The document summarizes a study that developed a multimedia mobile classroom feedback system to improve interaction between instructors and students. Key features of the system include automated attendance checking, in-class evaluations, improving student willingness to ask questions, instant grade checking, cross-platform use, and recording the learning process. An evaluation of 105 undergraduate students found the system was superior to traditional methods in interactivity, mobility, and functionality. The system uses a client-server model to allow students to respond to questions and provide feedback using mobile devices, which is then displayed for the instructor in real-time.

1. Construction and Evaluation of a Multimedia Mobile Classroom Feedback
System
Wen-Chen Huang and Shih-Chieh Sung
Department of Information Management
National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology
Email:wenh@ccms.nkfust.edu.tw
Abstract
In the conventional classroom setting, there are many different obstacles to the
interaction between instructor and students, such as limited class hours, fixed seating,
and inadequate time for after class meetings. This research develops a multimedia
mobile classroom feedback system, one which instantly displays any responses (such
as class related questions or the answers to a quiz) on a computer used by the
instructor. This system is employed to reinforce the interaction between instructors
and students and to improve learning efficiency, and the salient features are as follows:
1. automated attendance checking mechanism, 2. in-class real-time evaluation, 3.
improving students’ willingness to raise questions, 4. instant student grade enquiry, 5.
system cross platforms, 6. virtual mobile classroom, 7. data integrity, 8. low
construction cost, 9. group learning, and 10. recording the process of learning. This
system uses client-server and 3-tier relational database models as the framework.
When a class is in progress, the instructor only requires a notebook computer in which
a web browser is installed, while students need a mobile phone or PDA which has
built-in J2ME and wireless network support. A web server and the rear-end database
are not required to be installed in the vicinity, as long as the network connection is
properly set up. Currently, the system has four different functions: attendance
checking, conducting quizzes, instant question inquiry, and grade inquiry.
A survey questionnaire is used for the evaluation of this system (MMCRS).
Subjects were two classes of undergraduate students with a sample size of 105. The
questionnaire considers three perspectives: interactivity, mobility and functionality.
The purpose of this survey was to compare the MMCRS and IRS systems and find out
their differences. The experimental results show that MMCRS is superior to IRS from
all three perspectives.
Key words: multimedia, classroom interaction, wireless technique, mobile classroom,
M-learning

2. 1. Introduction
Examining the history of the development of Educational Psychology, be it
Behaviourism, Constructivism or Cognitivism, the emphasis is always on the
importance of information feedback, which basically has two meanings. The first is
that a teacher should know the learning progress of their students. Through
information feedback, they are them able to make appropriate adjustments to their
teaching material or methods. The second one is that the teacher releases information
on the teaching material to the students, who are then to make the necessary
adjustments and improvements to their learning process.
In teaching, instructors often adjust their method according to feedback, but with
conventional teaching techniques, this feedback is rather poor. It is often difficult for a
teacher to monitor the learning progress of all the students due to the large class size.
Interaction between students and teachers is thus superficial (e.g. answering questions
by raising hands), impersonal (e.g. answering question together with others) and
delayed (e.g. doing bring-home assignments, having exams and so on). A teacher
spends a lot of time on grading students’ work, who then will have to wait at least one
day to know how they perform. Worse still, such delayed feedback may not have
much impact on students’ learning. Being aware of this problem, teachers have
attempted to make students’ feedback more instantaneous and scientific. However, the
results have not been satisfactory. In most cases, only some students may have the
chance to interact with their teacher and their interaction tend to be limited to, for
example, the teacher asking students to raise their hands in agreement, or naming a
particular student to answer a question. Asking questions rarely, a teacher may not be
able to have a thorough understanding of students’ learning progress. In other words, a
teacher cannot adjust their approach to see to students’ needs and they, too, due to a
lack of participation, will lose interest in the class. The efficiency of the teaching is
thus further lowered, and students may even stop coming to the class.
In the conventional classroom setting, various obstacles limit the interaction
between students and teachers. There are obstacles like limited class hours, fixed
seating and inadequate time for after class discussion [1, 2]. So far, most teaching
methods have been concerned with either teaching or learning, and few have focused
on improving classroom interaction. Since the amount of information that is involved
in teaching has been increasing, a corrective method is urgently needed, and with the
introduction of multimedia feedback techniques it is possible to receive instant
feedback from every student in the class. Moreover, such techniques facilitate precise
and scientific data analysis and allow recording of the entire teaching process. The
multimedia mobile classroom feedback system in this paper is developed using a
client-server model. Handheld devices (like a mobile phone or PDA) use a wireless

