logo

Articles

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

Contradictions and strategies: an evaluative case study of digital technology use in a UK land-based educational institution through the lens of Cultural Historical Activity Theory

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21428/8c225f6e.5187245c
Submitted
14 August 2026
Published
15-08-2026

Abstract

Integrating digital technologies profoundly shapes educational practices and institutional operations, reflecting broader societal shifts toward digitalisation. However, research is still developing on the use of digital technologies by faculty members in educational institutions, particularly in UK land-based educational settings. Challenges remain in understanding the full scope of the effects of digital technologies and to identify gaps in existing research. This study aims to analyse the connections between faculty members, technological tools, institutional policies, and the broader educational community. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis was used to identify recurring patterns and contradictions in the data. Institutional policy documents were used to analyse documents, interview data, and provide background data. The findings revealed key challenges, such as mismatched digital tools, lack of teacher support, and conflicting institutional policies. These findings underscore the potential of resolving systemic contradictions to enhance technology-enhanced learning practices by fostering smoother technology adoption among faculty members, improving student engagement, and creating more inclusive online learning environments. This study contributes to the existing literature by shedding light on these contradictions and proposing strategies to address them, thereby enhancing the integration of digital technology in education.

References

  1. Akpan, V. I., Igwe, U. A., Mpamah, I. B. I., & Okoro, C. O. (2020). Social constructivism: Implications on teaching and learning. British Journal of Education, 8(8), 49–56.
  2. Al-Ali, S. (2020). Activity systems analysis: A maze worth exploring. Studies in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.21428/8c225f6e.39ed7528
  3. Atieno, O. P. (2009). An analysis of the strengths and limitations of qualitative and quantitative research paradigms. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 13(1), 13–38.
  4. Backfisch, I., Lachner, A., Stürmer, K., & Scheiter, K. (2021). Variability of teachers’ technology integration in the classroom: A matter of utility. Computers and Education, 166, 104–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104159
  5. Bailey, C. A. (2023). Thematic analysis. In A guide to qualitative field research. (3rd ed.) (187). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071909614
  6. Bayne, S. (2015). What’s the matter with ‘technology-enhanced learning’? Learning, Media and Technology, 40(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2014.915851
  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. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2017.1284258
  8. Blikstad-Balas, M., Roe, A., Dalland, C. P., & Klette, K. (2022). Homeschooling in Norway during the pandemic-digital learning with unequal access to qualified help at home and unequal learning opportunities provided by the school. Primary and secondary education during COVID-19: Disruptions to educational opportunity during a pandemic, 177–201.
  9. Bond, M., Marín, V. I., Dolch, C., Bedenlier, S., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2018). Digital transformation in German higher education: student and teacher perceptions and usage of digital media. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0130-1
  10. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide to understanding and doing. London: SAGE Publications.
  11. Buchanan, T., Sainter, P., & Saunders, G. (2013). Factors affecting faculty use of learning technologies: implications for models of technology adoption. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 25(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9066-6
  12. Calikoglu, A., Lee, J. J., & Arslan, H. (2022). Faculty International Engagement: Examining Rationales, Strategies, and Barriers in Institutional Settings. Journal of Studies in International Education, 26(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315320963508
  13. Cartwright, N. (2020). Middle-range theory: Without it what could anyone do? (Teoría del rango medio: ¿qué haríamos sin ella?). Theoria: An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science, 35(3), 269–323.
  14. Chan, S. (2021). Technology-enhanced learning (TEL) in VET: Theories and approaches to the present. In: Digitally enabling ‘learning by doing’ in vocational education: Enhancing ‘learning as becoming’ processes. Singapore: SpringerBriefs in Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3405-5_3
