Computers & Education 123 (2018) 53–64

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu

The use of mobile learning in higher education: A systematic

T
review
Helen Cromptona,∗, Diane Burkeb
a
Teaching and Learning, Old Dominion University, 145 Education Building, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA
b
Education Division, Keuka College, Keuka Park, NY 14478, USA

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Keywords: Mobile device ownership has exploded with the majority of adults owning more than one mobile
Higher education device. The largest demographic of mobile device users are 18–29 years old which is also the
Mobile learning typical age of college attendees. This systematic review provides the scholarly community with a
Mlearning current synthesis of mobile learning research across 2010–2016 in higher education settings
Tertiary
regarding the purposes, outcomes, methodologies, subject matter domains, educational level,
Cell phones
educational context, device types and geographical distribution of studies. Major findings include
that the majority of the studies focused on the impact of mobile learning on student achievement.
Language instruction was the most often researched subject matter domain. The findings reveal
that 74% involved undergraduate students and 54% took place in a formal educational context.
Higher education faculty are encouraged to consider the opportunity to expand their learning
possibilities beyond the classroom with mobile learning.

1. Introduction

Mobile devices have spread at an unprecedented rate in the past decade and 95% of the global population live in an area covered
by a mobile-cellular network (ITU, 2016). Device ownership has exploded with the majority of adults owning more than one mobile
device (Statista, 2016). The largest demographic of mobile device users is 18–29 year olds (Pew, 2017; Poushter, 2016) which is also
the typical age of college attendees. Recent empirical evidence indicates that mobile learning can be used to support students’
learning in higher education settings (Ke & Hsu, 2015; Wu, Wu, Chen, Kao, Kin & Huang, 2012).
However, research in mobile learning has been fragmented and idiosyncratic and based on the understanding of the individual
researcher (Alrasheedi, Capretz, & Raza, 2015). Pimmer, Mateescu, and Grohbiel (2016), report “after more than 20 years of mobile
learning research, there is still relatively little systematic knowledge available, especially regarding the use of mobile technology in
higher education settings” (p. 492). Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review is to provide the scholarly community with a
current synthesis of mobile learning research in higher education settings.

1.1. Background

Mobile Learning is a term to denote learning involving the use of a mobile device. The term is fully defined as “learning across
multiple contexts, through social and content interactions, using personal electronic devices” (Crompton, 2013a, p. 4.). This defi-
nition provides insight to the educational affordances of learning with mobile devices, as learning is untethered, happening across

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: crompton@odu.edu, khgregor@odu.edu (H. Crompton), dburke@keuka.edu (D. Burke).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.04.007
Received 14 September 2017; Received in revised form 17 April 2018; Accepted 19 April 2018
Available online 25 April 2018
0360-1315/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Crompton, D. Burke Computers & Education 123 (2018) 53–64

contexts, time, subjects, people, and technologies (Crompton, 2013a; Laurillard, 2007; Traxler, 2010). Mobile devices, such as mobile
phones and tablets, have a prompt off/on button and are easily portable, (Crompton, 2013b), following this definition, laptops were
excluded from this study.
Several reviews of mobile learning have been conducted across the past ten years. Each contributed important information for
scholars to better understand the use of mobile devices in educational settings. Some of these reviews were research that did not
identify the educational setting in which the studies took place. The researchers reported their findings without describing the
educational level of the learners. Frohberg, Goth, and Schwabe (2009) conducted a review of 102 mobile learning projects to analyze
the context, tools, control, communication, subject and objective of each study. Wingkvist and Ericsson (2011) reviewed 114 papers
from the World Conference on Mobile Learning (mLearn) focusing on reserch purposes and methods.
Some reviewers have focused exclusively on k-12 educational settings. Liu et al. (2014) reviewed k-12 mobile learning articles
from 2007 to 2012, investigating academic areas, research purposes, methods and outcomes. Crompton, Burke, & Gregory (2017)
reviewed 113 studies which took place in pk-12 settings, investigating research purposes, methods, and outcomes. In addition, they
investigated subject matter domains, educational levels and contexts, types of mobile devices, geographic distribution and learning
theories.
Some researchers have specifically identified multiple educational settings in their reviews. Hwang and Tsai (2011) reviewed K-
12, higher education and adult learner mobile learning articles from 2001 to 2010. They reported subject areas, grade level, and
countries where the studies took place. Wu et al. (2012) reviewed K-12, higher education and adult learner mobile learning articles
from 2003 to 2010. They investigated research purposes, methods, outcomes. Sung, Chang, and Liu (2016) analyzed 110 studies
published from 1993 to 2013 which took place in k-12, higher ed and adult settings. They investigated the overall effect of using
mobile devices in education. Chee, Yahaya, Ibrahim and Hassan (2017) reviewed 114 articles in k-12 and higher ed settings in-
vestigating longitudinal trends from 2010 to 2015.
All of these studies add to the scholarly understanding on the use of mobile learning across all grades and subjects. However, it is
not easy to parse out what is specifically happening in higher education to understand how the devices are supporting learners in
those settings.
A few researchers (viz., Alrasheedi et al., 2015; Kaliisa & Picard, 2017; Pimmer et al., 2016) have conducted more granular
reviews with a focus on higher education. However, these reviews narrowed the focus further to only cover certain aspects of higher
education. Alrasheedi et al. (2015) studied critical factors that impact mobile learning implementation. Using Rogers’ diffusion of
innovations theory (Rogers, 2003), Alrasheedi et al. (2015) reviewed 30 studies from 2005 to 2013. Their analysis identified 14
critical factors which strongly impact mobile learning implementation. Their findings showed that the most critical factor for success
was whether or not students perceived that their productivity was increased by using mobile learning. They also found that students
were fairly satisfied with the usage of mobile learning in their courses and were interested in using mobile learning in the future.
Pimmer et al. (2016) analyzed 36 studies from 2000 to 2013 to uncover how mobile learning is used in higher education in
relation to existing learning theories. Their research indicated that instructionism, rooted in the concept of behaviorism, was the most
prevalent educational design. Kaliisa and Picard (2017) conducted a study examining various characteristics, such as type of device,
instructor's and student's perceptions, methodologies, and theoretical frameworks. This study was narrow in focus as it only included
studies conducted in Africa. All of these studies are valuable; however, they only show limited aspects of mobile learning in higher
education.
This lack of extant literature is consistent with Pimmer et al.'s (2016) claim that there is little systematic knowledge available
regarding the use of mobile learning in higher education settings. With this identified gap in academic understanding, the purpose of
this systematic review is to provide a comprehensive, up-to-date (2010–2016) review of mobile learning in higher education from
multiple countries. This review was guided by the overarching question, what research has been conducted using mobile learning in
higher education from 2010 to 2016? This question is broken into three sub questions:

