logo

Articles

Vol. 2 No. 1 (2022): Visual literacies and visual technologies for teaching, learning and inclusion

Visual forms of mediating artefacts: A research-intervention in engineering education

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21428/8c225f6e.3e816f8f
Submitted
8 August 2026
Published
15-08-2026

Abstract

This paper describes a research-intervention to change technology-enhanced learning (TEL), in a setting of engineering education. It examines how participants used visual forms of mediating artefacts, that is, the means by which the group came together, examined and changed their own TEL activity. Engineering education, an arena that is highly dependent on visualisation and the promotion of visual literacy, largely constrains visual representations to instrumentalist and work-related applications, for the mental rehearsal of engineering solutions. This paper instead describes an activity theoretical perspective, where visual representations of social activity became mediating artefacts, sitting between a collective subject (of learners, lecturers and managers in engineering education) and the object of their activity (to change their TEL activity). In the study described, participants identified, curated and engaged with visual forms of mediating artefacts: stimulating their need and potential for change; assisting their questioning of social conditions and knowledge; and mitigating the reversal and regression of their endeavours. The research-intervention used the Change Laboratory methodology, engaging them in collaborative and agentic double-stimulation tasks through a process of expansive learning. The core claim is that visual forms of mediating artefacts played a crucial role in the group’s qualitatively meaningful change to TEL, and in engendering their transformative agency.

