Nowadays, many researches focus their efforts in studies and applications on the Learning area. However, there is a lack of a reference system that permits to know the positioning and the existing links between Learning and Information Technologies. This paper proposes a Cartography where explains the relationships between the elements that compose the Learning Theories and Information Technologies, considering the own features of the learner and the Information Technologies Properties. This intersection will allow us to know what Information Technologies Properties promote Learning Futures

Flores Naranjo, Pamela Catherine

Medinilla Martinez, Nelson

English

Servicio de Coordinación de Bibliotecas de la Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

(Learning ∩ Information Technologies)
Cartography
Pamela Catherine Flores Naranjo, Nelson Medinilla Martı´nez
Software Engineering Department
Universidad Polite´cnica de Madrid
Boadilla del Monte, Madrid - Spain
Email: pamela.flores.naranjo@alumnos.upm.es, nelson@fi.upm.es
Abstract—Nowadays, many researches focus their efforts
in studies and applications on the Learning area. However,
there is a lack of a reference system that permits to know
the positioning and the existing links between Learning and
Information Technologies. This paper proposes a Cartography
where explains the relationships between the elements that
compose the Learning Theories and Information Technologies,
considering the own features of the learner and the Information
Technologies Properties. This intersection will allow us to know
what Information Technologies Properties promote Learning
Futures.
Keywords-Learning Theories; Learning Features; Information
Technologies; IT Properties.
I. INTRODUCTION
Recently, there is a considerable increase of works based
on educational software as evidenced by the multiple con-
ferences and workshops about it. However, it has also
been evidenced the lack of a reference system, map or
cartography to facilitate the location of such works, establish
relationships between them and between the existing links
among learning theories applied. Given the scope of the
study area, this paper proposes a Cartography defined by
the intersection between the most important Learning The-
ories and Information Technologies, exposing the common
elements and the relationships between both sets. The main
goal of this paper is to provide some criteria of order in an
emerging area.
The proposed Cartography is a reference system consist-
ing of four dimensions arranged symmetrically. On the one
hand, there are the Learning Theories and the Learning
Features and on the other hand, as a reflection, there are the
Information Technologies and their properties – IT Proper-
ties. The article defines each dimension and the relationships
between them, in order to establish a final Cartography.
The Cartography shows the intersection between the two
sets, Learning Theories and Information Technologies. Con-
sequently, this intersection will answer the question: What
IT Properties promote Learning Features?
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Learning
Theories and Learning Features are defined in Section
II. The most relevant Information Technologies Properties
are gathered in Section III. In Sections IV and V, the
Cartography proposed and its implementation is mentioned
respectively. In Section VI the results of implementation are
analyzed. Finally, Section VII concludes the paper.
II. LEARNING THEORIES AND LEARNING FEATURES
Learning is defined as the relative change of the perma-
nent behavior that reflects knowledge acquisition or skills
through experience that can include study, observation and
practice. Behavioral changes are relatively objectives and
therefore can be measured [1].
A. Learning Theories
In the Cartography, a group of relevant theories about
learning was considered. Some theories construct their ap-
proaches based in other theory’s approaches.
Behavioral Theory [2] focuses on the observable behav-
ior of an individual. The behavior is described from the
stimulus-response relationship and considers that learning
takes place when there is an appropriate response to a
specific stimulus.
Cognitive Theory [3] tries to find out how the mind in-
terprets, processes and stores information. The contribution
related to learning is the concept of meaningful learning,
which tries to establish a relationship between prior learning
and the new knowledge obtained.
Constructivist Theory [2] describes the knowledge ac-
quisition as a dynamic and interactive process. Through it
the external information is interpreted and reinterpreted by
the mind that builds explanatory models each time more
complex and powerful.
Social Constructivist Theory [4] clarifies that human
development and learning can be explained in terms of social
interaction. Among the proposals of social constructivism
there is the cooperative learning, which emphasizes the role
of social relationships to learn.
Constructionist Theory [5] states that learning emerges
in a better way when the mind is committed to build a
significant product. It emphasizes the importance of the
tangible.
Figure 1. Relationships between Learning Theories and Learning Features
dimensions
Bateson’s Theory [6] was considered in this study be-
cause of focusing more on the student expectation and
participation than in the stages of human development. This
theory makes special emphasis on the dynamic relationships
and individual interactions inside and outside the educational
context.
B. Learning Features
Learning Features are defined as those features that
allow students to learn in a better way, which means that
student learns better if he/she has [7], [8]: 1) Feedback, 2)
Information availability, manipulation and management, 3)
Information connections and relationships, 4) Motivation, 5)
Interaction in a cooperative social environment and 6) Tutor
or Partner. For the development of the Cartography, Learning
Theories and Learning Features were defined as dimensions.
The relationships between these two dimensions were
