TAG: THREE DIMENSIONS AS BASIC REFERENCES FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF UBIQUITY LEARNING
ENVIRONMENTS IN A UNIVERSITY CONTEXT
Claudia Zea Restrepo, Juan Lalinde Pulido, Maria Atuesta Venegas, Roberto Aguas Núñez,
Camilo Vieira Mejía and Olga Agudelo Velásquez
Research Group, Development and Innovation in Desarrollo in ICT (GIDI-ICT) – Educational Technologies Line,
EAFIT University, Carrera 49 No 7 sur 50, Medellin, Colombia
Keywords: U-learning, TAG, Ubiquity, University, Technology, Learning, Management.
Abstract: This article introduces a set of conceptual guidelines for the construction of the model "TAG", in Spanish:
Tecnología, Aprendizaje y Gestión (Technology, Learning and Management). The model seeks to determine
the levels of ubiquity in higher education institucions. This proposal arises from the review of experiences
in the development of strategies for the construction of environments intervened by technologies and the
elaborated conceptualization about the term Ubiquitous Learning.
1 INTRODUCTION
In the early 90’s, Mark Weiser (1991, 1993, 1994,
1994), introduced the concept of ubiquitous
computing as the third computational wave. After
the Mainframe and the PC, where surrounded by a
huge number of “invisible” devices – “you focus on
the task, not the tool” (Weiser, 1993) (Poslad, 2009)
– the user can utilize services that, aside from the
access to information, they give the possibility of
creating and sharing information without time-space
barriers.
The development of technology has brought
implications in the educational environment, which
has implemented many changes in: the way of
teaching, the ways through which the process is
conducted and the opportunities of learning for
teachers and students. The learning paradigms e-
learning (Zea, 2005), m-learning (Hellers, 2004), b-
learning (Bersin, 2004), t-learning (Päivi, 2006) and,
recently, u-learning (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009), are
seeking to potentiate learning by using the facilities
inherent to ICT. The later highlights advantages as
giving the possibility to offer and receive distance
education, the customization of content, the low
dependence to physical space, the real time
interaction with exhibitors and experts, and the
connectivity coverage range which should allow the
free movement of the user.
Nevertheless, among the afore mentioned
modalities, Ubiquitous Learning - U-Learning - must
be highlighted because it is the one that aims to have
an educational process outside the traditional
classrooms (or at least a part of it), not completely
independent of the context, but taking advantage of
it to give the best content, representational modes,
interactions among others and giving access to
information in the right place, moment and form
(Bomsdorf, 2005). This way, the context awareness
and the adequate technological infrastructure
(devices and connectivity) which also offers
mobility, suitable and competent formative
personnel and appropriate, opportune and
personalized digital contents, as characteristics that
make the Ubiquitous Learning a solid cornerstone to
support a better and more powerful student-centered
learning.
Therefore, the necessity of building a model as a
referent that contributes to the achievement of
ubiquity on a higher education institution is
identified. To achieve the latter, the TAG model is
proposed to evaluate three dimensions: technology,
learning and management.
427
Zea Restrepo C., Lalinde Pulido J., Atuesta Venegas M., Aguas Núñez R., Vieira Mejía C. and Agudelo Velásquez O..
TAG: THREE DIMENSIONS AS BASIC REFERENCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF UBIQUITY LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS IN A UNIVERSITY
CONTEXT.
DOI: 10.5220/0003923904270431
In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2012), pages 427-431
ISBN: 978-989-8565-07-5
Copyright
c
2012 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
2 TAG, IN SPANISH:
TECNOLOGÍA, APRENDIZAJE
Y GESTIÓN (TECHNOLOGY,
LEARNING AND
MANAGEMENT)
In order to adopt the learning paradigms that involve
technology, it is necessary to attack the problem
from different points of view allowing a full
coverage of relevant aspects inside a specific model.
Multiple authors, Zea et. al. (2000, 2005, 2007) and
Williams (2003), have identified some edges or
relevant dimensions to the conceptualization, design
and construction of technology-based learning
environments.
Zea et. al. (2005) in Características de los
procesos de gestión en los contextos E-Learning
differentiates ‘between the technical, institutional
and pedagogical aspects, with the intention of
avoiding possible reductionisms regarding […] the
construction of knowledge in e-learning
environments’. Also, in the project Conexiones
(2000), they define pedagogical, didactical,
technological and management areas, as pertinent to
the formation of a teacher in this kind of
environments and at work. Finally, in ‘Hacia una
comunidad educativa interactiva’ (2007), the authors
set out three pillars over which an
interactive educative community holds:
technological pillar, pedagogical pillar and
community pillar.
In addition, Williams (2003), in his work on
roles and competences for the distance learning in
higher education, gathers thirty competences
identified in four groups: communication and
interaction, administration, technology and, learning
and instruction.
Given these precedents, the use of three
dimensions as compasses is proposed to propitiate
environments of Ubiquitous Learning in a university
context: Technology, Learning and Management
(TAG). This will allow the assessment of the level
of ubiquity for a higher education institution,
helping to solve the current problematic that
different authors face when trying to define this new
paradigm of learning, so that, what they focus on is
the establishment of ubiquity levels replacing the
dichotomous vision of its existence as an all or
nothing situation.
Each of the dimensions of the cube is composed
of characteristics and properties, and these ones with
metrics and indicators that will allow the
determination of the ubiquity level of a specific
Figure 1: Cube TAG.
institution in order to generate strategies that will
allow it to advance in its transformation towards an
ubiquity university.
Further information of each dimension will be
given.
2.1 Technology Dimension
From the technological dimension, the model focus
in three areas of work based on relevant properties
for the generation of processes and environments of
Ubiquitous Learning: capacity, ubiquity and
infrastructure.
2.1.1 Capacity
Kwon et. al. (2005, 2006) presented the design of a
methodology that allows the assessment of a specific
technology service in a few levels of established
ubiquity. Based on the identified properties and
using the family of procedure Square-ISO/IEC
25000, categories have been configured as it is
shown below.
Table 1: Definition of categories and properties of
technological capacity – Based on ISO/IEC 25000.
Usability
Accessibility, Adoptability,
Understandability, Interpretability,
Invisibility, Learnability, Predictability,
Proactiveness, Sensibility, Usability
Configurability
Configurability, Customizability,
Reconfigurability, Personalization
Compatibility
Interoperability, Compatibility,
Integrability
Reliability Reliabiility, Credibility
Security Security
Maintainability
Analysability, Modifiability, Testability,
Maintainability, Reusability,
Decomposability, Tailorability,
Extensibility, Flexibility, Adjustability
Portability Scalability, Adaptability, Portability
Manipulability
Sharability, Downloadable,
Embeddedness, Wearability
Mobility
Mobility, Ubiquity, Nomadicity,
Connectivity.
CSEDU2012-4thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
428
2.1.2 Ubiquity
In the ubiquity front, there are differentiated three
principal categories for assessment defined as:
Table 2: Categories and properties of the Technological
Ubiquity - (Kwon et. al. 2005, 2006).
Situation
Sensing /
Decision (S)
Solves the problems through a situation
analysis and the intention inference of the
user
Autonomic
Computing (A)
Reaches the objective through
autonomous solutions and reconstructions
without need for human intervention
Self-Growing
Intelligence
Engine (G)
Learns the goals or objectives of the user
These axes are assessed from the unique list of
properties in Figure 2 but with a different weight in
each case.
Figure 2: Properties of Ubiquity – Taken from (Kwon et.
al. 2005, 2006).
2.1.3 Infrastructure
Finally, it is important to have as technological
compasses the infrastructural aspects suitable for
each case that, although they should not be
converted into a straight jacket to establish e-
Learning, m-Learning and u-learning environments,
they are parameters that generate an approximation
towards a required investment, guiding solution
design or defining the interaction possibilities,
collaboration, evaluation, and accessibility
possibilities.
Table 3: Categories and Properties of the Technological
Infrastructure.