1. What were the major research purposes, methodologies and outcomes in studies of mobile learning in higher education?
2. What were the subject matter domains, educational levels and educational contexts in the studies of mobile learning in higher
education settings?
3. Which mobile devices were used and what was the geographical distribution of the studies of mobile learning in higher education
settings?

2. Methods

A systematic review (Hemingway & Brereton, 2009) was performed to answer the three research questions directing this study
with the goal of providing an impartial synthesis and interpretation of the findings (Gough, Oliver, & Thomas, 2012). A systematic
review is the process of selecting, identifying, and synthesizing primary research studies to provide a thorough and reliable re-
presentation of the subject being reviewed (Oakley, 2012).

2.1. Search strategy

Utilizing PRISMA (Liberati, Altman, Tetzlaff, Mulrow & Getzsche, 2009) principles, the study began with an extensive search of
the literature conducted using both electronic and manual searches. Using Google Scholar Metrics, the top ranked education tech-
nology journals were identified based on their five-year h-index and h-median metrics. The following top eleven journals from the

54
H. Crompton, D. Burke Computers & Education 123 (2018) 53–64

Table 1
Rank and title of the journal included in this search of the literature.
Rank Journal

1 Computers and Education

2 British Journal of Educational Technology
3 Internet and Higher Education
4 Journal of Educational Technology and Society
5 Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
6 The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning
7 Educational Technology Research and Development
8 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology
9 IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies
10 International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning
11 Language Learning and Technology

Google Scholar Metrics list are listed in Table 1 and these were the journals selected for the search.
From the 11 journals, electronic and manual searches were conducted using the following search terms, “mobile learning,” “m-
learning,” “location-aware,” “ubiquitous learning,” “iPad,” “hand-held,” “tablets,” “wireless learning,” “context-aware,” “digital
learning.”, and “situated learning”. These search terms were chosen as they are the words commonly used when defining mobile
learning.

2.2. Study selection

The search was limited to the years 2010–2016, as iPads tablets became available to the general public in 2010 and defined a new
category of tablets that provided educators with a mobile device option with a larger screen size compared to mobile phone and PDA
screens used in the past. The larger screen sizes increased the affordance of mobile learning in accomplishing particular educational
tasks. The initial search resulted in 321 articles.

2.3. Inclusion/exclusion criteria

This systematic review used the inclusion and exclusion criteria that are classified in Table 2. Each study needed to meet all the
inclusion criteria and not match any of the exclusion criteria to be counted in this systematic review.
The 321 articles were reviewed against the inclusion and exclusion criteria by two independent researchers, resulting in an inter-
rater coding agreement of 96%. Articles in disagreement were further evaluated by both researchers, who then came to a 100%
agreement. The initial review of the 321 studies resulted in the removal of 3 duplicates and 170 articles which did not meet the
inclusion criteria of higher education settings. The remaining 148 studies were further evaluated to ensure that they met the inclusion
criteria of learners using mobile devices and that the research was original. From that review, a further 74 articles were eliminated,
leaving 72 articles for analysis. The number of articles that fit all the criteria recorded in Table 2 totaled 72. This literature search and
review procedure is represented in Fig. 1.

