Interactivity and Mobile Technologies: An Activity Theory Perspective

Part of the Lecture Notes in Educational Technology book series (LNET)


Expert teachers are pragmatic in their curricular planning and instruction through embedding the use of mobile technologies towards providing their students with meaningful learning experiences. They use technology as a cornerstone within their instructional design. This study examined how pedagogy, professional learning and mobile technologies impact a teacher’s ability to utilise a learner-centred interactive approach. Qualitative data were collected and analysed using the six-step activity theory in conjunction with a case study design were data was collected from four teacher participants through interviews, classroom observations and lesson plans. Data revealed that teaching and learning sequences involving mobile technologies were found to have varying degrees of learner–teacher interactivities, ranging from complete teacher control to total learner control. This range of interactivity can serve as a teacher guide to mobile learning design using appropriate pedagogy integrating apps in conjunction with other classroom resources to yield improved student outcomes.


Activity Theory Lesson Plan Mobile Technology Professional Learning Classroom Observation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Allen, D., Karanasios, S., & Slavova, M. (2011). Working with activity theory: Context, technology, and information behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62, 776–788. doi: 10.1002/asi.21441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, D. K., Brown, A., Karanasios, S., & Norman, A. (2013). How should technology-mediated organizational change be explained? A comparison of the contributions of critical realism and activity theory. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 835–854.Google Scholar
  3. Alyani, N., & Shirzad, S. (2011, September). Learning to innovate in distributed mobile application development: Learning episodes from Tehran and London. In Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), 2011 (pp. 497–504). Middlesex, NJ: IEEE.Google Scholar
  4. Banna, S. (2011). The evolving design of online health websites: An interpretive study of different users’ activities. Doctor of Philosophy thesis, University of Wollongong.Google Scholar
  5. Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. (2010). Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning. Computers & Education, 54(3), 759–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. (2013). Transition in pedagogical orchestration using the interactive whiteboard. Education and Information Technologies, 18(2), 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beauchamp, G., & Parkinson, J. (2005). Beyond the ‘wow’ factor: developing interactivity with the interactive whiteboard. School Science Review, 86(316), 97–103.Google Scholar
  8. Betcher, C., & Lee, M. (2009). The interactive whiteboard revolution: Teaching with IWBs. Australian Council for Education Research.Google Scholar
  9. BECTA. (2003). What the research says about interactive whiteboards. Retrieved from
  10. Churchill, D., Lu, J., & Chiu, T. K. (2014). Integrating mobile technologies, social media and learning design. Educational Media International, 51(3), 163–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarke, P. A. J., & Fournillier, J. B. (2012). Action research, pedagogy, and activity theory: tools facilitating two instructors’ interpretations of the professional development of four preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(5), 649–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coursaris, C. K., & Sung, J. (2012). Antecedents and consequents of a mobile website’s interactivity. New Media & Society, 14(7), 1128–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Downes, E. J., & McMillan, S. J. (2000). Defining interactivity a qualitative identification of key dimensions. New Media & Society, 2(2), 157–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elias, T. (2011). Universal instructional design principles for mobile learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(2), 143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Engeström, Y. (1991). Non scolae sed vitae discimus: Toward overcoming the encapsulation of school learning. Learning and Instruction, 1(3), 243–259. doi: 10.1016/0959-4752(91)90006-T.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Engestrom, Y. (1992). Interactive expertise: Studies in distributed working intelligence. In Research Bulletin, 83. Department of Education, University of Helsinki, Bulevardi 18, SF-00120. Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
  18. Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1–24. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work-toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1). doi:  10.1080/13639080020028747.
  20. Gray, C., Hagger-Vaughan, L., Pilkington, R., & Tomkins, S. (2005). The pros and cons of interactive whiteboards in relation to the key stage 3 strategy and framework. Language Learning Journal, 32, 38–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Green, L. S., Hechter, R. P., Tysinger, P. D., & Chassereau, K. D. (2014). Mobile app selection for 5th through 12th grade science: The development of the MASS rubric. Computers & Education, 75, 65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Griffin, P., & Woods, K. (2006). Interactive whiteboards in Victorian schools: Installation and processes of use. Parkville: Assessment Research Centre, The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  23. Haydn, T. (2010). History teaching and ICT. In D. Ian (Ed.), Debates in history teaching (pp. 236–248). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., & Tooley, C. (2010). Using the interactive whiteboard to stimulate active learning in school science. In M. Thomas, & E. Schmid (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (pp. 102–117). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi: 10.4018/978-1-61520-715-2.ch007.
