Educational Review

ISSN: 0013-1911 (Print) 1465-3397 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedr20

Mobile English Language Learning (MELL): a

literature review

Monther M. Elaish, Liyana Shuib, Norjihan Abdul Ghani & Elaheh

Yadegaridehkordi

To cite this article: Monther M. Elaish, Liyana Shuib, Norjihan Abdul Ghani & Elaheh
Yadegaridehkordi (2017): Mobile English Language Learning (MELL): a literature review,
Educational Review, DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2017.1382445

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2017.1382445

Published online: 17 Nov 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 8

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cedr20

Download by: [University of Florida] Date: 20 November 2017, At: 22:11

 Educational Review, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2017.1382445

Mobile English Language Learning (MELL): a literature review

Monther M. Elaisha,b, Liyana Shuiba  , Norjihan Abdul Ghania and
Elaheh Yadegaridehkordic
a
Department of Information Systems, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University
of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; bDepartment of Computer Science, Faculty of Information Technology,
University of Benghazi, Benghazi, Libya; cDepartment of Software Engineering, Faculty of Computer Science
and Information Technology, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 22:11 20 November 2017

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

English has increasingly become an essential second language as well Received 13 March 2017
as a language for international communication. However, there is little Accepted 18 September 2017
research that examines the dimensions of mobile learning for both
KEYWORDS
researchers and instructional designers and focuses on effective uses Mobile learning; English
of the latest mobile learning technologies for education. There have language learning; literature
been no reviews of research on mobile English learning. This paper review; trends
aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the research on Mobile
English Language Learning (MELL) material to initiate an evidence-
based discussion on the usage of mobile learning in English language
education. Findings from existing literature show that studying and
reviewing mobile learning leads to a deeper understanding of its
effect and possibilities with respect to learning the English language.
Additionally, findings also indicate that when it comes to English
language skills, vocabulary is the most-used skill, and the most
common problem that studies mention is that of motivation. Further
studies need to investigate other terms and keywords that reflect on
the use of mobile learning.

Introduction
Communication in English is recognised as an essential competency in the twenty-first cen-
tury (Luo et al. 2015) as it has increasingly become an essential second language as well as
the language of international communication (Kuo, Chu, and Huang 2015). In the meantime,
owing to the importance of the English language in non-native English countries, using
modern tools to support learners in learning English has become critical (Chen and Chung
2008). Therefore, many learners around the world have started learning English, and some
use it more often than their native language. Furthermore, most countries have recognised
its importance and power in developing education, and have addressed this as the primary
aspect of their planning and strategy (Cheng 2013). Meanwhile, important changes in the
economies of many developing countries have led policy-makers to rethink the importance
of teaching a foreign language, particularly English, in schools (Chakraborty and Bakshi

CONTACT  Monther M. Elaish  m_el81@siswa.um.edu.my; Liyana Shuib  liyanashuib@um.edu.my

© 2017 Educational Review
 2   M. M. ELAISH ET AL.

2016). The extent and quality of English Medium Instruction (EMI) courses are increasingly
important indicators of the internationalisation and competitiveness of higher education
throughout the world (Chan, 2013; Ma 2014). The English language is now the primary
medium in various fields such as medicine, publication and conference negotiations (Ingram
and Sasak 2003). Most research papers are written and published in English, and it is the
most commonly used language in the education and academic fields (Swales 1987; Genç
and Bada 2010; Zuhair 2015).
Learners face many problems while trying to learn English as a second or foreign language.
These include motivation (Sandberg, Maris, and Hoogendoorn 2014); difficulty of language
(Luster 2011); culture (Thang et al. 2012); teaching style (Wong and Looi 2010); lacking, poor
or difficult to use equipment, tools, software or technology (Luo 2014); lack of or need for
reports, reviews, discussion or research (Hsu 2013); and problems that are classified as
“Others” such as the possible effect of a learner’s gender on learning English as a Foreign
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 22:11 20 November 2017

Language (EFL) (Khazaie and Hayati 2013).

The advancement of Information Technology (IT) has revolutionised the business practices
and strategies of entire industries, especially higher education policy and performance (John
2015). Tremendous growth in technology is providing space and locations for language
learning as well (Lee, Yeung, and Ip 2016). Given the impact of IT on our lives and the advan-
tages that it affords the human community daily, it can be used to learn the English language.
Computers and other tools have been useful supporting tools for English as a Second
Language (ESL) learners (Nomass 2013). Mobile devices have also gradually been introduced
into the educational context over the past two decades (Shuib, Shamshirband, and Ismail
2015; Sung, Chang, and Yang 2015). Many students are now familiar with using personally
owned, portable digital devices that have the ability to connect wirelessly and are “always
on” (Selwyn and Bulfin 2016). In the meantime, mobile technology has helped students carry
their own personal small computers that contain exceptional computing power, such as
laptops, Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs), tablets, cell phones and e-book readers. Mobile
Learning (m-learning) allows people to learn across contexts and without being restricted
by location (Lam, Yau, and Cheung 2010).
M-learning has the ability to help learners get information, and creates an environment
which supports learners with various resources while they are on the move and during any
time of the day (Han et al. 2010). However, the term “mobility” refers not only to people
travelling, but also to human interactions. From this viewpoint, mobility is considered to be
three interconnected dimensions: spatial; temporal; and contextual (Kakihara and Sorensen
2002). Indeed, m-learning has increasing visibility and importance in higher education
(Traxler 2007). M-learning, by providing ongoing communication with technology, enhances
learning in young people. It can also support interactions between learners, both in reality
as well as in the virtual world, offering support of learning beyond the classroom to conver-
sations and interactions in everyday life (Sharples, Taylor, and Vavoula 2010). In addition, in
terms of promoting innovation in education, mobile computing not only supports traditional
lecture-style teaching, but through convenient information gathering and sharing, it can
also promote innovative teaching methods (Sung, Chang, and Yang 2015). In fact, mobiles
share many functions with a computer (mobiles can replace computers without missing any
functionality): they are easy to use and learn about, and can provide access to information
from anywhere and at any time. Moreover, most students already have mobiles, and schools
 EDUCATIONAL REVIEW   3

