Conference Program

This contribution analyses how a kindergarten engaged in a Change Laboratory (CL) intervention navigated intertwined expansive and regressive learning cycles while attempting to implement an open-classroom model. Grounded in CHAT, contradictions are historically accumulated structural tensions that drive transformation (Engeström, 2015). Rather than surface conflicts, contradictions operate at different levels: primary within components, secondary between components, tertiary between old and emerging models, and quaternary between interacting activity systems. These tensions may generate transformative agency, yet they may also produce resistance and regression when not collectively worked through (Sannino, 2010).

The RQ is: How did layered contradictions, intertwined with staff mobility, shape expansive and regressive learning cycles during the implementation of an open-classroom model in a kindergarten?
After a two-year relocation due to renovation works, the school reopened in September 2024 in a building architecturally designed for open classrooms. Teachers initially attempted to implement open spaces but quickly reverted to closed sections. This revealed a secondary contradiction between spatial tools and entrenched organisational rules (Morselli & Weyland, 2025), confirming that architectural change alone does not transform pedagogical practice.

Between March and June 2025, the CL facilitated collective analysis of mirror data and surfaced primary contradictions embedded in the traditional model, particularly tensions between inclusive pedagogical values and segmented routines. Teachers jointly modelled an open-classroom object of activity, initiating an expansive cycle. However, staff turnover in September 2025 altered the subject collective, intensifying tertiary contradictions between the emerging model and residual habits. The arrival of new children further amplified secondary contradictions between object, rules and division of labour. A legionella outbreak in November caused a quaternary contradiction between the school and public health authorities.

When the school reopened in February 2026, tensions deepened. Divergent pedagogical models—particularly different child’s conceptions and the newly arrived children’s acclimatisation—clashed with the practical management of everyday routines. In February 2026, a decisive refusal to reopen shared spaces marked a regressive turning point. In agreement with three teachers strongly committed to the model, it was decided to suspend further implementation and resume CL sessions in September, when a central opponent of the reform would retire.

This case demonstrates that expansive learning is fragile when contradictions around the pedagogical object remain only partially elaborated. Architectural redesign and procedural innovation cannot substitute for explicit negotiation of the underlying image of the child and the corresponding pedagogical model. Second, the study highlights that staff mobility can intensify contradictions by destabilising collective memory and fragmenting transformative agency (Haapasaari et al., 2016). Sustainable democratic innovation requires sustained dialogical spaces in which competing pedagogical visions can be made explicit and worked through. The findings suggest that more sustained CL cycles and explicit discussion of the image of the child are necessary conditions for consolidating expansive learning in early childhood education. Rather than viewing regression as failure, the study reframes it as part of the historical movement through which educational change unfolds.