Abstract
Introduction: Within Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT), formative interventions (FIs) have become a widely adopted approach for supporting participant-driven transformation across educational and organizational settings. However, the term formative intervention is used inconsistently in the literature, referring both to a broad intervention paradigm and to specific intervention designs, creating conceptual ambiguity. This study aimed to examine how formative interventions and Change Laboratories (CLs) are conceptualized, implemented, and analyzed across the empirical literature.
Methods: A mixed-methods systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. The review included 236 peer-reviewed publications published between 1996 and 2022. Studies were coded for publication characteristics, intervention contexts, theoretical framing, methodological features, and analytical practices. Quantitative analyses, including chi-square tests and Cramér's V effect size estimates, were integrated with qualitative synthesis to identify patterns across intervention types.
Results: The findings reveal that fewer than half of the studies explicitly specify the type of formative intervention employed, indicating persistent taxonomic ambiguity. Although statistically significant differences were identified between Change Laboratories and other formative interventions, effect sizes were generally small to moderate, suggesting substantial overlap in their theoretical foundations, implementation, and analytical approaches. At the same time, recurring distinctions emerged regarding the use of mediating artefacts, the facilitation of participant agency, and the organization of expansive learning processes.
Discussion: These findings both confirm the central role of formative interventions within CHAT and highlight the need for greater conceptual precision in their definition and reporting. Building on the synthesis, the study proposes an integrative framework that organizes formative interventions according to key dimensions including agency, mediating artefacts, and expansive learning. The framework offers a basis for strengthening conceptual coherence, improving methodological transparency, and supporting the design and evaluation of formative interventions across diverse educational contexts.