can easily provide students with one to promote the use of m-learning in education (Goundar
2011).
Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL) is one of the popular subsets of m-learn-
ing. The unique features of MALL lie in its ability to take advantage of personal mobile
devices, such as tablets and mobile phones. This in turn enables the user to access learn-
ing wherever and whenever they wish to. The rapid development of MALL has meant a
move away from simply a teacher–learner, text-based format to one that is much more
engaging and useful. For example, the use of multimedia, as well as group listening and
speaking activities, enables students to work collaboratively to improve learning out-
comes (Kukulska-Hulme and Shield 2008). MALL supports many areas of language learn-
ing, for example, vocabulary, comprehension and speaking, listening and writing skills.
Moreover, it has many advantages such as spontaneity, portability and connectivity,
blending, interactivity and collaboration (Ahmad, Armarego, and Sudweeks 2013).
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 22:11 20 November 2017

Meanwhile, MALL differs from computer-assisted language learning as it is designed for

use on personal, usually internet-connected devices such as tablets or mobile phones.
This format enhances learning by supporting continuity and spontaneity (Kukulska-
Hulme and Shield 2008). However, Viberg and Grönlund (2012) in their review of studies
of MALL found that the use of theory in this context is minimal. It is obvious that for the
efficacy of an intervention to be demonstrated, a common set of theories needs to be
applied. Thus, the potential of MALL to improve language learning has not yet been
definitively shown. Nevertheless, more recent data show attempts to create field-specific
theory.
Mobile English Language Learning (MELL) could enable people with busy lives to achieve
meaningful language acquisition in a culturally appropriate manner. For example, one project
– BBC Janala (“window” in Bengali) – focuses on English teaching and learning that was
designed for the Bangladeshi market. It launched in November 2009, and is part of English
in Action, a UK government-funded programme that seeks to improve English skills through
print, video and audio. By 2012, it had reached 6.4 million people across multiple regions
and socio-economic backgrounds, with the aim of achieving sufficient English skills to benefit
Bangladesh in the international economy (Cotter and Ashraf 2012). These advances have
prompted educational institutions, educators and even researchers to utilise these devices
to promote teaching and learning. However, exploring the use of mobile technology to
support learning is a key challenge for educators and instructional designers. There is little
research that examines the dimensions of mobile learning for both the researchers and
instructional designers, and focuses on the effective use of the latest mobile learning tech-
nologies for education (Al Saleh and Bhat 2015). On the other hand, there have been various
review studies on mobiles and ubiquitous learning (Al Saleh and Bhat 2015; Avouris and
Yiannoutsou 2012; Crompton et al. 2016; Jeng et al. 2010; Schmitz, Klemke, and Specht 2012;
Shuib, Shamshirband, and Ismail 2015; Zydney and Warner 2016). These reviews focus on
different mobile learning apps, learning games, pervasive learning and research trends in
mobile and ubiquitous learning. However, there have been no reviews of research conducted
on MELL. In this context, this study reviews the articles from 2010 to 2015 and provides a
comprehensive analysis to obtain a deeper understanding of how mobile learning can be
used to enhance learners’ English language performance. This is the first review that provides
a comprehensive collection of mobile and English language learning materials to initiate an
evidence-based discussion on mobile learning in English language education. Furthermore,
 4   M. M. ELAISH ET AL.

this study provides an updated review of studies on mobile apps, specifically in the area of
English learning. The present study poses the following four research questions:

(1) What is the rate of publication of the three databases over the years?
(2) What are the major research domains, purposes and assessment methods used, and
who are the sample participants?
(3) What are the English language learning problems and the trend of these problems
over the years?
(4) What m-learning technologies have been studied by these papers and which mobile
devices were used to tackle each English language learning problem?

Evolution of mobile learning

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 22:11 20 November 2017

According to the “From e-learning to m-learning” project, the development of education

and distance learning can be categorised into three stages: the moves from distance learning
(d-learning) to electronic learning (e-learning), and from e-learning to m-learning (Keegan
2002). In fact, the development of d-learning was influenced by technologies associated
with the Industrial Revolution in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In the 1980s,
e-learning was introduced by the Electronics Revolution associated with the development
of the telecommunications industry. In the late twentieth century, m-learning evolved as a
result of the Mobile and Wireless Revolution (Lam, Yau, and Cheung 2010). Therefore, the
use of mobile, wireless technologies as a learning tool is the most recently developed
approach to learning (Sarrab, Elbasir, and Alnaeli 2016).
E-learning is defined as the content and instructional method that is delivered via com-
puters, such as CD-ROM, the Internet or an intranet network, and it proposes to achieve
individual or organisational targets by building knowledge and skills related to them (Clark
2002). Although m-learning is closely related to d-learning and e-learning, it is distinct in
terms of learning across contexts (mobility) and with mobile technologies (Lam, Yau, and
Cheung 2010). M-learning can be defined as any learning that can take place on the move,
or when learners use the advantages of mobile technology in learning (Mehdipour and
Zerehkafi 2013). Mobility is the unique feature of the m-learning platform which makes it a
new educational platform (Alrasheedi and Capretz 2015). Korucu and Alkan (2011) have
traced the transition from e-learning to m-learning by highlighting the underlying charac-
teristics and changes of these two types of learning environments (Table 1).

