logo

Articles

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

Redesigning online mentoring schemes for faculty managers in vocational education and training: The developmental role of primary contradictions

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21428/8c225f6e.d6321ead
Submitted
9 August 2026
Published
15-08-2026

Abstract

This paper summarises a research-intervention in a setting of vocational education and training (VET), where mentoring schemes for faculty managers are changed by participants themselves. Participants comprise mentees, who are faculty managers in VET, and their mentors, who are more experienced colleagues in the same institution. Informed by Marx’s conception of dialectical contradictions, with a theoretical framework of Cultural and Historical Activity Theory (CHAT), and using a Change Laboratory methodology, participants envision, negotiate, and enact change to mentoring activity. In this study, technology enhanced learning (TEL) is of interest to participants in two interrelated domains of work and learning: TEL describes their own development, including the mentoring schemes examined in this paper; and TEL describes the pedagogical development of faculty and students in VET, the development of which is their managerial responsibility. By collaboratively exposing and aggravating contradictions in their past, present and future activity, participants recognise local dilemmas as manifestations of contradictions in mentoring. The paper examines how they trace primary contradictions of use versus exchange value: a tension in capitalist economies, between inherent worth and exchange as a commodity. Double stimulation tasks enable these participants to collaboratively expose, model and call upon contradictions to enact change. The changes to mentoring activity are modest yet expansive for mentors and mentees, indicating the developmental potential of primary contradictions: countering the pretence of managerial consensus in mentoring relationships; challenging business-focused outcomes of mentoring schemes; and confronting top-down coercion during mentor-mentee interactions.

