SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF M-LEARNING DEPENDS ON WELL-DEFINED REQUIREMENTS

Yiannis Laouris Cyprus Neuroscience & Technology Institute

Cyprus

Nikleia Eteokleous

P.A. College Cyprus

ABSTRACT

Position paper that attempts a holistic overview of the transition from e-learning to m-learning. The authors make the case that pressure of global competition in a knowledge-based, net-centric economy poses challenges for transforming our educational system. At the same time, they alarm about the dangers that accompany unwise use of new technologies. It is argued that without a well-defined set of (pedagogy- and human-centered) “Requirements” we will not be harnessing the true potential of mobile technologies, but on the contrary we will be contributing to the further development of a society that has reduced respect for the role of teachers and respects values, wisdom and human experience less and less. The first part of the paper attempts to provide a holistic definition of the extended learning environment and proposes that keeping track of all the elements of the extended learning system is crucial. The Requirements are subsequently structured and exemplified in categories that correspond to four proposed sub-systems. It is argued that the definition of the mobile learning environment requires consideration and definition of (a) Human elements (users); (2) Technological elements; (3) Content; (4) Pedagogy. For each of these categories, a Systems Requirements Definition paper is required. The authors elaborate on the Humans- and the Content Requirements. The paper is useful both to researchers and developers of new technologies as well as those directing development (i.e., funding organizations) and those expecting to benefit from the new possibilities (i.e., users). It may also serve as a guide to technologists who wish to understand and consider requirements posed by educators. The authors propose the development of international standards to guide development of learning objects for use with mobile devices.

KEYWORDS

Mobile, m-learning, requirement-definition, meta-tags, standards, educational-reform.

1. INTRODUCTION

As we gear up to meet the pressures of global competition in a knowledge-based, net-centric, new economy, new constrains and new challenges emerge also for our educational systems. During the last four decades, our learning environments have gone through several phases of evolution. For some of us, the introduction of courses by correspondence in the seventies was a major breakthrough. Then came the concept of the Open University soon to be followed by flexible distance learning concepts taking advantage of the newly developing multimedia- and Internet technologies (Crosta, 2004; Navarro and Shoemaker, 2000). Now we are in the maturing phase of e-learning and are also entering the slow rising leg of an exponentially developing m-learning era. While all these developments inspire for a desperately needed transformation in our educational systems, they also bring with them serious questions. For example, both the e- and the m-learning concepts also encourage the development of an alerting anti-classroom rhetoric dominated by messages like "at your own pace", "when, where and how you need it", "you’ re in charge", "at your convenience", "all around you", "exciting", "motivating" etc. Such “slogans” certainly aim to stimulate the enthusiasm of stakeholders (both learners and teachers) and highlight the liberating features of the new

IADIS International Conference Mobile Learning 2005

103

technologies. At the same time, however, they contribute to the further development of a new society that has reduced respect for the role of teachers and experts; a society that respects knowledge, wisdom and human experience less and less.

Thus harnessing mobile technologies and putting them in the true service of learning is not going to be an easy task. In fact, we may have fallen into the same trap as with the advent of computers. The technology alone not only does not guarantee an optimized learning environment, but it may indeed contribute to increased confusion, fractured and disconnected knowledge of the world and overloading of the learning brain with technical jargon and details. The integration of computers in classrooms during the last two decades was accompanied by countless educational failures, not to mention the economic burden both on governments and parents (Cuban, 2001, Eteokleous & Laouris 2005). It is not by chance that during the last few years we witness an increasing interest and revival of educational concepts such as the concept of the teacher-mentor, the child-centered education, the need to spark creativity and innovative thinking etc. (Barajas & Owen 2000). The authors of this paper were extensively involved in the design and expansion of a chain of computer learning centers that focus on integrating modern technology in the lives of growing children using educationally relevant and socially responsible approaches (Laouris 1998, 2003). Within five years, 15% of the children’s population of the country have benefited from at least one year of instruction. The positive experience of this venture provides evidence in favor of the thesis that technology can indeed be harnessed and made virtually invisible for the learner while taking full advantage of all its power.

