logo

Articles

Vol. 4 No. 3 (2025): Activity theory in technology enhanced learning research (part 2)

Exploring technical support challenges faced by early adopters of EdTech

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21428/8c225f6e.eaf4673e
Submitted
14 August 2026
Published
15-08-2026

Abstract

Novel education technology is piloted in higher education institutions through software projects, led by early adopters. These projects enable early adopters to explore functionality, as they create interactive and sustainable learning resources. However, the current literature on early adopters has been criticised for oversimplifying complex practitioner activity, does not consider rapid software changes, or account for vendor support of technical information. This article examines the challenges navigated by early adopters at a UK Russell Group university. It aims to highlight the role of prior knowledge and experience, product instability, and vendor support in providing technical information. Cultural Historical Activity Theory is used as the theoretical framework to document the activity system, generate an activity system diagram, and identify contradictions. Findings from semi-structured interviews with four participants reveal five contradictions: Unreliable instruments, Distrusting instruments, Conflicting guidance, Hidden workload allocation, and Unnecessary rework. This paper contributes to the literature by expanding the defining scope of early adopters, the recognition of product instability to obstacles in technology adoption, and a call for further research into vendor support of technical information.

References

  1. Adi Badiozaman, I. F., Segar, A. R., & Hii, J. (2022). A pilot evaluation of technology-enabled active learning through a hybrid augmented and virtual reality app. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 59(5), 586-596. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.1899034
  2. Armstrong, E. J. (2019). Maximising motivators for technology-enhanced learning for further education teachers: Moving beyond the early adopters in a time of austerity. Research in Learning Technology, 27, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v27.2032
  3. Bennett, J., & Bennett, L. (2003). A review of factors that influence the diffusion of innovation when structuring a faculty training program. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 53-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00161-6
  4. Bennett, L. (2014). Learning from the early adopters: Developing the digital practitioner. Research in Learning Technology, 22, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v22.21453
  5. Botha-Ravyse, C., & Blignaut, S. (2017). Does the early adopter catch the worm or choke on it? A reflective journey of the challenges of technology adoption in a health sciences education institution. Education for Health, 30(2), 176-181. https://doi.org/10.4103/efh.EfH_219_16
  6. Brannick, T., & Coghlan, D. (2007). In defense of being “Native”: The case for insider academic research. Organizational Research Methods, 10(1), 59-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106289253
  7. Cercenelli, L., De Stefano, A., Billi, A. M., Ruggeri, A., Marcelli, E., Marchetti, C., Badiali, G. (2022). AEducaAR, anatomical education in augmented reality: A pilot experience of an innovative educational tool combining AR technology and 3D printing. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(3), 1024. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031024
  8. Chaiklin, S. (2019). The meaning and origin of the activity concept in soviet psychology—with primary focus on A. N. Leontiev’s approach. Theory & Psychology, 29(1), 3-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354319828208
  9. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Harvard University Press.
  10. Cong-Lem, N. (2022). Unravelling Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT): Leontiev’s and Engeström’s Approaches to Activity Theory. Knowledge Cultures, 10(1), 84-103. https://doi.org/10.22381/kc10120225
  11. Cotterall, S. (2013). More than just a brain: Emotions and the doctoral experience. Higher Education Research and Development, 32(2), 174-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.680017
  12. Dale, V. H. M., McEwan, M., & Bohan, J. (2021). Early adopters versus the majority: Characteristics and implications for academic development and institutional change. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 9(2), 54-67. https://doi.org/10.14297/jpaap.v9i2.483
  13. Dintoe, S. S. (2018). Educational technology adopters: A case study in university of Botswana. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 14(1), 52-90.
  14. Engeström, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics, 43(7), 960-974. https://doi.org/10.1080/001401300409143
  15. Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139814744
  16. Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., Punamäki-Gitai, R., & International Congress for Research on Activity Theory (2nd : 1990 : Lahti, Finland). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
  17. de Feijter, J. M., de Grave, W. S., Dornan, T., Koopmans, R. P., & Scherpbier, A. J. J. A. (2011). Students’ perceptions of patient safety during the transition from undergraduate to postgraduate training: An activity theory analysis. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 16(3), 347-358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9266-z
  18. Fanghanel, J. (2004). Capturing dissonance in university teacher education environments. Studies in Higher Education, 29(5), 575-590. https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507042000261553
  19. Fleming, J. (2018). Recognizing and resolving the challenges of being an insider researcher in work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(3), 311-320.
  20. Howard, S. K., & Gigliotti, A. (2016). Having a go: Looking at teachers’ experience of risk-taking in technology integration. Education and Information Technologies, 21(5), 1351-1366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9386-4
  21. Iqbal, M., & Zahidie, A. (2022). Diffusion of innovations: A guiding framework for public health. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 50(5), 533-537. https://doi.org/10.1177/14034948211014104
  22. Kirpitchenko, L., & Voloder, L. (2014). Insider research method: The significance of identities in the field. London: SAGE Publications.
  23. Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000100. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100
  24. Limniou, M. (2022). Educational technology's influence in higher education teaching and learning. Basel: MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute.
  25. Makonye, J. P., & Ndlovu, N. S. (2022). Innovations in online teaching and learning: Case studies of teacher educators from South Africa during the COVID-19 era. Cape Town, South Africa:
  26. Meruvia-Pastor, O., Patra, P., Andres, K., Twomey, C., & Peña-Castillo, L. (2016). OMARC: An online multimedia application for training health care providers in the assessment of respiratory conditions. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 89, 15-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.02.007
  27. Murphy, E., & Rodríguez-Manzanares, M.,A. (2013). An overview of activity theory in technology-mediated higher education. United States: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-4590-5.ch002
  28. O’Connell, C., & Saunders, M. (2013). Mediating the use of global university rankings: Perspectives from education facilitators in an international context. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17(4), 354-376. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315312453743
  29. Reid, P. (2014). Categories for barriers to adoption of instructional technologies. Education and Information Technologies, 19(2), 383-407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9222-z
  30. Robottom, I., & Hart, P. (1993). Research in environmental education: Engaging the debate. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University.
  31. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
  32. Sahin, I. (2006). Detailed review of Rogers' diffusion of innovations theory and educational technology-related studies based on Rogers' theory. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5(2), 14-23. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284675572_Detailed_review_of_Rogers'_diffusion_of_innovations_theory_and_educational_technology-related_studies_based_on_Rogers'_theory
  33. Samarawickrema, G., & Stacey, E. (2007). Adopting web-based learning and teaching: A case study in higher education. Distance Education, 28(3), 313-333. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910701611344
  34. Singh, G., & Hardaker, G. (2014). Barriers and enablers to adoption and diffusion of eLearning : A systematic review of the literature - a need for an integrative approach. Education & Training, 56(2), 105-121. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-11-2012-0123
  35. Spinuzzi, C. (2020). “Trying to predict the future”: third-generation activity theory’s codesign orientation. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 27(1), 4-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2019.1660790
  36. ThingLink. (2024). ThingLink: Create unique experiences with interactive images, video, and media. https://www.thinglink.com
  37. Van Braak, J. (2001). Individual characteristics influencing teachers' class use of computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(2), 141-157. https://doi.org/10.2190/81YV-CGMU-5HPM-04EG
  38. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
  39. Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  40. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.