3. network (GPRS, 3G or WiFi) to transmit students’ immediate responses, for example,
questions that they raise in the class, answers to quizzes (multiple choice, short
answer, fill-in the blank types of question), and the like. The feedback from students
can be displayed instantaneously on the teacher’s notebook computer. The teacher can
then use this system with pre-designed materials and then modify the content
according to the feedback. In preparing for courses, a teacher can always include this
system as a piece of auxiliary teaching equipment. Using this tool, the interaction
between teachers and students is enhanced, improving the efficiency of learning. To
sum up, there are several advantages with this system:
1. Automated attendance checking mechanism: It replaces the conventional
method by which attendance is checked manually by instructor. With the system,
students need to key in their ID number on a handheld device. The teacher will
then know immediately which students are absent from the class.
2. In-class instant evaluation: In a class, the teacher can give a quiz at any time
(multiple choice, short questions and answers, and fill-in the blank types of
question) to examine whether students really understand what has been taught.
With an instant feedback mechanism like this, students are required to be attentive
to the class. In addition, the teacher is able to understand and monitor the effect of
their teaching on the students.
3. Improving the willingness to ask questions: It is often the case that students
may wish to ask questions, but they are unable to do so due to shyness or thinking
that their question is not appropriate. By using this system, questions can be asked
upon without registering who has made them. In so doing, the teacher becomes
aware of the problems in students’ learning, and thus able to devise ways to assist
them and raise the quality of teaching.
4. Instant results checking: Students are able to check their own results at any time
through a handheld device, with which their privacy is better protected. With such
an arrangement, it is also easier for teacher to publish students’ results.
5. Multi-platform system: The construction of this system does not neeed to be tied
to any particular platform, as Java is used. All that a student needs is a handheld
device which supports J2ME. Server-side implementation can either be with
Microsoft or Unix-like platforms.
6. Virtual Mobile Classroom: Since a wireless network is used as the transmitting
media, students are able to use this system whenever they like (be it in or out of
the class). When students are reviewing their lessons without a computer, they can
still use this system to fire question to their instructor.
7. Comprehensiveness of the collected data: This system employs a database to
store student-related information. Through the use of the transaction and locking

4. mechanisms of database, asking questions and sending answers simultaneously
will not cause any problem, and thus data is properly collected.
8. Low construction cost: The client-side equipment, i.e. mobile devices that
students will use, do not need to be redesigned. It can be a mobile phone, a PDA
or a notebook computer, something which students may already possess. As to the
server-side machine, it requires only a web-server.
9. Group learning: Very often, a group discussion in class only allows students to
present the result of their discussion. It may not be easy to tell whether all of the
students have really learned something from the person who is presenting the
work. In this case, an instructor can pass the system to students who are
presenting ther work and they can set a quiz for other students or receive
questions from them, while the instructor can make observations without
interrupting the students.
10. Recording learning process: The discussion and interaction between the teacher
and students can be stored in the database which is in the back-end of the system.
By reproducing learning process, it allows the teacher to investigate any problems
that might hinder students’ learning. Consequently, in preparing the teaching
materials, adjustments can be made for future classes.
These are some of the advantages of this system. In the next section, a literature
review is included which also stresses the importance of in-class interaction, and the
inadequacy of feedback in the conventional classroom setting. In section three, the
theoretical framework of this system is discussed while GPRS and pressure test of the
system are shown in section four. The summary section discusses the application and
future development of the system.
2. Literature Review
In-class interaction is very important in teaching, and one of the key tools for
successful learning.[1, 3,4, 5, 6, 7]. In order to encourage students to be more
involved in their learning, it is essential for an instructor to use properly prepared
teaching materials to raise the interest of the class, and to cultivate their sense of
involvement by increasing interaction with them. The more interaction, the greater the
motivation of learning will be. The same is also true for students’ concentration on
and sense of involvement with the class. Hence, the concept of in-class interaction is
related to what three different educational theories, Behaviourism, Constructivism and
Cognitivism, have suggested. [7,8]
2.1 In-Class Interaction
The definition of ‘in-class interaction’ varies, but can be basically divided into five