Within this context, we propose that development of mobile learning needs to be guided by a clear strategy of the where and the how we want to go. We need clearly defined vision and mission statements. We need well-defined and well-structured definition of our Requirements. To achieve this goal, we propose that first we need to keep track of the elements of the whole system at all times. This will enable us to test proposals for new elements (be it hardware or software; method or content) for efficiency, for compatibility and for new demands that are brought by them, even before they are developed or implemented. Second, we need to systematize our array of Requirements for each sub-system as well as for interactions between the sub-systems. This paper contributes in both these directions by proposing a simple but structured thinking framework that can accommodate new ideas and provide an always-evolving dynamic model to house both the definition of an expanding learning environment with its numerous elements and our definitions of human- and pedagogy-centered requirements. It inspires to be useful both to researchers and developers of new technologies as well as those guiding the development (i.e., funding organizations) and those expecting to benefit from the new possibilities (i.e., users). It may also serve as an introductory guide and reference to technologists who wish to understand and consider requirements posed by educators. Finally, it puts forward a proposal to call stakeholders submit their requirements and proceed towards the formation of an international cooperation in setting up globally-agreed, free-to-adopt, open standards and requirements.

2. KEEPING TRACK OF ALL SYSTEM ELEMENTS

A holistic view of the overall mobile learning environment reveals that it is both extensive and complex. We suggest that it is crucial to keep track not only of all its elements, but also of their relationships and interactions. New developments in the area of mobile learning, whether they involve new technologies or new methodologies (software, curriculum, pedagogy etc.), must always be viewed as proposed new parts that wish to become parts of the big system (i.e., the mobile learning environment). As potential candidates, they must be tested for their compatibility with the full system and of course for their capability to offer promised (and wished) features. Their global effects and possibly their demands for modifying elements of the existing system can be considered theoretically before we even proceed with their development and/or implementation. The following section (2.1) describes in greater detail what the authors believe to be the most important sub-systems. Section 2.2 provides a framework for the development of Requirements related to only two of the sub-systems, which the author, in view of the space limitations of this publication, believe must be given priority at this stage of mobile learning evolution: The human users and the content.

ISBN: 972-8939-02-7 © 2005 IADIS

104

2.1 The Mobile Learning Environment (MLE)

Our first task is to define the complete environment that is implied when we refer to mobile learning. We would suggest that the first and most important elements of this environment are the participating humans, i.e., the students, their parents, (if they are still in school; or those others interested about their progress if they are older) and their instructors or professors. [We propose using the term learner rather than student, because the latter is conceptually closer to university students and probably to a more formal educational environment. A learner is a broader concept and could be an elementary school child, a life-long-learner or a worker at the workplace.] Of course this list could potentially include peripheral stakeholders such as school technocrats, representatives of the ministry of education and of course visitors who may wish to receive information or try demo versions of offered learning units. Finally, it could also include resource persons such as technicians from the Internet- or mobile service providers as well as librarians interacting with content stored in related databases. This and subsequently considered elements of the MLE are summarized in Table 1.

Second, we need to consider all technological elements. One could theoretically consider separately the physical equipment from virtual systems such as application software, middleware, interfaces and drivers, etc. Under physical equipment we may include all types of computers (ranging from hand-held computers to mainframes) and of course all types of mobile devices. Optimally, any new mobile learning solution should be capable of blending within existing computer- and mobile technologies without the need for significant changes and adaptations in already developed parts. An exemption to this rule is when the new addition promises such benefits as to justify the cost for modification of existing subsystems. At the other leg of technological elements, we consider all virtual “instruments” such as all software already developed and currently in service of e-learning or CR-Rom-based learning, software backbones (i.e., servers etc.), interfaces, drivers, etc. Again, it would be wonderful if mobile learning solutions were capable to take advantage of existing solutions and know-how.