2.4. Analysis framework

Eight elements were chosen for analysis based on the research questions: 1) research purpose, 2) research methodology, 3)
learning outcomes (viz., neutral, negative and positive), 4) subject matter domains, 5) educational levels, (undergraduate students,
graduate students and faculty, 6) educational context (viz., non-formal, formal, informal), 7) type of mobile devices (vis., tablets,
mobile phones), and 8) countries of study.

2.4.1. Coding
It is important to note that coding in systematic reviews is different from primary research as it is conducted by interpreting both

Table 2
Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria

Students use mobile devices for learning The mobile device must not be a laptop
Involved higher education settings The mobile device must not be Netbooks
Article was original research The mobile device must not be a stationary
Article was peer-reviewed gaming console

Article was published in one of the top 11 education technology journals*

*According to google scholar.

55
H. Crompton, D. Burke Computers & Education 123 (2018) 53–64

Fig. 1. A diagrammatic representation of the literature search and review process.

the participant data and author analysis to provide third-order constructs (Britten et al., 2002). In addition, Sandelowski, Voils,
Leeman, and Crandlee (2011) posited that researchers should ensure the context and original meaning of the raw data are preserved
when conducting the secondary analysis.
In this review, each of the research elements were coded individually. The research purposes were coded using a grounded theory
design with a constant comparative method (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). From the 72 studies, the research purposes were open coded to
identify important words or groups of words from the data. In vivo codes were also selected as the researchers’ language provided
appropriate descriptive coding terms (King, 2008). The study of the purposes was an iterative and inductive process. The initial codes
led to intermediate coding and the constant comparison of data of purposes with purposes, of purposes with codes and of codes with
codes. The codes were deemed to be theoretically saturated once all the research purposes fit into one of the categories.
The coding of the research methods was based on the method reported by the researchers in their methodology section. To
determine the labels, “in vivo coding” (Saldaña, 2009) was conducted using the researchers' terminology. The learning outcomes
were coded using Crompton, Burke, Gregory, Gräbe (2016) a priori codes: positive, negative, and neutral. Studies were coded
‘positive’ if the findings showed an improvement in student learning, ‘neutral’ for findings that did not have a positive or negative
impact on student learning, and ‘negative’ if students' learning was lessened due to using a mobile device. Subject matter domains
were coded into academic areas, such as mathematics, science, literacy. Educational levels were coded according to the educational
stages in tertiary education.
The study contexts were coded according to Crompton’s (2013a) categories: formal, informal and non-formal. ‘Formal contexts’
are those where learning is intended and in a classroom setting, an ‘informal context’ is represented by intended learning outside of
the classroom (e.g. dorm room, bus) and a ‘non-formal context’ is represented by non-intended learning (e.g., conducting online
banking). Finally, the types of devices were coded by the term used by the researcher e.g. tablet, PDA, mobile device.

56
H. Crompton, D. Burke Computers & Education 123 (2018) 53–64

Fig. 2. Research purposes.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Research question one: what were the major research purposes, methodologies and outcomes in the studies of mobile learning in higher
education settings?