Table 1. Comparison of characteristics between e-learning and m-learning (Korucu and Alkan 2011).
e-learning m-learning
Computer Mobile
Bandwidth GPRS, Gs, Bluetooth
Multimedia Objects
Interactive Spontaneous
Hyperlinked Connected
Collaborative Networked
Media-rich Lightweight
Distance learning Situated learning
More formal Informal
Simulated situation Realistic situation
Hyper learning Constructivism, situations, collaborative
 EDUCATIONAL REVIEW   5

Method
Relevant journal articles published between 2010 and 2015 were searched electronically
and via reference-list checking. For electronic searches, the main databases were SpringerLink,
a Web of Science (WOS), and IEEE Xplore. These databases were chosen because they are
known for encompassing high-impact, high-quality journals indexed in the Science Citation
Index and the Social Sciences Citation Index. A number of keywords were chosen based on
the research objectives. The databases were searched with the same keywords: (Mobile
learning OR m-learning) AND (English language learning) OR (mobile English language
learning).

Article selection
This study used many inclusion/exclusion criteria to restrict the number of search results for
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 22:11 20 November 2017

a reliable review.

First selection
In general, titles and abstracts were reviewed to select papers that met the following criteria:
(a) published between January 2010 and December 2015; (b) written in the English language;
(c) full-text version available; and (d) empirical research. As the search tools were different
for each database, the number of retrieved articles were sometimes too many and unread-
able. Therefore, different filtering techniques were applied between the databases. For exam-
ple, when the keywords “mobile learning” and “English language” were used, too many
research papers were retrieved. In SpringerLink, 9226 papers were retrieved. To reduce this
number, the search results were filtered in the following manner: Content Type – Article,
Discipline – Computer Science and Education and Language. This resulted in 95 papers. In
WOS, the initial search results of 182 papers were reduced to a shortlist of 78 when “article”
was selected as the document type. Different search strings were not applied on IEEE Xplore.
The final number of search results gathered using the above search strategies was 171 papers
(SpringerLink 32, WOS 77, IEEE 62).

Second selection
During the second stage each paper’s title was reviewed and analysed to determine whether
it contained empirical evidence relating to the use of technology to solve problems in English
language learning, especially limitations, challenges and/or use of mobile learning. The
number of papers at the end of this stage was 107.

Third selection
In this stage, four experts, each with several years of experience in research on mobile and
distance learning, were invited to confirm the relevance of all selected papers. The final
number of papers at the end of this stage was 69. The total number of selected papers was
70. Two papers were repeated, and hence, the actual number of papers reviewed was 69, as
shown in Table 2.
 6   M. M. ELAISH ET AL.

Table 2. Summary of paper selection.

Database First stage Second stage Third stage Repeated Actual usage
Springer Link 32 10 3 – 3
WOS 77 44 37 1 36*
IEEE 62 53 30 – 30*
*Repeated articles.

Classification of the contents of the papers

The selected papers were reviewed and the results were classified based on the research
questions:

RQ1: What is the rate of publication of the three databases over the years?
RQ2: What are the major research domains, purposes and assessment methods, and who
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 22:11 20 November 2017

are the sample participants?

RQ3: What are the English language learning problems and the trend of these problems
over the years?
RQ4: What m-learning technologies have been studied by these papers and which mobile
devices were used for each English language learning problem?

Results
The results of the review based on the four RQs are explained below.

RQ1: The rate of publication over the years

Figure 1 shows the distribution of research papers by year of publication. The results show
that the number of publications at WOS and IEEE has increased over the years, with a few
drops; however, SpringerLink does not follow this trend.

RQ2: Major research domains, purposes and assessment methods, and sample
participants
This RQ addresses the research domains, study purposes, assessment methods and the
study participants by identifying what they are and by highlighting the most popular cate-
gory in each.

Research domain
As shown in Table 3, more than half of the papers (50.72%) either focused on improving all
the English language skills or only mentioned “English language” without providing more
details. However, in the context of improving English language skills using mobile technol-
ogy, vocabulary was the most focused area (21.73%). Most papers also worked on multiple
domains and developed applications and systems for learning more than one English lan-
guage skill.
 EDUCATIONAL REVIEW   7
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 22:11 20 November 2017

Figure 1. The databases trends.

Table 3. Research domains.

Focused skills No. %
All skills 35 50.72
Vocabulary 15 21.73
Listening 5 7.25
Reading 5 7.25
Conversation 2 5.8
Writing 3 4.35
Two skills or more but not all 4 2.9

The purposes of the study

Figure 2 illustrates that two out of three papers investigated or reviewed the use of mobile
technology for improving English language performance. Another set of papers focused on
designing and implementing systems to observe the effect of mobile technology on the
learners. These were the two most common purposes of the papers that were reviewed.

