logo

Articles

Vol. 3 No. 1 (2023): Activity theory in technology enhanced learning research

Investigating the impact of digital resources on pedagogy in a Maltese kindergarten classroom through an activity theory approach

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21428/8c225f6e.51c509cc
Submitted
9 August 2026
Published
15-08-2026

Abstract

Technology in all its aspects has inevitably had a huge impact in education and is moulding the way we teach and learn. Children from a very early age come to school already immersed in this digital world. Educators are thus challenged into rethinking and reshaping their pedagogies to effectively integrate digital tools and resources, a change which is a complex process. This study investigates the impact of technology, in the form of various digital resources, from the perspective of a Maltese kindergarten educator (KGE). It will delve into if and how such technologies are transforming teaching practices as the mediating tools in order to stimulate and motivate active learning. Activity theory (AT) as the main theoretical framework is used to examine and analyse the pedagogical activity and the tensions within this specific sociocultural context. Activity theory enables the capture of the whole classroom dynamics of activities taking place, underlining how technology in its various forms acts as a multimodal tool enabling teaching and learning. Participative classroom observations are the main research instruments used to elicit findings and bring to light challenges and opportunities technology poses in such a context. The KGE's role as facilitator in the interactions taking place is studied in view of the whole dynamics of this activity system. The study has demonstrated the crucial role of activity theory to surface the social interactions, tensions and their development in this particular context to bring about transformation. Technology as a mediating tool in this activity system, brings about change in pedagogy. Activity theory has also uniquely provided practical examples to show the framework applied successfully in a Maltese kindergarten classroom.