3.1.1. Research purposes

From the coding of the research purposes, five final codes were created: 1.) Investigating the impact of mobile learning on student
achievement. Studies in this category evaluated the effectiveness of mobile learning on student achievement. 2.) Investigating stu-
dents' perceptions of mobile learning. Studies in this category assessed students’ perceptions of mobile devices for learning. 3.)
Investigating the pedagogy involved in mobile learning. Studies in this category assessed how mobile learning was used for teaching
and learning. 4.) Investigating factors that influenced mobile learning. Studies in this category explored factors that made a difference
in mobile learning. 5.) Investigating specific applications or mobile learning systems. Studies in this category involved the creation or
evaluation of specific mobile learning applications and systems. The results of this coding can be seen in Fig. 2 below.
Investigating the impact of mobile learning on student achievement was the most often reported research purpose, as 31% of the
studies were coded this way. Student achievement was measured in a variety of ways. For example, Sun and Shen (2014) evaluated
the effects of using mobile learning to improve team work. Garcia-Cabot, de-Marcos, and Garcia-Lopez (2015) assessed the learning
performance of graduate students when they used an adaptive mobile learning system that tailored the content to the students’
specific skills, and Qun (2015) measured the performance of students who used mobile learning to improve second language vo-
cabulary acquisition. It is encouraging that the most common research purpose was focused on student achievement as the goal of
using mobile technologies is to extend and enhance student learning. It is also positive that student achievement is being studied in
various ways to gain a more robust understanding of how mobile devices are supporting learning.
The second highest research purpose was investigating students' perceptions of mobile learning, with 29% of studies in this
category. Student perceptions were investigated from a variety of perspectives. For example, some studies examined students' general
perceptions regarding the use of mobile learning (Lea & Callaghan, 2011; Martin & Ertzberger, 2013; Viber & Gronlund, 2013).
Others looked at specific types of perceptions, for example Sung and Mayer (2012) investigated perceptions of the use of mobile
devices versus laptops. Goh (2011) examined the differences between genders regarding the use of short messaging systems, and
Hyman, Moser, and Segala (2014) explored students’ perceptions on the ease of use regarding mobile technologies.
The study of students' perceptions regarding the use of mobile learning is important, as people's perceptions influence how they
behave (Ferguson & Bargh, 2004). If students perceive that mobile learning has little or no value, they are less likely to embrace the
use of mobile learning. It is important to state that perceptions can be entrenched in traditional practices and biased to those
traditional ways.
Investigating the type of pedagogy used in mobile learning accounted for 20% of the studies. Examples of pedagogical in-
vestigations included how to use podcasts to support learning (Kazlauskas & Robinson, 2012; Scutter, Stupans, Sawyer, & King, 2010;
Taylor & Clark, 2010), how to use barcodes in printed text (Uluyol & Agca, 2012), how to scaffold learning using mobile devices,
(Huang, Wu, & Chen, 2012), and how to use live streaming to increase access to content (Ullrich, Shen, Tong, & Tan, 2010).
Considering that mobile devices are a tool with the goal of increasing student achievement, and that pedagogy is the way that the tool
is used to achieve the goal (Crompton, 2013a,b), it is a concern that more research is not being done in this area.
Investigating the factors that influence the use of mobile learning comprised 15% of the studies. Examples of these studies include

57
H. Crompton, D. Burke Computers & Education 123 (2018) 53–64

Table 3
Research methodology.
Methods Number of Studies

Questionnaires 39
Interviews 11
Action Research 6
Experimental 6
Case Studies 5
Quasi-Experimental 5
Mixed Methods 3
Pre and Post Test 3
Analysis of User Logs 2
Quantitative 2
Observations 1

investigating the influence of self-management (Huang et al., 2012; Lai, 2013), how use over time impacted mobile learning
(Cochrane & Rhodes, 2013), and the influence of culture on mobile learning adoption (Arpaci, 2015). Servillano-Garcia and Vazquez-
Cano (2015) identified the factors and variables that influence the use of digital mobile devices in universities. They concluded that
the most important factor was insuring that a model exists that aims to guarantee the integration of mobile learning as a new way of
understanding teaching-learning. A previous systematic review of the critical factors for success in mobile learning in higher edu-
cation by Alrasheedi et al. (2015) supports these findings. As mobile learning does not occur in a vacuum, it is important to un-
derstand the factors and variables that impact both its use and effectiveness for successful implementation. The results of this research
category can help to add to this knowledge base.
Finally, investigating a specific application or mobile learning system made up the remaining 5% of the studies. Examples of these
studies include creating a mobile learning system to support on-line learners (Lan, Tsai, Yang, & Hung, 2012), developing an or-
ienteering game (Miyagawa, Yamagishi, & Nizuno, 2013), and creating a mobile integrated and individualized course platform
(Brinton, Rill, Ha, Chian, Smith & Ju, 2015).

3.1.2. Research methods

Many studies reported more than one type of research methodology. When this was the case, all reported methods were included
in the analysis. Table 3 show the methodologies from the 72 studies. It is important to note that some authors were more specific
regarding their methodologies used. It is beneficial when researchers are specific in describing the methodologies as this can lead to
more robust understanding and validation of the work that was conducted.
Overall, researchers reported the use of twelve different types of research methods. This finding indicates that researchers are
using a variety of ways to investigate the use of mobile learning. This provides a rich resource of data to help the scholarly community
understand mobile learning from multiple viewpoints. Nonetheless, it is important to note that only six of the studies reported using
an experimental research design. This is similar to findings reported by Kaliisa & Picard, (2017) in their review of mobile learning in
higher education in Africa where they found that only six of thirty-one reviewed studies used an experimental research design.
Further experimental research studies would provide more robust data. To provide a comprehensive understanding of mobile
learning in higher education setting, future research requires both qualitative and quantitative methods (Pimmer et al., 2016).

3.1.3. Research outcomes

In this review, a total of 72 research studies were analyzed. Of the 72 studies, 23 had the research purpose focused on in-
vestigating the impact of mobile learning on student achievement. The research outcomes of these 23 specific studies were analyzed.
The outcomes were coded positive, negative and neutral. Sixteen (70%) of these studies reported positive outcomes, indicating that
the use of mobile learning resulted in increased student learning. Five studies (22%) reported neutral outcomes and one study (4%)
each reported either a negative impact on student learning along with both a positive and neutral impact. These findings are re-
presented in Fig. 3.
Previous research reviews have reported that most research studies have found positive outcomes when using mobile devices
(Crompton and Burke, 2015; Sung et al., 2016; Wu et al., 2012). A variety of variables can impact student learning, such as the
student's expertise with the device, the length of time the mobile device was used, and the teacher's experience and skills with the
device. To better comprehend the impact of mobile learning on student learning, research that provides a more refined look at the
intervening variables could better explain how positive learning outcomes occur.