References

  1. Alekseev, K. P., Hanley, G. L., Kiyasov, N. M., & Platonov, V. N. (2019). Virtual practices, virtual laboratories, and virtual internship experience in engineering training. In E. V Smirnova & R. P. Clark (Eds.), Handbook of research on engineering education in a global context (pp. 390–403). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-3395-5.ch033
  2. Avgerinou, M. D., & Pettersson, R. (2011). Toward a cohesive theory of visual literacy. Journal of Visual Literacy, 30(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/23796529.2011.11674687
  3. Avis, J. (2010). Workplace learning, knowledge, practice and transformation. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS), 8(2), 165–193.
  4. Baylen, D., & D’Alba, A. (2015). Preface: Visualizing learning. In D. Baylen & A. D’Alba (Eds.), Essentials of teaching and integrating visual and media literacy (pp. xii–xxiv). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05837-5
  5. Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. Open University Press.
  6. 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 Group. https://doi.org/10.1108/s2056375220150000001007
  7. Bligh, B., & Flood, M. (2017). Activity theory in empirical higher education research: Choices, uses and values. Tertiary Education and Management, 23(2), 125–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2017.1284258
  8. Blunden, A. (2010). Studies in critical social sciences: An interdisciplinary theory of activity. Brill Academic. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004184060.i-344
  9. Brookfield, S. (2018). Pedagogical peculiarities. In E. Medland, R. Watermeyer, A. Hosein, I. M. Kinchin, & S. Lygo-Baker (Eds.), Pedagogical peculiarities: Conversations at the edge of university teaching and learning (pp. 1–17). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789463512541
  10. Cañas, A. J., Carff, R., Hill, G., Carvalho, M., Arguedas, M., Eskridge, T. C., Lott, J., & Carvajal, R. (2005). Concept maps: Integrating knowledge and information visualization. Lecture notes in computer science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 3426 LNCS(2004), 205–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/11510154_11
  11. Chaudhury, S. R., Mandeltort, L., Mulnix, A. B., Vandegrift, E. V. H., & Yates, J. R. (2015). Using scientific visualization to enhance the teaching and learning of core concepts. In D. M. Baylen & A. D’Alba (Eds.), Essentials of teaching and integrating visual and media literacy (pp. 185–202). Springer International. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05837-5_9
  12. Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (2007). Cultural-historical approaches to designing for development. In A. Rosa & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of sociocultural psychology (pp. 484–507). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611162.026
  13. Daniels, H., Leadbetter, J., Warmington, P., Edwards, A., Martin, D., Popova, A., Apostolov, A., Middleton, D., & Brown, S. (2007). Learning in and for multi-agency working. Oxford Review of Education, 33(4), 521– 538. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980701450811
  14. Debes, J. (1968). Some foundations for visual literacy. Audiovisual Instruction, 13(9), 961–964.
  15. Dickens, J., & Arlett, C. (2009). Key aspects of teaching and learning in engineering. In H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, & S. Marshall (Eds.), A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: Enhancing academic practice (3rd ed., pp. 264–281). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203891414
  16. Engeström, Y. (1987/2015). The emergence of learning activity as a historical form of human learning. In Learning by expanding (2nd ed., pp. 25–108). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2007.07.003
  17. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747
  18. Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2011). Discursive manifestations of contradictions in organizational change efforts. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 368–387. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534811111132758
  19. Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2012). Whatever happened to process theories of learning? Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.03.002
  20. Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2016). Expansive learning on the move: Insights from ongoing research / El aprendizaje expansivo en movimiento: Aportaciones de la investigación en curso. Infancia y Aprendizaje / Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 39(3), 401–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2016.1189119
  21. Engeström, Y., Sannino, A., & Virkkunen, J. (2014). On the methodological demands of formative interventions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21(2), 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2014.891868
  22. Engeström, Y., Virkkunen, J., Helle, M., Pihlaja, J., & Poikela, R. (1996). The change laboratory as a tool for transforming work. Lifelong Learning in Europe, 1(2), 10–17. http://www.helsinki.fi/cradle/Change laboratory.html
  23. Eppler, M., & Burkhard, R. (2004). Towards a new discipline and its fields of application. In Faculty of corporate communication papers: Knowledge visualization (No. 2; Issue Paper # 2/2004, July, V2.6).
  24. Giroux, H. (2011). Critical pedagogy in dark times. In S. Steinberg & A. Freire (Eds.), On critical pedagogy (pp. 3–18). Bloomsbury. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350145016.ch-009
  25. Haapasaari, A., Engeström, Y., & Kerosuo, H. (2016). The emergence of learners’ transformative agency in a change laboratory intervention. Journal of Education and Work, 29(2), 232–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2014.900168
  26. Hardman, J., & Amory, A. (2014). Introduction to cultural-historical activity theory and tool mediation. In V. Bozalek, D. Ng’ambi, D. Wood, J. Herrington, J. Hardman, & A. Amory (Eds.), Activity theory, authentic learning and emerging technologies: Towards a transformative higher education pedagogy (pp. 9–21). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315771823-13
  27. Harrison, M. (2012). Enhancing Engineering Higher Education: Outputs of the National HE STEM Programme (Issue July). The Royal Academy of Engineering.
  28. Henderson, K. (1999). On line and on paper: Visual representations, visual culture, and computer graphics in design engineering. MIT Press.
  29. Heywood, J. (2005). Engineering education: Research and development in curriculum and instruction. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471744697
  30. Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v12i4.1772
  31. Kerosuo, H. (2017). Transformative agency and the initiation of knotworking in building design. In M. Goller & S. Paloniemi (Eds.), Agency at work: An agentic perspective on professional learning and development (pp. 331–349). Springer Link. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60943-0_17
  32. Kirschner, P. A. (2009). Epistemology or pedagogy, that is the question. Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 144–157). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203878842
  33. Klerkx, J., Verbert, K., & Duval, E. (2014). Enhancing learning with visualization techniques. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 791–807). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_64
  34. Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 17–44). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2137.003.0006
  35. Latour, B. (1986). Visualisation and cognition: Thinking with hands and eyes. In Knowledge and society: Studies in the sociology of culture past and present (pp. 1–40). Jai Press.
  36. Löfström, E., Nevgi, A., Wegner, E., & Karm, M. (2015). Images in research on teaching and learning in higher education. In J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and method in higher education research (pp. 191–212). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2056-375220150000001009
  37. Lucas, B., & Hanson, J. (2016). Thinking like an engineer: Using engineering habits of mind and signature pedagogies to redesign engineering education. Journal of International Pedagogy, 6(2), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v6i2.5366
  38. MacKenzie, I. S. (2018). Fitts’ law. In K. L. Norman & J. Kirakowski (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of human computer interaction (Vol. 1, pp. 349–370). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118976005
  39. Moffitt, P. (2019). Transformative Agency for the Collaborative and Future-Oriented Redesign of Activity in Higher Education; Empowering Participants to Change Their Boundary-Crossing Technology Enhanced Learning [Lancaster University]. https://doi.org/10.17635/lancaster/thesis/771
  40. Nguyen, T., & Khoo, I. (2009). Learning and teaching engineering courses with visualizations. Proceedings of the world congress on engineering and computer science, 2178(1), 580–584.
  41. Rueschemeyer, D. (1983). Professional autonomy and the social control of expertise. In R. Dingwall & P. Lewis (Eds.), The sociology of the professions (pp. 39–58). Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-16979-5
  42. Sannino, A. (2015). The principle of double stimulation: A path to volitional action. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 6, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.01.001
  43. Sannino, A., & Engeström, Y. (2017). Co-generation of societally impactful knowledge in change laboratories. Management Learning, 48(1), 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507616671285
  44. Shatri, K., & Buza, K. (2017). The use of visualization in teaching and learning process for developing critical thinking of students. European Journal of Social Sciences Education and Research, 9(1), 71. https://doi.org/10.26417/ejser.v9i1.p71-74
  45. Tennant, M., McMullen, C., & Kaczynski, D. (2009). Teaching, learning and research in higher education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203875919
  46. Virkkunen, J. (2004). Development intervention in work activities - an activity theoretical interpretation. In T. Kontinen (Ed.), Development intervention: Actor and activity perspectives (pp. 37– 66). Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research and Institute for Development Studies.
  47. Virkkunen, J. (2006). Dilemmas in building shared transformative agency. Activities / @ctivités, 3(1), 43–66. https://doi.org/10.4000/activites.1850
  48. Virkkunen, J, & Ahonen, H. (2011). Supporting expansive learning through theoretical-genetic reflection in the change laboratory. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(2), 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534811111119780
  49. Virkkunen, J, & Newnham, D. S. (2013). The Change Laboratory: A tool for collaborative development of work and education. Sense. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-326-3
  50. Virkkunen, J., & Schaupp, M. (2011). From change to development: Expanding the concept of intervention. Theory & Psychology, 21(5), 629–655. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354311417486
  51. Winberg, C. (2012). ‘We’re engaged’: Mechanical engineering and the community. In P. Trowler, V. Bamber, & M. Saunders (Eds.), Reconceptualising tribes and territories in higher education: Practices in the 21st century (pp. 142–155). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203136935-23
  52. Winn, W. (1982). Visualization in learning and instruction: a cognitive approach. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 30(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766544
  53. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2010). Understanding cultural historical activity theory. In Activity systems analysis methods: Understanding complex learning environments (pp. 13–26). Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6321-5_2