Written by Roy Rozario, Warwick University
Using the Expansive Learning Framework to Integrate Evolving Technologies in Classroom Practice
The integration of emerging technologies within educational practice requires a sophisticated lens to navigate systemic change. Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT)- specifically its third-generation iteration, also called Expansive Learning Theory, developed by Yrjö Engeström (1987)- provides an invaluable framework for unpacking this complexity.
Historically, institutional frameworks have treated technologies- such as calculators, interactive whiteboards, personal computers, and mobile devices- as disruptive artefacts that destabilise established classroom dynamics, ultimately compelling structural adaptations. However, the contemporary emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) poses an unprecedented threat, actively destabilising the deeply entrenched rules, standardized assessments, and power architectures of modern schooling.
Through the lens of CHAT, the object of learning is conceptualised not as a static outcome, but as a fluid, shifting problem space. As advanced digital tools induce systemic contradictions and internal tensions, institutions cannot merely assimilate these tools into legacy frameworks; rather, they must leverage Expansive Learning Theory to collectively transform their underlying structures. Ultimately, this framework offers a vital, transformative model for navigating our inevitable technological paradigm shift.
The Anatomy of an Activity System
To unpack these complex structural changes, Engeström puts forward several interrelated models: Multiple activity systems, Activity structures, The systemic matrix, The expansive learning cycle, and Historically accumulated contradictions.
The foundational principle of third-generation activity theory is that any activity system is fundamentally tool-mediated and object-oriented. In a classroom context, the “activity” refers to the interaction of human subjects—including teachers, learners, and professional teams—working within educational settings to attain specific learning outcomes. These outcomes are dictated by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) and respective state curriculum bodies. Driven by these collective motivations, various components—tools, objects, community, division of labour, and rules—interact dynamically as a unified activity system.
Navigating the structural contradictions
For conceptual simplicity, Figure 1 isolates the teacher and students as distinct subjects represented by two triangles within a shared class activity. In professional practice, however, this is a multifaceted phenomenon. A complete matrix includes numerous other vital subjects, such as Learning Skills Officers (LSOs), ICT coaches, subject coordinators, and school leadership (Principals and Vice Principals).
As shown above, the teacher and students operate within their own spheres, managing immediate localized inputs (‘Object 1’, such as lesson plans or specific assessment tasks). They must cross institutional boundaries to work collectively toward a shared goal (‘Object 2’), which represents fulfilling broader curriculum requirements. Through sustained interaction, collaboration, conflict resolution, and motivation, this tension eventually yields transformed institutional practices and new cycles of expansive learning (‘Object 3’). Therefore, an activity system is best understood as a conglomeration of diverse points of view, traditions, and competing interests within the examined community (Engeström, 2001).
This path to transformation is rarely smooth. In pursuing ‘Object 1’, the components of the activity system exist in a constant state of structural warfare. For example, modern tools (like generative AI) inevitably clash with legacy institutional rules. The introduction of these technologies causes acute contradictions and tensions, aggravating old practices that prevail in the form of standardized school rules and rigid curriculum guidelines.
Key Takeaway for Educators: Contradictions are not operational bugs or failures; they are historically accumulated tensions generated within and between activity systems. They occur when historical school practices become irrelevant or incompatible with new technological advancements.
While subjects face intense tensions from these contradictions, their collective professional motivation enables them to overcome these challenges to attain both ‘Object 1’ and ‘Object 2’. Because ‘Object 2’ (such as the Year 11 Curriculum) is shared across a diverse school community with differing agendas, it remains inherently unstable, contested, and a moving target. Ultimately, it is these exact structural tensions within and between the triangles that force the educational system to reconstruct itself, creating the necessary opportunities for transformed pedagogical practices and new cycles of expansive learning (‘Object 3’).
References
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Orienta-Konsultit. http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm.
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.
Rozario, R. (2021). Expert primary school teachers’ pedagogical practices in mobile technologies: A Melbourne case study using expansive learning theory [Doctoral dissertation, Monash University]. Monash University Repository. https://doi.org/10.26180/14489556.
Catch up with Roy Rozario who are presenting at the upcoming National Education Summit Melbourne.