Formative Interventions for Expansive Learning and Transformative Agency
Open accessAbstract
This article examines formative interventions as we understand them in cultural-historical activity theory and reflects on key differences between this intervention research tradition and design-based research as it is conceived in the learning sciences tradition. Three projects, including 2 Change Laboratories, are analyzed with the help of conceptual lenses derived from basic epistemological principles for intervention research in activity theory. In all 3 interventions, learners expansively transformed the object of their activity. The Change Laboratory cases, however, show that this learning process included productive deviations from the researchers’ instructional intentions, leading to significant outcomes, both practical and theoretical, that were not anticipated by the interventionists. Together these cases illustrate that an activity-theoretical formative intervention approach differs from design-based research in the following ways: (a) formative interventions are based on design done by the learners; (b) the collective design effort is seen as part of an expansive learning process including participatory analyses and implementation phases; (c) rather than aiming at transferable and scalable solutions, formative interventions aim at generative solutions developing over lengthy periods of time both in the researched activities and in the research community.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The methodology of formative interventions, especially Change Laboratory, may serve as an important resource for building and analyzing such transformation coalitions.
“The methodology of formative interventions, especially the Change Laboratory method, may serve as an important resource for building and analyzing such transformation coalitions (Sannino et al. 2016).”
From Using activity theory to transform medical work and learning (2021) · cites this paper as Sannino et al. 2016
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 68 · Cited by 366
- Authors
- Sannino, A., Engeström, Y., & Lemos, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Helsinki (FI)
- Corresponding author
- Sannino, Annalisa
- Venue
- Journal of the Learning Sciences
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2016-06-23
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 599-633
- ISSN
- 1050-8406 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7809
- OpenAlex
- W2462370874
- Cited by
- 366
- References
- 68
- Citations by year
- 2026: 30 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 55 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 5
- FWCI
- 117.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Journal of the Learning Sciences (publishedVersion)
- Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Kansainvälisen Liikkuvuuden ja Yhteistyön Keskus (TM-12-8554)
- Kulttuurin ja Yhteiskunnan Tutkimuksen Toimikunta (253804, 274244, 292730)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Innovative Education and Learning Practices
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Psychology of Development and Education
- Keywords
- formative intervention, expansive learning, transformative agency, cultural-historical activity theory, design-based research, collective design, intervention research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review