logo

Articles

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

Using a Change Laboratory to voice students’ lived experience of moving from face-to-face to online instruction

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21428/8c225f6e.e2fe26bd
Submitted
9 August 2026
Published
15-08-2026

Abstract

Now that the grace period defined as “emergency” in the context of the mass move to online teaching has passed, students are less tolerant going forward of institutional failings that occurred during this time of remote learning not being remedied. Students are frustrated with a lack of their own voice in decisions at institutional level that affect them in all aspects of their online experience including, in educational change initiatives for the future.

This study gave students the opportunity to voice their own experiences of the transition during this time, and their experiences of the new online environment since the new semester from September 2020. It attempts to document the effects of this changing environment on student experience by using Cultural Historical Activity Theory, and one on-line synchronous Change Laboratory as the methodology to collaboratively co-create and document the experiences of students.

It explores how useful the students found this process to help give them the agency to express their own experience giving them a voice within educational change initiatives in the future. The findings demonstrate as we move forward to our new normal, that sub-standard online experiences will not be tolerated by students once they have an option to choose, and this will have a detrimental effect on institutions hoping to capitalise in this new online environment.

References

  1. Aguliera, E., & Nightengale-Lee, B. (2020). Emergency remote teaching across urban and rural contexts: perspectives on educational equity. Information and Learning Sciences.
  2. Augustsson, D. (2020). Expansive learning in a change laboratory intervention for teachers. Journal of Educational Change, 1-25.
  3. Bligh, B., & Coyle, D. (2013). Re-mediating classroom activity with a non-linear, multi-display presentation tool. Computers & Education, 63, 337-357.
  4. Bligh, B., & Flood, M. (2015). The change laboratory in higher education: Research-intervention using activity theory. In Theory and method in higher education research: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
  5. Botha, L. (2017). Changing educational traditions with the change laboratory. Education as change, 21(1), 73-94.
  6. Brannick, T., & Coghlan, D. (2007). In defense of being “native”: The case for insider academic research. Organizational research methods, 10(1), 59-74.
  7. Branquinho, C., Kelly, C., Arevalo, L. C., Santos, A., & Gaspar de Matos, M. (2020). “Hey, we also have something to say”: A qualitative study of Portuguese adolescents’ and young people's experiences under COVID‐19. Journal of Community Psychology, 48(8), 2740-2752.
  8. Day, T., Chang, I.-C., Chung, C., Doolittle, W., Housel, J., & McDaniel, P. N. (2021). The immediate impact of COVID-19 on postsecondary teaching and learning. The Professional Geographer, 73(1), 1-13.
  9. Engeström, Y. (1987). An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
  10. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.
  11. Engeström, Y., & Pyörälä, E. (2020). Using activity theory to transform medical work and learning. Medical Teacher, 1-7.
  12. Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational research review, 5(1), 1-24.
  13. Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2020). From mediated actions to heterogenous coalitions: four generations of activity-theoretical studies of work and learning. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1-20.
  14. Englund, C., & Price, L. (2018). Facilitating agency: the change laboratory as an intervention for collaborative sustainable development in higher education. International Journal for Academic Development, 23(3), 192-205.
  15. Gelles, L., Lord, S., Hoople, G., Chen, D., & Mejia, J. (2020). Compassionate flexibility and self-discipline: Student adaptation to emergency remote teaching in an integrated engineering energy course during COVID-19. Education Sciences, 10(11), 304.
  16. Hamad, S., Iqbal, S., Alothri, A., Alghamadi, M., & Elhelow, M. (2020). “To teach is to learn twice” Added value of peer learning among medical students during COVID-19 Pandemic. MedEdPublish, 9.
  17. Jeong, L., Smith, Z., Longino, A., Merel, S., & McDonough, K. (2020). Virtual peer teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. Medical Science Educator, 30(4), 1361-1362.
  18. Kontinen, T. (2004). Intervention negotiated? Production of shared object and power relations in the planning of a development co-operation project. Development Intervention. Actor and activity perspectives. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, 82-104.
  19. Kyne, S., & Thompson, C. (2020). The COVID Cohort: Student transition to university in the face of a global pandemic. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 3381-3385.
  20. Morselli, D., Costa, M., & Margiotta, U. (2014). Entrepreneurship education based on the Change Laboratory. The International Journal of Management Education, 12(3), 333-348.
  21. Nerantzi, C. (2020). The use of peer instruction and flipped learning to support flexible blended learning during and after the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Management and Applied Research, 7(2), 184-195.
  22. Novikov, P. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 emergency transition to on-line learning onto the international students’ perceptions of educational process at Russian university. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 11(3), 270-302.
  23. Ollman, B. (2003). Marx’s dialectical method is more than a mode of exposition: A critique of systematic dialectics. In New dialectics and political economy (pp. 173-184): Springer.
  24. Parker, S., Hansen, M., & Bernadowski, C. (2021). COVID-19 Campus Closures in the United States: American Student Perceptions of Forced Transition to Remote Learning. Social Sciences, 10(2), 62.
  25. Pather, N., Blyth, P., Chapman, J., Dayal, M., Flack, N., Fogg, Q., . . . Meyer, A. (2020). Forced disruption of anatomy education in Australia and New Zealand: An acute response to the Covid‐19 pandemic. Anatomical sciences education, 13(3), 284-300.
  26. Petillion, R. J., & McNeil, W. S. (2020). Student experiences of emergency remote teaching: Impacts of instructor practice on student learning, engagement, and well-Being. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 2486-2493.
  27. Ryberg, T., Davidsen, J., & Hodgson, V. (2018). Understanding nomadic collaborative learning groups. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(2), 235-247.
  28. Sannino, A. (2020). Transformative agency as warping: How collectives accomplish change amidst uncertainty. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 1-25.
  29. Sannino, A., Engeström, Y., & Lemos, M. (2016). Formative interventions for expansive learning and transformative agency. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 599-633.
  30. Shin, M., & Hickey, K. (2020). Needs a little TLC: examining college students’ emergency remote teaching and learning experiences during COVID-19. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 1-14.
  31. Virkkunen, J. (2006). Dilemmas in building shared transformative agency. Activités, 3(3-1).
  32. Virkkunen, J. (2013). The Change Laboratory: A tool for collaborative development of work and education: Springer Science & Business Media.
  33. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2010). Activity systems analysis methods [electronic resource]: understanding complex learning environments: Springer.
  34. Youmans, M. K. (2020). Going Remote: How Teaching During a Crisis is Unique to Other Distance Learning Experiences. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 3374-3380.
  35. Zheng, B., & Zhang, Y. (2020). Self-regulated learning: the effect on medical student learning outcomes in a flipped classroom environment. BMC medical education, 20, 1-7.