As I build out my research direction for LRNT 622, I have been looking at theoretical frameworks that can help ground and guide a study on how Instructional Designers (IDs) are learning to use generative AI tools, specifically through prompt-engineering guides. Two that are emerging as especially relevant are Activity Theory and Andragogy. Together, they create a strong basis for understanding both the processes by which IDs learn and the tool-mediated practices involved in adopting AI into workflows.
Activity Theory helps me analyze how a tool, for example, a prompt-engineering guide, mediates the actions of an ID attempting to use generative AI. It considers the larger activity system: subject (ID), tool (guide and AI platform), rules and expectations within learning environments, community (colleagues, institutional culture), and division of labour in designing or using AI-supported tasks.
The framework works well with my research since my topic is not about AI per se but rather about IDs, systems of AI, and guides intended to help users interact effectively with these tools. Activity Theory will assist me in identifying tensions, barriers, and affordances that shape how IDs take up generative AI within professional learning contexts.
Andragogy provides a complementary perspective on adult learning processes. Since this study involves instructional designers interacting with new technologies, factors to be considered include prior experience, readiness to learn, motivation, relevance to professional roles, and self-directed learning characteristics in the acquisition of new tools. Many IDs approach generative AI outside structured programs. They experiment with it, read articles about it, or participate in online discussions. Therefore, Andragogy helps explain both how strategies involving prompt engineering are adopted and why certain approaches resonate with IDs.
This is a clear fit for my updated research question, which is now as follows:
How do instructional designers use prompt-engineering guides to support their adoption of generative AI tools in workplace learning contexts?
Activity Theory will help me tease out how the guides function within an activity system. Andragogy will help describe and explain the ways IDs learn to use these guides in ways that are meaningful to their roles.
At this point, my main question is whether using two frameworks is appropriate for the scale of the project or whether one should be prioritized as the main framework with the other serving as a supporting perspective. Another question relates to how explicitly my eventual proposal needs to integrate both frameworks in the literature review versus using one as the core theoretical lens.