3.2. Research question two: what were the subject matter domains, educational levels and educational contexts in the studies of mobile
learning in higher education settings?

3.2.1. Subject matter domains

Second language instruction was the subject matter most often researched, with 21% of the studies in this area. Education, along
with studies that did not indicate the subject matter, were next most common domain (14% each). Studies in the social sciences made

58
H. Crompton, D. Burke Computers & Education 123 (2018) 53–64

Fig. 3. Research outcomes distribution.

up 13% of the studies. Science and engineering comprised 10% of the studies followed by business (8%), computer science (7%) and
multiple subjects (6%). The breakdown of the subject matter domains are provided in Fig. 4.
The most often researched subject matter domain was second language instruction. Pimmer et al. (2016) also reported that
language learning studies were the most frequently researched subject matter domain. Learning a language involves a variety of
communication modalities. Mobile devices can be used a variety of ways to support these modalities, by offering tools that make
language learning more accessible and ubiquitous. The second most identified subject matter domain was education (14%). Research
in this area is important because educators need to know how mobile devices can be used to extend and enhance learning. More
research is this domain would increase educators’ knowledge base regarding mobile learning.

3.2.2. Educational levels

The majority of research studies involved undergraduate students (74%), followed by 14% of the studies with graduate students.
Research studies involving both undergraduate and graduate students comprised 9% of the studies. Studies involving faculty were
only 3% of the research studies. Fig. 5 show the educations levels of students targeted in the research.
The majority of the studies involved undergraduate students. This could be the result of the large number of undergraduate
students in relation to graduate students and faculty making them an easy population to access for research. The lack of investigations
into faculty use of mobile learning is a concern, as faculty make decisions on the implementation and use of mobile devices in their
classes.

3.2.3. Types of educational contexts

Fig. 6 reveals that the majority of the studies (54%) took place in a formal educational context. Informal settings accounted for

Fig. 4. Subject matter domains.

59
H. Crompton, D. Burke Computers & Education 123 (2018) 53–64

Fig. 5. The educations levels of students or faculty targeted in the research.

Fig. 6. Types of educational contexts.

thirty-six percent of the educational contexts. A setting that was comprised of both formal and informal contexts totaled eight percent
of the studies and one study was held in a non-formal setting.
Sung et al. (2016) studied the effects of mobile devices on students' learning performance. They found similar results as this study
regarding the types of settings in which the learning occurred. They also found that the effect size in educational contexts was greater
for using mobile learning in informal locations than in formal locations. With research findings such as these, and because mobile
devices are inherently portable, researchers should consider exploring the use of mobile learning in contexts beyond the traditional
classroom setting. The majority of higher education students own or have access to a mobile device (Chen, Seilhamer, Bennet &
Bauer, 2015; Hanley, 2013; Kobus, Rietveld, & van Ommeren, 2015). This almost ubiquitous availability makes using mobile learning
in informal settings a genuine possibility. Higher education faculty are encouraged to consider the opportunity to expand their
students’ learning possibilities beyond the classroom with mobile learning.

3.3. Research question three: which mobile devices were used and what was the geographical distribution of the studies of mobile learning in
higher education settings?

3.3.1. Types of mobile devices

Some researchers reported using more than one type of device and each type of device was included in these data. Mobile phones
were reported as the most frequently used mobile device (43%). This correlates with research by Kallissa et al. (2017) in which they
reported that mobile phones were the most frequently used mobile device. The generic term mobile device was reported as the second
most frequently reported type of device (13%). Tablets were next (9%), followed by iPads (7%) and PDAs (6%). Audio-players, E-
readers, graphing calculators, and iTouches were the other devices whose use was reported. This information can be seen in Fig. 7.
Previous synthesis by Wu et al. (2012) also reported mobile phones as the most frequently used device. Research by Chen et al.

60
H. Crompton, D. Burke Computers & Education 123 (2018) 53–64

Fig. 7. Types of mobile devices.

(2015) and Hanley (2013) reported ubiquitous ownership of mobile phones by college students. As mobile phones are often ac-
cessible in higher education, this may account for the large use of mobile phones in the research. Nonetheless, these data do reveal
that a wide variety of devices are being used in mobile learning studies.