Table 1. Subsystems of the MLE. The table summarizes proposed subsystems and possible elements of each subsystem.

Sub-systems Sub-system categories

Human users - Beneficiaries (i.e., students, learners in general) - Instructors (either having a physical interface with Learners or via

the virtual infrastructure of the MLE

- School technocrats and managers - Parents or equivalent - Ministry of Education personnel - Technicians from the Internet- or mobile service providers - Librarians - Visitors

Technological - Computers (ranging from hand-held to mainframes) and mobile devices

Elements - Application software, middleware, interfaces, drivers, etc.

Content - Low-level data such as text, images, sound. - Rich-data such as formatted text, images in various formats and

complexities, sound, video or hybrid signals in various formats - Meta-data tags and standards - Learning objects

Pedagogy - Simple offering of knowledge (equivalent to web-browsing) - Interactive, dynamic units - Multiple-choice and other testing models - On-line, interactive learning communities - Learning theories

Third and probably most crucial element is that of Content. The experience gained during the last few decades’ multimedia hype must now be utilized. The multimedia era has first of all encouraged practically all organizations to digitize their data and to shift most of their logistics and information needs to the computer

IADIS International Conference Mobile Learning 2005

105

or the Internet. This process has prepared content for the mobile era. But for the content and the knowledge to reach the learner a lot needs to be considered. Section 2.2.2 expands on this topic.

Finally, we need to define competing theories of learning and pedagogies, and how these can be modeled effectively in the context of mobile learning. Special consideration is needed to identify constrains and/or requirements imposed to the technologists. The authors believe that we have a desperate need for a shared, progressive pedagogy for mobile learning that will provide the scientific basis for networked and collaborative learning in both a virtual and a virtual-augmented environment. It must accommodate different teacher- and learner perspectives. The new pedagogy must also support ambient learning. This problématique is however not the focus of the present paper, and also respecting space limitations imposed by the editors, no effort is made in the following sections to define and/or develop structured requirements for this subsystem.

2.2 Towards the Systematic Definition of Requirements

The following sections elaborate on the requirements for two of the subsystems, the Users and Content, as the authors feel that these two need to be given priority at this stage of development.

2.2.1 Requirements Related to (Human) Users The new jargon that accompanies new technologies is dominated by terms such as ubiquitous computing, pervasive computing, sentient computing and nomadic computing, all of which, one way or another, refer to the demands and expectations of all users. This terminology must not be taken lightly because it indirectly dictates serious requirements imposed by all our perspective users, whether on the learning-, the teaching- or the technocrat’s side. We therefore need to view these requirements in relation to the definition of MLE. Among them, probably most wanted by educators is the term ubiquitous computing. It refers to the human–computer interaction, and is used to describe the situation where technology becomes virtually invisible for the user (Romer et al. 2003). The aim is to bring the user into central focus in a computing environment and relieve him from the burden of having to know technical details. From this angle it of course becomes a requirement for all other users especially the learner. A second aim of ubiquitous computing is to offer users an augmented reality. In the context of MLE a mobile device will be expected to be aware of both the current needs of the learner and the environment. For example it may retrieve relevant information when its user walks through an archeological site in order to augment the experience. Pervasive computing refers to next generation computing environments with information and communication technology everywhere, for everyone, at all times. A resulting requirement demands for interaction and/or visualization of information that reaches our mobile devices by simply using available devices in our environment. For example, who is preventing us from using (through wireless access) a near-by computer monitor, or an LCD projector? Sentient computing refers to the use of sensors and resource status data to maintain a model of the world that is shared between users and applications. This imposes a new requirement for our MLE because mobile learning can become a lot more effective if the intelligent environment knows at any moment where the learner is physically, what type of devices might be available to him in order to decide what kind of learning activities might be most appropriate. Nomadic computing refers to the use of portable computing devices (such as laptop and handheld computers) in conjunction with mobile communications technologies to enable users to access the Internet and data from their home or work computers from anywhere in the world. Nomadic computing is a requirement already satisfied for mobile learning, since GPRS now permits the continuous connection to the Internet from any mobile device.

