logo

Commentaries

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

Towards a polyfunctional use of cultural-historical activity theory in technology enhanced learning research

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21428/8c225f6e.291cef39
Submitted
9 August 2026
Published
15-08-2026

Abstract

The establishment of a theoretical framework to guide, inspire and frame educational research is of utmost importance and can allow for a rigorous examination of a phenomenon under investigation (Savin-Baden & Major, 2013; Hennessy et al., 2019). Despite this, in their editorial for the 50th Anniversary volume of the British Journal of Educational Technology, Hennessy et al. (2019) and other scholars (e.g., Bennett & Oliver, 2011; Hew, 2019) argued that the adoption of theoretical frameworks in Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) research is sometimes weak or almost absent. For example, several studies focus on the design or practical implementation of educational technologies without grounding their findings in particular theoretical perspectives or by using theories vaguely and conducting superficial analyses (ibid.). Such approaches to research can restrict the opportunities to expand knowledge in the field. Therefore, there is a need for theoretically informed and thoroughly framed TEL research to enhance practice.

In this commentary, I discuss the value and application of Activity Theory (the focus of this special issue) in TEL research. I draw from my own experience in using the third generation of Activity Theory, also known as Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT), as the main theoretical framework to underpin my research. My goal is to showcase its polyfunctional use within my research project’s lifecycle. By combining insights from the literature and my observations, I also provide reflections on CHAT’s application in the TEL domain that may be useful for both newcomers and more mature adopters of CHAT.

