logo

Articles

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

The insider Change Laboratory in practice

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21428/8c225f6e.9dc1d9ef
Submitted
9 August 2026
Published
15-08-2026

Abstract

This paper describes a Change Laboratory that took place in a laptop-mediated English language course at a large tertiary institution in the United Arab Emirates. Earlier research had suggested that despite much heralded technology interventions students were in fact failing in increasing numbers. The Change Laboratory aimed to make a collective improvement in face-to-face laptop-mediated classrooms. This paper focusses on the solutions proposed during the intervention, and further contradictions identified as the participants attempt to apply these solutions. A future model of activity is also proposed. The paper contributes to insider research, Activity Theory and technology enhanced learning. Suggestions for future interventions are also made.

References

  1. Al Ali, S. (2020). Activity systems analysis: A maze worth exploring. Studies in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1. https://doi.org/10.21428/8c225f6e.39ed7528
  2. Andersson, A., Wiklund, M., & Hatakka, M. (2016). Emerging collaborative and cooperative practices in 1: 1 schools. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(4), 413-430.
  3. Awwad, F., Ayesh, A., & Awwad, S. (2013). Effectiveness of laptop usage in UAE university undergraduate teaching. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(2).
  4. Barma, S., Laferrière, T., Lemieux, B., Massé-Morneau, J., & Vincent, M.-C. (2017). Early stages in building hybrid activity between school and work: the case of PénArt. Journal of Education and Work, 30(6), 669-687.
  5. Berns, A., Isla-Montes, J.-L., Palomo-Duarte, M., & Dodero, J.-M. (2016). Motivation, students’ needs and learning outcomes: A hybrid game-based app for enhanced language learning. SpringerPlus, 5(1), 1305.
  6. Bligh, B., & Flood, M. (2015). The Change Laboratory in Higher Education: research-intervention using Activity Theory. In Theory and method in higher education research (pp. 141-168). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
  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.
  8. Blume, C. (2020). Games people (don’t) play: An analysis of pre-service EFL teachers’ behaviors and beliefs regarding digital game-based language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(1-2), 109-132.
  9. Brannick, T., & Coghlan, D. (2007). In defense of being “native”: The case for insider academic research. Organizational Research Methods, 10(1), 59-74.
  10. Castañeda, L., & Selwyn, N. (2018). More than tools? Making sense of the ongoing digitizations of higher education. In: Nature Publishing Group.
  11. Cavanaugh, C., Hargis, J., Kamali, T., & Soto, M. (2013b). Substitution to augmentation: Faculty adoption of iPad mobile learning in higher education. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 10(4), 270-284.
  12. Cavanaugh, C., Hargis, J., Munns, S., & Kamali, T. (2013a). iCelebrate teaching and learning: Sharing the iPad experience. Journal of teaching and learning with technology, 1(2), 1-12.
  13. Chapelle, C. A. (2009). The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computer‐assisted language learning. The modern language journal, 93, 741-753.
  14. Cook, D. J., & Das, S. K. (2012). Pervasive computing at scale: Transforming the state of the art. Pervasive and Mobile Computing, 8(1), 22-35.
  15. Copland, F., Mann, S., & Garton, S. (2020). Native‐English‐Speaking Teachers: Disconnections Between Theory, Research, and Practice. Tesol Quarterly, 54(2), 348-374.
  16. Di Napoli, R., & Clement, M. (2014). The agency game in academic development: Compliance and resistance. In: Taylor & Francis.
  17. Dobao, A. F. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of second language writing, 21(1), 40-58.
  18. Dobao, A. F. (2014a). Attention to form in collaborative writing tasks: Comparing pair and small group interaction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 70(2), 158-187.
  19. Dobao, A. F. (2014b). Vocabulary learning in collaborative tasks: A comparison of pair and small group work. Language Teaching Research, 18(4), 497-520.
  20. Dobao, A. F., & Blum, A. (2013). Collaborative writing in pairs and small groups: Learners' attitudes and perceptions. System, 41(2), 365-378.
  21. Donaghue, H. (2015). Changing practice and enabling development: the impact of technology on teaching and language teacher education in UAE federal institutions. In International Perspectives on English Language Teacher Education (pp. 142-159). Springer.
  22. Eden, S., Shamir, A., & Fershtman, M. (2012). Making a difference: Using laptops as a support for spelling improvement among students with learning disability. In Technology as a support for literacy achievements for children at risk (pp. 199-209). Springer.
  23. Edwards, E., & Burns, A. (2015). Language teacher action research: Achieving sustainability. Elt Journal, 70(1), 6-15.
  24. Elliott-Dorans, L. R. (2018). To ban or not to ban? The effect of permissive versus restrictive laptop policies on student outcomes and teaching evaluations. Computers & Education, 126, 183-200.
  25. Engestrom, Y. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a testbench of Activity Theory: The case of primary care medical practice. Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context, 64-103.
  26. Engeström, Y. (1987/2015). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  27. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of education and work, 14(1), 133-156.
  28. Engeström, Y. (2007). Putting Vygotsky to work: The change laboratory as an application of double stimulation. In The cambridge companion to Vygotsky. Cambridge University Press.
  29. Engeström, Y. (2016). Studies in expansive learning: Learning what is not yet there. Cambridge University Press.
  30. 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.
  31. Englund, C. (2018). Exploring interdisciplinary academic development: the Change Laboratory as an approach to team-based practice. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(4), 698-714.
  32. 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.
  33. Fathi, J., & Yousefifard, S. (2019). Assessing Language Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): EFL Students’ Perspectives. Research in English Language Pedagogy, 7(2), 255-282.
  34. Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers & Education, 50(3), 906-914.
  35. García Botero, G., Questier, F., & Zhu, C. (2019). Self-directed language learning in a mobile-assisted, out-of-class context: Do students walk the talk? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(1-2), 71-97.
  36. Garraway, J. (2020). Academics’ learning in times of change: a change laboratory approach. Studies in Continuing Education, 1-21.
  37. Garrett, N. (2009). Computer‐assisted language learning trends and issues revisited: Integrating innovation. The modern language journal, 93, 719-740.
  38. Gaudreau, P., Miranda, D., & Gareau, A. (2014). Canadian university students in wireless classrooms: What do they do on their laptops and does it really matter? Computers & Education, 70, 245-255.
  39. Genena, F. A., Mwafy, A. A., Al Mansoori, M. S., & Mourad, A.-H. I. (2019). Investigating on mobile usage patterns and reasons by university students in the UAE inside classrooms. 2019 Advances in Science and Engineering Technology International Conferences (ASET),
  40. Ghanaguru, S., & Rao, R. (2017). Pre-service ELT teacher beliefs: Implications for teacher education. The English Teacher(1), 15.
  41. Green, L. S. (2014). Through the looking glass. Knowledge Quest, 43(1), 36.
  42. Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2008). Learning with laptops: A multi-method case study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(3), 305-332.
  43. Hargis, J., Cavanaugh, C., Kamali, T., & Soto, M. (2014). A federal higher education iPad mobile learning initiative: triangulation of data to determine early effectiveness. Innovative Higher Education, 39(1), 45-57.
  44. Hopwood, N., & Stocks, C. (2008). Teaching development for doctoral students: what can we learn from Activity Theory? International Journal for Academic Development, 13(3), 187-198.
  45. Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing. Cambridge university press.
  46. Jameson, J. (2019). Developing critical and theoretical approaches to educational technology research and practice. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 951-955.
  47. Jordaan, D. (2014). Computer Science Students’ Perceptions of Mobile Technology in the Classroom. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(21), 353.
  48. Karim, A., Shahed, F. H., Mohamed, A. R., Rahman, M. M., & Ismail, S. A. M. M. (2019). Evaluation of the Teacher Education Programs in EFL Context: A Testimony of Student Teachers' Perspective. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1).
  49. Keaney, G. (2016). NEST schemes and their role in English language teaching: A management perspective. LETs and NESTs: Voices, views and vignettes, 126-146.
  50. Koehler, M. J., Shin, T. S., & Mishra, P. (2012). How do we measure TPACK? Let me count the ways. In Educational technology, teacher knowledge, and classroom impact: A research handbook on frameworks and approaches (pp. 16-31). IGI Global.
  51. Kraushaar, J. M., & Novak, D. C. (2019). Examining the affects of student multitasking with laptops during the lecture. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(2), 11.
  52. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2012). From Unity to Diversity: Twenty-Five Years of Language-Teaching Methodology. English teaching forum,
  53. Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. Oxford University Press.
  54. Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2013). CALL dimensions: Options and issues in computer-assisted language learning. Routledge.
  55. Loewen, S., Crowther, D., Isbell, D. R., Kim, K. M., Maloney, J., Miller, Z. F., & Rawal, H. (2019). Mobile-assisted language learning: A Duolingo case study. ReCALL, 31(3), 293-311.
  56. Marinagi, C., Skourlas, C., & Belsis, P. (2013). Employing ubiquitous computing devices and technologies in the higher education classroom of the future. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 73, 487-494.
  57. Marx, K. (1852/1979). The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Wildside Press LLC.
  58. Mbelani, M. (2018). Change laboratory workshop methodology in transforming visual literacy: a case of cartoons in English First Additional Language. Journal for Language Teaching= Ijenali Yekufundzisa Lulwimi= Tydskrif vir Taalonderrig, 52(1), 82-104.
  59. Medgyes, P. (2017). The (ir) relevance of academic research for the language teacher. Elt Journal, 71(4), 491-498.
  60. Miles, R. (2018). Collaborative learning in the laptop-mediated English language classroom. Unpublished work, Lancaster University.
  61. Miles, R. (2019). iPads in the classroom: teachers’ perspectives post-implementation [iPads; English; ELT; ESL; SAMR]. 2019, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.18538/lthe.v16.n1.321
  62. Miles, R. (2020). Making a Case for Cultural Historical Activity Theory: Examples of CHAT in Practice. Studies in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1).
  63. Miles, R. (2021). Identifying the contradictions in the technology enhanced language classroom. Seminar.net, 17(01). https://doi.org/10.7577/seminar.3199
  64. Miles, R., Al-Ali, S., Charles, T., Hill, C., & Bligh, B. (2021). Technology enhanced learning in the MENA region: Introduction to the Special Issue. Studies in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(2), 293-300.
  65. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Too cool for school? No way! Using the TPACK framework: You can have your hot tools and teach with them, too. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(7), 14-18.
  66. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers college record, 108(6), 1017.
  67. Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2019). Second language learning theories. Routledge.
  68. Mokhtar, I. A., Al Bustami, G., & Elnimeiri, A. (2009). Use of Weblogs by Non-native EL students: A case study in the UAE. E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education,
  69. Montoro, C. (2016). Learn or earn? Making sense of language teaching and learning at a Mexican university through a Change Laboratory intervention. Learning, culture and social interaction, 11, 48-57.
  70. Nleya, P. T. T. (2016). Transformative Applications of ICT in Education: The Case of Botswana Expansive School Transformation (Best) Project. IFIP World Information Technology Forum,
  71. Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2008). Handhelds: Getting mobile. District Administration, 44(8), 20-24.
  72. Park, Y., & Warschauer, M. (2016). Syntactic enhancement and second language literacy: An experimental study. Language Learning & Technology, 20(3), 180-199.
  73. Parr, G., Bellis, N., & Bulfin, S. (2013). Teaching English Teachers for the Future: Speaking Back to TPACK. English in Australia (0155-2147), 48(1).
  74. Passey, D. (2019). Technology‐enhanced learning: Rethinking the term, the concept and its theoretical background. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 972-986.
  75. Puentedura, R. (2010). SAMR and TPCK: intro to advanced practice. Retrieved March 1 from http://hippasus.com/resources/sweden2010/SAMR_TPCK_IntroToAdvancedPractice.pdf
  76. Puentedura, R. (2012, 2012). The SAMR Model: Background and Exemplars. Retrieved 1 April from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2012/08/23/SAMR_BackgroundExemplars.pdf
  77. Raddawi, R., & Bilikozen, N. (2018). ELT Professors’ Perspectives on the Use of E-rubrics in an Academic Writing Class in a University in the UAE. In Assessing EFL Writing in the 21st Century Arab World (pp. 221-260). Springer.
  78. Richards, C., J., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  79. Richards, Jack, & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  80. Richards, J. C. (2005). Communicative language teaching today. SEAMEO Regional Language Centre Singapore.
  81. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge university press.
  82. Roberts, D. F., Henriksen, L., & Foehr, U. G. (2009). Adolescence, adolescents, and media. Handbook of adolescent psychology, 2, 314-344.
  83. Roberts, J. (2016). Language teacher education. Routledge.
  84. Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Language Teaching Methodology. ERIC Issue Paper.
  85. Saroyan, A. (2014). Agency matters: Academic developers’ quests and achievements. International Journal for Academic Development, 19(1), 57-64.
  86. Selwyn, N. (2011). In praise of pessimism—the need for negativity in educational technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 713-718.
  87. Shin, D.-s., & Kang, H.-S. (2018). Online language teacher education: Practices and possibilities. RELC Journal, 49(3), 369-380.
  88. Sofiana, N., Mubarok, H., & Yuliasri, I. (2019). English Language Teaching in Secondary Schools: An Analysis of the Implementation of Indonesian ELT 2013 Curriculum. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 1533-1544.
  89. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. Sociocultural theory and second language learning, 97, 114.
  90. Swain, M. (2006). Languaging agency and Colloboration in advanced language proficiency. advanced language learning: The contribution of Holliday and Vygotsky. London: Continuum.
  91. Tafazoli, D., Abril, C. A. H., & Parra, M. E. G. (2019). Technology-Based Review on Computer-Assisted Language Learning: A Chronological Perspective. Píxel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación(54), 29-44.
  92. Tai, S.-J. D. (2013). From TPACK-in-action workshops to English classrooms: CALL competencies developed and adopted into classroom teaching.
  93. Tseng, J.-J., Cheng, Y.-S., & Yeh, H.-N. (2019). How pre-service English teachers enact TPACK in the context of web-conferencing teaching: A design thinking approach. Computers & Education, 128, 171-182.
  94. Tubaishat, A., & Bataineh, E. (2009). The impact of laptops on female students learning in an outcome-based Learning environment. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference,
  95. Unluer, S. (2012). Being an insider researcher while conducting case study research. The Qualitative Report, 17(29), 1.
  96. Virkkunen, J., & Newnham, D. S. (2013). The Change Laboratory: A tool for collaborative development of work and education. Springer Science & Business Media.
  97. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press.
  98. Vähäsantanen, K., Paloniemi, S., Räikkönen, E., & Hökkä, P. (2020). Professional agency in a university context: Academic freedom and fetters. Teaching and Teacher Education, 89, 103000.
  99. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.
  100. Yamamoto, K. (2007). Banning laptops in the classroom: Is it worth the hassles? Journal of Legal Education, 57(4), 477-520.