Table 2 summarizes some preliminary requirements from various categories of users. The central user is of course the learner. Especially the young ones wish the MLE to be above all flexible and entertaining. Although not posed by them, of course most crucial requirement is that of providing efficient, educationally relevant and socially responsible MLE. In the area of children education, the success of handheld toys like Gameboy™ and Tamagotchi™ that become part of the children’s culture are probably excellent models. Scientists still remain skeptical towards using video-game technologies in the context of formal learning despite the numerous research findings that indicate their great potential. The challenge for developers is to stay in track with what the educational goal is and not become hostages of the technical capabilities. Table 2 can serve as a preliminary stimulus to develop such tables in greater detail and use them to evaluate new ideas and new products.

ISBN: 972-8939-02-7 © 2005 IADIS

106

Table 2. Basic requirements posed by different categories of users. Human users Requirements Learners in general Flexible, situated, entertaining, informal, efficient, mobile. Instructors Easy maintenance and monitoring. Parents Monitor child’s progress School technocrats Monitor learner’s progress. Ministry of education Correlate learning objects with Ministry of Education curricula. Technicians Modular; easy to maintain; easy to add or remove elements. Librarians Friendly interface to maintain databases. Modification not to bother MLE. Visitors Demo play learning objects; Easy registration & purchasing.

2.2.2 Requirements Related to Content The new mobile-learning arena imposes significant new requirements not only for technological- and communication problems, but moreover for the structural design and delivery of the curriculum per se. Such requirements are in other words not limited to the ways in which knowledge is delivered and/or received, but also in the ways the curriculum is originally structured, developed and subsequently maintained. The introduction of multimedia-based instruction imposed already useful guidelines and constrains. Until recently, multimedia was however dominated by the concept of three-component objects: text-sound-image. This model of structuring knowledge is of no future value. First, we can no longer constrain data packets to these three types. We not only have the addition of video, but we also deal with much more complicated elements. For example text is now formatted (such as in Word processors or as it appears in HTML pages, PDF etc.). Similarly, images now come in dozens of different formats, compressed, with overlaying texts or other images, in pictorial or vector formats etc. Even if we account for all of the above, we will still be far from meeting requirements for educational content development in the context of an MLE. Because, learning units need to contain a lot more than the data one wishes to teach.

The working definition for learning unit (hereafter called learning object in line with the American and Canadian use of the term) is needed. A learning object is a self-contained, stand-alone unit of instruction that generally contains content and a learning objective and it may include a learning assessment. The Government of Canada has developed rules and standards to be followed by educational material developers and other e-learning stakeholders (E-learning Sub-group, 2004). Their metadata application profile prescribes five mandatory Common Look and Feel elements (see Table 3 LEFT part): Title, Language, Creator, Date, and Subject. It also provides guidance on how to implement these mandatory elements, and additional highly recommended and optional Dublin Core elements.

Table 3. Examples of standards used for the development of Common Look and Feel learning units. Left: Elements as prescribed by the Government of Canada Education. Right: Elements of a “knowledge-packet” as used by CYBER KIDS. Element Name Status Element Name Short description Title Mandatory Title Title of the Unit/lesson plan. Language Mandatory Language Languages in which it is available (the curriculum

is made available in more languages as the chain of learning centers expands in new countries).

Creator Mandatory Level Identifier Lesson plans are organized in levels designated as Minors, Juniors, Seniors etc.

Date Mandatory Educational goal Clearly stated educational goal (can be aligned with those set by Ministry of Education).

Subject Mandatory Educational value Detailed explanation of value and relation to other lesson plans and school material.

Identifier Highly Recommended Linking to society Each lesson plan has a social value component to relate with values and activities of children’s life.

Description Highly Recommended Mental development Mental attributes (in line with relevant research of the authors) were coded and organized in structured tables according to ages. Each lesson plan to indicate what mental abilities will be acquired or developed.