References

  1. Adekola, J., Dale, V. H. M., & Gardiner, K. (2017). Development of an institutional framework to guide transitions into enhanced blended learning in higher education. 25(1063519), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v25.1973
  2. AOC. (2021). Government’s Further Education Reform Agenda. Association of Colleges’ Public Affairs Team - Media and Parliament. https://www.aoc.co.uk/governments-fe-reform-agenda
  3. Avis, J. (2012). Global reconstructions of vocational education and training. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 10(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2012.646876
  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 Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/s2056-375220150000001007
  5. Blunden, A. (2010). Studies in Critical Social Sciences: An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004184060.i-344
  6. Boboc, M., Smaldino, S., & Persichitte, K. (2012). Senior Academic Staff Mentoring: Dealing with a Challenging Concept. International Journal of Learning and Development, 2(5), 57. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijld.v2i5.2338
  7. Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher (Second). Jossey-Bass.
  8. Carmel, R. G., & Paul, M. W. (2015). Mentoring and coaching in academia: Reflections on a mentoring/coaching relationship. Policy Futures in Education, 13(4), 479–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210315578562
  9. 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
  10. Davies, S., Mullan, J., & Feldman, P. (2017). Rebooting learning for the digital age: What next for technology-enhanced higher education? Higher Education Policy Institute.
  11. Diochon, P. F., Garvey, R., & Gray, D. (2018). The times and spaces of leadership development: (un)designing learning. Cuadernos de Administración, 31(57).
  12. Ellinger, A. (2002). Mentoring in Contexts: The Workplace and Educational Institutions. In C. Hansman, V. Mott, A. Ellinger, & T. Guy (Eds.), Critical Perspectives on Mentoring: Trends and Issues. Information Series. (pp. 15–26). ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED357698.pdf
  13. Engeström, Y. (1994). The working health center project: Materializing zones of proximal development in a network of organizational learning. In T. Kauppinen & M. Lahtonen (Eds.), Action research in Finland (pp. 233–274).
  14. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamâki (Eds.), Perspectives on Activity Theory (pp. 19–39). Cambridge University Press.
  15. 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
  16. Engeström, Y. (2015). The Emergence of Learning Activity as a Historical Form of Human Learning. In Learning by Expanding (Second, pp. 25–108). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2007.07.003
  17. Engeström, Y. (2016). Studies in Expansive Learning: Learning What is Not Yet There. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316225363
  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. (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
  20. 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.
  21. Foot, K., & Groleau, C. (2011). Contradictions, transitions, and materiality in organizing processes: An activity theory perspective. First Monday, 16(6), 1–19. http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3479/2983
  22. Garvey, B. (2006). Let Me Tell You a Story. The International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching, IV(1), 37–45.
  23. Garvey, B., Stokes, P., & Megginson, D. (2018). Coaching and Mentoring: Theory and Practice (Third). SAGE Publications Ltd.
  24. Gray, D., Garvey, B., & Lane, D. (2016). A Critical Introduction to Coaching and Mentoring. SAGE Publications Ltd.
  25. Guy, T. (2002). Telementoring: Shaping Mentoring Relationships for the 21st Century. In C. Hansman, V. Mott, A. Ellinger, & T. Guy (Eds.), Critical Perspectives on Mentoring: Trends and Issues. Information Series. (pp. 27–37). ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED357698.pdf
  26. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2000). Mentoring in the new millennium. Theory into Practice, 39(1), 50–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3901_8
  27. Jisc. (2020). Elevating the UK Further Education and Skills sectors: How Jisc, as a trusted lifelong learning digital partner, will support the UK FE and Skills sectors over the next three years - 2020 to 2023.
  28. Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v12i4.1772
  29. Karakus, T. (2014). Practices and Potential of Activity Theory for Educational Technology Research. In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 151–160). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5
  30. Kezar, A. (2014). How Colleges Change: Understanding, Leading and Enacting Change. Routledge. https://doi.org/doi:10.4324/9780203115060
  31. Lima Junior, P., Ostermann, F., & Rezende, F. (2014). Marxism in Vygotskian approaches to cultural studies of science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9(3), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-013-9485-8
  32. Marx, K. (1934). The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Progress Publishers. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt18fs6hn.5
  33. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1998). Theses on Feuerbach. In The German Ideology: including Theses on Feuerbach and Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy (pp. 568–578). Prometheus Books.
  34. Matthews, N. (2008). Conflicting perceptions and complex change: promoting web-supported learning in an arts and social sciences faculty. Learning, Media & Technology, 33(1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880701868846
  35. Megginson, D., Clutterbuck, D., Garvey, B., Stokes, P., & Garret-Harris, R. (2006). Mentoring in Action: a Practical Guide (Second). Kogan Page.
  36. Moffitt, P., & Bligh, B. (2021). Online tasks and students’ transformative agency: double-stimulation as a design principle for synchronous online workshops. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 00(00), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2021.1998792
  37. Parsloe, E., & Leedham, M. (2009). Coaching and Mentoring: Practical conversations to improve learning (Second). Kogan Page.
  38. Radel, J. (2019). Human Resources Management and Human Resources Development. In S. McGrath, M. Mulder, R. Suart, & J. Papier (Eds.), Handbook of Vocational Education and Training (pp. 765–787). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94532-3_99
  39. Rogers, Y. (2008). 57 Varieties of Activity Theory. Interacting with Computers, 20(2), 247–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2007.07.004
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. Sawchuk, P., Duarte, N., & Elhammoumi, M. (2006). Introduction. In P. Sawchuk, N. Duarte, & M. Elhammoumi (Eds.), Critical Perspectives on Activity: Explorations Across Education, Work, and Everyday Life (pp. 1–23). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511509568
  43. Sheninger, E. (2019). Digital Leadership: Changing Paradigms for Changing Times (Second). Corwin. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2019.2528
  44. Simkins, T., Coldwell, M., Caillau, I., Finlayson, H., & Morgan, A. (2006). Coaching as an in‐school leadership development strategy: experiences from Leading from the Middle. Journal of In-Service Education, 32(3), 321–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674580600841901
  45. Steyn, T. (2001). Staff empowerment : creating an empowered work environment in schools. Acta Academica, 33(2), 146–167.
  46. The Open University. (2019). Bridging the Digital Divide (Issue June). The Open University, Faculty of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.
  47. 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
  48. Virkkunen, J., & Newnham, D. (2013). The Change Laboratory: a Tool for Collaborative Development of Work and Education. SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-326-3