Assessment methods
Figure 3 shows that questionnaires (47 papers) and examinations (31 papers) (pre- and post-
test) are the most used assessment methods. Some papers used both of these methods.
Twenty-four papers mentioned dividing the learners into two or more groups, while the
remaining papers either did not divide their learners into groups or did not mention groups
at all.
 8   M. M. ELAISH ET AL.
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 22:11 20 November 2017

Figure 2. The purpose of the studies.

Figure 3. Assessment and evaluation.

Geographical locations
Table 4 shows the number of published papers by contributing countries. Of the 21 contrib-
uting countries, Taiwan has published the most studies (21 articles), with China second (nine
articles). Seven studies did not state the nationality of the participants.

Sample participants
As shown in Figure 4, participants comprised university students in approximately 46% of
the papers reviewed for this study. Moreover, many researchers preferred to work with aca-
demically educated and with participants from a particular age group. However, researchers
still also considered school students for their study.
 EDUCATIONAL REVIEW   9

Table 4. Geographical locations of the studies reviewed.

Country Number Country Number
Taiwan 21 Sri Lanka 1
China 9 India 1
Not specific 7 Czech Republic 1
Korea 3 Hong Kong 1
Japan 3 Indonesia 1
Singapore 2 China and Sweden 1
Malaysia 2 Saudi Arabia 1
UAE 2 Belgium 1
United States 2 Spain 1
Netherlands 2 North Cyprus 1
Iran 1 Turkey 1
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 22:11 20 November 2017

Figure 4. Participants.

RQ3: English language learning problems and the trend of these problems over the
years
There are many problems that English language learners face in the course of trying to
achieve their target. This section answers this question and identifies the yearly trends with
respect to the problems faced by learners.

Problems in English language learning

Table 5 shows that many papers discuss more than one problem related to English language
learning. Some of these problems form the main problem examined in the 2013 study by
Ning and Hornby, while others are secondary. Among all the papers, 37.68% used mobile
technology to solve the problem of motivating learners. For example, learners were some-
times less motivated to learn the English language, so they would not make the effort to
learn the language and gave up quickly (Souriyavongsa et al. 2013; Weger 2013).
Additionally, many researchers chose to examine how learners’ English learning perfor-
mance could be enhanced and learners could be motivated (Liu and Chu 2010). It is com-
mon for school students to lack the motivation to review their vocabulary after school (Ma
et al. 2012).
 10   M. M. ELAISH ET AL.

Table 5. Problems in English language learning.

  Problems Records %
1 Motivation 26 37.68
2 Absence of needs identification, reports or studies or testing the effect of technology 15 21.73
3 Language difficulties or limitation of vocabulary and unavailability of reading materials 10 14.49
4 Unstandardised curriculum and teaching methods 4 5.8
5 Unqualified English teachers or improving their quality 2 2.9
6 Culture 2 2.9
7 Others 6 8.7
8 Lack of equipment or poor current equipment, technique or software 4 5.8

Trends of problems in English language learning over the years

As shown in Figure 5, “Motivation” problem appears every year. However, other problems in
English language learning did not appear continuously across all the years. “Difficulties of
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 22:11 20 November 2017

learning the language” was observed every year except 2012, although learners rated it
second among the problems with respect to English language learning.

Figure 5. Problems in English language learning by year.

RQ4: M-learning technologies studied and mobile devices used to tackle each English
language learning problem
This section analyses the m-learning technologies studied by the papers and the classi-
fication of each technology. It then identifies the mobile devices that were used to solve
each problem with respect to English language learning.

M-learning technologies
This study found that 49 papers used pure m-learning (m-learning that does not involve
another technology). Of these, 8 used tools (only applicable to mobile devices), 5 used media
 EDUCATIONAL REVIEW   11

(such as video and sound), 15 used review (such as reviewing, frameworks and modelling),
9 used games and 12 were non-games. The remaining 20 papers used blended m-learning
(a combination of m-learning and other technologies such as computer and e-learning), of
which 13 were non-games and 7 used games.
Figure 6 shows the classification within pure m-learning technology (review, non-game,
game, tool and media).
Figure 7 displays the types of pure m-learning games, as classified based on the 2004
Mitchell and Savill-Smith study. In this study, games are classified as either “puzzlers” (or
brainteasers), and “weird” (those that do not fit into another category). “Puzzlers” (four studies)
were the most common game used in pure MELL environments, followed by “Weird” (three
studies). Additionally, this study considered simulation, which is an established category of
pure games. We found two studies applying simulation games.
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 22:11 20 November 2017

Figure 6. Pure m-learning.

Figure 7. Pure game m-learning types.

 12   M. M. ELAISH ET AL.

Figure 8 shows the types of pure m-learning non-games which have been inspired by
Kim and Kwon (2012). Word lists (four studies), post comments and chatting (three studies)
and interactive multimedia (four studies) such as audio and video recordings were found to
be the most common non-game applications. However, translation (one study) was found
less commonly in this review.
Figure 9 illustrates the classifications within blended m-learning (non-game and game).
Figure 10 compares pure and blended m-learning technologies, indicating that pure
m-learning is used more.
Figure 11 shows the integration of different technologies with mobile in the blended
m-learning. According to this figure, web technology (application, any kind of tool, website)
is the most common technology used together with mobile technology in blended
m-learning. In fact, most of the blended m-learning programs used mobile devices only to
browse the web in order to run web applications. In addition, some programs use web tools,
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 22:11 20 November 2017

Figure 8. Pure non-game m-learning types.