established after extracting the main focus of each theory
and mapping it with the Learning Feature that reinforced
better the principles of each theory. These relationships are
shown in Figure 1.
III. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR LEARNING
The use of computers in education began in the 60’s.
Several relevant features of these devices were exploited,
such as versatility, calculation and specially the ability to
interact with them. Students should find answers to the
stimulus received. This first approach was called Computer
Assisted Instruction (CAI) [9].
The development and diffusion of Information Technolo-
gies had greatly increased the qualities of computers that
support learning. From several studies on works related
to the areas of Learning with Information Technologies it
has been concluded that the most relevant IT Properties
are [10]–[12]: 1) Creation, transmission and dissemination
of information, 2) Simulation and training, 3) Customized
content and multimedia, 4) Play, 5) Mobility and 6) Social
and cooperative processes. This set of properties represents
the third dimension of the Cartography.
Finally, the last dimension of the Cartography is formed
by Information Technologies. For this first design the tech-
nologies chosen were [13]–[15]: 1) E-learning, 2) Web2.0-
social networks, 3) M-learning and 4) Muve’s-games.
Figure 2. Relationships between IT Properties and Information Technolo-
gies dimensions
Figure 3. Learning and Information Technologies Cartography
The relationships between IT Properties and Information
Technologies were established under the premise of what
technologies offer or use these properties. These relation-
ships are shown in Figure 2.
IV. LEARNING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES
CARTOGRAPHY
The Cartography includes the four dimensions previously
studied and the relationships among them. The symmetry
that exists in the Cartography is delimited by the areas
of Learning and Information Technologies. The intersection
between these two areas is reflected in the relationships that
bind them. They answer the question of what IT Properties
promote Learning Features. The final Cartography is shown
in Figure 3.
V. CARTOGRAPHY IMPLEMENTATION
In addition to the intrinsic value of the Cartography as
a methodological or orientation resource, we studied its
usefulness as an analytical tool. In particular, a small study
was made based on the state of the art.
A. Methodology
For this analysis, we chose seventeen works related to the
areas of Learning and Information Technologies [3], [6]–
[8], [10]–[13], [15]–[23] that fulfilled the criteria of being
directly related to this two areas, and coming from reliable
Figure 4. Density of works per attributes
sources. Each work was studied to determine its position in
the Cartography, it means with who or whom is related and
the use of the dimensions of the Cartography.
B. Results
In order to explain the results obtained in this work,
the elements belonging to each dimension were defined as
attributes. According to the study, two results were obtained.
The first one shows the density of works per attributes in
each dimension of the Cartography (Figure 4). Every point
shows the relationship of the work with that attribute. There
were works related to several attributes.
The second result (Figure 5) is a complement that shows
the presence of the dimensions in each work, being repre-
sented by a circle with four sections. Every section shows a
dimension of the Cartography that was defined by a different
plot in order to distinguish them.
VI. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
From the representation of the density of works per
attributes:
• Two attributes were highlighted with a higher den-
sity: E-learning and Motivation. E-learning, defined as
learning and teaching activities via the Internet [15], is
focused directly on the two study areas of this research.
Therefore a higher density is reflected in this attribute.
The high density in Motivation suggests that nowadays
the emotions are being considered as an influential
factor in the learning area.
• There is a notable absence of density on the dimension
IT Properties. This is mainly due to the special attention
of researchers into educational software applications
rather than Learning Theories that support them.
From the dimensions per work the following analysis can
be done:
Figure 5. Dimensions per works
• Approximately 80% of the works have in mind the
dimension of Information Technologies, and almost
half of them include one or more dimensions in their
investigations. This means that most of the works focus
their efforts on the development of technologies.
• The second largest dimension is Learning Features.
Many of these studies are connected with the dimension
of Information Technologies. This shows that some
works include one or more Learning Features for the
development of Information Technologies.
• There is a low density in the dimensions of IT Proper-
ties and Learning Theories. This indicates that few IT
Properties are used when developing technology related
with learning, which can make us believe that research
about Information Technologies and Learning are made
with a poor theoretical basis.
In general, from both representations we can conclude that
there is a lack of cohesion between the areas of Learning and
Information Technologies, hence the importance of relating
both areas to link them in a better way. Moreover, the
study also shows that today there are some works on IT
applications addressed in a superficial way, which means
that this field is in early stages of research.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
First of all, the research work developed in this document
represents the entire set of links among the elements in-
volved in the sets of Learning and Information Technologies.
The reviewed literature does not have any similar work,
being this current study a contribution to this area that is
just beginning. Moreover, the Cartography has proved to be
a powerful tool for the analysis of ”Learning-Information
Technologies” set, facilitating its understanding and study. It
was also a prospection instrument, allowing the exploration
of future possibilities based on present evidence.
Particularly, the Cartography determines a reference sys-
tem where information layers are placed for study, like
shown in Section V. This let us to analyze a case study
from the dissection of several works previously studied.
The research leaves several areas to be explored and future
guidelines where the authors are still working.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the academic support
provided by Sonia Pamplona, PhD. student of Universidad
Polite´cnica de Madrid and the review time provided by
Jenny Torres, PhD. student of Universite´ Pierre et Marie
Curie. This work has been funded by the Secretarı´a Nacional
de Educacio´n Superior, Ciencia, Tecnologı´a e Innovacio´n
(SENESCYT) of Ecuador.
REFERENCES
[1] Y. Ruiz, “Aprendizaje Vicario: Implicaciones Educativas
en el Aula,” Revista digital para profesionales de la
ensen˜anza, pp. 1–6, September 2010. [Online]. Avail-
able: http://www2.fe.ccoo.es/andalucia/docu/p5sd7465.pdf,
retrieved: June, 2011.
[2] R. Ferreiro, Estrategias Dida´cticas del Aprendizaje Cooper-
ativo, 1st ed. Trillas , S.A. de CV, 2006.
[3] A. Siang and R. Rao, “Theories of Learning: A Com-
puter Game Perspective,” in Multimedia Software Engineer-
ing, 2003. Proceedings. Fifth International Symposium on,
Selangor-Malaysia, December 2003, pp. 239–245.
[4] L. Vygotski, Thought and language. The Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, 1986.
[5] S. Papert, La ma´quina de los nin˜os. Paido´s Ibe´rica S.A. The
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1995.
[6] S. Harlow and R. Cummings, “Technologies and Levels of
Learning: a Gregory Bateson Perspective,” Computers in the
Schools, vol. 19, pp. 95–100, September 2002. [Online].
Available: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=635779.635787,
retrieved: May, 2011.
[7] K. Krentler and L. Willis-Flurry, “Does Technology
Enhance Actual Student Learning? The Case of Online
Discussion Boards,” The Journal of Education for Business,
vol. 80, pp. 316–321, August 2005. [Online]. Available:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com, retrieved: September, 2011.
[8] N. Whitton, “Motivation and computer game based learning,”
in Ascilite, Singapore-Singapore, December 2007, pp. 1063–
1067.
[9] J. Clemente, “Una Propuesta de Modelado del Estudiante
Basada en Ontologı´as y Diagno´stico Pedago´gico-Cognitivo
no Mono´tono,” Ph.D. dissertation, Universidad Polite´cnica de
Madrid, July 2010.
[10] A. Parush, H. Hamm, and A. Shtub, “Learning Histories
in Simulation-Based Teaching: The Effects on Self-Learning
and Transfer,” Computers and Education, vol. 39, pp.
319–332, 2002. [Online]. Available: www.sciencedirect.com,
retrieved, October, 2011.
[11] J. Yi, “Research of One Mobile Learning System,” in Wireless
Networks and Information Systems, WNIS ’09. International
Conference on, Shanghai-China, December 2009, pp. 162–
165.
[12] N. Cavus and H. Uzunboylu, “A Collaborative Mobile Learn-
ing Environmental Education System for Students,” in Com-
putational Intelligence for Modelling Control Automation,
in International Conference on Computational Intelligence
for Modeling Control Automation, Vienna-Austria, December
2008, pp. 1041–1046.
[13] J.-H. Chen et al., “Developing a game-based learning en-
vironment by using Ubi-Media technologies,” in Ubi-Media
Computing, First IEEE International Conference on, Gansu-
China, August 2008, pp. 371–376.
[14] L. Lockyer and J. Patterson, “Integrating Social Networking
Technologies in Education: A Case Study of a Formal Learn-
ing Environment,” in Advanced Learning Technologies, in
Eighth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning
Technologies, Santander-Spain, July 2008, pp. 529–533.
[15] L. Bian, “Information Technology and its Application in E-
learning,” in Networking and Digital Society, ICNDS ’09.
International Conference on, Cancun-Mexico, May 2009, pp.
293–296.
[16] A. Toval and M. Flores, “Computer Systems Simulation
in Education: Description of an Experience,” Computer
Education, vol. 11, pp. 293–303, December 1987. [Online].
Available: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=41017.41023, re-
trieved: July, 2011.
[17] C. O’Malley et al., “Guidelines for learning/teaching/tutoring
in a mobile environment,” Knowledge Media Institute, Walton
Hall, United Kingdom, Tech. Rep., June 2003.
[18] D. Oblinger, “The Next Generation of Educational
Engagement,” Journal of Interactive Media in Education,
vol. 2004, pp. 228–246, May 2004. [Online]. Available:
http://jime.open.ac.uk/article/2004-8-oblinger/198, retrieved:
March, 2011.
[19] C. Liu, “The Comparison of Learning Effectiveness between
Traditional Face-to-Face Learning and e-learning among
Goal-Oriented Users,” in Digital Content, Multimedia Tech-
nology and its Applications (IDC), 2010 6th International
Conference on, Taoyuan-Taiwan, August 2010, pp. 255–260.
[20] J. Keller and K. Suzuki, “Learner motivation and E-learning
design: a multinationally validated process,” Learning,
Media and Technology, vol. 29, pp. 229–238, October
2004. [Online]. Available: http://www.gsis.kumamoto-
u.ac.jp/ksuzuki/resume/journals/2004a.pdf, retrieved: August,
2011.
[21] F. Mikic, L. Anido, E. Valero, and J. Picos, “Accessibility and
Mobile Learning Standardization,” in Systems, 2007. ICONS
’07. Second International Conference on, Martinique-France,
April 2007, pp. 17–32.
[22] G. Vavoula et al., “Producing guidelines for learning, teaching
and tutoring in a mobile environment,” in 2nd IEEE Inter-
national Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in
Education (WMTE), Taoyuan-Taiwan, March 2004, pp. 173–
176.
[23] Z. Qinfei, “Effective combination between E-learning and
KM in higher education: By the support of information
technology,” in Information Management and Engineering
(ICIME), 2010 The 2nd IEEE International Conference on,
Chengdu-China, April 2010, pp. 533–536.


