logo

Articles

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

Blended learning engagement practices with Moodle resources, in an introductory electronics engineering course: Exploring discursive manifestations of systemic contradictions using activity theory

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21428/8c225f6e.ea0b6da6
Submitted
14 August 2026
Published
15-08-2026

Abstract

The integration of Learning Management Systems in engineering education has tremendously changed teaching and learning. Studies on student engagement issues are typically conducted using learning analytics or log data quantitatively or using questionnaires on students and teachers’ experiences, qualitatively. It is essential to holistically understand the reasons behind low engagement with Moodle resources, as this can help identify areas for improvement to enhance student engagement and performance. This study applies activity theory to investigate challenges in engaging students in a blended learning electronics engineering course using Moodle, focusing on systemic relations within the learning environment. By analysing contradictions within the activity system, the study reveals underlying tensions and conflicts, uncovering opportunities to improve engagement and effectiveness. Since contradictions cannot be directly observed, linguistic cues are used to identify their discursive manifestations, enabling educators to develop targeted interventions that address challenges and provide productive educational experience.

Findings derived from semi-structured interviews and questionnaires with teachers and students, show that inconsistencies in instructional materials, underutilisation of Moodle features, students' diverse learning preferences and teachers' compromised familiarity with Moodle are primary sources of contradictions, leading to reduced student engagement.

By drawing attention to the socio-cultural contradictions within the current system, this study emphasizes the importance of understanding and addressing these contradictions in educational contexts to foster progressive changes in the learning process. The study demonstrates how linguistic cues can be used to identify contradictions. Results indicate the need for better instructional design, effective use of Moodle, and improved teacher training to enhance student engagement in blended learning environments.

References

  1. Anastasakis, M., Zakynthinaki, M., Trujillo-González, R., & García-Alonso, I. (2022). An Activity Theory approach in explaining engineering students’ difficulties with university mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 53(6), 1571–1587. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2020.1834156
  2. Bligh, B., & Flood, M. (2015). The Change Laboratory in Higher Education: Research-Intervention using Activity Theory. In J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and Method in Higher Education Research (Vol. 1, pp. 141–168). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2056-375220150000001007
  3. 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
  4. 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(4), 1091–1112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-022-09703-6
  5. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747
  6. Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research (Second edition). Cambridge University Press.
  7. Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2011). Discursive manifestations of contradictions in organizational change efforts: A methodological framework. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 368–387. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534811111132758
  8. Gedera, D.S P. (2015). The application of activity theory in identifying contradictions in a university blended learning course. In Activity theory in education (pp. 53–69). Sense Publishers.
  9. Gedera, D. S. P., & Williams, P. J. (2013). Using Activity Theory to understand contradictions in an online university course facilitated by Moodle. International Journal of Information Technology and Computer Science, 10(1), 32–41.
  10. Gligorea, I., Bârsan, G., Oancea, R., & Moro, N. (2021). E-Learning Strategies to Improve the Students’ Engagement. International Conference Knowledge-Based Organization, 27(3), 27–33. https://doi.org/10.2478/kbo-2021-0085
  11. Gong, L., Liu, Y., & Zhao, W. (2018). Using Learning Analytics to Promote Student Engagement and Achievement in Blended Learning: An Empirical Study. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on E-Education, E-Business and E-Technology - ICEBT 2018, 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1145/3241748.3241760
  12. Jaworski, B., Robinson, C., Matthews, J., & Croft, T. (2012). An Activity Theory Analysis of Teaching Goals versus Student Epistemological Positions. International Journal of Technology in Mathematics Education, 19(4), 147–152.
  13. Jayasekaran, S. R., Anwar, S., Cho, K., & Ali, S. F. (2022). Relationship of Students’ Engagement with Learning Management System and their Performance- An Undergraduate Programming Course Perspective. 2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, 41570. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--41570
  14. Jha, S., Jha, M., & O’Brien, L. (2019). Analysing Computer Science Course Using Learning Analytics Techniques. 2019 IEEE Asia-Pacific Conference on Computer Science and Data Engineering (CSDE), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSDE48274.2019.9162369
  15. Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2012). Activity Theory in HCI: Fundamentals and Reflections. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-02196-1
  16. Khoza, L. M., & Van Der Merwe, K. (2022). Looking closely at what they say and what it tells us: Experiences in a digital learning space. South African Journal of Higher Education, 36(5). https://doi.org/10.20853/36-5-4661
  17. Krasnova, T., & Vanushin, I. (2016). Blended Learning Perception among Undergraduate Engineering Students. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 11(01), 54. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v11i01.4901
  18. Krichevsky, B. (2023). University-School Divide: The Original Problem in Teacher Education. Human Arenas, 6(2), 264–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-021-00213-2
  19. Maloney, S., Axelsen, M., Galligan, L., Turner, J., Redmond, P., Brown, A., Basson, M., & Lawrence, J. (2022). Using LMS Log Data to Explore Student Engagement with Coursework Videos. Online Learning, 26(4). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v26i4.2998
  20. Manasrah, A., Masoud, M., Jaradat, Y., Irshaidat, M., Shaban, N. A., & Zerek, A. (2023). Students Engagement in Blended Learning: Evidence from Moodle A Case Study from Engineering Courses. 2023 IEEE 3rd International Maghreb Meeting of the Conference on Sciences and Techniques of Automatic Control and Computer Engineering (MI-STA), 435–439. https://doi.org/10.1109/MI-STA57575.2023.10169635
  21. Mohd, I. H., Hussein, N., Aluwi, A. H., & Omar, M. K. (2016). Enhancing students’ engagement through blended learning satisfaction and lecturer support. 2016 IEEE 8th International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEED), 175–180. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEED.2016.7856067
  22. Salonen, A. O., Tapani, A., & Suhonen, S. (2021). Student Online Activity in Blended Learning: A Learning Analytics Perspective of Professional Teacher Education Studies in Finland. SAGE Open, 11(4), 215824402110566. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211056612
  23. Swart, A. J. (2016). The effective use of a learning management system still promotes student engagement! 2016 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 40–44. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2016.7474528
  24. Tualaulelei, E., Burke, K., Fanshawe, M., & Cameron, C. (2022). Mapping pedagogical touchpoints: Exploring online student engagement and course design. Active Learning in Higher Education, 23(3), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787421990847