Figure 9. Blended technology.

 EDUCATIONAL REVIEW   13
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 22:11 20 November 2017

Figure 10. Pure vs blended m-learning.

Figure 11. Integration of different technologies with mobile in the blended m-learning.

or just browse the content of websites. Computers have been used with web technology in
one study which used free-hand gestures to recognise live images from the computer in
order to enable intuitive interactions (Yang and Liao 2014). Email, forums and blogs have
been used with web technology in one study to transfer information between individuals
and discussion (Li and Li 2011).

Mobile devices used to tackle each problem in English language learning

As shown in Figure 12, specific types of mobile devices were mentioned in 66.67% of the
studies that analysed the effect of m-learning on the learners or reviewed previous studies.
 14   M. M. ELAISH ET AL.
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 22:11 20 November 2017

Figure 12. M-learning mobile devices.

Less than half of the papers mentioned the use of mobile devices without specifying the
types of mobile devices.

Discussion
This study ran a search on three databases, WOS, IEEE and SpringerLink, for papers published
between 2010 and 2015. A total of 69 papers were reviewed in this study. The data indicate
that publication increased significantly in 2015 compared to the other years (Figure 1). It is
also clear that IEEE published the highest number of articles related to this field. However,
this does not take into account the quality of the publications.
In terms of English language skills, 50.72% of the articles examined all the language skills or
mentioned “English language” without providing further details. On the other hand, in studies
that examined only one English language skill, vocabulary was examined more often (21.73%).
According to Ahmad, Armarego, and Sudweeks (2013), learners who master vocabulary may
go on to perform and comprehend the English language better due to the importance of vocab-
ulary in learning English; the findings of this study support this theory. However, the sample did
not include any studies on grammar. In 72.46% of the studies, the participants were from Asian
countries. This indicates that Asian countries give more attention to the development and use
of MELL than other countries. Among these countries, Taiwan is at the top of the list. This is
hardly surprising, as Taiwan has funded several projects using wireless mobile ad hoc learning
systems (Peng et al. 2009). University students were the participants in 46.37% of the articles
reviewed for this study. Sixty-one articles included learners from the same class and five articles
involved participants who were teachers and students. The articles used surveys, exams and
interviews to assess the learners’ performance and investigate their opinion and levels of
 EDUCATIONAL REVIEW   15

engagement. In 34.79% of the studies, the participants were divided into two or more groups.
Pre- and post-test assessments were used as the main evaluation method in most of the studies
that divided the learners into groups. However, learner feedback was only included in 2.9% of
the studies.
Even though learners face several problems while learning the English language, two
problems were observed among more than half the sample. Motivation (37.68%) was ranked
as the biggest problem that learners faced, followed by a lack of identification of needs,
reports or studies, or testing the effect of technology (21.37%).
As shown in Table 5, motivation is the only problem that was reported every year. Even
though difficulty of the English language or limitations in terms of vocabulary and unavail-
ability of reading materials was ranked third among English language learning problems, it
comes after motivation, which appeared every year, rather than “Absence of needs identifi-
cation, reports or studies or testing the effect of technologies” which did not appear for two
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 22:11 20 November 2017

years. Difficulty of the English language or limitations in terms of vocabulary and unavaila-
bility of reading materials appeared every year except 2012.
Learners used several different types of mobile devices. However, more than 49% of the
articles did not specify the type of mobile device used. The mobile device most used by
learners was the PDA (13.04%), followed by the iPod (7.25%). Only six studies showed which
operating systems were used on the mobile devices: four used Android and two used
Microsoft (MS) Windows.
The study has assigned the term “pure” to m-learning which was not supported by other
technologies. Pure mobile technology was divided into reviews, non-games, games, tools
and media. On the other hand, “blended” referred to a learning method which integrated
more than one technology with m-learning. As shown in Figure 4, pure m-learning was the
most used technology in the articles that were reviewed (71%). Moreover, a review of pure
m-learning showed that 15 articles followed non-game applications. Additionally, games
were used more in pure m-learning (nine studies) than blended m-learning (seven
studies).
Most of the research was conducted in the context of two purposes: to investigate
(65.22%) and to design and implement systems (20.29%). Used together (85.51%), they
indicated that research in this field is still in its initial stages and there is a need for further
research and investigation to identify the effects and applications of m-learning. The remain-
ing studies attempted to enhance performance or application, or to develop framework or
modelling. The definition of “model” is “something used to represent or explain the operation
and mechanism of something else” (Admin 2013). For example, Nguyen, Pham, and Ho (2010)
developed a model to support English language learning for students who are preparing
for the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). The model takes into account location,
time and manner, as well as the student’s existing knowledge.
The definition of “framework” is “a way of representing the empirical relations between
every aspect of inquiry when considered a scientific theory or research” (Admin 2013). For
example, Yang (2012) developed a framework intended to rectify the paucity of research on
the use of VLSs (vocabulary learning strategies) for contextualised or ubiquitous learning.
Their framework has taken into account issues important to language acquisition, such as
cognition in the learning process, learning styles, personality, communication and
self-regulation.
 16   M. M. ELAISH ET AL.
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 22:11 20 November 2017

Figure 13. M-learning tools vs English language learning problems.