  15. Chugh, R., Turnbull, D., Cowling, M. A., Vanderburg, R., & Vanderburg, M. A. (2023). Implementing educational technology in Higher Education Institutions: A review of technologies, stakeholder perceptions, frameworks and metrics. Education and Information Technologies, 28(12), 16403–16429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11846-x
  16. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
  17. Correani, A., De Massis, A., Frattini, F., Petruzzelli, A. M., & Natalicchio, A. (2020). Implementing a Digital Strategy: Learning from the Experience of Three Digital Transformation Projects. California Management Review, 62(4), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125620934864
  18. Dezelak, Z., Bobek, S., & Zabukovsek, S. S. (2022). User Experience (UX) Comparative Analysis of Distant Learning Solutions Moodle and Microsoft Teams. In INTED2022 Proceedings (pp. 4386–4394). IATED.
  19. El-Sabagh, H. A. (2021). Adaptive e-learning environment based on learning styles and its impact on the development of students’ engagement. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00289-4
  20. Engeström, Y. (1987). An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
  21. Engeström, Y. (2001). AODM at Work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747
  22. Engeström, Y. (2008). Expansive learning: Toward an activity-theoretical reconceptualization. In: Contemporary theories of learning (pp. 61–81). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203870426
  23. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2020.1806328
  24. Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital Literacy: A Conceptual Framework for Survival Skills in the Digital Era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1), 93–106.
  25. Falloon, G. (2020). From digital literacy to digital competence: The teacher digital competency (TDC) framework. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(5), 2449–2472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09767-4
  26. Financial services study reveals emerging tech-driven systemic risks. (2021). States News Service.
  27. Foot, K. A. (2014). Cultural-Historical Activity Theory: Exploring a Theory to Inform Practice and Research. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 24(3), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2013.831011
  28. Graham, C. R. (2018). Current research in blended learning. In Handbook of distance education (4th ed.) 13, 173–188. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315296135
  29. Hafıfah, G. N., & Sulıstyo, G. H. (2020). Teachers’ ICT Literacy and ICT Integration in ELT in the Indonesian Higher Education Setting. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 21(3), 186–198.
  30. Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Qadri, M. A., & Suman, R. (2022). Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review. Sustainable Operations and Computers, 3(3), 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004
  31. Heeks, R. (2021). From Digital Divide to Digital Justice in the Global South: Conceptualising Adverse Digital Incorporation. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2108.09783
  32. Heo, J., & Han, S. (2021). The mediating effect of literacy of LMS between self-evaluation online teaching effectiveness and self-directed learning readiness. Education and Information Technologies, 26(5), 6097–6108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10590-4
  33. Herodotou, C., Rienties, B., Hlosta, M., Boroowa, A., Mangafa, C., & Zdrahal, Z. (2020). The scalable implementation of predictive learning analytics at a distance learning university: Insights from a longitudinal case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 45, 100725.
  34. Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An Instructional Design Framework for Authentic Learning Environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02319856
  35. Hirsh, Å., & Segolsson, M. (2019). Enabling teacher-driven school-development and collaborative learning: An activity theory-based study of leadership as an overarching practice. Educational Management, Administration & Leadership, 47(3), 400–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217739363
  36. Houben, S. (2011). Activity Theory Applied to the Desktop Metaphor (Doctoral dissertation, Ph. D. thesis, Hasselt University, Hasselt).
  37. Ismail, S. N., Hamid, S., Ahmad, M., Alaboudi, A., & Jhanjhi, N. (2021). Exploring students engagement towards the learning management system (LMS) using learning analytics. Computer Systems Science & Engineering, 37(1).
  38. Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2009). Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design (1st ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  39. Khomik, O., Bielikova, N., Indyka, S., Kovalchuk, O., & Halan-Vlashchuk, V. (2021). Accessibility of Microsoft Teams and Moodle Services for the Implementation of E-Learning for Students with Disabilities in Institutions of Higher Education in Ukraine. Fìzične Vihovannâ, Sport ì Kulʹtura Zdorov’â u Sučasnomu Suspìlʹstvì (Online), 1(53), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.29038/2220-7481-2021-01-33-42