  25. Hennessy, S., & London, L. (2013). Learning from international experiences with interactive whiteboards: The role of professional development in integrating the technology. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 89, OECD Publishing.
  26. Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., Ruthven, K., & Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pedagogical strategies for using the interactive whiteboard to foster learner participation in school science. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hedberg, J., & Freebody, K. (2007). Towards a disruptive pedagogy: Exploring classroom practices with interactive whiteboards and TLF digital content. Retrieved from
  28. Haldane, M. (2007). Interactivity and the digital whiteboard: weaving the fabric of learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Halford, B. (2007). Interactive whiteboards: The future is already here. Teacher, 183, 32–35.Google Scholar
  30. Helfrich, J. (2011). The influence of learning object interactivity on student achievement. Idaho State University.Google Scholar
  31. Hooper, S., & Rieber, L. P. (1995). Teaching with technology. In A. C. Ornstein (Ed.), Teaching: Theory into practice (pp. 154–170). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  32. Holzman, L. (2006). What kind of theory is activity theory? Introduction. Theory & Psychology, 16(1), 5–11. doi: 10.1177/0959354306060105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hsu, Y. C., & Ching, Y. H. (2013). Mobile app design for teaching and learning: Educators’ experiences in an online graduate course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(4), 117–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47, 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Karanasios, S., Thakker, D., Lau, L., Allen, D., Dimitrova, V., & Norman, A. (2013). Making sense of digital traces: An activity theory driven ontological approach. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(12), 2452–2467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2012). Activity theory in HCI: Fundamentals and Reflections. Synthesis Lectures Human-Centered Informatics, 5(1), 1–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kiousis, S. (2002). Interactivity: a concept explication. New Media & Society, 4(3), 355–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kirsh, D. (1997). Interactivity and Multimedia Interfaces. Instructional Sciences, 25, 79–96.Google Scholar
  39. Koolstra, C. M., & Bos, M. J. (2009). The development of an instrument to determine different levels of interactivity. International Communication Gazette, 71(5), 373–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 17–44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Lacina, J. (2009). Interactive whiteboards: Creating higher-level, technological Thinkers? Childhood Education, 85(4), 270–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Larsson, A. O. (2012). Interactivity on Swedish newspaper websites: What kind, how much and why? Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 18(2), 195–213. doi: 10.1177/1354856511430184.
  43. Masek, M., Murcia, K., & Morrison, J. (2012). Getting serious with iPads: The intersection of game design and teaching principals. Australian Educational Computing, 27(2), 34–38.Google Scholar
  44. Maher, D. (2012). Learning in the primary school classroom using the interactive whiteboard. In J. Jiyou (Ed.), Educational stages and interactive learning: from kindergarten to workplace training: from kindergarten to workplace training (pp. 150–162). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Maher, D., Phelps, R., Urane, N., & Lee, M. (2012). Primary school teachers’ use of digital resources with interactive whiteboards: The Australian context. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(1), 138–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Marty, P. F., Mendenhall, A., Douglas, I., Southerland, S. A., Sampson, V., Kazmer, M., et al. (2013). The iterative design of a mobile learning application to support scientific inquiry. Journal of Learning Design, 6(2), 41–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Moir, T. (2014). Getting in touch with technology without losing touch with early childhood pedagogy. Educating Young Children: Learning and Teaching in the Early Childhood Years, 20(1), 34–37.Google Scholar
  48. Moss, G., & Jewitt, C. (2010). Policy, pedagogy and interactive whiteboards: What lessons can be learnt from early adoption in England? In M. Thomas & E. Schmid (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (pp. 20–36). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Moss, G., Jewitt, C., Levaãiç, R., Armstrong, V., Cardini A., & Castle, F. (2007). The interactive whiteboards, pedagogy and pupil performance evaluation: An evaluation of the schools whiteboard expansion (SWE). (Report No. 816). Project: London Challenge DfES, London.Google Scholar
  50. Motiwalla, L. F. (2007). Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation. Computers & Education, 49(3), 581–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Miller, D., & Glover, D. (2007). Into the unknown: The professional development induction experience of secondary mathematics teachers using interactive whiteboard technology. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 319–331. doi: 10.1080/17439880701511156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Miller, D., & Glover, D. (2010). Interactive whiteboards: A literature survey. In M. Thomas & E. Schmid (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (pp. 1–19). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi: 10.4018/978-1-61520-715-2.ch001.