Keywords Highly Recommended Computer skills Computer skills are coded and organized in data sheets. Each lesson plan to indicate what computer skills will be acquired or developed.

IADIS International Conference Mobile Learning 2005

107

Element Name Status Element Name Short description Format Highly Recommended Lesson plan Detailed (less than 500 words) description of the

process to be followed by instructor. Type Highly Recommended Extracurricular Extracurricular activities may enrich instruction.

Examples: visit a company, organize an electronic art fair etc.

Audience Highly Recommended Duration How long it takes to teach. Rights Highly Recommended Computer tools Software packages (several alternatives) that can

be used. Coverage Optional Author and Date Creator of the lesson plan, Date published etc. Relation Optional Users Keeps track of instructors and centers using it.

The authors have also pioneered since 1991 in defining what they then called a KnowledgePacket© and which was used as a module in teaching in their computer learning centers (Laouris 1998; Laouris & Etokleous 2005a). A learning object was defined as a conglomerate of many items as they are detailed in Table 3 (RIGHT part). An innovation is the inclusion of mental development and social relevance dimensions (for details see Laouris and Makris, 2002a,b). These and other analogous approaches found in the literature allow the organization of content in an educationally- and socially-relevant way through the dissection of parallel curricula (school curriculum, psychological development curriculum, skills development curriculum etc.) in small self-contained modules. The challenge for us today is how to transfer these models to the MLE.

The advent of the Internet opened the possibility of virtually connecting modules that might be physically separated, but semantically related. The development of meta-tags and more recently ontology-based metadata offers a new communication protocol for the eco-system of learners, teachers, administrators and decision-makers and may promote a new learning culture (Martin and Cheyer, 1998; Romer, et al., 2003; Ting, et al., 2004). Several standards evolved to guide publishers in using meta-data wisely. More known, the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, is an open forum engaged in the development of interoperable online metadata standards that support a broad range of purposes and business models. According to many it is “…the lingua franca for meta-data ... at a basic level” (Milstead and Feldman, 1999) and “…the most broadly based consensus on resource description on the Web" (Weibel, 1999). Fields include: Title, Creator, Subject, Description, Publisher, Contributor, Date, Type, Format, Identifier, Source, Language, Relation, Coverage and Rights. The Dublin Core Metadata standard revolutionizes the management of data in the Internet. Yet, it does not provide guidelines for educational usages. Other standards include the Warwick Framework, IMS, ARIADNE, IEEE LOM, AICC, ADL SCORM and more recently the Merlot. All standards for meta-tags and meta-data provide the steppingstone towards defining requirements and developing standards for learning units used in the context of mobile learning.

A major obstacle in the development of digital content and curricula is of course that of copyright. Today’s media contain implicit (or sometimes explicit) rules for their usage. For example, a book can be read and resold, a CD may be played, but may not be copied. Video (VHS or CD, or DVD) is for private use; it can be rented but not copied. A public broadcast or a commercial broadcast can be watched, because license fees have been paid. A pay TV broadcast can be watched because one has paid a monthly subscription. But how do we treat digital curricula? How do we keep track of who is developing, who is improving and who is using them? And of course, how do we secure royalties for those who hold the copyrights? The MPEG-21 Multimedia Framework, which is currently under development, may offer us solutions. Indeed it was designed to provide unlimited flexibility. For example, one can buy an MPEG-21 Digital Item and copy it to a portable device once only, or rent it for 24 hours or for 10 playbacks or distribute it to 10 friends and get a copy for free. MPEG-21 is the newest of a series of standards being produced by the Moving Picture Experts Group (see http://mpeg.telecomitalialab.com), more formally known as ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG11. MPEG has a long history of producing multimedia standards: MPEG-1 (1993), MPEG-2 (1996), MPEG-4 (1999), and MPEG-7 (2001). Table 4 summarizes current elements of MPEG-21. Many of these can be of value as requirements for mobile content. Some of these features give extreme power to content developers, but constrains in bandwidth make the use of MPEG-21 still a future possibility for mobile learning.