5. categories. The first one is ‘active involvement’: in-class interaction is seen as an
activity that a learner can actively participate in. Through his or her involvement, an
active learning environment can be constructed. The second category concerns
‘communication’: in-class interaction is regarded as a way for learners and educators
to communicate with one other in a one-to-many form. In other words, the interaction
between teachers and students is done through communication. An educator tries to
understand the needs of learners, while learners try to make sense of the knowledge
offered by the educator. Similarly, the third category focuses on ‘instructor-learner
communication’. However, the in-class interaction is based on the communication
between one learner and one educator. It is a one-to-one interaction model. A teacher
tries to understand the needs and problems of one student at a time. Before a teaching
related interactive model can be developed, the educator and the learner should
communicate with each. The fourth category sees interaction as ‘collaborative’:
in-class interaction in this definition is behaviour of cooperation and social function.
The relationship between students and teachers is some form of cooperation, and so is
the relationship among students. The teacher and their group of students are just like
members of a society, and by being cooperative they can encourage and help one
another. The fifth category is more concerned with ‘instructional activities and
technologies’: here in-class interaction is assigned to the field of teaching activity and
technology.
2.2 Mobile Networking
Ben Mousaa [9] lists some advantages of mobile networking. Firstly, in general, the
application software of mobile networking allows users to control and filter the
information on mobile devices, and can also be used as a means of communication.
Mobile devices often have two distinct characteristics, in that they are personalised
and individualised. Secondly, mobile networking is able to improve collaboration
among people. Through the rapid connection of mobile networking and instant data
transmission services, users can interact with one other without any limitations in
terms of time and place. Users can decide what the most appropriate strategy is for
themselves. Lastly, mobile networking is customer-oriented. When a user tries to
strike a balance between learning, living and work, it is necessary to optimise the time
available. As mobile network can be accessed from anywhere and at any time, and
users can thus make good use of their time with ease. These three advantages facilitate
a better learning environment.
2.3 Digital Learning Environment
Sharples [10] emphasises that learning and technology development cannot be

6. separated, as learning has become more personalised and learner-centred, more
collaborative in nature and unrestricted in time and place. Therefore, Sharples [10]
proposes a strategic framework, focusing on applying technology to the learning
environment. This framework consists of five different methods: 1. an intelligent
tutoring system replaces the tutor in a conventional classroom setting. However, a
successful working model for this method is yet to be constructed, as replacing a real
tutor with an intelligent tutoring system is not easy. For example, a system may not
possess all the knowledge needed on a specific field. 2. Software or tool programmes
are instead used to play the role of pedagogical agents which give suggestions to
students. 3. System tools and resources are used to help the student in learning and
organising new knowledge. 4. Personalised communication aids are used to show the
result of learning, taking into consideration the ability of the learner. 5. A simulated
classroom allows teachers and students to continuously interact with one other well
after the real class has ended.
Siau et al.. [11] suggest that a classroom feedback system does increase the
interaction between teachers and students. However, there are several disadvantages
with the existing systems: 1. some of the functions in the student’s remote controller
do not work properly. For example, when some remote controllers are used together,
answers from students do not get received properly by the system, or the remote
controller is out of the range of infra-red receiver. 2. Quizzes provided by the
classroom feedback system are confined to multiple choice and true-or-false questions.
3. Some students tend to ignore the in-class feedback system. 4. Students may fiddle
with the remote controller and be distracted from the class. 5. When the classroom
feedback system is used, it may take away some of the lecturing time.
Markett, etc. [12] use Short Message Service (SMS) in mobile phones to increase
interaction between teachers and students, as the latter’s questions can be transmitted
by using SMS messages. However, there are problems with such an arrangement. One
is students can only use mobile phone for SMS, not PDAs or notebook computers.
Also, the number of characters that can be sent using mobile phone is limited. If a
message is long, it will be broken up and delivered in several messages which may be
difficult to read. Moreover, students may use SMS for things other than class related
purposes. There is also the possibility of repeatedly sending the same SMS message.
In such a case, the large number of repeated SMS messages could be a burden to the
teacher. Finally, as the average price of sending a text message in Taiwan is about 3 to
5 Taiwan dollars, if the amount of text messages to be sent is high then students will
have to pay a relatively large sum of money.
According to the earlier studies on in-class interaction, when introducing a
specific handheld device for students to participate in an activity, the rate of usage of