  53. Oigara, J. N., & Wallace, N. (2012). Modelling, training, and mentoring teacher candidates to use SMART board technology. Issues in Information Science and Information Technology, 9, 297–315.Google Scholar
  54. Owen, M. (2009). From individual learning to collaborative learning—Location, fun, and games: Place, context, and identity in mobile learning. In H. Ryu & D. Parsons (Eds.), Innovative mobile learning: Techniques and technologies (pp. 102-122). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  55. Park, Y. (2011). A pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing educational applications of mobile technologies into four types. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(2), 78–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Peña-Ayala, A., Sossa, H., & Méndez, I. (2014). Activity theory as a framework for building adaptive e-learning systems: A case to provide empirical evidence. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 131–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pietsch, J. R. (2005). Collaborative learning in mathematics. Doctor of Philosophy, University of Sydney, Sydney. Retrieved from
  58. Roschelle, J., Kaput, J., Stroup, W., & Kahn, T. M. (1998). Scaleable integration of educational software: Exploring the promise of component architectures. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2, Art-6.Google Scholar
  59. Roth, W. M., & Lee, Y. J. (2007). Vygotsky’s neglected legacy: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ross, P. E. (2011). Teachers and interactive whiteboards: Accessing, creating, sharing and storing resources within a school community (Masters by Coursework & Shorter thesis). Melbourne: The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  61. Ryu, H., & Parsons, D. (2009). Designing learning activities with mobile technologies. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sam, C. (2012). Activity theory and qualitative research in digital domains. Theory into Practice, 51(2), 83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sharples, M. (2006). Big issues in mobile learning. report of a workshop by the kaleidoscope. network of excellence mobile learning initiative. < hal-00190254 >. Retrieved from
  64. Smuts, A. (2009). What is interactivity? The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 43(4), 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Somyurek, S., Atasoy, B., & Ozdemir, S. (2009). Board’s IQ: What makes a board smart? Computers & Education, 53(2), 368–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Spikol, D., Kurti, A., & Milrad, M. (Eds.) (2008). Collaboration in context as a framework for designing innovative mobile learning activities. In H. Ryu, & D. Parsons (Eds.), Innovative mobile learning: Techniques and technologies (pp. 170–194). Hershey NJ: Information Science Reference.Google Scholar
  67. Stein, G. (2005a). Pedagogy, practice and ICT: Snapshots of practice. Canterbury: Canterbury University.Google Scholar
  68. Stein, G. (2005b). Pedagogy, practice & ICT. Canterbury: Canterbury Christ Church University.Google Scholar
  69. Stojkovski, T. (2010). Computer-mediated learning in a social constructivist environment. Doctor of Education: University of Wollongong, New South Wales.Google Scholar
  70. Tanner, H., & Jones, S. (2007). How interactive is your whiteboard? Mathematics Teaching, 200, 37–41. doi:1299085551.Google Scholar
  71. Ting, Y. L. (2013). Using mobile technologies to create interwoven learning interactions: An intuitive design and its evaluation. Computers & Education, 60(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Toteja, R., & Kumar, S. (2012). Usefulness of m-devices in education: A survey. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 67, 538–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tongco, M. D. C. (2007). Purposive sampling as a tool for informant selection. Ethnobotany Research & Applications, 5, 147–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wu, W. H., Wu, Y. C. J., Chen, C. Y., Kao, H. Y., Lin, C. H., & Huang, S. H. (2012). Review of trends from mobile learning studies: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 59(2), 817–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wang, Q., & Woo, H. L. (2007). Comparing asynchronous online discussions and face-to-face discussions in a classroom setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 272–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wong, L. H., & Looi, C. K. (2011). What seams do we remove in mobile-assisted seamless learning? A critical review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2364–2381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Monash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.St. John’s UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations