The authors describe an evolving theoretical framework that has been called one of the best kept secrets of academia: cultural-historical activity theory, the result of proposals Lev Vygotsky first articulated but that his students and followers substantially developed to constitute much expanded forms in its second and third generations. Besides showing that activity theory transforms how research should proceed regarding language, language learning, and literacy in particular, the authors demonstrate how it is a theory for praxis, thereby offering the potential to overcome some of the most profound problems that have plagued both educational theorizing and practice.

Cultural‐historical activity theory, an outcrop of socio‐psychological approaches toward human development, has enjoyed tremendous growth over the past two decades but has yet to be appropriated into science education to any large extent. In part, the difficulties Western scholars have had in adopting this framework arise from its ontology, which is materialist dialectical and, hence, does not allow easy absorption into non‐dialectical (classical logical) thinking underlying much of Western scholarship. Cultural‐historical activity theory has tremendous potential because it sublates traditional dichotomies in everyday teaching‐learning situations including individual/collective, body/mind, intra‐/inter‐psychological, cognitive/emotive and psychological/sociological. In this contribution, we not only review the existing literature that uses or develops this non‐dualistic approach, but also articulate an intelligible explication of the theory that is more accessible to Western scholars and describe possible future curriculum work and research in science education as an expression of the fruitfulness of the theory.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to answer two interrelated questions: “Who learns and how in the learning organization?”. By implication, many theories of the learning organization are adressed that are based on a static and erroneous separation of individual and collective. Design/methodology/approach – Four episodes from a larger case study exemplify the theoretical arguments. These were based on a longitudinal ethnographic study of a salmon hatchery and the public‐sector organization to which the former was accountable. Conceptual framework is strongly dialectical: in their actions individuals concretely reproduce the organization and, when actions vary, realize it in novel forms; organizations therefore presuppose individuals that concretely produce them. However, without an organization, there would be no aim or orientation to individual actions to speak of in the first instance. Findings – The paper finds that individuals learn, through the production of socio‐material resources, notions of organizations which are not These resources increase action possibilities for the collective, whether realized concretely or not. Expansive learning in individuals is co‐constitutive of learning in organizations and decreasing interest in individual learning constitutes decreased levels of action possibilities for the collective. Research limitations/implications – The paper shows that using this framework, it becomes problematic to separate individual and collective learning. Originality/value – The paper shows that access to participation by all members is a key component as are affordances given by the organization for the development of individuals.