7. the system drops, decreasing about 25 to 30%. As the screen of a mobile phone is
rather small, it will not become an eye-sore to students and teacher [14]. Also, the
wireless networks on mobile devices (GPRS, Wi-Fi or 3G) are operated and
maintained by independent companies, so students will not need to do much to use the
device. Considering the disadvantages and platforms of various mobile devices, this
system is designed so that users are also able to use it on a PDA or notebook
computer.
3. Methodology
Information Communication Technology (ICT) has been proved to be able to enhance
learning, especially when it is combined with learner-centred teaching method. The
one-to-one digital classroom concept proposed by Liang et al. [16] can be integrated
with information and telecommunication technologies, as seen in Fig. 1. The
following is a traditional classroom setting.
Fig.1 Digitalised Classroom Setting
3.1 Mobile Interaction Framework in a Conventional Classroom
Thus framework includes three levels. The first is about in-class interaction, the

8. second presents the advantages of mobile telecommunication, and the third is the
e-learning environment, as shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2. Mobile Interaction Framework in Conventional Classroom
The multimedia mobile classroom feedback system has four different functions,
which are shown in green. They are Roll Call, Quiz, Instant Q&A and Grade Query.
The correspondent behaviour in the classroom will be as follows: 1. making students
actively participate in the class: Before class is started, the teacher often checks the
attendance of students. Therefore, the sense of participation of students starts with
checking themselves into the class, with logging themselves into the system. After
registering their attendance, students are able to use the system to ask or answer
questions as they wish. 2. Providing one-to-many interaction between the teacher and
students: students and teacher should begin to interact instantly to maintain the sense
of participation. By conducting an instant quiz, the teacher is able to have some idea
of whether students really understand what has been taught. Since information is sent
instantly and anonymously, students are able to freely pick answers without
embarrassment, while the teacher is able to adjust the class according to the responses.
3. Facilitating one-to-one interaction between teacher and student: if a teacher does

9. not know his or her students’ learning problems, can only answer a small number of
students' queries, or if some of the students are shy or scared of asking questions
directly, their learning will be impeded. Through this system, students can ask
questions instantly and anonymously. In this way, the teacher is aware of every
student's problem and can address their questions right away. This will heighten
students’ sense of participation in the class, increase their interaction with the teacher
and other students, and finally improve their learning. 4. Applying technologies to
class activities. The activities include attendance taking, assigning quizzes, asking
questions and grade enquiries, which can all be done through student's mobile devices.
The centre of the graph, which is in purple, is the result of a series of in-class
activities. Teachers and students can use this system to propose and discuss questions
to enhance in-class interaction. The part in orange is about the advantages of mobile
networking. In-class activities and mobile networking can be combined to get a better
result. When a student asks or answers questions, it is transmitted anonymously, and
thus they can do it on their own without any interference from others. As the
information received by teacher in class arrives instantly, explanations can be made
straight away. Lastly, the blue part is the strategies used in mobile classroom
interaction. In a class, a tutor is the main actor while mobile devices are the subsidiary
system tools, but interaction between students and the teacher can continue after class,
in a virtual mobile classroom. As the attitude toward learning and the results of
students are positively affected by improved in-class interaction, this framework is
able to support the concepts proposed in the three educational psychology theories
described previously, Behaviourism, Constructivism and Cognitivism.
3.2 System Framework
This system utilises a client-server model. On the client-side, it is a student instant
feedback system, while the tutor’s class management system resides in a server which
uses a three-tier relational database. The student instant feedback system includes four
different modules, roll call, quiz, grade inquiry and question asking. The tutor’s class
management system corresponds with the three modules in the front, which are roll
call switch, quiz switch and score inputting. Through the tutor’s instant feedback
interface, one is able to find all the feedback information from students. The system is
shown in Fig. 3.

10. Fig. 3. A Framework of the Multimedia Mobile Classroom Feedback System
The Presentation Tier of the client site uses a hand-held device, such as a mobile
phone or PDA. The application software of the Presentation Tier is developed by
using Sun J2ME, while the server site of the Logic Tier is programmed by PHP.
MySQL is used for the relational database system in the Data Tier. This is shown in
Fig. 4.

