Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interactivity and Mobile Technologies: An Activity Theory Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Mobile Learning Design

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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. (2010). Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning. Computers & Education, 54(3), 759–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. (2013). Transition in pedagogical orchestration using the interactive whiteboard. Education and Information Technologies, 18(2), 179–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, G., & Parkinson, J. (2005). Beyond the ‘wow’ factor: developing interactivity with the interactive whiteboard. School Science Review, 86(316), 97–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betcher, C., & Lee, M. (2009). The interactive whiteboard revolution: Teaching with IWBs. Australian Council for Education Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • BECTA. (2003). What the research says about interactive whiteboards. Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/5318/1/wtrs_whiteboards.pdf.

  • Churchill, D., Lu, J., & Chiu, T. K. (2014). Integrating mobile technologies, social media and learning design. Educational Media International, 51(3), 163–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coursaris, C. K., & Sung, J. (2012). Antecedents and consequents of a mobile website’s interactivity. New Media & Society, 14(7), 1128–1146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downes, E. J., & McMillan, S. J. (2000). Defining interactivity a qualitative identification of key dimensions. New Media & Society, 2(2), 157–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elias, T. (2011). Universal instructional design principles for mobile learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(2), 143–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work-toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1). doi: 10.1080/13639080020028747.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Haydn, T. (2010). History teaching and ICT. In D. Ian (Ed.), Debates in history teaching (pp. 236–248). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k49chbsnmls-en.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedberg, J., & Freebody, K. (2007). Towards a disruptive pedagogy: Exploring classroom practices with interactive whiteboards and TLF digital content. Retrieved from http://www.ndlrn.edu.au/verve/_resources/towards_a_disruptive_pedagogy_2007.pdf.

  • Haldane, M. (2007). Interactivity and the digital whiteboard: weaving the fabric of learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halford, B. (2007). Interactive whiteboards: The future is already here. Teacher, 183, 32–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfrich, J. (2011). The influence of learning object interactivity on student achievement. Idaho State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Holzman, L. (2006). What kind of theory is activity theory? Introduction. Theory & Psychology, 16(1), 5–11. doi:10.1177/0959354306060105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2012). Activity theory in HCI: Fundamentals and Reflections. Synthesis Lectures Human-Centered Informatics, 5(1), 1–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiousis, S. (2002). Interactivity: a concept explication. New Media & Society, 4(3), 355–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirsh, D. (1997). Interactivity and Multimedia Interfaces. Instructional Sciences, 25, 79–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lacina, J. (2009). Interactive whiteboards: Creating higher-level, technological Thinkers? Childhood Education, 85(4), 270–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Motiwalla, L. F. (2007). Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation. Computers & Education, 49(3), 581–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pietsch, J. R. (2005). Collaborative learning in mathematics. Doctor of Philosophy, University of Sydney, Sydney. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2123/1088

  • 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 

  • Roth, W. M., & Lee, Y. J. (2007). Vygotsky’s neglected legacy: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ryu, H., & Parsons, D. (2009). Designing learning activities with mobile technologies. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sam, C. (2012). Activity theory and qualitative research in digital domains. Theory into Practice, 51(2), 83–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00190254/document.

  • Smuts, A. (2009). What is interactivity? The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 43(4), 53–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somyurek, S., Atasoy, B., & Ozdemir, S. (2009). Board’s IQ: What makes a board smart? Computers & Education, 53(2), 368–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Stein, G. (2005a). Pedagogy, practice and ICT: Snapshots of practice. Canterbury: Canterbury University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, G. (2005b). Pedagogy, practice & ICT. Canterbury: Canterbury Christ Church University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stojkovski, T. (2010). Computer-mediated learning in a social constructivist environment. Doctor of Education: University of Wollongong, New South Wales.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanner, H., & Jones, S. (2007). How interactive is your whiteboard? Mathematics Teaching, 200, 37–41. doi:1299085551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ting, Y. L. (2013). Using mobile technologies to create interwoven learning interactions: An intuitive design and its evaluation. Computers & Education, 60(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toteja, R., & Kumar, S. (2012). Usefulness of m-devices in education: A survey. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 67, 538–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tongco, M. D. C. (2007). Purposive sampling as a tool for informant selection. Ethnobotany Research & Applications, 5, 147–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

    Roy Rozario & Jennifer Rennie

  2. St. John’s University, New York, USA

    Evan Ortlieb

Authors
  1. Roy Rozario
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Evan Ortlieb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jennifer Rennie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roy Rozario .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

    Daniel Churchill

  2. BGI College, Genomics, Educational Resource BGI College, Genomics, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

    Jie Lu

  3. Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong Faculty of Education, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

    Thomas K.F. Chiu

  4. Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of New South Wales Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Sydney, Australia

    Bob Fox

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rozario, R., Ortlieb, E., Rennie, J. (2016). Interactivity and Mobile Technologies: An Activity Theory Perspective. In: Churchill, D., Lu, J., Chiu, T., Fox, B. (eds) Mobile Learning Design. Lecture Notes in Educational Technology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0027-0_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0027-0_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-0025-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-0027-0

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation