J Sci Educ Technol
DOI 10.1007/s10956-015-9597-x
The Use of Mobile Learning in Science: A Systematic Review
Helen Crompton1 • Diane Burke2 • Kristen H. Gregory1 • Catharina Gräbe1
Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
Abstract The use of mobile learning in education is
growing at an exponential rate. To best understand how
mobile learning is being used, it is crucial to gain a col-
lective understanding of the research that has taken place.
This systematic review reveals the trends in mobile learn-
ing in science with a comprehensive analysis and synthesis
of studies from the year 2000 onward. Major findings
include that most of the studies focused on designing
systems for mobile learning, followed by a combination of
evaluating the effects of mobile learning and investigating
the affective domain during mobile learning. The majority
of the studies were conducted in the area of life sciences in
informal, elementary (5–11 years) settings. Mobile devices
were used in this strand of science easily within informal
environments with real-world connections. A variety of
research methods were employed, providing a rich research
perspective. As the use of mobile learning continues to
grow, further research regarding the use of mobile tech-
nologies in all areas and levels of science learning will help
science educators to expand their ability to embrace these
technologies.
Keywords Mobile learning
Mobile devices
Science
education
Science pedagogy
Educational technology
& Helen Crompton
Crompton@odu.edu
1
Teaching and Learning, Old Dominion University,
145 Education Building, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA
2
Education Division, Keuka College, Keuka Park, NY 14478,
USA
Introduction
New technologies, specifically mobile devices, have the
potential to revolutionize science teaching and learning
(Metz 2014). Mobile learning provides new affordances to
the learner, such as learning that is personalized, contex-
tualized, and not hindered by temporal or environmental
constraints (Crompton 2013a). There has been a great
interest in the research community to investigate the ben-
efits of mobile learning in education (Ally and Prieto-
Blázquez 2014), and science is one subject area that has
benefited from that research.
Science is comprised of an interconnected network of
concepts and processes of inquiry, and the Next Generation
Science Standards (NGSS 2013) are requiring science
educators to rethink how science instruction is delivered,
calling for the integration of science content with the
practice of doing science. Researchers have studied the
utilization of mobile learning in science education; how-
ever, there has been no directed effort to collect and syn-
thesize these studies. Avaamidou (2008) indicates the need
for a comprehensive synthesis of research findings about
mobile learning in science education in order to better
understand the interactions between mobile technologies
and science education. Such an effort would allow
researchers to gain a better understanding of areas in which
research has already been conducted and allow them to
build upon this body of knowledge. This effort would also
enable science educators to advance the understanding of
the ways in which mobile learning is being used in science
education. This understanding would allow them to eval-
uate their own teaching in light of research regarding the
use of mobile technologies in science education and take
action to incorporate their new understanding into their
own practice.
123

The purpose of this study is to aggregate and explore
empirical evidence of the use of mobile learning as it
relates to science education. This is the first review to
provide a comprehensive collection of mobile learning and
science studies to initiate an evidence-based discussion on
mobile learning in science education.
Background
As the field of mobile learning has developed and devices
have advanced, there have been a number of ephemeral
definitions of mobile learning. Earlier definitions have
named a particular device which quickly becomes dated, or
they have been techno-centric. For example, in 2005,
Traxler defined mobile learning as ‘‘any educational pro-
vision where the sole or dominant technologies are hand-
held or palmtop devices.’’ In the past decade, technologies
have evolved beyond just handheld or palmtop devices.
Nonetheless, trends have emerged from these definitions
that highlight the four central constructs of mobile learning
as pedagogy, technological devices, context, and social
interactions (Crompton 2013a). Aligned to these con-
structs, Sharples et al. (2007) tentatively defined mobile
learning as ‘‘the processes of coming to know through
conversations across multiple contexts among people and
personal interactive technologies’’ (p. 224). This is the
definition selected for this article.
Determining which devices are included in m-learning
has also been a topic of debate among scholars (Traxler
2009). For this study, Crompton’s (2013b) criteria have
been used (see p. 48) to define what qualifies as a mobile
device. She proffers that the device must be portable and
incorporate a prompt on–off button. The latter is extremely
problematic with traditional laptops, as they take a while to
start and they are typically not left on standby mode to use
quickly. For this reason, laptops were not included as
mobile devices in this study.
As mobile learning is a relatively new field of study,
there is a paucity of studies that collectively review and
analyze mobile learning research. The major reviews of
mobile learning in education include a critical analysis of
mobile learning projects conducted by Frohberg et al.
(2009) as they focused on six criteria: context, control,
tools, communication, subject, and objective. Using a
framework to systematically analyze and position mobile
learning projects, Frohberg et al. reported screening 1469
publications to finally analyze 102 publications. They
found that although mobile devices were primarily for
communication, they found few connections to the research
regarding communication or collaboration and the majority
of the studies supported novice learners. Frohberg et al.
state that this may be the case because it is easy to teach
123
J Sci Educ Technol
something to novice learners on a level of factual knowl-
edge and that this new knowledge can be statistically
measured to prove the effectiveness of the teaching effort
scientifically.
Hung and Zhang (2012) conducted a study of mobile
learning research trends from 2003 to 2008. Text mining
techniques were used to provide basic bibliometric statis-
tics, trends in frequency of topics, predominance of topics
by country, and preference for each topic by journal. The
researchers found that (1) mobile learning articles
increased from eight in 2003 to 36 in 2008; (2) effective-
ness, evaluation, and personalized systems were the most
popular areas of study; and (3) Taiwan conducted the most
mobile learning studies.
Hwang and Tsai (2011) conducted a study of research
trends in mobile and ubiquitous learning from selected
journals from 2001 to 2010. They found the number of
articles published from 2005 to 2010 was nearly four times
that of from 2001 to 2005. The sample groups selected for
study ranked as follows: higher education (59), elementary
students (41), and high school students (17). Only a few
studies selected teachers (6) and working adults (6) as the
research sample. Their research found that most studies did
not involve any learning domain, but rather, they mainly
focused on investigation of motivation, perception, and
attitudes of students toward mobile learning. Contributing
countries numbered 23 with Taiwan having the highest
number of publications (51).
Liu et al. (2014) examined studies on mobile learning
in K-12 from 2007 to the present. They found in 63
studies from 15 refereed journals that research was pri-
marily exploratory in nature and focused on understanding
the educational affordances of using mobile devices in
instructional practices. A survey of 114 papers from
mLearn 2005, 2007, and 2008 conducted by Wingkvist
and Ericcson (2011) investigated and compared the
research methods and research purposes of these papers.
The papers reviewed were evenly distributed among the
research methods investigated, with one exception. There
were few papers using basic research, which would allow
the researcher to study problems to which methods or
possible solutions have yet to be identified. In terms of
research purposes, papers that describe research were well
represented, but there was a lack of papers targeting
evaluation. These authors stated that a challenge for
mobile learning research is to stop, turn around, and
reflect over the research results in order to avoid already
known pitfalls. They also stated that a head start is given
if research is built on previous research instead of rein-
venting the wheel every time a new mobile learning ini-
tiative begins. However, they caution that much of the
research being conducted describes how the real world
works and is often presented as the result of a small-scale
J Sci Educ Technol
study. This calls into question the generalizability of the
research.
The preceding studies have provided a big picture look
at how mobile learning is occurring in education. However,
these studies do not provide any valuable insights into
specific content areas.
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to conduct a systematic review
of mobile learning as it relates to science education. The
researchers systematically reviewed the literature as a way
of summarizing the research evidence to gain an under-
standing of the breadth, purpose, and extent of the research
activity in the use of mobile learning in science. This will
provide a comprehensive and trustworthy picture of the
topic being studied (Oakley 2012). In addition to aggre-
gating the findings, this study is a configurational review
(Sandelowski et al. 2011) and this means that once the
initial data are gathered (e.g., number of studies using
surveys), then these data are studied further and cross-
referenced to look for trends (e.g., those studies involving
high school students had positive results in chemistry but
not in biology).
The findings of this study could provide the head start
suggested by Wingkvist and Ericcson (2011) upon which
future research is based regarding studies of mobile
learning in science. This study is also beneficial to
researchers, funders, educational leaders, policy makers,
and other stakeholders as the current studies of mobile
learning in science are explained and clarified. The results
can help in making decisions about how to allocate nec-
essary resources and help in making plans to support fur-
ther research and applications.
Three questions are used to drive this systematic review
of mobile learning in science:
1. In studies involving mobile learning and science, what
were the major research purposes, methodologies, and
outcomes?
2. In studies involving mobile learning and science, what
were the science concepts, educational levels, and
educational contexts?
3. In studies involving mobile learning and science, what
were the mobile devices used and the geographical
distribution of the studies?
Materials and Methods
In this study, the researchers conducted a systematic review
to provide an unbiased synthesis and interpretation of the
findings in a balanced and impartial way (Hemingway and
Brereton 2009). A systematic review is the art and science
of identifying, selecting, and synthesizing primary research
studies to provide a comprehensive and trustworthy picture
of the topic being studied (Oakley 2012). The researchers
used aggregated quantitative data and qualitative coding to
analyze and interpret the results further.
Search Strategy
The search was based on established PRISMA (Liberati
et al. 2009) principles. The literature search was conducted
using both an electronic search of databases and manual
searches of specific journals to ensure a more exhaustive
scope. Only peer-reviewed articles published in academic
journals were included to ensure a level of quality provided
in the peer review publication process. These articles were
retrieved from an electronic search of educational data-
bases ERIC, EBSCOHOST, ProQuest, Wiley International
Science, Elsevier Direct, JSTOR, and Sage Journal Online.
Manual searches were conducted in journals that include a
focus on mobile learning, specifically the International
Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, ELEED,
Journal of Mobile Teaching, IEEE, and the International
Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning.
In both the electronic and manual searches, the follow-
ing search terms were used: ‘‘science,’’ with ‘‘mobile
learning,’’ ‘‘m-learning,’’ ‘‘hand-held,’’ ‘‘tablets,’’ ‘‘iPad,’’
‘‘ubiquitous learning,’’ ‘‘wireless learning,’’ ‘‘location-
aware,’’ ‘‘context-aware,’’ ‘‘situated learning,’’ ‘‘game-
based learning,’’ and ‘‘digital learning.’’ These search
terms were used as they are the terms most frequently used
when describing mobile learning.
Study Selection
The initial search without data parameters resulted in 1532
articles. This large number uncovered that the search terms
were being interpreted broadly by the search engines. A
review of the articles revealed that the changing meaning
of terms over time resulted in inaccurate findings. To
ensure that the search was revealing studies that related to
the current use of mobile devices, the dates of the search
were reduced by decade until articles that related to the
current use of mobile devices appeared in the search. This
resulted in the decision to include studies from 2000
onwards.
Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
The inclusion and exclusion criteria can be found in
Table 1. To be included in this systematic review, each
study had to meet all of the inclusion and exclusion
criteria.
123

Table 1 Inclusion and
Inclusion criteria
exclusion criteria
Learners use mobile devices
Science is a primary focus
Mobile devices are used for learning
Article is available to the public
Article is peer-reviewed and published in a journal
After removing duplicates, articles that did not meet the
initial criteria to include mobile learning and science, or
articles that were not peer-reviewed or research-based, 66
studies remained. Each of the articles was checked against the
inclusion and exclusion criteria by two independent
researchers. The inter-rater coding agreement was 96 %.
Articles in dispute were discussed, further reviewed, and
either accepted or removed. A total of 49 articles met all of the
criteria listed in Table 1. A diagrammatic representation of
the literature search and review process can be seen in Fig. 1.
Analysis Framework
The research questions framed the eight features that were
selected for analysis: (1) research purpose, (2) research
Fig. 1 A diagrammatic
representation of the literature
search and review process
123
J Sci Educ Technol
Exclusion criteria
The mobile device must not be a laptop
The mobile device must not be Netbooks
methodology, (3) learning outcomes (e.g., positive, nega-
tive, neither, and other), (4) science concepts based on the
Next Generation Science Standards (2013), (5) educational
levels (e.g., pre-k (2–4 years old), elementary (5–11 years
old), middle (11–14 years old), high school (14–18 years
old), higher education (18? years old), and special edu-
cation), (6) educational context (e.g., formal, informal, and
nonformal), (7) mobile devices (e.g., mobile phones,
tablets), and (8) countries of study.
The research purposes were classified as one of two
types: (1) student dominant with mobile system minor, and
(2) mobile system dominant with student minor. Type one
focused on student and then the mobile system (e.g., the
researcher wants to focus on the student and see how the
system/device influences learning). Type two focused on
J Sci Educ Technol
the system/device before the student (e.g., the development
of a mobile application).
The learning outcomes were coded as positive, negative,
neutral, and other. Studies were coded positive for
improved student learning, neutral for findings that pri-
marily did not have a positive or negative impact on stu-
dent learning, and negative if students’ learning was
lessened due to using a mobile device. The other code was
assigned if the results did not focus on student learning. For
example, the development of guidelines would be coded as
other.
The educational contexts of the studies were coded
following Crompton’s (2013a) categories of educational
context: formal, nonformal, and informal. Formal is
intended learning in a typical educational setting (e.g., a
taught class in a school), nonformal is nonintended learning
(e.g., determining sale percentages in a shop), and informal
learning is intended learning in an atypical setting (Na-
tional Research Council 2009; e.g., a lesson taking place in
a playground).
Coding
Once the initial aggregation was completed, open coding
was conducted to further explore some details of the
aggregative review. Open coding in systematic reviews
and primary research is somewhat different. The open
coding in this systematic review had the researchers
interpreting both the participant data and author analysis
to provide third-order constructs (Britten et al. 2002).
The researchers focused the coding on areas that stood
out in the aggregative review that would benefit from
more detailed analysis. In this study, the informal con-
texts and the positive outcomes were coded. Sandelowski
et al. (2011) postulated that researchers need to be
careful to ensure that the context and original meaning of
the raw data are preserved when conducting a secondary
analysis. To this end, the coding was conducted by the
two primary researchers where the code names and
placement of the studies were first determined individu-
ally and then through discussion until a consensus was
met.
Results
Research Question One: What were the Major
Research Purposes, Methods, and Outcomes?
Research Purposes
The studies were first sorted as Type one (student domi-
nant with mobile system minor) or Type two (mobile
system dominant with student minor). As the researchers
analyzed the studies to place them into the two categories,
two distinct subsets appeared in Type one studies: eval-
uating the effects of mobile learning and investigating the
affective domain during mobile learning. As a result, each
of the studies was classified into one of three categories
aligned to the research purpose: (1) evaluating the effects
of mobile learning, (2) investigating the affective domain
during mobile learning, or (3) designing a mobile system
for learning. These are presented in Fig. 2. The results
show that designing a mobile system for learning was the
most common research purpose (51 %), followed by a
combination of evaluating the effects of mobile learning
and investigating the affective domain during mobile
learning (29 %). Evaluating the effects of mobile learning
was the third research purpose (16 %), and last was
investigating the affective domain during mobile learning
(4 %).
Research focusing on the mobile system with a minor
focus on the student accounted for 51 % of the studies, and
research with students as the dominant focus and the
mobile system as minor focus accounted for 49 % of the
studies.
Research Methods
As shown in Table 2, the researchers identified that for
purpose one (evaluating the effects of mobile learning),
researchers primarily relied on case studies. For
research purpose two (investigating the affective
domain during mobile learning), there was no dominant
methodology. Mixed methods and quasi-experimental
design were the dominant methodologies for studies that
combined research purposes one and two. Case studies
and mixed methods dominated the methodology for
research purpose three (designing a system for mobile
learning)
Evaluating the effects
of mobile learning
16%
29% Investigating the
4% affective domain
during mobile learning
Designing a system for
learning
Evaluating the effects
51%
and investigating the
affective domain
Fig. 2 Mobile learning studies by research purposes
123
 J Sci Educ Technol

Table 2 Study methodology

Student dominant with mobile system minor Mobile system dominant with student minor
Purpose 1 Purpose 2 Purposes 1 and 2 Purpose 3

Case study (3) Case study (1) Mixed methods (5) Case study (6)
Quantitative (2) Mixed methods (1) Pre-/posttest (5) Mixed methods (5)
Quasi-experimental (1) Questionnaire (5) Pre-/posttest (5)
Experimental (1) Interview (5) Questionnaire (3)
Qualitative (2) Quasi-experimental (5) Interview (2)
Mixed methods (1) Pre-/posttest (5) Observation (2)
Quantitative (3) Questionnaire (2)
Case study (1) Observation (2)
Survey (2)
Interview (2)

Research Outcomes displays the science concepts with the educational level of
the students.
All studies reported positive learning outcomes regardless
of the research purpose. Educational Levels

Research Question Two: What are the Science
Concepts, Educational Levels, and Educational
Contexts?
Science Concepts
Life science was the area of science in which the majority
of the studies were conducted (67 %). Nonspecified con-
tent areas were the next highest with 10 % of the studies.
Multidisciplinary content comprised 8 % of the studies.
Earth science and physical science each had 6 % of the
studies. Chemistry totaled 2 % of the studies. Figure 3
Elementary schools were the most common setting for the
research studies (53 %), followed by high schools (22 %).
Middle schools (12 %) and higher education (13 %) were
the remaining settings. Four percent of the studies took
place in multiple settings, and no studies reported pre-k or
special education settings. A diagrammatic presentation of
these results can be found in Fig. 3.
Types of Educational Contexts
Figure 4 reveals that the majority of the studies took place
in an informal educational context (51 %). Formal setting
accounted for 37 % of the educational contexts, and 12 %
of the studies took place in a combination of both formal
and informal settings. No studies were conducted in non-
formal contexts.
Studying the life sciences in informal settings consti-
tuted 84 % of the studies. Multiple subjects were studied in

Fig. 3 Science concepts and educational level of students Fig. 4 Types of educational context

123
J Sci Educ Technol
10 % of the informal settings. The study of physical sci-
ences and earth and space sciences took place in 3 % of the
informal settings. No chemistry studies were conducted in
informal settings. These figures can be seen in Fig. 5.
The informal contexts for the studies were reviewed
in-depth as to the types of informal environments that
were used in the study. In this configurative systematic
review, there were 33 studies that included informal
environments. Some of the studies included more than
one context, but the focus of this part of the analysis was
solely on the informal environments. Using in vivo (King
2008) coding, the codes selected aligned to the termi-
nology used by the researchers in the primary studies. A
total of 21 in vivo codes were developed, and then, six
final axial codes were developed: museums, science-fo-
cused outdoor locations, real-world locations, science
activities, club meetings, and other. Figure 6 displays the
21 in vivo codes and how they were reduced into six axial
codes.
Research Question Three: What were the Types
of Mobile Devices and Geographical Distribution
of Studies?
Types of Mobile Devices
Mobile phones and PDAs were reported as the most fre-
quently used mobile device (30 % each). Mobile devices in
general (15 %) were next in frequency, followed by digital
cameras (9 %) and iPads (5 %). Handhelds, tablets, and
iTouches (4 % each) comprised the remainder. This
information can be seen in Fig. 6. The terms used to
describe the type of mobile device were those used by the
specific research studies (Fig. 7).
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Physical Earth and Life Science Chemistry
science Space
Science
Fig. 5 Subject studied in informal contexts
Countries of Study
Taiwan was the country with the highest number of studies
(43 %), followed by the USA (16 %), the UK (8 %), Sin-
gapore (8 %), Sri Lanka (6 %), and Finland (3 %). Canada,
Chile, Cyprus, Hong Kong, Malaysia, New Zealand, and
Tasmania each had one study. Thirteen countries and four
continents were represented by the research.
Discussion
This systematic review provides a valuable synthesis of
studies on mobile learning in science providing under-
standing of the breadth, purpose, and extent of the research
activity in this area. This synthesis provides a place for
future researchers to reference and build upon as they add
to the knowledge regarding mobile learning and science.
Science educators can find this synthesis a valuable
resource regarding how mobile learning has been inte-
grated into science classrooms. They can use this knowl-
edge to replicate or expand mobile learning practices in
their own classrooms. In the following section, each
research question is delineated with an analysis of the
results.
Research Question One: What were the Major
Research Purposes, Methods, and Outcomes?
Emphasis on research methods and purposes is important
as these decide how research results are used and inter-
preted. Making methods and purposes explicit is also
important because they help a research community to be
built and allow this community to formally share results
and facilitate knowledge transfer (Wingkvist and Ericcson
2011). In the studies conducted by Wu et al. (2012) and
Vogel et al. (2006), evaluating the effectiveness of mobile
learning was found to be the primary research purpose. In
contrast, of the 49 studies reviewed in this research, 51 %
of the researchers stated that designing a mobile system for
learning was the most common research purpose. As the
use of mobile devices as a pedagogical tool is relatively
new, a large number of systems for using these devices for
science instruction do not exist. In addition, the systems
that do exist are not widely disseminated. Therefore, it is
not unusual that researchers looking to explore the use of
mobile devices in the teaching of science would focus their
efforts on developing systems for learning.
Multiple One example of this intent to create a mobile system for
learning in teaching science can be seen in the study by
Dekhane and Tsoi (2012). In helping college students reach
the goal of learning about functional groups in organic
123

Fig. 6 Coding of the informal
contexts
chemistry, they created a mobile app that would provide
multiple opportunities for students to learn functional
groups in a purposeful way that incorporated several
learning theories. By designing the application and
selecting examples to address the common errors and areas
of misconceptions students have in learning this topic, they
123
J Sci Educ Technol
hoped to help students increase their conceptual under-
standing of functional groups in organic chemistry.
The other research purpose focused on evaluating the
effects of the use of mobile devices on student learning
and/or investigating the affective domain during mobile
learning. Although designing a mobile system for learning
J Sci Educ Technol
18
16
14
12
10
8 provide a way of summarizing the research evidence to
6 gain an understanding of the breadth purpose and extent of
4 the research activity in the use of mobile learning in sci-
2 ence research. As researchers, we recommend that this
0
Fig. 7 Types of mobile devices
is the first step in incorporating the use of mobile devices in
science learning, evaluating the impact of the use of mobile
devices is a necessary subsequent step. Therefore, it is
important to note that almost half of the studies focused on
this purpose. One example of a study that evaluated both
the effects of mobile devices on student learning and the
affective domain is the research conducted by Hsiao et al.
(2010). To evaluate the effects on student learning in an
ecology study, they used pre- and posttests with a control
and experimental group. To investigate the affective
domain, the experimental group completed a questionnaire
regarding their experience. The fact that researchers are
embracing a variety of research purposes will help to
ensure that studies in the use of mobile devices in science
education provide multiple and diverse perspectives. This
robust look at the use of mobile devices will help to inform
both researchers and practitioners about possibilities in this
area.
In this systematic review, mixed methods studies were
identified as the primary research method (12) followed by
case studies (10). The findings reveal a wide variance
across the research methodologies. Of the 49 studies, only
five were listed as solely quantitative. The large spread
across the research methodologies indicates a desire of the
researchers to gain a more robust picture of the use of
mobile learning in science. Multiple methodologies pro-
vide both numerical and qualitative insights into the
nuances of pedagogies and practices of mobile learning in
this subject. Wingkvist and Ericcson (2011) in their study
of the proceedings of mLearn 2005, 2007, and 2008
identified case studies as the most commonly used research
method (22 %). However, they also found the use of seven
research methods investigating the use of mobile learning.
All of the researchers reported positive learning out-
comes of their research. There are a number of words of
caution that need to be stated here. First, it can be argued
that less research is published with a negative outcome than
those that are positive. More importantly, however, is the
need to evaluate the quality of the research studies to
determine the rigor of the validity and reliability of the
research being done. It was beyond the scope of this sys-
tematic review to do so. The purpose of this study was to
could be a future avenue of study that would add value to
the research. Research areas to analyze could include
sample size, comparisons between mobile learning and
other learning methodologies, and different student
populations.
Research Question Two: What were the Science
Concepts, Educational Levels, and Educational
Contexts?
Although all of the major science concepts were repre-
sented in the research, life science was by far the most
common area of research (67 %). Of the studies that
identified the subject areas, 6 % were either physical sci-
ence or earth and space science, and only 2 % were
chemistry. Additionally, 53 % of the studies took place in
elementary schools. This fact could help to explain the
preponderance of life sciences as the major area of study,
as this is often the most common area of science taught in
elementary schools. It may be that the researchers are
exploiting the mobility of the devices to extend pedagogies
to learning about life science outside the classroom with
the assistance of technology.
Many of these life science studies go beyond typical
field trips. For example, in one study (viz., Hung et al.
2012), the students visited a Mangrove conservation center
and instead of being tethered to the class teacher. These
students could work at their own pace as they were guided
around the center by the mobile program that provided
tasks, instant feedback, and an e-library with information
about the mangrove wetland ecological systems. The stu-
dents also used the e-diary feature and the e-notebook to
keep additional notes. Although the use of mobile devices
may be more easily connected to the study of life science,
teachers of other areas in science can use these life science
applications as catalysts for ideas about how to use mobile
devices to help students learn science. Mobile devices may
have unique affordances in other areas of science and could
be explored further.
One of the purposes of this systematic review was to
investigate the context where the studies took place. Tra-
ditional teaching is typically conducted inside a classroom.
However, Tucker-Raymond et al. (2013) state that when
students are offered the opportunity to participate in hands-
123

on science activities in informal and authentic environ-
ments, they develop not only an understanding of scientific
concepts, but also varied and rich conceptions of science as
a practice. The development of mobile devices provides
technologies that can be used to expand the study of sci-
ence beyond the classroom walls. In this study of the use of
mobile technologies, indeed, 63 % of the studies did take
place in either informal or a combination of formal and
informal settings. This finding indicates that researchers are
embracing the portability and possibilities afforded by the
mobile technologies.
The majority of the informal settings involved the area
of life science (84 %). Of particular interest to the
researchers of this study was the variety of informal con-
texts in which the research took place. In total, 21 different
informal places provided students with the chance to study
science using mobile technologies. For example, Chen
et al. (2014) and Chu et al. (2010) took advantage of spaces
on their school grounds. In other studies (viz. Chen et al.
2005; Hsieh et al. 2011; Hwang et al. 2010; Peng et al.
2009), a butterfly garden was the identified learning space.
Real-world locations such as a fish market (Song 2014) and
a farm (Song et al. 2012) provided opportunities for stu-
dents to engage in authentic science activities.
Learning in the real world is a natural space for science.
The portability of mobile devices makes this opportunity a
distinct possibility. The results of this systematic review
indicate that there are a number of different contexts in
which mobile learning took place. Both researchers and
educators can access the data from this review as a base
upon which to further explore the use of mobile tech-
nologies in science.
Research Question Three: What were the Types
of Mobile Devices and Geographical Distribution
of Studies?
In evaluating the type of device used in the studies, it was
interesting to note that specific types of devices were rarely
identified. iPads and iTouches accounted for only 9 % of
the identified devices. The remainder of the studies identi-
fied their devices as PDAs, mobile devices, cell phones,
handhelds, and tablets. As mobile devices have become
increasingly multifunctional and ubiquitous, it appears that
the type of device is not as important as the access to having
one. As no specific type of device was identified as the most
used this indicates that those interested in doing future
research regarding the use of mobile technologies need not
focus on the specific type of mobile device, but rather on the
multifunctionality and accessibility of the device. The
results from this systematic review indicate that the type of
device is not important, but rather that students are using a
123
J Sci Educ Technol
mobile device. The lack of importance regarding a specific
device means that various devices can be used, and it may
help support the emerging practice of BYOD (Bring Your
Own Device) programs (Johnson et al. 2014), but more
research is needed with BYOD studies to confirm this.
A recent UNESCO publication shows that mobile
devices are being used across the globe, providing access to
those who were previously unable to access educational
opportunities in developing countries and also extending
the opportunities of those in developed locations (Cromp-
ton and Traxler in press). This study substantiated this
access as the research on the use of mobile devices took
place in thirteen different countries on four continents. This
use of mobile technologies in a wide variety of cultures and
environments provides the opportunity for a rich database
for further research. This finding indicates that there is an
interest on a global level regarding the use of mobile
technologies in science education. Opportunities for
researchers to share their research across countries and
cultures would enrich the academic understanding in dif-
ferent contexts. In a more in-depth analysis of the study
countries, of particular interest was that 21 of the 49 studies
took place in Taiwan. Further investigation showed that
first authorship was limited to 11 primary researchers who
are exploring the use of mobiles in science in Taiwan.
Taiwan has one of the most advanced telecommunication
networks in Asia and government policies in support of
mobile learning research funding (Kismihók 2007). This
may have supported the 11 researchers beyond that pro-
vided in other countries.
Identified Gaps and Future Research
Four gaps in the research were identified in this systematic
review. First, from the year 2000, only 49 studies have
been published in peer-reviewed journals on the topic of
mobile learning in science. More research is needed in this
area. Second, the majority of the studies took place in
elementary schools. Thus, there is a need for more research
at other educational levels. Third, in this research, positive
outcomes were identified in all of the studies. Negative
outcomes need to be reported so that researchers, practi-
tioners, and other stakeholders do not repeat failed efforts.
When researchers discuss negative outcomes, they help to
inform practice. Fourth, from the studies reviewed, the
majority of the researchers focused on life science. To
extend the understanding in the use of mobile devices in
science, it would be beneficial for researchers to also focus
on other areas of science.
Future research should focus on the identified gaps in
the study. It was beyond the scope of this study to inves-
tigate the validity and reliability of the research studies.
However, it is important that future researchers investigate
J Sci Educ Technol
these aspects. In addition, researchers could conduct true
experimental research which would provide data and evi-
dence about the impact of the use of mobile learning in
science. This could lead to be a better understanding of the
causality of the use of the mobile devices and provide more
generalizability of the research results. In addition,
research endeavors could also explore the best approaches
for using mobile learning in science.
Limitations
A systematic review of the literature is always a snapshot
of the field at one particular time. Although the search of
the literature was a rigorous process, articles may have
been overlooked. The study was also limited in that the
researchers only reviewed studies published in English.
Another limitation for this study is the way the learning
outcomes were evaluated and reported. There was no
consistent standard of measurement for what constituted a
positive outcome. Thus, it is difficult to draw conclusions
based on the reported outcomes.
Conclusion
This systematic review provides eight new findings that
have emerged in response to the three research questions:
(1) The most common research purpose for the studies on
mobile learning in science was designing a mobile system
for learning, followed by a combination of evaluating the
effects of mobile learning and investigating the affective
domain during mobile learning; (2) case studies, mixed
methods, and quasi-experimental design were the most
adopted research methods by researchers of mobile learn-
ing in science; (3) all studies of mobile learning in science
reported positive outcomes; (4) the majority of studies of
mobile learning were conducted in the area of life science;
(5) most of the studies on the use of mobile devices for
science learning took place in elementary school settings;
(6) the majority of the studies occurred in an informal
educational context; (7) the variety of the devices used
indicated that the device type was not important; and (8)
while research was conducted in thirteen countries, the
majority of the studies on mobile learning in science were
conducted in Taiwan.
Looking at the findings holistically, the researchers
discovered that there is an interest in using mobile devices
to learn science. This research interest is particularly
developed in the life sciences and within informal contexts.
The scientific concepts studied in life science are primarily
about living organisms that are found outside the class-
room. With the portability of mobile devices, these
concepts can now be explored in multiple settings; they are
not confined to classroom study. This study did identify
positive use of mobile devices in all areas of science,
indicating that there is value in embracing these tech-
nologies to support all science learners. As the accessibility
and use of mobile devices grow in schools, it will be
important for research in this area to continue so that the
value and affordances provided by mobile learning can be
evaluated and shared with others.
References
Ally M, Prieto-Blázquez J (2014) What is the future of mobile
learning in education? Mob Learn Appl High Educ (Spec Sect)
11(1):142–151
Avaamidou L (2008) Prospects for the use of mobile technologies in
science education. AACE J 16(3):347–365
Britten N, Campbell R, Pope C, Donovan J, Morgan M, Pill R (2002)
Using meta ethnography to synthesis qualitative research: a
worked example. J Health Serv Res Policy 7(4):209–215
Chen Y-S, Kwo T-C, Sheu J-P (2005) Realizing outdoor independent
learning with a butterfly-watching mobile learning system.
J Educ Comput Res 33(4):395–417
Chen C-H, Hwang G-J, Tsai C-H (2014) A progressive prompting
approach to conducting context-aware learning activities for
natural science courses. Interact Comput 26(4):348–359
Chu H-C, Hwang G-J, Tsai C-C (2010) A knowledge engineering
approach to developing mindtools for context-aware ubiquitous
learning. Comput Educ 54(1):289–297
Crompton H (2013a) A historical overview of mobile learning:
toward learner-centered education. In: Berge ZL, Muilenburg
LY (eds) Handbook of mobile learning. Routledge, Florence,
pp 3–14
Crompton H (2013b) Mobile learning: new approach, new theory. In:
Berge ZL, Muilenburg LY (eds) Handbook of mobile learning.
Routledge, Florence, pp 47–57
Crompton H, Traxler J (in press) Mobile learning in development
contexts: policy and research. United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris
Dekhane S, Tsoi MY (2012) Designing a mobile application for
conceptual understanding: integrating learning theory with
organic chemistry learning needs. Int J Mob Blended Learn
4(3):34–52
Frohberg D, Göth C, Schwabe G (2009) Mobile learning projects—a
critical analysis of the state of the art. J Comput Assist Learn
25(4):307–331
Hemingway P, Brereton N (2009) In: Hayward Medical Group (ed)
What is a systematic review? [Article]. http://www.medicine.
ox.ac.uk/bandolier/painres/download/whatis/syst-review.pdf.
Retrieved 24 Oct 2014
Hsiao H-S, Lin C-C, Feng R-T, Li KJ (2010) Location based services
for outdoor ecological learning system: design and implemen-
tation. J Educ Technol Soc 13(4):98–111
Hsieh S-W, Jang Y-R, Hwang G-J, Chen N-S (2011) Effects of
teaching and learning styles on students’ reflection levels for
ubiquitous learning. Comput Educ 57(1):1194–1201
Hung JL, Zhang K (2012) Examining mobile learning trends
2003–2008: a categorical meta-trend analysis using text mining
techniques. J Comput High Educ 24(1):1–17
Hung Pi-Hsia, Hwang Gwo-Jen, Su I-H, Lin I-H (2012) A concept-
map integrated dynamic assessment system for improving
123

ecology observation competences in mobile learning. Turk
Online J Educ Technol 11(1):10–19
Hwang GJ, Tsai CC (2011) Research trends in mobile and ubiquitous
learning: a review of publication in selected journals from 2001
to 2010. Br J Educ Technol 42(4):E65–E70
Hwang G-J, Chu H-C, Shih J-L, Huang S-H, Tsai C-C (2010) A
decision-tree-oriented guidance mechanism for conducting
nature science observation activities in a context-aware ubiqui-
tous learning environment. Educ Technol Soc 13(2):53–64
Johnson L, Adams Becker S, Estrada V, Freeman A (2014) NMC
Horizon Report: 2014:k-12 Edition. The New Media Consor-
tium, Austin
King A (2008) In vivo coding. In: Given LM (ed) The SAGE
encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. SAGE, London,
pp 473–474
Kismihók G (2007) The role of mobile learning in European
education: mobile learning country report Taiwan. In: Dias A,
Keegan D, Kismihokp G, Mileva N, Rekkedal T (eds) Achieve-
ments of mobile learning today. Exact, Dublin, Ireland,
pp 143–163
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC et al
(2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews
and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interven-
tions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 151(4):65–94
Liu M, Scordiono 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. J Res Technol Educ 46(4):325–372
Metz S (2014) Science teaching and learning in the 21st century. Sci
Teach 81(6):3–4
National Research Council (2009) Learning science in informal
environments: people, places, and pursuits. The National
Academies Press, Washington
Next Generation Science Standards (2013) How to read the
Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). http://www.
123
J Sci Educ Technol
nextgenscience.org/sites/ngss/files/How%20to%20Read%20
NGSS%20-%20Final%2008.19.13.pdf
Oakley A (2012) Foreword. In: Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J (eds)
An introduction to systematic reviews. SAGE, London, pp vii–x
Peng H, Chuang P-Y, Hwang G-J, Chu H-C, Wu T-T, Huang S-X
(2009) Ubiquitous Performance-Support System as mindtool: a
case study of instructional decision making and learning
assistant. J Educ Technol Soc 12(1):107–120
Sandelowski M, Voils CJ, Leeman J, Crandlee JL (2011) Mapping the
mixed methods—mixed research synthesis terrain. J Mixed
Methods Res 6(4):317–331
Sharples M, Taylor J, Vavoula G (2007) A theory of learning for the
mobile age. In: Andrews R, Haythornthwaite C (eds) The Sage
handbook of elearning research. Sage, London, pp 221–247
Song Y (2014) ‘‘Bring Your Own Device (BYOD)’’ for seamless
science inquiry in a primary school. Comput Educ 74:50–60
Song Y, Wong L-H, Looi C-K (2012) Fostering personalized learning
in science inquiry supported by mobile technologies. Educ
Technol Res Dev 60(4):679–701
Traxler J (2009) Learning in a mobile age. Int J Mob Blended Learn
1(1):1–12
Tucker-Raymond E, Varelas M, Pappas CC (2013) Children’s
conceptions of being scientists. In: Varelas M, Pappas CC
(eds) Children’s ways with science and literacy: integrated
multimodal enactments in urban elementary classrooms. Rout-
ledge, New York, pp 186–209
Vogel JJ, Vogel DS, Canon-Bowers CA, Muse K, Wright M (2006)
Computer gaming and interactive simulation for learning: a
meta-analysis. Educ Comput Res 34(3):243–299
Wingkvist A, Ericcson M (2011) A survey of research methods and
purposes in mobile learning. Int J Mob Blended Learn 3(1):1–17
Wu WH, Wu YC, Chen CY, Kao HY, Lin CH, Huang SH (2012)
Review of trends from mobile learning studies: a meta-analysis.
Comput Educ 59(2):817–827