The study showed that 78.26% of the research indicates that learners showed significant
changes (full, partly, slowly). Only four studies indicated that there was no significant
improvement in the learners’ performance. The remaining articles did not mention the
impact of m-learning.
Interestingly, it was found that PDAs could be used to solve the problem of motivation;
language difficulties or limitation of vocabulary and unavailability of reading materials;
and the lack of equipment or poor current equipment, technique or software, as shown in
Figure 13. Additionally, iPods, Android mobile devices and MS Windows mobile devices
were used to solve the problem of the absence of needs identification, reports and studies,
or to test the effect of technology.

Conclusion
This review provided new findings that have emerged in response to the four research
questions: (1) the publication of IEEE and WOS databases has increased yearly; (2) most of
the articles used an applied system, studied all English language skills or did not mention
them at all, and vocabulary was the skill that was studied the most; (3) the purpose of most
of the papers was to review or investigate the use of m-learning to enhance learners’ per-
formance, while others tried to develop applications and systems to improve learners’ per-
formance; (4) surveys followed by pre- and post-tests were the assessment methods which
were used most in the articles, and many studies also divided participants into groups; (5)
the majority of the participants in the articles were studying in either Taiwan or China. The
study authors, with only one exception, limited their studies to students in a single country;
(6) university students and school students were the most common participants, and it was
unusual to use a mix of participants; (7) a majority of studies attempted to solve the problem
of a lack of motivation in the context of English language learning, followed by attempting
 EDUCATIONAL REVIEW   17

to tackle the absence of needs identification, reports or studies, or tested the effects of
technology; (8) the trend of English language learning problems over the years indicated
that “motivation” appears every year, and “language difficulties or limitation of vocabulary
and unavailability of reading materials” came second even though it was rated third among
the problems discussed in the sample; (9) most studies in the sample used pure m-learning;
and (10) a majority of the studies did not specify the mobile devices that were used, and
reviews of the use of mobile devices (which type was not specified) came second.
These findings reveal that there is a growing interest in using mobile devices to learn the
English language. Moreover, this study has identified that most of the articles have shown
that using mobile learning has a significant impact on English language learning. As the
accessibility and use of mobile devices grows in universities and colleges, it will be vital for
research in this area to continue, so that the value and convenience provided by m-learning
can be evaluated and shared with others. This study has explored this field by applying
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 22:11 20 November 2017

possible keywords and selecting the most well-known and scientific databases. However,
future research should consider other terms and keywords which reflect mobile learning as
effectively.
Because of the sheer power, attractiveness and convenience of mobile technologies, we
expect ever more educational resources to create game-based applications in future.
However, more research needs to be conducted to ensure that language acquisition is
improved by future MELL. There is currently a lack of theory-based, rigorous research on the
ability of mobile technology to meet different students’ learning requirements, regardless
of the student’s level of education. Therefore, we suggest that practitioners, policy-makers
and researchers in the education sector conduct theory-based, outcome-oriented quanti-
tative and qualitative research studies on mobile learning. In this way, the implementation
of this technology can provide a great benefit to students.
Specifically, there should be more in-depth research on the most effective designs and
modes of delivery of MELL in order to reach a large number of people efficiently. Future
research should investigate the roles of learners’ culture, values and local contexts on the
success or failure of a particular technology. Mobile technology is expected to continue to
be used for supporting language acquisition, as it has many attractive features. These include
portability, allowing flexible and spontaneous learning, and social aspects, which engage
and encourage learners. Presently, the current emphasis on vocabulary acquisition leads to
rote learning and memorising. In the future, we anticipate that text-based tutorial applica-
tions involving tests and repetition will dominate future technologies. Finally, it is clear that
as mobile devices are increasingly common in both classrooms and in students’ pockets,
researchers and educators can and should leverage this ubiquity to help programmers
develop effective, engaging language learning products.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Liyana Shuib   http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7907-0671
 18   M. M. ELAISH ET AL.

References
Admin. 2013. Difference between Model and Framework. Accessed June 12, 2017. http://www.
differencebetween.com/difference-between-model-and-vs-framework/
Ahmad, K. S., J. Armarego, and F. Sudweeks. 2013. “Literature Review on the Feasibility of Mobile-Assisted
Language Learning (MALL) in Developing Vocabulary Skills among Non-English Speaking Migrant.”
3rd International Conference on Research and Innovation in Information Systems (ICRIIS’13), Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, 336–341.
Al Saleh, S., and S. A. Bhat. 2015. “Mobile Learning: A Systematic Review.” International Journal of
Computer Applications 114 (11): 1–5.
Alrasheedi, M., and L. F. Capretz. 2015. “Determination of Critical Success Factors Affecting Mobile
Learning: A Meta-Analysis Approach.” TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology
14 (2): 41–51.
Avouris, N. M., and N. Yiannoutsou. 2012. “A Review of Mobile Location-Based Games for Learning Across
Physical and Virtual Spaces.” Journal of Universal Computer Science 18 (15): 2120–2142.
Chakraborty, T., and S. K. Bakshi. 2016. “English Language Premium: Evidence from a Policy Experiment
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 22:11 20 November 2017

in India.” Economics of Education Review 50: 1–16.