ISBN: 972-8939-02-7 © 2005 IADIS

108

Table 4. MPEG-21 Standard. Table lists 16 currently proposed elements. 1 Vision, Technologies and Strategy 2 Digital Item Declaration (DID) 3 Digital Item Identification (DII) 4 Intellectual Property Management and Protection (IPMP) 5 Rights Data Dictionary (RDD) 6 Rights Expression Language (REL) 7 Digital Item Adaptation (DIA) 8 Reference Software 9 File Format 10 Digital Item Processing (DIP) 11 Evaluation Methods for Persistent Association Technologies 12 Test Bed for MPEG-21 Resource Delivery 13 Scalable Video Coding (SVC) 14 MPEG-21 Conformance 15 Event Reporting 16 MPEG-21 DID Binary Format More to come

3. DISCUSSION

The problem of running towards the future without clearly stated goals and a clearly stated vision is not something that characterizes only developments in mobile learning. Unfortunately it is a contemporary problem that society faces at large in all aspects of life. As we move forward towards the future, we realize more and more that we don’t have a plan, we don’t have a goal and worse of all we don’t have a way out or a back-up strategy. Because education is the energy that moves society forward, it is imperative that at least in the area of education we make the extra effort to define our goals and our requirements.

With the advent of the World Wide Web huge amounts of learning materials can now, at least in principle, be made available to learners. However, restrictions mostly related to our capability to locate what we really need makes it virtually impossible to access and use them. Meta-data and knowledge descriptors promise to solve this problem, but as they become more important, we will need to start managing such meta-data. First we need to develop standards for the usage of meta-data in connection with (mobile) learning. Previous works of several groups and government committees (see section 2.2.2) as well as standards developed for analogous problems (such as MPEG-21) may prove helpful. Second, there will be a strong need for meta-data validation and aggregation. Some authors e.g., Stuckenschmidt & Harmelen, 2001) introduced methods for verifying and visualizing semi-structured information.

In trying to defend the need for adherence in developing standardized, re-usable learning objects, Downes (2000) argued that although thousands of colleges have common course topics and large numbers of their courses are going online, they develop their own digital materials thus burdening their students with unnecessary and extraordinary costs. He argued that the world does not need thousands of similar learning topics and suggested that we only need about a dozen! And since development of good learning objects is indeed expensive sharing becomes essential. The authors agree in principle with this thesis, however the problems that arise are at least of two categories: First, is who’s learning objects will be used? Second, how do those who develop their objects protect and benefit from their rights. Special care is required to ensure that such standards will not provide competitive advantages to those who are already “rich” and not only access but also participation in the development will be guaranteed for developers all over the planet. This is extremely important if the gap between the developed and the developing countries will ever be closed, at least for all of us in the EU (see for example EUMEDIS programs and latest conferences).

4. CONCLUSION

In order for both educators and technologists to be able to take full advantage of the potentials of mobile learning it is imperative that we have a clearly defined vision and we follow well-defined and well-structured Requirements. The paper proposes classification of requirements under four subsystems, giving special emphasis to requirements imposed by users and requirements imposed on the content. In conclusion, one

IADIS International Conference Mobile Learning 2005

109

could summarize the important aspects of this paper in three sentences: (a) Need to develop requirements before we develop technologies; (b) Give emphasis to requirements imposed by users and requirements that make content more accessible and more educationally- and socially relevant; (c) Need to develop pan-European and/or international standards to guide the development of mobile learning objects.

The proposed framework has an advantage in that it follows a simple and dynamically changing format, thus allowing its continuous expansion and upgrading. Limitations of our approach are: (a) the framework is proposed without experimental validation yet, (b) we have not considered interactions between the subsystems and competing requirements. This work is useful to (a) users; (b) researchers, educationalists and developers of new technologies; (b) funding organizations and technocrats; (d) Technologists who wish to understand and consider requirements imposed by educators.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Work was partly supported by EU programs COST 219ter and COST 276, by funds of the R&D Department of the chain of computer learning centers CYBER KIDS (www.cyber-kids.com), and by research funds available to the authors at their respective institutions.

