logo

Articles

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

Exposing the uncomfortable: Activity theory and the limitations of the academic in the world of TEL and programme development

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21428/8c225f6e.94adb00d
Submitted
9 August 2026
Published
15-08-2026

Abstract

This paper comments on research undertaken as part of a Doctoral programme, recounting the experience of using activity theory and the Activity Systems Model (ASM) to frame and direct a study into the development and delivery of blended learning courses in three higher education institutes in Ireland. It discusses the initial attraction of activity theory as a mechanism to frame what was a study into the impact of digital technology on an aspect of organisational behaviour in higher education. The paper also discusses how some of the contested areas of activity theory and its complexity affected the study. The value of the pursuit of contradictions through the ASM is specifically highlighted in identifying areas of potential problems in the activity of incorporating digital technology into blended learning course development.

References

  1. Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations: An Overview and Interpretation. Organization Studies. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069501600605
  2. Bligh, B. and Flood, M. (2015). The Change Laboratory in Higher Education: Research-Intervention using Activity Theory. In J. Huisman and M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and Method in Higher Education Research (Vol. 1, pp. 141–168). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/74672/1/Volume_3_Bligh_Flood.pdf
  3. Blunden, A. (2010). An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity. Leiden: Brill.
  4. Cole, M. (1996) Cultural Psychology. A Once and Future Discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  5. Deem, R. (1998). “New managerialism” and higher education: The management of performances and cultures in universities in the United Kingdom. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 8(1), 47–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/0962021980020014
  6. The Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.
  7. Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Engeström, Y. and 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
  9. Kaptelinin, V., and Nardi, B. A. (2006). Activity Theory in a Nutshell. In Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design (pp. 29–63). MIT Press.
  10. Kuutti, K. (1995). Activity Theory as a potential framework for human- computer interaction research. In Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 17–44). https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Activity-theory-as-a-potential-framework-for-Kuutti/5ab3f21c3d5cd9f99dc893e42240e49015f11fea
  11. Leontiev, A. (1978). Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  12. Lynch, K., Grummell, B., and Devine, D. (2012). New managerialism in education: commercialization, carelessness, and gender. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
  13. McNicholl, J., and Blake, A. (2013). Transforming teacher education: an activity theory analysis. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 39(3), 281–300. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2013.799846
  14. Miettinen, R. (2006). Pragmatism and activity theory: Is Dewey’s philosophy a philosophy of cultural retooling? Outlines, 2, 3–19.
  15. Murphy, T. (2018). Exploring the challenges of managing blended learning courses in selected Irish higher education institutes: An activity theory study. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Lancaster University. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.17635/lancaster/thesis/426
  16. Murphy, T. (2019). Classifying the management of the blend: a typology of the management of blended learning course development. Tertiary Education and Management, 25, 211–224. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-019-09032-1
  17. Mwanza, D. (2001). Where Theory meets Practice: A Case for an Activity Theory based Methodology to guide Computer System Design. In: Proceedings of INTERACT’ 2001: Eighth IFIP TC 13 Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 9-13 Jul 2001, Tokyo, Japan. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/42795931_Where_Theory_meets_Practice_A_Case_for_an_Activity_Theory_based_Methodology_to_guide_Computer_System_Design
  18. Oliver, M. (2012). Technology and Change in Academic Practice. In P. Trowler, M. Saunders, and V. Bamber (Eds.), Tribes and Territories in the 21st-Century: Rethinking the significance of disciplines in higher education. Routledge.
  19. O’Connor, P., and White, K. (2011). Similarities and differences in collegiality/managerialism in Irish and Australian universities. Gender and Education, 23(7), 903–919. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2010.549109
  20. Peirce, C. S. (1878). Illustrations of the Logic of Science II. Retrieved from https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_12/January_1878/Illustrations_of_the_Logic_of_Science_II
  21. Shanahan, M.-C. (2010). Activity Theory. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, and E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Case Study Research (pp. 6–9). Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications, Inc. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412957397.n3
  22. Tight, M. (2014). Collegiality and managerialism: a false dichotomy? Evidence from the higher education literature. Tertiary Education and Management, 20(4), 294–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2014.956788
  23. Trowler, P. (2010). UK Higher Education: Captured by New Managerialist Ideology? In V. L. Meek, L. Goedegebuure, R. Santiago, and T. Carvalho (Eds.), The Changing Dynamics of Higher Education Middle Management (pp. 83–102). Springer Netherlands. https://www.academia.edu/13012342/Trowler_P_2010_UK_Higher_Education_Captured_by_new_managerialist_discourse_In_Meek_V_L_Goedegebuure_L_and_Santiago_R_and_Carvalho_T_The_Changing_Dynamics_of_Higher_Education_Middle_Management_Dordrecht_Springer
  24. Sahlin, K. (2012). The interplay of organizing models in higher education institutions : What room is there for collegiality in universities characterized by bounded autonomy? In B. Stensaker, J. Välimaa, and C. Sarrico (Eds.), Managing reform in universities (pp. 198–221). Palgrave Macmillan. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1057/9781137284297
  25. Virkkunen, J., and Shelley Newnham, D. (2013). Preparing and Carrying Out Change Laboratory Sessions. In: The Change Laboratory: a Tool for Collaborative Development of Work and Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-326-3