Chan, S. J. 2013. “Internationalising Higher Education Sectors: Explaining the Approaches in Four Asian
Countries.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 35 (3): 316–329.
Chen, C.-M., and C.-J. Chung. 2008. “Personalized Mobile English Vocabulary Learning System Based
on Item Response Theory and Learning Memory Cycle.” Computers & Education 51 (2): 624–645.
Cheng, C.-M. 2013. “Reflections of College English Majors’ Cultural Perceptions on Learning English in
Taiwan.” English Language Teaching 6 (1): 79–92.
Clark, R. 2002. “Six Principles of Effective E-Learning: What Works and Why.” The E-Learning Developer’s
Journal 6: 1–10.
Cotter, T., and T. Ashraf. 2012. “BBC Janala Mobile Service: A Response to Context and User Experience.”
1 day pre-conference workshop, Helsinki.
Crompton, H., D. Burke, K. H. Gregory, and C. Gräbe. 2016. “The Use of Mobile Learning in Science: A
Systematic Review.” Journal of Science Education and Technology 25 (2): 149–160.
Genç, B., and E. Bada. 2010. “English as a World Language in Academic Writing.” The Reading Matrix 10
(2): 142–151.
Goundar, S. 2011. “What is the Potential Impact of Using Mobile Devices in Education?” Proceedings
of SIG GlobDev Fourth Annual Workshop, Shanghai.
Han, S., W. Kong, Q. Liu, and L. Zhou. 2010. “Design and Implementation of Mobile English Learning.”
Intelligent System Design and Engineering Application (ISDEA), Changsha: IEEE, 510–513.
Hsu, L. 2013. “English as a Foreign Language Learners’ Perception of Mobile Assisted Language Learning:
A Cross-National Study.” Computer Assisted Language Learning 26 (3): 197–213.
Ingram, D. E., and M. Sasak. 2003. “The Importance of Communication in English in a Globalised World
and in the Field of Medicine.” School of Health Sciences, Akita University 11 (1): 55–67.
Jeng, Y. L., T. T. Wu, Y. M. Huang, Q. Tan, and S. J. Yang. 2010. “The Add-on Impact of Mobile Applications
in Learning Strategies: A Review Study.” Educational Technology & Society 13 (3): 3–11.
John, S. P. 2015. “The Integration of Information Technology in Higher Education: A Study of Faculty’s
Attitude towards IT Adoption in the Teaching Process.” Contaduría Y Administración 60: 230–252.
Kakihara, M., and C. Sorensen. 2002. “Mobility: An Extended Perspective.” System Sciences, 2002.
HICSS. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on, Washington, DC: IEEE,
1756–1766.
Keegan, D. 2002. The Future of Learning: From ELearning to MLearning. Hagen, North Rhine-Westphalia:
FernUniversität in Hagen.
Khazaie, S., and A. Hayati. 2013. “Teaching English to Iranian Foreign National Police via Mobile.” The
5th Conference on Information and Knowledge Technology, Shiraz: IEEE, 377–382.
Kim, H., and Y. Kwon. 2012. “Exploring Smartphone Applications for Effective Mobile-Assisted Language
Learning.” Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning 15 (1): 31–57.
 EDUCATIONAL REVIEW   19

Korucu, A. T., and A. Alkan. 2011. “Differences between M-Learning (Mobile Learning) and E-Learning,
Basic Terminology and Usage of M-Learning in Education.” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences
15: 1925–1930.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., and L. Shield. 2008. “An Overview of Mobile Assisted Language Learning: From
Content Delivery to Supported Collaboration and Interaction.” ReCALL 20 (3): 271–289.
Kuo, Y. C., H. C. Chu, and C. H. Huang. 2015. “A Learning Style-Based Grouping Collaborative Learning
Approach to Improve EFL Students’ Performance in English Courses.” Educational Technology & Society
18 (2): 284–298.
Lam, J., J. Yau, and S. K. Cheung. 2010, August. “A Review of Mobile Learning in the Mobile Age.”
International Conference on Hybrid Learning, Beijing: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 306–315.
Lee, C., A. S. Yeung, and T. Ip. 2016. “Use of Computer Technology for English Language Learning: Do
Learning Styles, Gender, and Age Matter?” Computer Assisted Language Learning 29 (5): 1033–1049.
Li, Y., and J. Li. 2011. “Learning on the Move: A Case Study of Mobile Learning Assisted English Reading
Instruction in Chinese Tertiary Education.” The 6th International Conference on Computer Science
& Education (ICCSE), IEEE, 978–983.
Liu, T.-Y., and Y.-L. Chu. 2010. “Using Ubiquitous Games in an English Listening and Speaking Course:
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 22:11 20 November 2017

