logo

Articles

Vol. 1 No. 1 (2020): Debating the status of 'theory' in technology enhanced learning research

Activity systems analysis: A maze worth exploring

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.82168/fv8enq49
Submitted
27 July 2026
Published
12-06-2020

Abstract

This paper seeks to reflectively discuss my use of Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) as a theoretical framework for the first time in a local case study. The study aimed to explore language teachers’ practices and challenges in the process of using videos as instructional tools at a language bridge program. Data included interviews, class observations, and document analysis. Using CHAT as the theoretical basis of the study, Activity Systems Analysis (ASA) was utilized to analyze the data. However, this was not an easy task for a beginning researcher. This reflective account will discuss how I attempted to understand CHAT and use ASA for my small-scale case study.

References

  1. Ashwin, P. (2012). How often are theories developed through empirical research into higher education?. Studies in Higher Education, 37(8), 941-955.
  2. Bennett, S., & Oliver, M. (2011). Talking back to theory: The missed opportunities in learning technology research. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3).
  3. Bligh, B. (2020, April 21). The ‘theoretical framework’ question: Why and how might you use theory in your PhD project? [Video file]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbhpcMwx-y8
  4. Bligh, B., & Flood, M. (2015). The Change Laboratory in higher education: Research-intervention using activity theory. In J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and method in higher education research, volume 1 (pp.141-168). Emerald.
  5. Bligh, B., & Flood, M. (2017). Activity Theory in empirical higher education research: Choices, uses, and values. Tertiary Education and Management, 23(2), 125-152.
  6. Cole M. (2019) Re-covering the idea of a tertiary artifact. In A. Edwards, M. Fleer, & L. Bøttcher (Eds.), Cultural-historical approaches to studying learning and development: Perspectives in cultural-historical research, vol 6, (pp. 303-321). Springer.
  7. Cole, M. (1999). Cultural psychology: Some general principles and a concrete example. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (87-106). Cambridge University Press.
  8. Engeström, Y. (1999a). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (19-38). Cambridge University Press.
  9. Engeström, Y. (1999b). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (377-404). Cambridge University Press.
  10. Engeström, Y. (2016). Studies in expansive learning: Learning what is not yet there. Cambridge University Press.
  11. Engeström, Y., & Miettinen, R. (1999). Introduction. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (1-18). Cambridge University Press.
  12. Greene, M. J. (2014). On the inside looking in: Methodological insights and challenges in conducting qualitative insider research. The Qualitative Report, 19(29), 1-13.
  13. Hammersley, M. (2012). Troubling theory in case study research. Higher education research & development, 31(3), 393-405.
  14. Hew, K. F., Lan, M., Tang, Y., Jia, C., & Lo, C. K. (2019). Where is the “theory” within the field of educational technology research? British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 956-971.
  15. Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2018). Activity theory as a framework for human-technology interaction research. Mind, Culture and Activity, 25(1), 3-5.
  16. Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. MIT press.
  17. Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B.A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. MIT Press.
  18. Marken, J. A. (2006). An application of activity theory: A case of global training. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 19(2), 27-50.
  19. May, T. (1997). Social research: Issues, methods and process (2nd ed.). Open University Press.
  20. Mercer, J. (2007). The challenges of insider research in educational institutions: Wielding a double‐edged sword and resolving delicate dilemmas. Oxford Review of Education, 33(1), 1-17.
  21. Mwanza, D. (2002). Towards an activity-oriented design method for HCI research and practice. PhD thesis The Open University.
  22. Passey, D. (2013). Inclusive technology enhanced learning: overcoming cognitive, physical, emotional, and geographic challenges. Routledge.
  23. Stetsenko, A., & Arievitch, I. M. (2004). The self in cultural-historical activity theory: Reclaiming the unity of social and individual dimensions of human development. Theory & Psychology, 14(4), 475-503.
  24. Susi, T. (2007). Tools and artefacts—knowing ‘where-from’ affects their present use. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 28(28).
  25. Tight, M. (2004). Research into higher education: An a-theoretical community of practice? Higher Education Research & Development, 23, 395–411.
  26. Toleman, C. W. (1999). Society versus context in individual development: Does theory make a difference? In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (70-85). Cambridge University Press.
  27. Trowler, P. (2012). Wicked issues in situating theory in close up research. Higher Education Research and Development, 31(3), 273-284.
  28. Trowler, P. (2016). Doctoral research into higher education: Making theory work. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
  29. Unluer, S. (2012). Being an insider researcher while conducting case study research. Qualitative Report, 17, 58.
  30. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D., (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
  31. Wu, Y. T. (2013). Research trends in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) research: A review of empirical studies published in selected journals from 2002 to 2011. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3).
  32. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2010). Activity systems analysis methods: Understanding complex learning environments. Springer.
  33. Zhao, J. (2014). Project-based instruction in teaching Chinese as a foreign language. In T. Hansson (Ed), Contemporary approaches to activity theory: Interdisciplinary perspectives on human behavior (pp. 108-127). IGI Global.