitioners must at least understand, or ideally share, a collective motive to act meaningfully on the object. When this happens, the object becomes “invested with meaning and motivating power” (Sannino et al., 2016, p. 602).

Engeström (1987) expanded activity theory by introducing a graphical model and adding the concept of expansive learning, which he and Sannino (2010) define as “learning something that is not yet there.” (p. 2). According to Vygotsky (1978), learning is a process starting at the social and external level before it is internalized on the internal level, and furthermore, good learning is ahead of development. He states that a person’s learning should be supported in his or her zone of proximal development by a more capable peer or adults (p. 86), thus facilitating progress beyond the learner’s current developmental stage. Engeström (1987) has expanded on this definition of the concept for the individual and explains the zone of proximal development in this way: ‘It is the distance between the present everyday actions of the individuals and the historically new form of the societal activity that can be collectively generated […]’ (p. 174).

With this theory as the frame for the research and development work we pursued the following research question:

How are learning and development conceptualized within cultural-historical activity theory, and what implications does this have for the interventionist researcher who supports and investigates these processes in whole schools?

The purpose of this study is to explore the challenges and opportunities that an interventionist researcher may encounter when employing CHAT as the theoretical framework.

The study is defined as a case study, following Creswell (2013) stating that such studies are bounded in time and place. The paper takes part of the ongoing four-year research project (2023-2027) Leadership and Learning for the Development of Teachers’ Professional Digital Competence (LeadDig), funded by the Norwegian Research Council. The underlying idea for the project is to develop schools that learn by focusing on teachers’ professional digital competence to enhance the pupils’ learning environment and learning in all together six schools. This study focuses on the meetings between the interventionist researchers, and the schools collaborating intensively for a year. The purpose of the study is to analyze and understand the interventionist researcher’s role when CHAT is used as the theoretical framework. We collected data by recording all the meetings in the research group focusing on the meetings with the schools, and furthermore, writing logbook entries after the meetings with the schools. Additionally, we conducted a focus group interview (Czarniawaska, 2004) with the whole research group, consisting of eight researchers. We have analyzed the data material by using the constant comparative method of analyses (Strauss & Corbin, 1998; Corbin & Strauss, 2013). So far, we have developed categories that provide headings for the processes about two and a half years into the project. These are: “How do we start”, “The necessity of being patient and navigating chaos”, “How to model dialogue to promote development and learning” and “Relations and horizontal learning”. The first category includes a tension between researcher-led classroom instruction and the effort to facilitate a collaborative process that enables teachers to define a shared development question based on their own needs before moving toward concrete changes in teaching. The second category concerns the tension between the traditional role of the researcher as a provider of knowledge to teachers, and the role of the researcher in structuring processes that enable teachers to identify their own developmental needs. The third category addresses how we as researchers can model what a learning dialogue between teachers might look like, and how such dialogue can contribute to both a sense of recognition and constructive criticism. The fourth and final category explores how we collaborate with teachers to build a supportive relationship and how we, as researchers, learn together with them.

The preliminary findings indicate that varying levels of familiarity with CHAT can create tension among interventionist researchers. Furthermore, previous experience with development work may both facilitate the process and, at the same time, generate tension regarding how such work is carried out within a CHAT framework, where the researcher is expected to act as a collaborative partner rather than an expert. Starting out with CHAT as a framework requires that teachers have the time and opportunity to identify both individual and shared needs for development. Such a starting point is unusual for teachers, and as researchers, we must therefore demonstrate resilience in navigating a chaotic process while maintaining confidence that this process will eventually help teachers understand its purpose. In addition to structuring processes that helped teachers identify their needs by formulating development questions, we also participated in teaching practice by observing lessons together with teachers and the principal, followed by structured joint analyses of these lessons, modeling language use to support development. The teachers expressed that this structure made them feel secure and helped raise their awareness of their own practice. In this project, we learned that a supportive climate between researchers and teachers must be characterized by genuine, equitable collaboration in which all partners learn from one another.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2013). Basics of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, Inc. Creswell (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd edition). SAGE Publications Inc. Czarniawaska, B. (2004). Narratives in social science research. SAGE. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Orienta-Konsultit Oy. Leontèv, A.N. (1978). Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. Prentice-Hall. Leontèv, A.N. (1981). The Problem of Activity in Psychology. In J.V. Wertsch (ed.), The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology, p. 37-71. M.E. Sharpe, Inc. Prawat, R.S. (1993). The value of ideas: Problems versus possibilities in learning. Educational Researcher, 22(2), 5-16. Sannino, A., Engeström, Y., & Lemos, M. (2016). Formative interventions for expansive learning and transformative agency. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 599–633. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1204547 Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002 Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage Publications, Inc. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L.S. (2000). Thought and Language. MIT Press. Wertsch, J.V. (1991). Voices of the Mind. A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wertsch, J.V., Rio, D.P. & Alvarez, A. (1995). Sociocultural Studies: History, Action, and Mediation. In J.V. Wertsch, D.R. Pablo & A. Alvarez (eds.), Sociocultural Studies of Mind, p. 1-34. New York: Cambridge University Press.