Impact on Learning Outcomes and Motivation.” Computers & Education 55 (2): 630–643.
Luo, M. 2014. “The Design of English Listening Learning System Based on Android Platform.” 2014
IEEE Workshop on Advanced Research and Technology in Industry Applications (WARTIA), Ottawa:
IEEE, 644–647.
Luo, B.-R., Y.-L. Lin, N.-S. Chen, and W.-C. Fang. 2015. “Using Smartphone to Facilitate English
Communication and Willingness to Communicate in a Communicative Language Teaching
Classroom.” 2015 IEEE 15th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, Hualien
county, Taiwan: IEEE, 320–322.
Luster, J. 2011. “A New Protocol for Teaching English Language Learners in Middle and Secondary
Schools.” Journal of International Education Research 7 (4): 65–74.
Ma, A. H. S. 2014. “The Development of International Student Recruitment Policies in Taiwan: A 60-Year
Trajectory.” Journal of Studies in International Education 18 (2): 120–140.
Ma, Z.-H., S.-Y. Chen, W.-Y. Hwang, and W.-J. Ding. 2012. “Digital Game-Based after-School-Assisted
Learning System in English.” International Symposium on Intelligent Signal Processing and
Communication Systems (ISPACS 2012), New Taipei: IEEE, 130–135.
Mehdipour, Y., and H. Zerehkafi. 2013. “Mobile Learning for Education: Benefits and Challenges.”
International Journal of Computational Engineering Research 3 (6): 93–101.
Mitchell, A., and C. Savill-Smith. 2004. The Use of Computer and Video Games for Learning: A Review of
the Literature. London: Learning and Skills Development Agency.
Nguyen, V. A., V. C. Pham, and S. D. Ho. 2010. “A Context-Aware Mobile Learning Adaptive System for
Supporting Foreigner Learning English.” Computing and Communication Technologies, Research,
Innovation, and Vision for the Future (RIVF), 2010 IEEE RIVF International Conference on, Hanoi,
Vietnam: IEEE, 1–6.
Ning, H., and G. Hornby. 2013. “The Impact of Cooperative Learning on Tertiary EFL Learners’ Motivation.”
Educational Review 66: 108–124. doi:10.1080/00131911.2013.853169.
Nomass, B. B. 2013. “The Impact of Using Technology in Teaching English as a Second Language.” English
Language and Literature Studies 3 (1): 111–116.
Peng, H., Y. J. Su, C. Chou, and C. C. Tsai. 2009. “Ubiquitous Knowledge Construction: Mobile Learning
Re‐Defined and a Conceptual Framework.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International 46
(2): 171–183.
Sandberg, J., M. Maris, and P. Hoogendoorn. 2014. “The Added Value of a Gaming Context and Intelligent
Adaptation for a Mobile Learning Application for Vocabulary Learning.” Computers & Education 76:
119–130.
Sarrab, M., M. Elbasir, and S. Alnaeli. 2016. “Towards a Quality Model of Technical Aspects for Mobile
Learning Services: An Empirical Investigation.” Computers in Human Behavior 55: 100–112.
Schmitz, B., R. Klemke, and M. Specht. 2012. “Effects of Mobile Gaming Patterns on Learning Outcomes:
A Literature Review.” International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning 4 (5/6): 345–358.
 20   M. M. ELAISH ET AL.

Selwyn, N., and S. Bulfin. 2016. “Exploring School Regulation of Students’ Technology Use – Rules That
Are Made to Be Broken?” Educational Review 68: 274–290. doi:10.1080/00131911.2015.1090401.
Sharples, M., J. Taylor, and G. Vavoula. 2010. “A Theory of Learning for the Mobile Age.” In Medienbildung
in neuen Kulturräumen, edited by Ben Bachmair, 87–99. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Shuib, L., S. Shamshirband, and M. H. Ismail. 2015. “A Review of Mobile Pervasive Learning: Applications
and Issues.” Computers in Human Behavior 46: 239–244.
Souriyavongsa, T., M. J. Zainol Abidin, R. Sam, L. L. Mei, and I. Britto. 2013. “Investigating Learning English
Strategies and English Needs of Undergraduate Students at the National University of Laos.” English
Language Teaching 6 (10): 85–71.
Sung, Y. T., K. E. Chang, and J. M. Yang. 2015. “How Effective Are Mobile Devices for Language Learning?
A Meta-Analysis.” Educational Research Review 16: 68–84.
Swales, J. 1987. “Utilizing the Literatures in Teaching the Research Paper.” TESOL Quarterly 21 (1): 41–68.
Thang, S. M., F. F. Wong, N. M. Noor, R. Mustaffa, N. Mahmuda, and K. Ismail. 2012. “Using a Blended
Approach to Teach English for Academic Purposes: Malaysian Students’ Perceptions of Redesigned
Course Materials.” International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning 7 (2): 142–153.
Traxler, J. 2007. “Defining, Discussing and Evaluating Mobile Learning: The Moving Finger Writes and
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 22:11 20 November 2017

Having Writ.” The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 8 (2): 1–12.
Viberg, O., and Å. Grönlund. 2012. “Mobile Assisted Language Learning: A Literature Review.” 11th World
Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning, Helsinki, Finland.
Weger, H. D. 2013. “Examining English Language Learning Motivation of Adult International Learners
Studying Abroad in the US.” RELC Journal 44 (1): 87–101.
Wong, L.-H., and C.-K. Looi. 2010. “Mobile-Assisted Vocabulary Learning in Real-Life Setting for Primary
School Students: Two Case Studies.” The 6th IEEE International Conference on Wireless, Mobile, and
Ubiquitous Technologies in Education, Kaohsiung: IEEE, 88–95.
Yang, F. C. O. 2012. “Using Personalized VLS on Mobile English Vocabulary Learning.” Seventh
International Conference on Wireless, Mobile and Ubiquitous Technology in Education (WMUTE),
IEEE, Kagawa, Japan, 232–234.
Yang, M. T., and W. C. Liao. 2014. “Computer-Assisted Culture Learning in an Online Augmented Reality
Environment Based on Free-Hand Gesture Interaction.” IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies
7 (2): 107–117.
Zuhair, A. 2015. “The Effect of Arabism of Romanic Alphabets on the Development of 9th Grade English
as a Foreign Language Students’ Writing Skills at Secondary School Level.” Journal of Education and
Practice 6 (36): 91–95.
Zydney, J. M., and Z. Warner. 2016. “Mobile Apps for Science Learning: Review of Research.” Computers
& Education 94: 1–17.