logo

Articles

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

Using activity theory to explore how learning technology professionals support the use of a virtual learning environment during a period of change at a higher education institution—a small-sample in-depth study

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21428/8c225f6e.4e934942
Submitted
14 August 2026
Published
15-08-2026

Abstract

This paper explores the role of learning technology professionals (LTPs) in supporting a Higher Education institution (HEI) that is migrating from one virtual learning environment (VLE) to another, through interviewing five participants to generate an in-depth study. The literature underpins the central thesis of this paper positing that the complexities of VLE migration, combined with ambiguous role definitions and unclear transition protocols, affect LTPs’ ability to support institutional change. This project was driven by a desire to understand how best to support the use of a VLE when change is being thrust on its users. Activity-Oriented Design Method (AODM) was used to generate open-ended interview questions investigating possible contradictions that emerge specifically during the VLE migration process, and then the interview transcripts were analysed using to explore tensions within and between elements of the migration activity. Analysis through Activity Theory (AT) revealed that key challenges during the transition stemmed not from technological issues, but from unclear regulations, policies, and expectations surrounding the migration process. Particular tensions emerged round the division of labour and tool requirements during the transition period. This research contributes to the growing body of literature on managing VLE migrations, offering practical insights for other HEIs planning similar platform transformations. Future research could explore the broader implications of these findings across related activity systems involved in educational technology transitions.