  40. Kilag, O. K., Obaner, E., Vidal, E., Castañares, J., Dumdum, J. N., & Hermosa, T. J. (2023). Optimizing Education: Building Blended Learning Curricula with LMS. Excellencia: International Multi-disciplinary Journal of Education (2994-9521), 1(4), 238-250.
  41. Kim, S., Fan, B., Yang, W. Y., Ramey, J., Fox, S. E., Zhu, H., Zimmerman, J., & Eslami, M. (2024). Public Technologies Transforming Work of the Public and the Public Sector. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2405.18579
  42. Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2014). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: What is ‘enhanced’ and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), 6–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2013.770404
  43. Koh, J. H. L., & Kan, R. Y. P. (2021). Students’ use of learning management systems and desired e-learning experiences: are they ready for next generation digital learning environments? Higher Education Research and Development, 40(5), 995–1010. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1799949
  44. Krašna, M., & Pesek, I. (2020). Influence of Moodle and MS Teams on teaching-learning-studying (TLS) processes. 2020 43rd International Convention on Information, Communication and Electronic Technology (MIPRO), 612–616. https://doi.org/10.23919/MIPRO48935.2020.9245356
  45. Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(3), 214–222. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.45.3.214
  46. Kumar, A., Krishnamurthi, R., Bhatia, S., Kaushik, K., Ahuja, N. J., Nayyar, A., & Masud, M. (2021). Blended Learning Tools and Practices: A Comprehensive Analysis. IEEE Access, 9, 85151–85197. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3085844
  47. Kundu, A., Bej, T., & Dey, K. N. (2020). An empirical study on the correlation between teacher efficacy and ICT infrastructure. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 37(4), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-04-2020-0050
  48. Lancaster University (LU). (n.d.). Research Ethics. https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/research/research-services/research-integrity-ethics—governance/research-ethics/#research-and-rd—requires-ethical-approval—421140-0
  49. Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Leadership and other conditions which foster organisational learning in schools. In Organisational learning in schools (1st ed.) 4, pp. 67–90. London: Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003077459
  50. Limani, Y., Hajrizi, E., Stapleton, L., & Retkoceri, M. (2019). Digital Transformation Readiness in Higher Education Institutions (HEI): The Case of Kosovo. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 52(25), 52–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.12.445
  51. Maheshwari, G. (2021). Factors affecting students’ intentions to undertake online learning: an empirical study in Vietnam. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 6629–6649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10465-8
  52. Maimaiti, G., Jia, C., & Hew, K. F. (2023). Student disengagement in web-based videoconferencing supported online learning: an activity theory perspective. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(8), 4883–4902. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1984949
  53. Mwanza-Simwami, D. (2011). AODM as a framework and model for characterising learner experiences with technology. Journal of e-learning and knowledge society, [online] 7(3), pp.75–85. https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/553.
  54. OECD Digital Education Outlook 2023: Towards an Effective Digital Education Ecosystem. (2023). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/c74f03de-en
  55. Oliveira, G., Grenha Teixeira, J., Torres, A., & Morais, C. (2021). An exploratory study on the emergency remote education experience of higher education students and teachers during the COVID‐19 pandemic. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(4), 1357–1376. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13112
  56. Önalan, O., & Kurt, G. (2020). Exploring Turkish EFL teachers’ perceptions of the factors affecting technology integration: A case study. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(2), 626–646. http://dx.doi.org/10.17263/jlls.759264
  57. Ovcharuk, O., Ivaniuk, I., Soroko, N., Gritsenchuk, O., & Kravchyna, O. (2020). The use of digital learning tools in the teachers’ professional activities to ensure sustainable development and democratization of education in European countries. E3S Web of Conferences, 166, 10019. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202016610019
  58. Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 345–375. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.345
  59. Parveen, S., & Ramzan, S. I. (2024). The role of digital technology in education: Benefits and challenges. International Research Journal on Advanced Engineering and Management, 2(6), 2029–2037. https://doi.org/10.47392/IRJAEM.2024.0299