3.3.2. Countries of study

Research on the use of mobile technologies was conducted in 21 countries and on five continents. Asia was the continent with the
highest percentage of studies (50%), followed North America (21%) Europe (13%), Australia/Oceania (13%) and Africa (3%). Fig. 8
provides the specific countries in which the research occurred.
This review of the research on mobile learning indicates that from the findings of this study there appear to be more mobile
learning conducted in particular geographic regions with Asia conducting 50 percent of the research. More specifically, Taiwan
conducted 33% of the studies in Asia and 16% of all the studies in this review. Other systematic reviews report Taiwan as the
geographical location where researchers conduct more research on mobile learning that other countries of the world (viz., Crompton
et al., 2016; Hwang & Tsai, 2011; Liu et al., 2014). The findings of both this study and the extant systematic reviews show that
research is taking place globally, but some countries are conducting more research from some continents. All the journals reviewed

Fig. 8. Countries of study where the studies took place.

61
H. Crompton, D. Burke Computers & Education 123 (2018) 53–64

for this study were English language publications. It is possible more research may have been conducted in non-English speaking
countries.

4. Limitations

This systematic review is a description of the research published in the top eleven journals on mobile learning during one period
of time. This study was limited as only the top eleven journals were selected and these journals may not provide a representation of
all works published on mobile learning. In addition, these journals are the top eleven English speaking journals and do not represent
articles published in other languages.

5. Conclusions

This systematic review provides the scholarly community with a current synthesis of mobile learning research in higher education
settings regarding the purposes, outcomes, methodologies, subject matter domains, educational level, educational context, device
types and geographical distribution of studies. In this review, a total of 72 research studies were analyzed. Of the 72 studies, 32%
reported the research purpose as investigating the impact of mobile learning on student achievement. It is encouraging that the most
common research purpose was focused on student achievement, as the goal of using mobile technologies is to extend and enhance
student learning. Investigating the type of pedagogy used in mobile learning accounted for 20% of the studies. Considering that
mobile devices are a tool with the goal of increasing student achievement, and that pedagogy is the way that the tool is used to
achieve the goal (Crompton, 2013a,b), it is a concern that more research is not being done in this area.
The research outcomes of these 23 specific studies were analyzed. Sixteen of these studies reported positive outcomes. A variety of
variables can impact student learning. To better comprehend the impact of mobile learning on student learning, research that
provides a more refined look at the intervening variables could better explain how positive learning outcomes occur.
The most common subject matter domain in the studies was second language instruction. Learning a language involves a variety
of communication modalities. These studies showed that mobile devices can be used a variety of ways to support these modalities, by
offering tools that make language learning more accessible and ubiquitous. The findings reveal that 54% took place in a formal
educational context and 74% involved undergraduate students. Mobile phones were reported as the most frequently used mobile
device. As mobile phones are often accessible in higher education, this may account for the large use of mobile phones in the research.
Research on the use of mobile technologies was conducted in 21 countries and on five continents. Researchers in Asia conducted 50%
of the studies. The findings of both this study and the extant systematic reviews show that research is taking place globally, but some
countries are conducting more research from particular continents.
This review is beneficial for scholars to gain a holistic understanding of the research regarding the use of mobile learning in higher
education, and to gain an understanding of the gaps that remain in the literature.

6. Identified gaps and future research

This systematic review identified five gaps in the research. First, scholars have made the argument (viz., Ferriter, 2013; Schrum,
2015) that technology is only a tool and it is what we do with that technology that counts. However, the findings of this systematic
review reveal that the pedagogy used when implementing mobile learning initiatives is only investigated 20% of the time for a total
of 14 studies. How mobile learning is being used should be explored further to understand best pedagogical practice.
Second, there is a need for researchers to look at intervening variables to better understand how positive outcomes occur.
Research with positive outcomes are typically published in academic journals: however, it is important to explore what is similar
across those studies that brings about that positive outcome.
Third, mobile devices are inherently portable; however, 54% of these studies took place in traditional classroom settings. Data
from this systematic review also show that there are many positive benefits to using mobile devices in informal studies. Further
research should focus on the use of mobile devices in informal settings to explore learning in these contexts.
Fourth, mobile learning has not been explored in all subject areas. For higher education faculty to make data-based decisions on
the use of mobile learning in their classrooms, it is important to explore all subject areas and strands to provide this information.
Finally, the findings of this systematic review show that undergraduate students are a common group studied in mobile learning
research. Although undergraduates make up the largest percentage of higher education students, it would be pertinent to conduct
more in-depth studies on graduate students and on faculty members using mobile devices in their classrooms.

Declaration of interest

This is a notification from the authors that there is no financial interest or belief that could have affected our objectivity.

Funding source declaration

This is a notification from the authors that there is no funding or research grants received in the course of study, research or
assembly of the manuscript.

62
H. Crompton, D. Burke Computers & Education 123 (2018) 53–64

Author agreement/declaration

This is a statement to certify that all authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript being submitted. This
manuscript has not received prior publication and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.

Permission note

There are no figures in this article that are not original content and therefore no permissions are warranted.