REFERENCES Barajas, M., and Owen, M. (2000). ‘Implementing Virtual Learning Environments: Looking for Holistic Approach’.

Educational Technology & Society. Vol.3 (3). Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Underused: Reforming Schools Through Technology, 1980-2000. Harvard University

Press. Crosta,. L. (2004). ‘Beyond the use of new technologies in adult distance courses: an ethical approach.’ International

Journal on E-Learning. Vol.3(1), pp48-61. E-learning Sub-group (2004). “Guidelines for the Government of Canada Education (GCed) Metadata Application

Profile” http://www.collectionscanada.ca/6/37/s37-4019.2-e.html. Eteokleous, N., and Laouris, Y. (2005). ‘Are we moving too fast towards integrating mobile devices into educational

practices?” Conference organized by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Apr 28-30. Laouris, Y. (1998). ‘Innovative Education for the New Millenium, A Leap into the New Millenium.’ HILTON Nicosia,

Organized by IMSC Nikias. Laouris, Y. (2003). ‘An educationally relevant definition of the learning brain.’ IDA 54th Annual Conference, November

2003, San Diego: CA pp12-15. Laouris, Y., and Eteokleous, N. (2005a). ‘Experiences from the application of knowledge-packets as means for

educationally-, mentally-, and socially- balanced instruction.’ Accepted for presentation. 3rd International Conference on Multimedia and Information & Communication Technologies in Education (m-ICTE 2005), Spain, June 8-10.

Laouris Y., and Eteokleous N. (2005b). ‘Smart Virtual Robots to Enhance Learner-Teacher Interactions.’ Submitted. 1st Workshop on Semantics in Mobile Environments. May 9, Ayia Napa, Cyprus.

Laouris, Y., and Makris, P. (Nov. 2002a). ‘M.A.P.S. Mental Attributes Profiling System Computerized battery for Dyslexia assessment.’ IDA 53rd Annual Conference,13-16 November 2003, Altanta: GA.

Laouris, Y., and Makris, P. (2002b). ‘MAPS (Mental Attributes Profiling System): A computerized, psychometric system for cognitive analysis. In A. Gagatsis, L. Kyriakides, N. Tsaggaridou, & E. Ftiaka (Eds.). Proceedings of the VII Pancypriot Conference of Educational Research. University of Cyprus: 225-233.

Martin D. and Cheyer A. (1998). ‘Building and Using Practical Agent Applications.’ PAAM ’98 Tutorial. Retrieved. [On-line]. Available: http://www.ai.sri.com/~oaa. 27 January 2005.

Navarro, P., and Shoemaker, J. (2000). ‘Performance and perceptions of distance learners in cyberspace.’ The American Journal of Distance Education. Vol.14(2), pp15-35.

Romer, K., Schoch, T., Mattern, F., and Dubendorfer, T.D. (March 2003). ‘Smart identification frameworks for ubiquitous computing applications.’ 1st IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications, 23-26 March 2003. PerCom, 253-262.

Stuckenschmidt1 H. and Harmelen F. van (2001). ‘Knowledge-Based Validation, Aggregation and Visualization of Meta-data: Analyzing a Web-Based Information System.’ In N. Zhong and Y. Yao" (eds). 1st Asia-Pacific conference on Web Intelligence (WI'2001).

Ting W., Ji Wang, Yang Y., Rui S., Jinhong L., and Huowang C. (2004). ‘MetaData Pro: Ontology-based Metadata Processing for Web Resources’ International Workshop on Intelligent Networked and Mobile Systems. The Fifth International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering, 22-24 November 2004 Brisbane.

ISBN: 972-8939-02-7 © 2005 IADIS

110