11. Fig. 4 Relational Database Framework
Fig. 5 shows the user interface used on a mobile phone. It displays the overall
functions, which are the roll call, multiple-choice quiz, text quiz, text question asking,
voice question asking, grade query, change password, and logout.
Fig. 5 The user interface of a handheld device
4 Experimental Results
The survey questionnaire is used for the evaluation of this system (MMCRS), and
the subjects were two classes of undergraduate students with a sample size of 105.
The procedure of the data collection was as follows. At first, subjects used the IRS
system [11] then the MMCRS system, each for one week, and then the questionnaire
was conducted. The questionnaire consisted of three perspectives: interactivity,
mobility and functionality. The purpose of this survey was to compare the above two
systems and find out their differences. The results and analysis are as follows:
(1) Interactivity
The purpose of the MMCRS and IRS systems is to enhance classroom

12. interactivity, and the questionnaire results on this are are listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Results of interactivity questionnaire
(n = 105) Mean Std. dev.
I feel that MMCRS is better than IRS for teacher-student interaction in 3.88 .829
classroom.
I feel that MMCRS is better than IRS for discussion in classroom. 3.82 .907
I feel that MMCRS is better than IRS for concentration in studying. 3.82 .896
I feel that MMCRS is better than IRS for understanding the teaching 3.77 .933
material.
I feel that MMCRS is better than IRS for knowing whether students 3.87 .878
understanding the teaching material.
I feel that MMCRS is better than IRS for knowing whether students’ are 3.90 .887
keeping up with the teaching material.
Overall, I prefer MMCRS to IRS for student-teacher interaction. 4.03 .871
5 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree
Table 1 shows that there is no significant difference between MMCRS and IRS for
student-teacher interaction. Both systems improve interaction in the classroom, to
both aid students’ better understand the teaching material and allow the teachers to
understand and monitor the students’ progress. However, most students prefer
MMCRS to IRS.
(2) Mobility
The tool used for MMCRS is mobile devices, and thus the advantages of mobile
communication – individualised, user-oriented, and coordinated – also apply to
MMCRS. The questionnaire’s results for mobility are listed in Table 2.
Table 2: Mobility Survey Results
(n = 105) Mean Std. dev.
I feel that MMCRS is better than IRS for accessing the internet at anytime 4.20 .671
and anywhere.
I feel that MMCRS is better than IRS for providing personal information, 4.18 .647
such as grades.
I feel that MMCRS is better than IRS for effectively using my time to 4.08 .661
study, such as asking an question while studying in the library.
I feel that MMCRS is better than IRS for engaging me to discuss the class 3.99 .946
contents with classmates.
I feel that MMCRS is better than IRS for understanding my the messages 4.08 .756
I transfer.
Overall, I feel that MMCRS is better than IRS ass it is is easier to carry 4.36 .735

13. and use.
5 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree
Table 2 shows that the advantages of mobile communication greatly add to the
appeal of MMCRS, and students think that it enhances classroom learning and
increases discussion between students and the teacher. Overall, students also
believe that MMCRS is better than IRS as it is both easier to carry and use.
(3) Functionality
This perspective is compares the functionality between MMCRS and IRS.
The purpose of this part of the questionnaire is to understand which parts of
MMCRS need further improvement, and the results are listed in Table 3.
Table 3: The results for functionality
(n = 105) Mean Std. dev.
I feel that MMCRS is better than IRS for the ‘roll call’ function. 4.10 .827
I feel that MMCRS is better than IRS for the ‘instant quiz’ function. 4.00 .820
I feel that MMCRS is better than IRS for the ‘instant questioning’ 4.05 .752
function.
I can ask a question via voice at anytime and anyplace by using 4.09 .786
MMCRS.
I feel that it is easy to use voice functionality to ask a question by using 3.95 .881
MMCRS.
I can inquiry about my score at anytime and anywhere by using 4.15 .632
MMCRS.
It is easy to use the score inquiry function with MMCRS. 4.08 .661
It is convenient to use MMCRS on any platform. 4.29 .675
Overall, I agree that MMCRS is superior to IRS for functionality. 4.18 .852
5 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree
Table 3 shows that students are convinced of the superiority of MMCRS over
IRS from a functional perspective. The unique functions of voice questioning
and score inquiring for MMCRS are easy to use and useful on any platform.
5. Conclusions
This research uses the students’ most commonly used handhold devices, the
mobile phone, PDA, notebook computer, and so on, and selects an anonymous
method to let students fully expression their opinions and thus obtains more