  60. Passey, D. (2019). Technology‐enhanced learning: Rethinking the term, the concept and its theoretical background. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 972–986. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12783
  61. Pervin, N., & Mokhtar, M. (2022). The interpretivist research paradigm: A subjective notion of a social context. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 11(2), 419–428.
  62. Pettersson, F. (2021). Understanding digitalization and educational change in school by means of activity theory and the levels of learning concept. Education and Information Technologies, 26(1), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10239-8
  63. Price, S., Oliver, M., Fartunova, M., Jones, C., Van der Meij, H., Mjelstad, S., Mohammad, F., Nikolov, R., Wake, J., & Wasson, B. (2005). Review of the impact of technology-enhanced learning on roles and practices in Higher Education. Kaleidoscope deliverable, 30(2)1.
  64. Quezada-Morales, R. Q. M. (2022). Chile’s digital learning strategy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 24(2). https://doi.org/10.52214/cice.v24i2.9495
  65. Raes, A., Vanneste, P., Pieters, M., Windey, I., Van Den Noortgate, W., & Depaepe, F. (2020). Learning and instruction in the hybrid virtual classroom: An investigation of students’ engagement and the effect of quizzes. Computers and Education, 143, 103682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103682
  66. Roth, W.-M., & Lee, Y.-J. (2007). “Vygotsky’s Neglected Legacy”: Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186–232. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654306298273
  67. Roth, W.-M., Lee, Y.-J., & Hsu, P.-L. (2009). A tool for changing the world: possibilities of cultural-historical activity theory to reinvigorate science education. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 131–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260903142269
  68. Sannino, A., Engeström, Y., & Lemos, M. (2016). Formative Interventions for Expansive Learning and Transformative Agency. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 599–633. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1204547
  69. Schatzki, T. R. (2001). Practice mind-ed orders. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (42–55). London: Routledge.
  70. Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Computers and Education, 128, 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009
  71. Schoch, K. (2020). Case study research. In G. J. Burkholder, K. A. Cox, L. M. Crawford, & J. H. Hitchcock (Eds.), Research design and methods: An applied guide for the scholar-practitioner (245–258). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
  72. Shamoo, A., & Khin-Maung-Gyi, F. A. (2021). Ethics of the use of human subjects in research: Practical guide. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
  73. Sharifov, M., Safikhanova, S., & Mustafa, A. (2021). Review of Prevailing Trends Barriers and Future Perspectives of Learning Management Systems (LMSs) in Higher Education Institutions. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 17(3), 207–216.
  74. Tight, M. (2017). Selection, context and theory in case study. In Understanding case study research: Small-scale research with meaning (137). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473920118.n8
  75. Timotheou, S., Miliou, O., Dimitriadis, Y., Sobrino, S. V., Giannoutsou, N., Cachia, R., Monés, A. M., & Ioannou, A. (2023). Impacts of digital technologies on education and factors influencing schools’ digital capacity and transformation: A literature review. Education and Information Technologies, 28(6), 6695–6726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11431-8
  76. Tsiakara, A. (2023). A framework for strategic planning of data analytics in the educational sector (Doctoral dissertation, Middlesex University).
  77. Turner, J. C., Christensen, A., Kackar-Cam, H. Z., Fulmer, S. M., & Trucano, M. (2018). The Development of Professional Learning Communities and Their Teacher Leaders: An Activity Systems Analysis. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(1), 49–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1381962
  78. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.). A. R. Luria, M. Lopez-Morillas & M. Cole [with J. V. Wertsch] (Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original manuscripts [ca. 1930–1934]).
  79. Watson, J., Pape, L., Murin, A., Gemin, B., & Vashaw, L. (2014). Keeping pace with K-12 digital learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Evergreen Education Group.
  80. Webster, A., & Gardner, J. (2019). Aligning technology and institutional readiness: the adoption of innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 31(10), 1229–1241. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2019.1601694
  81. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
  82. Yu, W. (2023). The Dimensions of Expansive Learning in the Workplace: A Multicase Study from Activity Theory. Psychology in the Schools, 60(11), 4332–4349. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.23073