Learning&Information Technologies Cartography

Archivo Digital UPM

A Collaborative Mobile Learning Environmental Education System for Students,” in Computational Intelligence for Modelling Control Automation,

Accessibility and Mobile Learning Standardization,” in Systems,

Aprendizaje Vicario: Implicaciones Educativas en el Aula,” Revista digital para profesionales de la ense˜ nanza,

Computer Systems Simulation in Education: Description of an Experience,”

Developing a game-based learning environment by using Ubi-Media technologies,”

Does Technology Enhance Actual Student Learning? The Case of Online Discussion Boards,”

Effective combination between E-learning and KM in higher education: By the support of information technology,”

Estrategias Did´ acticas del Aprendizaje Cooperativo,

Guidelines for learning/teaching/tutoring in a mobile environment,”

Information Technology and its Application

Integrating Social Networking Technologies in Education: A Case Study of a Formal Learning Environment,”

La m´ aquina de los ni˜ nos.

Learner motivation and E-learning design: a multinationally validated process,”

Learning Histories in Simulation-Based Teaching: The Effects on Self-Learning and

Motivation and computer game based learning,”

Producing guidelines for learning, teaching and tutoring in a mobile environment,”

Research of One Mobile Learning System,”

Technologies and Levels of Learning: a Gregory Bateson Perspective,”

The Comparison of Learning Effectiveness between Traditional Face-to-Face Learning and e-learning among Goal-Oriented Users,”

The Next Generation of Educational Engagement,”

Theories of Learning: A Computer Game Perspective,”

Thought and language. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

Una Propuesta de Modelado del Estudiante Basada en Ontolog´ ıas y Diagn´ ostico Pedag´ ogico-Cognitivo no Mon´

http://oa.upm.es/10874/1/INVE_MEM_2012_99315.pdf

Learning&Information Technologies Cartography

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Servicio de Coordinación de Bibliotecas de la Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

Archivo Digital UPM