14. interactions in the classroom with the teacher. Allowing the student to initiate the s
interaction increases participation in the classroom, builds driving-type in the campus
the learning environment, leading to better teaching quality and the achievement of
more study goals.
However, despite the positive findings above, it should still be noted that the
effect of MMCRS depends on the students’ learning attitudes. For the instant
questioning model, if students ask some unrelated questions it is unlikely to lead to
learning. However, teachers who used MMCRS may select some key point questions
for use in the classroom, and in this way the system may enhance students’
concentration and lead them to pay more attention to the important issues in the
course.
There are long-term and short-term directions for future research, For the
short-term, the response time of the voice question-asking mechanism should be
improved. For the long-term direction, it would be helpful to include a video
conference function and a homework deadline reminder.
References
[1] T. Liu, J. Liang, H. Wang, T. Chan, and L. Wei, “Embedding educlick in
classroom to enhance interaction,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Computers in Education
(ICCE)., Hong Kong, China, 2003, pp. 117–125.
[2] S. W. Draper and M. I. Brown, “Increasing interactivity in lectures using an
electronic voting system,” J. Comput. Assist. Learn., vol. 20, 2004, pp. 81–94.
[3] C. P. Fulford and S. Zhang, “Perceptions of interaction: The critical predictor in
distance education,” Amer. J. Distance Educ., vol. 7, no. 3, 1993, pp. 8–21.
[4] C. Chou, “Interactivity and interactive functions in web-based learning systems: A
technical framework for designers,” Br. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 34, no. 3, 2003, pp.
265–279.
[5] B. Bannan-Ritland, “Computer-mediated communication, elearning, and
interactivity: A review of the research,” Quart. Rev. Distance Educ., vol. 3, no. 2,
2002, pp. 161–179.
[6] M. C. Wang, G. D. Haertel, and H. J. Walberg, “What influences learning? A
content analysis of review literature,” J. Educ. Res., vol. 84, no. 1, 1992, pp.
30–43.
[7] R. Sims, “Promises of interactivity: Aligning learner perceptions and expectations
with strategies for flexible and online learning,” Distance Educ., vol. 24, no. 1,
2003, pp. 87–103.
[8] W. D. Haseman, V. N. Polatoglu, and K. Ramamurthy, “An empirical investigation

15. of the influences of the degree of interactivity on user outcomes in a multimedia
environment,” Inform. Resources Manage. J., vol. 15, no. 2, 2002, pp. 31–48.
[9] C. BenMoussa, “Workers on the move: new opportunities through mobile
commerce.” Presented at the Stockholm Mobility Roundtable, May 2003, pp.
22–23.
[10] M. Sharples, “The design of personal mobile technologies for lifelong learning.”
Computers and Education, 34, 2000, pp. 177–193.
[11] Keng Siau, Hong Sheng, Nah, F.F.-Hoon, “Use of a classroom response system
to enhance classroom interactivity,” Education, IEEE Transactions on Volume
49, Issue 3, Aug. 2006, pp.398 – 403.
[12] C. Markett, I. Arnedillo SAAnchez, S. Weber, B. Tangney, "Using short message
service to encourage interactivity in the classroom," Computers & Education
Volume: 46, Issue: 3, April 2006, pp. 280-293.
[13] S. W. Draper, and M. I. Brown, “Increasing interactivity in lectures using an
electronic voting system.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, April 2006,
pp. 81–94.
[14] K. Nyiri, “Mobile communication: essays on cognition and community.” Vienna:
Passagen Verlag, 2003.
[15] Zhu & Kaplan. “Technology and Teaching.” In W. J. McKeachie (Ed.),
McKeachie’s teaching tips: strategies, research, and theory for college and
university teachers, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2002, pp. 204-224.
[16] J.K. Liang, T.C. Liu, H.Y. Wang, B. Chang, Y.C. Deng, J.C. Yang, C.Y. Chou,
H.W. Ko, S. Yang, and T.W. Chan, "A few design perspectives on one-on-one
digital classroom environment," Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Volume
21 Issue 3, June, 2005, pp. 159-237.
[17] F. Nah, K. Siau, and H. Sheng, “The value of mobile applications: A utility
company study,” Commun. ACM, vol. 48, no. 2, 2005, pp. 85–90.
[18] H. Sheng, F. Nah, and K. Siau, “Strategic implications of mobile technology: A
case study using value-focused thinking,” J. Strategic Inf. Syst., vol. 14, no. 3,
2005, pp. 269–290.