References

  1. Akkerman, S.F. & Bakker, A. (2011) Boundary Crossing and Boundary Objects. Review of Educational Research. 81 (2), 132–169.
  2. Bayne, S. & Gallagher, M. (2021) Near Future Teaching: Practice, policy and digital education futures. Policy Futures in Education. 19 (5), 607–625.
  3. Bennett, S., Lockyer, L. & Agostinho, S. (2018) Towards sustainable technology-enhanced innovation in higher education: Advancing learning design by understanding and supporting teacher design practice. British Journal of Educational Technology. 49 (6), 1014–1026.
  4. Bennett, S., Agostinho, S. & Lockyer, L. (2017) The process of designing for learning: understanding university teachers’ design work. Educational Technology Research and Development. 65 (1), 125–145.
  5. Bennett S., & Oliver M. (2011) Talking back to theory: the missed opportunities in learning technology research. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3).
  6. Bligh, B. & Moffitt, P. (2021) CfP: Activity Theory in Technology Enhanced Learning Research. Studies in Technology Enhanced Learning. Retrieved from https://stel.pubpub.org/cfp-activity-theory-in-technology-enhanced-learning-research.
  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. Burrell, A.R., Cavanagh, M., Young, S. & Carter, H. (2015) Team-based curriculum design as an agent of change. Teaching in Higher Education. 20 (8), 753–766.
  9. Clifford, S. (2022). The use and value of cultural historical activity theory in institutional educational technology policy. Studies in Technology Enhanced Learning. https://doi.org/10.21428/8c225f6e.06989392
  10. Conole, G. (2015) Theoretical underpinnings of learning design. In: J. Dalziel (eds.) Learning Design. New York, Routledge, pp. 54–74.
  11. Crawford, K. & Hasan, H.M. (2006) Demonstrations of the activity theory framework for research in information systems. Australasian Journal of Information Systems. 13 (2), 49–68.
  12. Crotty, M. (1998) The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London, Sage Publications.
  13. Engeström, Y. (1987) Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.
  14. Engeström, Y., Engeström, R. & Kärkkäinen, M. (1995) Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction. 5 (4), 319–336.
  15. Engeström, Y. (2001) Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work. 14 (1), 133–156.
  16. Engeström, Y. (2008) From teams to knots: activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  17. Engeström, Y. (2016) Studies in expansive learning: Learning what is not yet there. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  18. Engeström, Y. & Pyörälä, E. (2021) Using activity theory to transform medical work and learning. Medical Teacher. 43 (1), 7–13.
  19. Engeström, Y. & Sannino, A. (2021) From mediated actions to heterogenous coalitions: four generations of activity-theoretical studies of work and learning. Mind, Culture, and Activity. 28 (1), 4–23.
  20. Fanghanel, J. (2009) The role of ideology in shaping academics’ conceptions of their discipline. Teaching in Higher Education. 14 (5), 565–577.
  21. Fereday, J. & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006) Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 5 (1), 80–92.
  22. Halupa, C. (2019) Differentiation of Roles: Instructional Designers and Faculty in the Creation of Online Courses. International Journal of Higher Education. 8 (1), 55–68.
  23. Haapasaari, A., Engeström, Y., & Kerosuo, H. (2016). The emergence of learners’ transformative agency in a Change Laboratory intervention. Journal of Education and Work, 29(2), 232–262.
  24. Hennessy, S., Mavrikis, M., Girvan, C., Price, S., & Winters, N. (2019). BJET Editorial for the 50th Anniversary Volume in 2019: Looking back, reaching forward. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1).
  25. Hew, K. F., Lan, M., Tang, Y., Jia, C., & Lo, C. K. (2019). Where is the “theory” within the field of educational technology research? British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 956-971.
  26. McInnes, R., Aitchison, C. & Sloot, B. (2020) Building online degrees quickly: Academic experiences and institutional benefits. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice. 17 (5).
  27. McKenney, S., Kali, Y., Markauskaite, L. & Voogt, J. (2015) Teacher design knowledge for technology enhanced learning: an ecological framework for investigating assets and needs. Instructional Science. 43 (2), 181–202.
  28. Murphy, E. & Rodriguez-Manzanares, M.A. (2008) Using activity theory and its principle of contradictions to guide research in educational technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 24 (4), 442–457.
  29. Nardi, B.A. (1996) Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  30. Nicolini, D. (2012) Practice theory, work, and organization: An introduction. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  31. Papageorgiou, V. (2022) Online learning design in Higher Education: A holistic investigation of people, processes and pedagogy. PhD thesis. Imperial College London. [Unpublished PhD thesis]
  32. Pratt, N., Tedder, M., Boyask, R. & Kelly, P. (2015) Pedagogic relations and professional change: a sociocultural analysis of students’ learning in a professional doctorate. Studies in Higher Education. 40 (1), 43–59.
  33. Richardson, J.C., Ashby, I., Alshammari, A.N., Cheng, Z., Johnson, B.S., Krause, T.S., Lee, D., Randolph, A.E. & Wang, H. (2019) Faculty and instructional designers on building successful collaborative relationships. Educational Technology Research and Development. 67 (4), 855–880.
  34. Roth, W.M. & Lee, Y.-J. (2007) “Vygotsky’s Neglected Legacy”: Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. Review of Educational Research. 77 (2), 186–232.
  35. Sannino, A. & Engeström, Y. (2018) Cultural-historical activity theory: founding insights and new challenges. Cultural-Historical Psychology. 14 (3), 43–56.
  36. Sannino, A. (2011) Activity theory as an activist and interventionist theory. Theory & Psychology. 21 (5), 571–597.
  37. Savin-Baden, M. & Major, C.H. (2013) Qualitative research: The essential guide to theory and practice. Oxford, Routledge.
  38. Scanlon, E. & Conole, G. (2018) Interdisciplinarity in Technology Enhanced Learning: An Interview Study. Journal of Interactive Media in Education. 2018(1), 1-8. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/jime.476
  39. Stake, R.E. (1995) The art of case study research. California, Sage.
  40. Trowler, P.R. & Turner, G.H. (2002) Exploring the hermeneutic foundations of university life: Deaf academics in a hybrid ‘community of practice’. Higher Education. 43 (2), 227–256.
  41. Yamagata-Lynch, L.C., Cowan, J. & Luetkehans, L.M. (2015) Transforming disruptive technology into sustainable technology: Understanding the front-end design of an online program at a brick-and-mortar university. Internet and Higher Education. 26, 10–18.
  42. Yin, R. (2018) Case study research and applications. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, Sage.