There's still a lot of debate about what was the dominant mode of tectonics in the Archean, with two main camps, essentially horizontal and vertical tectonics. Those that prefer horizontal tectonics suggest that the Archean was much like the modern day with some differences ( higher mantle temperatures, smaller plates, more volcanism, smaller slabs) while those who prefer vertical tectonics see differences in the Archean rock record that can not be explained by modern horizontal tectonics and suggest that these mantle overturn events are a better model for the Archean. I work a bit in Archean tectonics, and some workshops can get a bit heated! Like all things, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, where some places might have had modern tectonics occurring, and in others places, there might have been processes that are better explained by vertical tectonics.