Abstract:

The purpose of this article is to illuminate what may unfold when researchers enter schools with a predefined plan for development work planned within the frame of cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT), and how this plan is received, interpreted, and further shaped by school leaders and teachers. We wanted to understand how the leaders and teachers experienced the plan, and thereby the structure and content of the work. It was therefore important for us to maintain continuous dialogue with the schools. The continuous communication took place mainly with the school leaders. Five schools in the municipality participated in the development work. The data material for the article consists of debriefing dialogues conducted after each school visit, as well as e mail communication and phone calls between the school leader and the leader of the project at one of the participating schools.

The problem formulation we wanted to pursue in the study conducted within the project was the following:
How do teachers and school leaders enact their agency within a project designed within the framework of cultural historical activity theory?

In CHAT contents and course of the intervention are subject to negotiation, and the shape of the intervention is eventually up to the subjects. Double stimulation as the core mechanism implies that the subjects gain agency and take charge of the process. For Engeström human agency is powerful as a set of collective intentions. Edwards defines relational agency as a capacity to align one’s thoughts and actions with those of others to interpret problems of practice and to respond to those interpretations. This also means that people need to come together in descriptive and interpretive dialogues. Our plan served as a framework that the teachers and the leader over time expanded and made meaningful for the development of their practice in the following way: The number of observations of teaching lessons and reflection cycles increased, and responsibility for lesson planning shifted from a single planner to a collaborative team effort. Participation in the reflection sessions also expanded: whereas only the observers were initially involved, these sessions gradually opened up to all staff, either by being physically present or by following the reflections via streaming. The ways in which observations and reflections were conducted also became more systematized by the school leader. Throughout the process, there was an expressed desire for greater participation by double stimulation from us than originally planned. Furthermore, we found that school leadership played a key role in maintaining continuity throughout the development process. The study concludes that the teachers and the leader emphasized that having a predefined and structured plan was important, yet they also recognized the value of adapting it to their own needs and the context of the school.

Keywords:

Cultural-historical activity theory, agency, education, school development.