References

Alrasheedi, M., Capretz, L. F., & Raza, A. (2015). A systematic review of the critical factors for success of mobile learning in higher education (university students'
perspective). Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(2), 257–276.
Arpaci, I. (2015). A comparative study of the effect of cultural difference on the adoption of mobile learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), 699–712.
Brinton, C., Rill, R., Ha, S., Chiang, M., Smith, R., & Ju, W. (2015). Individualization for education at scale: MIIC design and preliminary evaluation. IEEE Transactions
on Learning Technologies, 8(1), 136–148.
Britten, N., Campbell, R., Pope, C., Donovan, J., Morgan, M., & Pill, R. (2002). Using meta ethnography to synthesize qualitative research: A worked example. Journal
of Health Services Research and Policy, 7(4), 209–215.
Chee, K. N., Yahaya, N., Ibrahim, N. H., & Hasan, M. N. (2017). Review of mobile learning trends 2010-2015: A meta-analysis. Educational Technology & Society, 20(2),
113–126.
Chen, B., Seilhamer, R., Bennett, L., & Bauer, B. (2015). Students' mobile learning practices in higher education. retrieved January 31, 2017 from http://er.educause.edu/
articles/2015/6/students-mobile-learning-practices-in-higher-education-a-multiyear-study.
Cochrane, T., & Rhodes, D. (2013). Developing a mobile social media framework for pedagogical transform. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(3),
372–387.
Crompton, H. (2013a). A historical overview of mobile learning: Toward learner-centered education. In Z. L. Berge, & L. Y. Muilenburg (Eds.). Handbook of Mobile
Learning (pp. 3–14). Florence: KY: Routledge.
Crompton, H. (2013b). Mobile learning: New approach, new theory. In Z. L. Berge, & L. Y. Muilenburg (Eds.). Handbook of mobile learning (pp. 47–57). Florence: KY:
Routledge.
Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2015). Research trends in the use of mobile learning in mathematics [Special Issue]. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning,
7(4), 1–15.
Crompton, H., Burke, D., Gregory, K., & Gräbe, C. (2016). The use of mobile learning in science education: A systematic review. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 25, 149–160.
Crompton, H., Burke, D., & Gregory, K. (2017). The use of mobile learning in pk-12 education: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 110, 51–63.
Ferguson, M. J., & Bargh, J. A. (2004). How social perception can automatically influence behavior. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(1), 33–39.
Ferriter, W. (2013). Technology is a tool, not a learning outcome. Retrieved April 2, 2017 from http://blog.williamferriter.com/2013/07/11/technology-is-a-tool-not-a-
learning-outcome/.
Frohberg, d., Goth, C., & Schwabe, G. (2009). Mobile Learning projects-critical analysis of the state of the art. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(4), 307–311.
Garcia-Cabot, A., de-Marcos, L., & Garcia-Lopez, E. (2015). An empirical study on m-learning adaptation: Learning performance and learning contexts. Computers &
Education, 82(3), 450–459.
Goh, T. (2011). Exploring gender differences in SMS-based mobile library search system adoption. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14(4), 192–206.
Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2012). Introducing systematic reviews. In D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.). An introduction to systematic reviews (pp. 1–16).
London: SAGE Publications.
Hanley, M. (2013). College student smartphone usage hits 74%; tablet ownership at 30%. Retrieved January 31, 2017 from https://th-ebooks.s3.amazonaws.com/Hanley_
Ball_State_College_Student_Cell_Phone_Study_Summary_February%202013.pdf.
Hemingway, P., & Brereton, N. (2009). In Hayward Medical Group (Ed.). What is a systematic review?. Retrieved October 24, 2014, from http://www.medicine.ox.ac.
uk/bandolier/painres/download/whatis/syst-review.pdf.
Huang, H., Wu, C., & Chen, N. (2012). The effectiveness of using procedural scaffolding in a paper-plus smartphone collaborative e-learning context. Computers &
Education, 59(2), 250–259.
Hwang, G. J., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). Research trends in mobile and ubiquitous learning: A review of publication in selected journals from 2001 to 2010. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 42(4), E65–E70.
Hyman, J., Moser, M., & Segala, L. (2014). Electronic reading and digital library technologies: Understanding learner expectations and usage intent for mobile
learning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 62(1), 35–52.
ITU (2016). ICT facts and figures 2016. Geneva, Switzerland: International Telecommunications Union. Retrieved January, 2017 from http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/
Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2016.pdf.
Kaliisa, R., & Picard, M. (2017). A systematic review on mobile-learning in higher education: The African perspective. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology. 16(1), 1–13.
Kazlauskas, A., & Robinson, K. (2012). Podcasts are not for everyone. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 321–330.
Ke, F., & Hsu, Y. (2015). Mobile augmented-reality artifact creation as a component of mobile computer-supported collaborative learning. The Internet and Higher
Education, 26, 33–41.
King, A. (2008). In vivo coding. In L. M. Given (Ed.). The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 473–474). London: Sage.
Kobus, B., Rietveld, P., & van Ommeren, J. (2015). Ownership versus on-campus use of mobile IT devices by university students. Computers & Education, 68, 29–41.
Lai, C. (2013). A framework for developing self-directed technology use for language learning. Language, Learning and Technology, 17(2), 100–122.
Lan, Y., Tsai, P., Yang, S., & Hung, C. (2012). Comparing the social knowledge construction behavioral patterns of problem-based online asynchronous discussion in e/
m-learning environments. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1122–1135.
Laurillard, D. (2007). Pedagogical forms for mobile learning: Framing research questions. In N. Pachler (Ed.). Mobile learning: Towards a research agenda (pp. 153–175).
London: W1.E Centre.
Lea, S., & Callaghan, L. (2011). Enhancing health and social care placement learning through mobile technology. Journal of Educational Technology and Science, 14(1),
135–145.
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., & Gøtzsche, P. C. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that
evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 65–94.
Liu, M., Scordino, R., Geurtz, R., Navarrete, C., Ko, Y., & Lim, M. (2014). A look at research on mobile learning in K-12 education from 2007 to the present. Journal of
Research on Technology on Education, 46(4), 325–372.
Martin, F., & Ertzberger, J. (2013). Here and now mobile learning: An experimental study on the use of mobile technology. Computers & Education, 68, 76–85.
Miyagawa, T., Yamagishi, Y., & Nizuno, S. (2013). Walk-rally support system using two-dimensional codes and mobile phones. Interactive e-Learning Environment,
21(2), 199–210.
Oakley, A. (2012). Foreword. In D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.). An introduction to systematic reviews (pp. vii–x). London: SAGE Publications.

