logo

Articles

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

Exploring the teacher’s role amid rising generative AI: An activity theory analysis in further education

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21428/8c225f6e.4d227fbd
Submitted
14 August 2026
Published
15-08-2026

Abstract

Generative AI (GenAI) is changing education by reshaping teacher roles and pedagogical methods. This study examines its impact on classroom interactions through an activity theory lens, highlighting the balance between GenAI’s benefits and the human aspects of teaching. Using a qualitative multiple case study approach, it explores how ChatGPT and TeacherMatic influence teachers' roles, pedagogical strategies, and classroom dynamics. Findings indicate that while GenAI improves personalised learning and administrative efficiency, it remains a complementary tool rather than a replacement for human mentorship and expertise. The study emphasises GenAI as an educational innovation that implants proven pedagogy, improving instructional efficiency while preserving essential human elements. These insights call for policymakers and technology-enhanced learning researchers to develop frameworks that optimise GenAI’s benefits without compromising holistic educational practices.

References

  1. Alasadi, E., & Baiz, C. (2023). Generative AI in education and research: Opportunities, concerns, and solutions. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(8), 2965–2971. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00323
  2. Aleryani, A. Y., & AlMunifi, A. A. (2019). A roadmap to the development of key competencies of engineering and technology graduates. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 9(5), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v9i5.11076
  3. Autor, D. H. (2015). Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future of workplace automation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.3.3
  4. Baidoo-Anu, D., & Owusu Ansah, L. (2023). Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. Journal of AI, 7(1), 52-62. https://doi.org/10.61969/jai.1337500
  5. Blackler, F., Crump, N., & McDonald, S. (2000). Organising processes in complex activity networks. Organisation, 7(2), 277-300. https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840072005
  6. Bligh, B., & Flood, M. (2017). Activity theory in empirical higher education research: choices, uses, and values. Tertiary Education and Management, 23(2), 125-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2017.1284258
  7. Blin, F., & Munro, M. (2008). Why hasn’t technology disrupted academics’ teaching practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory. Computers & Education, 50(2), 475-490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.017
  8. Blunden, A. (2010). An interdisciplinary theory of activity. Studies in Critical Social Sciences, Volume: 22. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004184060.i-344
  9. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/qrj0902027
  10. Brown, P. A. (2008). A review of the literature on case study research. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education, 1(1).
  11. Carr, L. T. (1994). The strengths and weaknesses of quantitative and qualitative research: what method for nursing? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 20(4), 716-721. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1994.20040716.x
  12. Celik, I., Dindar, M., Muukkonen, H., & Järvelä, S. (2022). The promises and challenges of artificial intelligence for teachers: A systematic review of research. TechTrends, 66, 616–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00715-y
  13. Chen, L., Chen, P., & Lin, Z. (2020). Artificial intelligence in education: A review. IEEE Access, 8, 75264-75278. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.2988510
  14. Chou, C., Shen, T., Shen, T., & Shen, C. (2022). The level of perceived efficacy from teachers to access AI-based teaching applications. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 18, 021. https://doi.org/10.58459/rptel.2023.18021
  15. Corti, L., Day, A., & Backhouse, G. (2000). Confidentiality and informed consent: Issues for consideration in the preservation of and provision of access to qualitative data archives. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research (Vol. 1, No. 3).
  16. Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
  17. Dahal, N. (2023). Ensuring quality in qualitative research: A researcher's reflections. The Qualitative Report, 28(8), 2298-2317. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2023.6097
  18. De Valenzuela, J. S. (2014). Sociocultural views of learning. In The Sage Handbook of Special Education (2nd ed., pp. 299-314). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607989
  19. Ditsa, G. (2003). Activity theory as a theoretical foundation for information systems research. In Information management: Support systems & multimedia technology (pp. 192-231). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/9781931777414.ch011
  20. DiCicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical Education, 40, 314-321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02418.x
  21. Edwards, B. I., & Cheok, A. D. (2018). Why not robot teachers: Artificial intelligence for addressing teacher shortage. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 32(4), 345-360. https://doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2018.1464286
  22. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
  23. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity-theoretical conceptualisation. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747
  24. Engeström, Y., Sannino, A., & Virkkunen, J. (2014). On the methodological demands of formative interventions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21(2), 118-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2014.891868
  25. Fassbender, W. (2024). “I can almost recognise its voice”: AI and its impact on ethical teacher-centaur labour. English Teaching Practice & Critique, 23(1), 104–117. https://doi.org/10.1108/etpc-08-2023-0101
  26. Fleming, J. (2018). Recognising and resolving the challenges of being an insider researcher in work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(3), 311-320.