Networking
Wifi, GPRS, 3G, 4G, Bluethoot, NFC,
WiMax, etc.
Architectonic
Styles
N-Layer, N-Tier, Component Based,
SOA, etc.
Devices Smartphones, Tablets, Sensors, etc.
2.2 Learning Dimension
The processes that take place when an individual
prepares to learn are characterized by the model, the
resources, the role of the actors, the strategies, and
the involved environments (Feldman, 2005)
(Schunk, 1991). Here is where the statement of
"Ubiquitous Learning Institute" (Cope & Kalantzis,
2009) is encouraged, which refers to the term
"ubiquitous" as the notion of "anywhere / anytime".
Now, “A focus on learning, and on the increasing
prevalence of knowledge construction activities
being conducted in online environments by experts
and novices alike, however, suggest that the
definition of ‘ubiquitous’ be expanded to include the
idea that learners can engage with knowledge about
‘anything’, and that this learning can be experienced
by ‘anyone’.”
Here, learning is approached from three different
categories: Types of learning (Gardner, 1999),
(Perkins, 1992), (Wiggins and McTighe, 1998),
(Bandura, 1997); learning methodologies according
(Barrows, 1986), (Johnson et.al, 1999), (Panitz,
2001), (Bruner, 1988) and (Bricket et. Al, 1993), and
technological mediation (Hellers 2004), (Zea, 2005),
(Marton, 1996) and (Cabrera, 2004)
Table 4: Categories and Properties of the Learning
Dimension.
Types of Learning
Repetitive Learning, Receptive
Learning, Observational or Modeled
Learning, Appreciative Learning and
Meaningful Learning
Learning
Methodologies
Problem-based learning, project-based
learning, collaborative and cooperative
learning, learning by discoveries, and
autonomous learning.
Technological
Mediation
M-learning, e-learning, multimedia
learning, and collaborative learning
mediated by ICT.
2.3 Management Dimension
The concept of Third Generation Universities
monopolizes the wills and challenges to which
higher education must be submitted in order to
achieve major levels of equity in the system,
opening in the conditions of accessibility, major
relevance to the investigation and innovation with a
purpose of transforming the environment and the
involvement of labor, personal, civil and
professional competences, when approaching
education in order to manage a educational model.
Nowadays the universities are competing inside
an international market to acquire the best industrial
contracts, the best academics and the best students.
TAG:THREEDIMENSIONSASBASICREFERENCESFORTHECONSTRUCTIONOFUBIQUITYLEARNING
ENVIRONMENTSINAUNIVERSITYCONTEXT
429
The winners will be the universities that manage to
be positioned as centers of knowledge where the
scientific environment will be dynamic and will
incorporate all kinds of investigation, education and
commercialization of its Know-How; where the
university collaborates with the stabilized firms of
technological base firms as well as the emergence
ones (Wissema, 2009).
Under this perspective, three fundamental
categories are proposed to approach university
management: The Curricular Management is
developed from (ANUIES, 2011), (Chikering and
Gamson, 1997) and (Filmus, 2003); Organizational
Development from (Gibbons, 1998), (Beckhard,
1969), (Schein, 1988), (Rosario, 1994, 2003, 2005),
(Marianov and Von, 2006) and Engineering
Education from (Paquette, 2005), (Reigeluth, 1999),
(Roth, Patterson and Mumaw, 2001), (Novak, 1984)
and (Scacchi, 2001), among others.
Table 5: Categories and Properties of the Management
Dimension.
Curricular
management
Types of Curriculum, inter- and
transdisciplinary research, skills,
innovation management
Organizational
Development
Internationalization management,
resources management,
governance management, change
management
Engineering Education
Educational modeling, cognitive
engineering, information systems
engineering
3 CONCLUSIONS
The Ubiquitous Learning are composed of more
elements that the implantation of devices, networks
or digital contents alone. The Technology, Learning
and Management (TAG) should be analyzed for
every case. On one hand, the usability and the
mobility. On the other hand the meaningful,
autonomous and mobile learning; and the leadership
and the strategic planning as relevant support for
management, have a high value for ubiquitous
learning environments. For other learning paradigms
they will be needed of other characteristics and
properties for its development.
That is why TAG becomes relevant. Each dimension
properties are combined to form respective
mathematical equations that will allow measuring its
specific level, allowing the graphical representation
in a point inside a three-dimensional plane formed in
the cube (TAG). See Figure 1.
As future research, it is proposed the development of
metrics and indicators associated to each dimension
that allow the assessment on the part of a higher
education institution of the ubiquity levels in its
mission activities. This way, there is a reevaluation
of the dilemma on being or not ubiquitous and
transforms it in terms of how much ubiquitous it is.
REFERENCES
ANUIES. La educación superior en el siglo XXI; líneas
estratégicas de desarrollo. ANUIES (Asociación
Nacional de Universidades e Instituciones de
Educación Superior).http://www.anuies.mx/servicios/
d_estrategicos/documentos_estrategicos/21/sXXI.pdf
Bandura, A. (1977) Social Learning Theory. Volume: 28,
Issue: 3, Publisher: Prentice Hall, Pages: 247.
Barrows, H. S. (1986). A Taxonomy of problem-based
learning methods, en Medical Education, 20/6, 481–
486.
Beckhard, R. (1969) Organization Development:
Strategies and Models, Addison-Wesley, Reading,
MA.
Bersin J. (2004) The blended learning book: best practices,
proven methodologies, and lessons learned
Bomsdorf, B. (2005). Adaptation of Learning Spaces:
Supporting Ubiquitous Learning in Higher Distance
Education.
Bruner, J. (1988): Desarrollo cognitivo y educación,
Madrid: Morat
Bruner, J., (1999). Realidad mental y mundos posibles.
Los actos de la imaginación que dan sentido a la
experiencia. (5ª reimpresión). Barcelona: Gedisa.
Cabrera, E. P., (2004). Aprendizaje colaborativo soportado
por computador (CSCL): su estado actual. Revista
Iberoamericana de Educación. [http://www.campus-
oei.org/revista/deloslectores/729Cabrera108.PDF].
Chickering A. W., Gamson Z., (1987). Seven principles
for Good Practise in Undergraduate Education.
American Association for Higher Education.
Cope, B. Kalantzis M. (2009). Ubiquitous Learning
University of Illinois Press
Feldman, D., (2005). Evaluación de la enseñanza y el
aprendizaje, Posgrado Constructivismo y educación,
Buenos Aires, FLACSO- Argentina y UAM.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence Reframed: multiple
intelligences for the 21st century. Basic Books.
Filmus, D. (2003). Educación y Nuevas Tecnologías,
Experiencias en América Latina. (Págs. 16 -20). IIPE
– UNESCO, Buenos Aires.
Hellers, N. (2004) Aprendizaje portátil, la revolución que
se viene. e-learning América Latina. http://www.elear
ningamericalatina.com/edicion/junio1_2004/na_1.php
ISO/IEC 25000 SquaRE (Software Product Quality
Requeriments and Evaluation).
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. y, Holubec, E. J. (1999).El
Aprendizaje Cooperativo en el Aula. Buenos Aires:
Editorial Paidos
CSEDU2012-4thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
430
Kwon, O. - Kim, J. (2006). A Methodology for Assessing
the Level of U-Transformation of Ubiquitous Services.
Kwon, O. - Kim, J. - Choi, K. - Kim, C. (2005) A Multi-
Layered Methodology for Assessing Level of
Ubiquitous Computing Services.
Marianov and Von, (2006). La Gobernabilidad de las
Instituciones de Educación Superior y el Lugar de la
Participación. Calidad en la Educación No 24pp. 133-
145http://www.cse.cl/public/Secciones/seccionpublica
ciones/publicaciones_revista_calidad_detalle.aspx?idP
ublicacion=53
Marton, P. (1996) Concepción pedagógica de sistemas de
aprendizaje Multimedia interactivo.Universidad
Nacional Autónoma de México. México D.F.
Microsoft (2009). Microsoft Application Architecture
Guide, 2nd Edition.
Gibbons, M. (1998). Pertinencia de la educación superior
en el siglo XXI. http://www.humanas.unal.edu.co/cont
extoedu/docs_sesiones/gibbons_victor_manuel.pdf
Novak, J. D. & Gowin D. B. (1984). Learning How to
Learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Päivi A. (2006). Modelling and content production of
distance learning concept for interactive digital
television, Helsinki University of Technology,
Doctoral Thesis, Industrial Information Technology
Laboratory Publications, Espoo
Panitz T., (2001). Collaborative versus cooperative
learning- a comparison of the two concepts which will
help us understand the underlying nature of interactive
learning.http://www.capecod.net/~tpanitz/tedspage/ted
sarticles/coopdefinition.htm
Paquette, G. (2005). L`ìngénierie pédagogique pour
construiré l`apprentissage en réseau. Québec: Presses
de Ùniversité du Québec.
Perkins, D. (1992). Smart Schools: better thinking and
learning for every child. Free Press.
Poslad S. (2009). Ubiquitous computing smart devices,
environments and interactions.
Reigeluth Ch. (1999). Instructional-design theories and
models, Volumen 2. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc
Rosario, M. Víctor Manuel; Pérez, G. Irma Susana;
Huerta, A. J. Jesús. (1994). Proceso de organización
departamental de la Red Universitaria en Jalisco.
Universidad de Guadalajara. Guadalajara, Jalisco.
Rosario, M. Víctor Manuel. Discurso y poder en la
Universidad Pública Mexicana. (2003). El caso de la
Universidad de Guadalajara (1993-1994). Universidad
de Guadalajara. Guadalajara, Jalisco.
Rosario Muñoz, Victor Manuel; Marúm Espinosa, Elia;
(2005). Desarrollo y Consolidación de los Modelos
Académicos de los Centros Universitarios en la
Universidad de Guadalajara 1994-2004. Centros
Temáticos Tomo I. Universidad de Guadalajara.
México.
Roth E., Patterson E., and Mumaw R. Cognitive
Engineering: Issues in User-Centered System Design.
http://csel.eng.ohio-state.edu/patterson/cog_eng_def.
pdf
Scacchi W. (2001). Process Models in Software
Engineering. Institute for Software Research,
University of California.
Scheinm, E. H. (1988). La Cultura Empresarial y
Liderazgo, Editorial Plaza & Janes, Barcelona España
Schunk, D. H., (1991), Learning theories. An educational
perspective. N. York: McMillan. Valle, A.
Weiser, M. (1996). Ubiquitous Computing http://sandbox.
xerox.com/ubicomp/ Accessed November 2011
Weiser, M. (1991). The Computer for the 21st Century
Weiser, M. (1993). Some Computer Science Problems in
Ubiquitous Computing
Weiser, M. (1994) The world is not a desktop - Mark
Weiser
Weiser, M. (1993). Ubiquitous computing "Hot Topics"
Wiggins, G. and McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by
Design. Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Wikipedia® Tipos de aprendizaje. Tomado de http://es.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipos_de_aprendizaje.
Williams P. E. (2003), Roles and Competencies for
Distance Education Programs in Higher Education
Institutions - State University
Wissema, J. G. (2009) Towards the third generation
university: managing the university in transition.
Zea C., Trujillo J. A., Atuesta M. Del R., Foronda N.
(2005) Características de los procesos de gestión en
los contextos E-Learning.
Zea C., Atuesta M, (2007) Hacia una comunidad educativa
interactiva. Fondo editorial Universidad Eafit.
Zea C., Atuesta M, Gonzalez M. (2000) Conexiones –
Informática y escuela: un enfoque global.
TAG:THREEDIMENSIONSASBASICREFERENCESFORTHECONSTRUCTIONOFUBIQUITYLEARNING
ENVIRONMENTSINAUNIVERSITYCONTEXT
431