63
H. Crompton, D. Burke Computers & Education 123 (2018) 53–64

Pew (2017). Mobile fact sheet. Retrieved January, 2017 from Pew Research Center http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/.
Pimmer, C., Mateescu, M., & Grohbiel, U. (2016). Mobile and ubiquitous learning in higher education settings: A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers in
Human Behavior, 63, 490–501.
Poushter, J. (2016). Smartphone ownership and Internet usage continues to climb in emerging economies. Retrieved January 2017 from http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/
02/22/smartphone-ownership-and-internet-usage-continues-to-climb-in-emerging-economies/.
Qun, W. (2015). Designing a Smartphone app to teach English. Computers and Education, 85, 170–179.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: Sage Publications.
Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. J., Leeman, J., & Crandlee, J. L. (2011). Mapping the mixed methods-Mixed research synthesis terrain. Journal of Mixed Methods Research,
6(4), 317–331.
Schrum, L. (2015). Technology as a tool to support instruction. Retrieved April 2, 2017 from http://www.educationworld.com/a_tech/tech/tech004.shtml.
Scutter, S., Stupans, I., Sawyer, T., & King, S. (2010). How do students use podcasts to support learning?. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(2),
180–191.
Servillano-Garcia, M., & Vazquez-Cano, E. (2015). The impact of digital mobile devices in higher education. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 18(1),
106–118.
Statista (2016). Share of mobile device owners worldwide from 2011 to 2016, by number of devices owned. Retrieved January, 2017 from https://www.statista.com/
statistics/245501/multiple-mobile-device-ownership-worldwide/.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sung, Y.-T., Chang, K.-E., & Liu, T.-C. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students' learning performance: A meta-analysis
and research synthesis. Computers & Education. 94, 252–275.
Sung, E., & Mayer, R. (2012). Students' beliefs about mobile devices vs. desktop computers in South Korea and the United States. Computers and Education, 59(4),
1328–1338.
Sun, G., & Shen, J. (2014). Facilitating social collaboration in mobile cloud-based learning: A teamwork as service approach. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies,
7(3), 207–220.
Taylor, L., & Clark, S. (2010). Educational design of short, audio-only podcasts: The teacher and student experience. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,
26(3), 386–399.
Traxler, J. (2010). Will student devices deliver innovation, inclusions, and transformation? Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technologies, 6(1), 3–15.
Ullrich, C., Shen, R., Tong, R., & Tan, X. (2010). Mobile live video learning system for large-scale learning system design and evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Learning
Technologies, 3(1), 6–17.
Uluyol, C., & Agca, R. (2012). Integrating mobile multimedia into textbooks: 2D barcodes. Computers and Education, 59(4), 1192–1198.
Viber, O., & Gronlund, A. (2013). Cross-cultural analysis of users' attitudes toward of the use of mobile devices in second and foreign language learning in higher
education: A case from Sweden and China. Computers and Education. 69, 169–180.
Wingkvist, A., & Ericsson, M. (2011). A survey of research methods and purposes in mobile learning. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 3(1), 1–17.
Wu, W. H., Wu, Y. C., Chen, C. Y., Kao, H. Y., Lin, C. H., & Huang, S. H. (2012). Review of trends from mobile learning studies: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education,
59(2), 817–827.

64