Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 642

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

From design experiments to formative interventions

Engeström, Yrjö·2011·Theory & Psychology

Abstract

So-called “design experiments” have been presented as a radical alternative to traditional experimental designs in behavioral sciences. A closer scrutiny of design experiments shows that they share the basic linear methodology of traditional randomized controlled trials, and thus ignore resistance and agency of learners as a source of surprise and novelty. Formative interventions based on Vygotsky’s principle of double stimulation offer an alternative that builds on and purposefully fosters learners’ agency. Formative interventions may be characterized with the help of an argumentative grammar which proposes (a) the collective activity system as a unit of analysis, (b) contradictions as a source of change and development, (c) agency as a crucial layer of causality, and (d) transformation of practice as a form of expansive concept formation. These four epistemic tenets are concretized with the help of analysis of data from a Change Laboratory formative experiment conducted in a Finnish hospital. The analysis shows that double stimulation is a multi-layered and longitudinal process in which both the initial problem situation (first stimulus) and the mediating conceptual tool (second stimulus) are reformulated and enriched in successive steps. Such a process of double stimulation generates a thirdness, a new concept for the activity under transformation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0959354311419252

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Cited by

See all 642

Metadata

Authors
Engeström, Y.
Venue
Theory & Psychology
Published
2011-10
Volume
21
Issue
5
Pages
598-628
ISSN
  • 0959-3543 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7447
OpenAlex
W145555815
Cited by
642
References
8
FWCI
87.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: From design experiments to formative interventions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0959354311419252
The paper
Engeström, Y. (2011). From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory & Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354311419252

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.