References

  1. Bligh, B., & Flood, M. (2015). The Change Laboratory in Higher Education: Research-Intervention using Activity Theory (pp. 141–168). https://doi.org/10.1108/s2056-375220150000001007
  2. 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
  3. Bonneau, C. (2013). Contradictions and their concrete manifestations : an activity-theoretical analysis of the intra-organizational co-configuration of open source software. Activity Theory and Organizations, 1–28.
  4. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6th ed.). Routledge.
  5. Dillenbourg, P. (2011). Trends in Orchestration. Second Research and Technology Scouting Report, D1(5), 1–61.
  6. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.24160888
  7. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Orienta-Konsultit.
  8. 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
  9. Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2011). Discursive manifestations of contradictions in organizational change efforts A methodological framework. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 368–387. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534811111132758
  10. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001
  11. Flavin, M. (2017). Disruptive Technologies, Disruptive Innovation and Technology Enhanced Learning. In Disruptive Technology Enhanced Learning. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57284-4_2
  12. Foot, K., & Groleau, C. (2011). Contradictions, transitions, and materiality in organizing processes: An activity theory perspective. First Monday, 16(6), 1–18.
  13. Gedera, D. S. P., & Williams, P. J. (Eds.). (2016). Activity Theory in Education - Research and Practice. Sense Publishers.
  14. Government of Malta. (2008). Smartlearning -Malta’s National e-Learning Strategy 2008-2010.
  15. Hansen, C. C. (2008). Observing technology enhanced literacy learning. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8, 108–121.
  16. Hardman, J. (2007). An Activity Theory approach to surfacing the pedagogical object in a primary school mathematics classroom. Critical Social Studies, 1.
  17. Hardman, J. (2008). Researching pedagogy: an Activity Theory approach. Periodical of the Kenton Education Association, 65–95.
  18. Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) Model: a Critical Review and Suggestions for its Use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y
  19. Hasan, H. (1998). Activity theory: A basis for the contextual study of information systems in organisations. Information Systems and Activity Theory: Tools in Context, 19-38.
  20. Hashim, N. H., & Jones, M. L. (2007). Activity theory: a framework for qualitative analysis. International Qualitative Research Convention, 4.
  21. Hundeland, P. S., Carlsen, M., & Erfjord, I. (2014). Children’s engagement with mathematics in kindergarten mediated by the use of digital tools. Early Mathematics Learning, 207–221.
  22. Hutchison, A., Beschorner, B., & Schmidt-Crawford, D. (2012). Exploring the Use of the iPad for Literacy Learning. The Reading Teacher, 66(1), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01090
  23. Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Historical Currents in the Development of Activity Theory. In Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design (pp. 173–192). MIT Press.
  24. Kaptelinin, V., Nardi, B., & Macaulay, C. (1999). Methods & tools: The activity checklist: a tool for representing the “space” of context. Interactions, 6(4), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1145/306412.306431
  25. Karasavvidis, I. (2009). Activity Theory as a conceptual framework for understanding teacher approaches to Information and Communication Technologies. Computers & Education, 53(2), 436–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.03.003
  26. Kent, P. (2006). Using Interactive Whiteboards To Enhance Mathematics Teaching. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 11(2), 23–26.
  27. Kervin, L., Verenikina, I., Jones, P., & Beath, O. (2013). Investing synergies between literacy, technology and classroom practice. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 36(3), 135–147.
  28. Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.005
  29. Leontiev, A. N. (1974). The problem of activity in psychology. Soviet Psychology, 13(2), 4–33.
  30. Lewin, C., Somekh, B., & Steadman, S. (2008). Embedding interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning: The process of change in pedagogic practice. In Education and Information Technologies (Vol. 13, Issue 4, pp. 291–303). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-008-9070-z
  31. Lin, C.-H. (2012). Application of a Model for the Integration of Technology in Kindergarten: An Empirical Investigation in Taiwan. Early Childhood Education Journal, 40(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-011-0494-5
  32. Luckin, R., Bligh, B., Manches, A., Ainsworth, S., Crook, C., & Noss, R. (2012). Decoding Learning: The proof, promise and potential of digital education (Issue November). Nesta.
  33. Ministry for Education and Employment. (2012). A National Curriculum Framework for All.
  34. Moos, D. C., & Marroquin, E. (2010). Multimedia, hypermedia, and hypertext: Motivation considered and reconsidered. Computers in Human Behaviour, 26(3), 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.004
  35. Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communications technology: a review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9(3), 319–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390000200096
  36. Nature, T. (2009). The Nature and Design of Mixed Methods Research. 4–10.
  37. Nisser, A., Braun, A., Marz, A., & Mertens, F. (2020). Rethinking education in the digital age (pp. 1–20). European Union. https://doi.org/10.2861/84330
  38. OECD. (2017). Starting Strong V: Transitions from Early Childhood Education and Care to Primary Education. In Starting Strong. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264276253-en
  39. Plowman, L., & Stephen, C. (2003). A “Benign Addiction”? Research on ICT and pre-school children. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(2), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2003.00016.x
  40. Price, S., & Oliver, M. (2007). A framework for conceptualising the impact of technology on teaching and learning. Educational Technology & Society, 10(1), 16–27.
  41. Puentedura, R. (2013). SAMR: Moving from enhancement to transformation. Presentation Delivered at the Strengthening Your District Through Technology Workshops. http://www.hippasus.com/resources/tte/
  42. Rideout, V. J., Vandewater, E. A., & Wartella, E. A. (2003). Zero to Six: Electronic Media in the Lives of Infants, Toddlers and Preschoolers. In Electronic Media in the Lives of Infants, Toddlers and Preschoolers: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
  43. Scanlon, E., & Issroff, K. (2005). Activity Theory and Higher Education: Evaluating learning technologies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(6), 430–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00153.x
  44. Sutherland, R., Lindstrom, B., & Lahn, L. (2009). Sociocultural Perspectives on Technology Enhanced Learning and Knowing. In Technology-enhanced learning: principles and products (pp. 39–53). Dordrecht, Springer.
  45. Verenikina, I., Wrona, K., Jones, P., & Kervin, L. (2010). Interactive whiteboards: interactivity, activity and literacy teaching. World Conference on …, 2605–2614.
  46. Waycott, J., Jones, A., & Scanlon, E. (2005). PDAs as lifelong learning tools: an activity theory-based analysis. Learning, Media and Technology, 30(2), 107–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880500093513
  47. Yong, T. L. (2010). Integrating the Technological Dimension into Teaching and Learning — A Sociocultural Perspective. Education.
  48. Yong, T. L., & Lim, C. P. (2016). An Activity Theoretical Approach Towards Distributed Leadership For One-To-One Computing in a Singapore Elementary School. In D. S. P. Gedera & P. J. Williams (Eds.), Activity Theory in Education: Research and Practice (pp. 87–104). Sense Publishers.
  49. Zevenbergen, R., & Lerman, S. (2007). Pedagogy and Interactive Whiteboards: Using an Activity Theory Approach to Understand Tensions in Practice. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, 2, 853–862.
  50. Zhao, Y. (2010). Preparing Globally Competent Teachers: A New Imperative for Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(5), 422–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487110375802