References

  1. Benson, A., Lawler, C., & Whitworth, A. (2008). Rules, roles and tools: Activity theory and the comparative study of e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(3), 456–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00838.x
  2. 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
  3. Boelens, R., Van Laer, S., De Wever, B., & Elen, J. (2015). Blended learning in adult education: towards a definition of blended learning. In Adult Learners Online (ALO!). Watson. http://www.iwt-alo.be/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/01-Project-report-Blended-learning-in-adult-education-towards-a-definition-of-blended-learning.pdf
  4. Bove, L.A., & Conklin, S. (2020). Learning Strategies for Faculty During a Learning Management System Migration. OJDLA, 23(1). https://ojdla.com/articles/learning-strategies-for-faculty-during-a-learning-management-system-migration
  5. Chang, S., & Kuo, A.C. (2021). Indulging interactivity: a learning management system as a facilitative boundary object. SN Social Sciences, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-021-00069-x
  6. Codreanu, E., Michel, C., Chaumon, M.-É.B., & Vigneau, O. (2017). Assessing the Adoption of Virtual Learning Environments in Primary Schools: An Activity Oriented Study of Teacher’s Acceptance. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63184-4_27
  7. Cong-Lem, N. (2022). Vygotsky’s, Leontiev’s and Engeström’s Cultural-Historical (Activity) Theories: Overview, Clarifications and Implications. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 56, 1091–1112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-022-09703-6
  8. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Legislation.gov.uk (1988). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents
  9. Creswell, J.W. (2014). Educational Research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research, global edition. (4th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
  10. Data Protection Act 2018, Legislation.gov.uk (2018). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/contents
  11. Engeström, Y. (2014). Learning by expanding: an activity-theoretical approach to developmental research (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139814744
  12. Fawns, T. (2022). An Entangled Pedagogy: Looking Beyond the Pedagogy—Technology Dichotomy. Postdigital Science and Education, 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-022-00302-7
  13. Fiebig, T., Gürses, S., Gañán, C., Kotkamp, E., Kuipers, F.A., Lindorfer, M., Prisse, M., & Sari, T. (2023). Heads in the Clouds? Measuring Universities’ Migration to Public Clouds: Implications for Privacy & Academic Freedom. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, 2023(2), 117–150. https://doi.org/10.56553/popets-2023-0044
  14. Garcia, J.G., Gil, M., Tolentino, M.N., Ligas, M., Moraga, S.D., & Pasilan, A.A. (2021). Canvas Adoption Assessment and Acceptance of the Learning Management System on a Web-Based Platform. ArXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2101.12344
  15. Glover, I., Campbell, A., Latif, F., Norris, L., Toner, J., & Tse, C. (2012). A tale of one city: intra-institutional variations in migrating VLE platform. Research in Learning Technology, 20(sup1), 19190. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v20i0.19190
  16. Gribble, Z. (2024, July 22). It’s not technology that determines the success of a VLE - it’s the users - Jisc. Jisc. https://jisc.ac.uk/blog/its-not-technology-that-determines-the-success-of-a-vle-its-the-users
  17. Grönlund, A., Samuelsson, J., & Samuelsson, J. (2021). When documentation becomes feedback: tensions in feedback activity in Learning Management Systems. Education Inquiry, 14(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2021.1980973
  18. Hammersley, M. (2017). Research ethics. In Research Methods & Methodologies in Education (2nd ed., pp. 57–67). Sage.
  19. Hasan, H., & Kazlauskas, A. (2014). Activity Theory: who is doing what, why and how. In H. Hasan (Ed.), Being Practical with Theory: a Window into Business Research: Transforming Human Enterprise through Organisation Responsibility and Innovation. (pp. 9–14). THEORI Business Research Group: Faculty of Business, University of Wollongong. https://ro.uow.edu.au/buspapers/403
  20. Judge, D.S., & Murray, B. (2017). Student and Faculty Transition to a New Online Learning Management System. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 12(4), 277–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2017.06.010
  21. Jumat, R., Loan-Ng, S., Reddy Mogali, S., Ng, K. B., Leong, B.Y., & Han, S.P. (2023). Twelve tips for co-production of online learning. Medical Teacher, 45(9), 966–971. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159x.2023.2206533
  22. Karasavvidis, I. (2009). Activity Theory as a Conceptual Framework for Understanding Teacher Approaches to Information and Communication Technologies. Computers & Education, 53(2), 436–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.03.003
  23. Kelly Jackson, M. (2022). Faculty’s Formal and Informal Learning Experiences During the Transition of a New Learning Management System at a Community College: A Case Study. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 29, 135–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-022-09610-0
  24. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (2016). The Constructivist Credo. Routledge. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/lancaster/reader.action?docID=1187038#
  25. Loiseau, E., Laforcade, P., & Iksal, S. (2014). Abstraction of Learning Management Systems Instructional Design Semantics: A Meta-modeling Approach Applied to the Moodle Case-Study. Open Learning and Teaching in Educational Communities. Lecture Notes in Computer Science., 8719, 249–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11200-8_19
  26. Mcavinia, C. (2016). Online Learning and Its Users: Lessons for Higher Education. Chandos Publishing. https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780081006269/online-learning-and-its-users
  27. Mears, C.L. (2017). In-depth Interviews. In Research Methods & Methodologies in Education (2nd ed., pp. 183–189). Sage.
  28. Mwanza, D. (2002). Towards an activity-oriented design method for HCI research and practice [PhD Thesis]. https://doi.org/10.21954/ou.ro.0000dc95
  29. 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. https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/553
  30. Otoo, B. K. (2020). Declaring My Ontological and Epistemological Stance: a Reflective Paper. The Journal of Educational Thought (JET) / Revue de La Pensée Éducative, 53(1), 67–88. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27128291
  31. Park, Y., & Jo, I.-H. (2016). Using log variables in a learning management system to evaluate learning activity using the lens of activity theory. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(4), 531–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1158236
  32. 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
  33. Paynter, K., & Barnes, J. (2021, January 1). Moving from Blackboard to Canvas: What the Research Says, Plus Two Professors’ Experiences. Www.learntechlib.org; Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/noaccess/215598/
  34. Phahlane, M., & Kekwaletswe, R. (2013, July 1). Contextualised framework for an inclusive learning management system in an open and distance learning environment. 2013 Pan African International Conference on Information Science, Computing and Telecommunications (PACT). Pan African International Conference on Information Science, Computing and Telecommunications (PACT), Lusaka, Zambia. https://doi.org/10.1109/scat.2013.7055086
  35. PRISMA. (2020). PRISMA. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Website. http://www.prisma-statement.org
  36. Rucker, R.D., & Frass, L.R. (2017). Migrating Learning Management Systems in Higher Education: Faculty Members’ Perceptions of System Usage and Training When Transitioning From Blackboard Vista to Desire2Learn. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 46(2), 259–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239517711954
  37. Ryan, T.G., Toye, M., Charron, K., & Park, G. (2012). Learning management system migration: An analysis of stakeholder perspectives. Irrodl.org, 13(1), 220–237. https://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1126/2120
  38. Such, B.L., Ritzhaupt, A.D., & Thompson, G.S. (2017). Migrating learning management systems: A case of a large public university. Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and Research, 7(2), 57–69. https://dc.swosu.edu/aij/vol7/iss2/6
  39. Taylor, D.L., Yeung, M., & Bashet, A.Z. (2021). Personalized and Adaptive Learning. In J. Ryoo & K. Winkelmann (Eds.), Innovative Learning Environments in STEM Higher Education (pp. 17–34). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58948-6_2
  40. The Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) (No. 2) Accessibility Regulations 2018, Legislation.gov.uk (2018). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/952/contents/made
  41. Tight, M. (2010). The curious case of case study: a viewpoint. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, [online] 13(4), pp.329–339. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570903187181.
  42. UCISA. (2023). The VLE Landscape - UCISA. Www.ucisa.ac.uk. https://www.ucisa.ac.uk/Resources/VLE-review-toolkit/Envisioning/The-VLE-Landscape
  43. Varga-Atkins, T. (2016). A study of the role of a technology-enhanced learning implementation group in mediating an institutional VLE minimum standards policy. Research in Learning Technology, 24(1), 32815. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v24.32815
  44. W3C (World Wide Web Consortium). (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Overview. Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/
  45. Whelan, E., Gahan, S., Donovan, M., & Jump, O. (2024). Learning Analytics: What’s the Use? Irish Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.22554/ijtel.v8i1.158
  46. Yin, R.K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage Publications.