  27. Garrett, E., & McArdle, K. (2020). Anecdote and observation. In The Impact of Community Work (pp. 105-118). Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.56687/9781447343950-010
  28. Ghamrawi, N., Shal, T., & Ghamrawi, N. A. (2023). Exploring the impact of AI on teacher leadership: Regressing or expanding? Education and Information Technologies, 1–19 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12174-w
  29. Gedera, D. (2014). Students’ experiences of learning in a virtual classroom: An Activity Theory perspective. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 10(4).
  30. Ghouri, H., & Ghouri, A. (2020). Technology enhanced learning: Should artificial intelligence ever be used for teaching and learning? Journal of Educational Sciences & Research, 7(2), 169-183.
  31. Gibbes, M., & Carson, L. (2014). Project-based language learning: An activity theory analysis. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 8(2), 171–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2013.793689
  32. Greene, M. J. (2014). On the inside looking in: Methodological insights and challenges in conducting qualitative insider research. The qualitative report, 19(29), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1106
  33. Halkias, D., Neubert, M., Thurman, P. W., & Harkiolakis, N. (2022). The multiple case study design: Methodology and application for management education (1st ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003244936
  34. Hardman, J. (2008). Researching pedagogy: An activity theory approach. Journal of education: Periodical of the Kenton Education Association, 45(1), 65-95.
  35. Herod, A. (1999). Reflections on interviewing foreign elites: praxis, positionality, validity, and the cult of the insider. Geoforum, 30(4), 313-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7185(99)00024-X
  36. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
  37. Huang, J., Saleh, S., & Liu, Y. (2021). A review on artificial intelligence in education. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 10(3), 10-24. https://doi.org/10.36941/ajis-2021-0077
  38. Huang, M.-H., & Rust, R. T. (2018). Artificial intelligence in service. Journal of Service Research, 21(2), 155-172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670517752459
  39. Jaworski, B., & Potari, D. (2009). Bridging the macro-and micro-divide: Using an activity theory model to capture sociocultural complexity in mathematics teaching and its development. Educational studies in mathematics, 72, 219-236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-009-9190-4
  40. Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational technology research and development, 47(1), 61-79. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02299477
  41. Kain, D., & Wardle, E. (2014). Activity theory: An introduction for the writing classroom. Wardle and Downs, 273-283.
  42. Kaptelinin, V. (1996). Activity theory: Implications for human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2137.003.0009
  43. Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2018). Activity theory as a framework for human-technology interaction research. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 25(1), 3–5 https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2017.1393089
  44. Karanasios, S., Allen, D. K., & Finnegan, P. (2018). Activity theory in information systems research. Information Systems Journal, 28(3), 439–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12184
  45. Koh, J., Cowling, M., Jha, M., & Sim, K. N. (2023). The human teacher, the AI teacher, and the AIED-teacher relationship. Journal of Higher Education Theory & Practice, 23(17) https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v23i17.6543
  46. Koszalka, T. (2004). A Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) analysis of technology integration: A case study of two teachers. Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED485000
  47. Leontiev, A. N. (2005). The genesis of activity. Journal of Russian & East European Psychology, 43(4), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/10610405.2005.11059253
  48. Liebenberg, V. (2014). Exploring teaching methods at a private higher education institution through the lens of activity theory: A case study (Doctoral dissertation, Cape Peninsula University of Technology).
  49. Lim, C. P., & Hang, D. (2003). An activity theory approach to research of ICT integration in Singapore schools. Computers & Education, 41(1), 49–63 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(03)00015-0
  50. Lin, A. M. (2007). What's the use of “triadic dialogue”? Activity theory, conversation analysis, and analysis of pedagogical practices. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 2(2), 77–94 https://doi.org/10.1080/15544800701343943
  51. Liu, Y., Saleh, S., & Huang, J. (2021). Artificial intelligence in promoting teaching and learning transformation in schools. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 15(3), 891. https://doi.org/10.53333/IJICC2013/15369.
  52. Liu, Y., Storch, N., & Morton, J. (2022). It takes two to tango: Investigating teacher-student interactions related to written corrective feedback with Activity Theory. Assessing Writing, 53, 100647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2022.100647
  53. Louis, M., & ElAzab, M. (2023). The future of teaching and learning in the artificial intelligence era (Part II). International Journal of Internet Education, 22(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.21608/ijie.2023.312490
  54. Louis, M., & ElAzab, M. (2023). Will AI replace teachers? International Journal of Internet Education, 22(2), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.21608/ijie.2023.312491
  55. Luan, H., Géczy, P., Lai, H., Gobert, J., Yang, S., Ogata, H., … & Tsai, C. (2020). Challenges and future directions of big data and artificial intelligence in education. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 580820. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.580820
  56. Luckin, R., & Holmes, W. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Open Ideas Pearson.
  57. Mack, N. (2005). Qualitative research methods: A data collector’s field guide. Family Health International (FHI), USA.
  58. Mahoney, J., & Goertz, G. (2006). A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative research. Political Analysis, 14, 227–249 https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpj017
  59. Malik, T., Dettmer, S., Hughes, L., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2023, December). Academia and generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) SWOT analysis-Higher education policy implications. In International Working Conference on Transfer and Diffusion of IT (pp. 3–16). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50192-0_1
  60. McKinsey Global Institute (2017). A future that works: automation, employment, and productivity. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/featured%20insights/Digital%20Disruption/Harnessing%20automation%20for%20a%20future%20that%20works/MGI-A-future-that-works-Executive-summary
  61. Mercer, J. (2007). The challenges of insider research in educational institutions: Wielding a double-edged sword and resolving delicate dilemmas. Oxford Review of Education, 33(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980601094651
  62. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Quantitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Sage Publications.
  63. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage Publications.
  64. 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) https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1203
  65. Murphy, E., & Rodríguez-Manzanares, M. A. (2013). Activity theory perspectives on technology in higher education. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-4590-5
  66. Mwanza-Simwami, D. (2011). AODM as a framework and model for characterising learner experiences with technology. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 7(3), 75–85
  67. Nardi, B. (Ed.). (1996). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. MIT Press.
  68. Noroozi, O., Soleimani, S., Farrokhnia, M., & Banihashem, S. K. (2024). Generative AI in education: Pedagogical, theoretical, and methodological perspectives. International Journal of Technology in Education, 7(3), 373-385. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.845
  69. Núñez, I. (2014). Activity theory and the utilisation of the activity system according to the mathematics educational community. Educate Journal, 7-20. https://www.educatejournal.org/index.php/educate/
  70. Nur Fitria, T. (2023). The use of artificial intelligence in education (AIED): Can AI replace the teacher's role? EPIGRAM (e-Journal, 20(2), 165-187. https://doi.org/10.32722/epi.v20i2.5711
  71. Nussbaumer, D. (2012). An overview of cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) use in classroom research 2000 to 2009. Educational Review, 64(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2011.553947
  72. Pavlik, J. V. (2023). Collaborating with ChatGPT: Considering the implications of generative artificial intelligence for journalism and media education. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 78(1), 84–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776958221149577
  73. Pedro, F., Subosa, M., Rivas, A., & Valverde, P. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Challenges and opportunities for sustainable development. UNESCO Digital Library.
  74. Prather, J., Denny, P., Leinonen, J., Becker, B. A., Albluwi, I., Craig, M., Keuning, H., Kiesler, N., Kohn, T., Luxton-Reilly, A., & MacNeil, S. (2023). The robots are here: Navigating the generative AI revolution in computing education. In Proceedings of the 2023 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 108–159).
  75. Prenkert, F. (2010). Tracing the roots of activity systems theory: An analysis of the concept of mediation. Theory & Psychology, 20(5), 641–665 https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354310375329
  76. Reich-Stiebert, N., & Eyssel, F. (2016). Robots in the classroom: What teachers think about teaching and learning with education robots. In Social Robotics: 8th International Conference, ICSR 2016, Kansas City, MO, USA, November 1-3, 2016 Proceedings 8 (pp. 671-680). Springer International Publishing.
  77. Rios-Campos, C., Cánova, E., Zaquinaula, I., Zaquinaula, H., Vargas, D., Peña, W., & Arteaga, R. (2023). Artificial intelligence and education. South Florida Journal of Development, 4(2), 641–655. https://doi.org/10.46932/sfjdv4n2-001
  78. Roth, W. M. (2004). Activity theory and education: An introduction. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca1101_1
  79. Şahin Gökçearslan, C., Tosun, C., & Erdemir, Z. G. (2024). Benefits, challenges, and methods of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots in education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Technology in Education, 7(1), 19-39. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.600
  80. Selwyn, N. (2019). Should robots replace teachers? AI and the Future of Education. (1st ed.) Polity Press.
  81. Storch, N., & Sato, M. (2020). Comparing the same task in ESL vs. EFL learning contexts: An activity theory perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 50–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12263
  82. Tapalova, O., & Zhiyenbayeva, N. (2022). Artificial intelligence in education: AIEd for personalised learning pathways. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 20(5), 639–653. https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.20.5.2597
  83. Tillmanns, T., Salomão Filho, A., Rudra, S., Weber, P., Dawitz, J., Wiersma, E., Dudenaite, D., & Reynolds, S. (2025). Mapping tomorrow’s teaching and learning spaces: A systematic review on GenAI in higher education. Trends in Higher Education, 4(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/higheredu4010002
  84. Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Baran, E. (2020). Enhancing pre-service teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A mixed-method study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 319–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09692-1
  85. Toy-Cronin, B. (2018). Ethical issues in insider-outsider research. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research ethics, 455-468. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526435446.n31
  86. Uden, L., & Ching, G. S. (2024). Activity Theory-based Ecosystem for Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED). International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 13(5). https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrse.2024.24000