International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning

Volume 12 • Issue 1 • January-March 2020

Towards a Conceptual Framework

Highlighting Mobile Learning Challenges
Mourad Benali, Regional Centre for the Educational and Training Professions - Oujda, Oujda, Morocco
Mohamed Ally, Centre For Distance Education, Athabasca University, Atabasca, Canada

ABSTRACT

Over the last decade, there has been much interest in mobile technologies in teaching and learning
as emerging and innovative tools. Despite this focus, mobile learning (m-Learning) implementation
is facing many challenges. This study presents a tentative conceptual framework that consolidates
existing research related to mobile learning implementation barriers. The study adopted a systematic
review of the literature on challenges to mobile learning. A total of 125 papers published between
2007 and 2017 were extracted from established peer reviewed journals. A qualitative content analysis
was used to define 24 barriers that have been grouped into four conceptual categories: Technological,
Learner, Pedagogical and Facilitating Conditions. The proposed framework acts as guide for educators,
systems developers, policy makers, researchers and stakeholders interested in implementing mobile
learning programs.

Keywords
Barriers, Challenges, Framework, Learner, m-Learning, Mobile Devices, Pedagogical, Technical

1. INTRODUCTION

Owing to the rapid advance and popularity of wireless communication and mobile technologies,
mobile and ubiquitous learning, there is increased use of these technologies in education and training.
This is confirmed in recent research studies (Baran, 2014; Chang, Lai, & Hwang, 2018; Chu, Hwang,
Tsai & Tseng, 2010; Suárez et al. 2018) at different levels of the education system. The 2018 global
edition of the GSMA’s Mobile Economy report reveals that the number of global mobile subscribers
surpassed five billion by the mid-year of 2017 and will increase to 5.7 billion by the end of the decade
(GSMA, 2018). Subscriber growth over this period is driven primarily by large Asia markets such
as India, which alone is forecast to add 310 million new unique subscribers by 2020. As the use of
mobile technology and subscription increase there is potential for increasing use of mobile learning
in education and training.
Mobile devices can connect people socially in new and unexpected ways and deliver information
and content to users on the go, via apps and cloud technologies (Hirsch and Ng, 2011). Pimmer
et al. (2016) conducted a review of empirical studies on mobile and ubiquitous learning in higher
education. Results indicated that there is increasing use of mobile technology outside the classroom.

DOI: 10.4018/IJMBL.2020010104

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.


51
International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning
Volume 12 • Issue 1 • January-March 2020

The ubiquity of mobile devices along with their popularity among students makes them suitable for
use in educational contexts as is evident in many studies and sources (El-Hussein & Cronje, 2010;
Negas & Ramos, 2011; Jeng, et al., 2010; Yu, Ally & Tsinakos, 2018).
The rapid increase in the quantity of mobile devices has enabled institutions to begin exploring
their use (Chee et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2009). Mobile learning (m-Learning) which emerged with
the evolution of mobile devices, has extended the reach of e-learning and distance education systems
by allowing educators and students to teach and learn anywhere, anytime and on the move (Negas &
Ramos, 2011; Wang et al., 2009). Mobile learning is defined differently in the literature, but there
is no consensus due to the argument regarding whether to focus on the mobility of learners or the
effectiveness and usefulness of the devices. Initial definitions were more device-driven (focusing in
immediacy, convenience, access and mobility) while the latter ones are more personal and social-
driven, exploring affordances that relate to new technological features of mobile devices such as
location awareness, motion detection and augmented reality (Baran, 2014).
Research indicates that m-learning offers considerable benefits to build and support creative,
collaborative, and communicative learning environments (Alhazmi, Rahman, & Zafar, 2014). The
implementation of efficient m-learning projects, however, within education is still a challenge due
to the complex environment that incorporates management, pedagogical, technological, and socio-
cultural issues (Alhajri, 2016). Khaddage et al., (2015) classified challenges to mobile learning into
four categories: Pedagogical challenges, technological challenges, policy challenges and research
challenges. Technical barriers are the most significant aspect in the implementation and integration
of m-learning in education. Asiimwe and Grönlund (2017) listed some of these difficulties which
include “installation, availability of latest technology, fast Internet connection, and uninterrupted
supply of electricity, maintenance, administration, security and absence of technical support”.
Educators and course designers need also a dynamic, theoretical set of criteria or a framework
to support the ecology of mobile learning. Sharples (2013) highlighted the need to improve the
usability of mobile learning technology, design of new forms of informal learning supported by
personal mobile devices, and evaluation of learning that occurs outdoors and across locations.
Dahlstrom and Bichsel (2014) urge researchers to look at pedagogical insights that will help
instructors to better embrace mobile technologies. Park et al. (2014) stressed on using various
assessment methods of learners using mobile devices and Cochrane (2010) identified the following
gaps in research on mobile learning:

• No clear pedagogical theory for designing effective mobile learning;

• Limited evaluation for mobile learning activities;
• Lack of longitudinal studies on mobile learning to determine the impact on learning;
• Providing support for students and teachers in mobile learning.

Educational institutions need to define a clear policy regarding the implementation of mobile
learning programs in order to go for wide-scale implementation. Lack of support and institutional
policies were cited as institutional obstacles (Ismail, Aziza & Azman, 2013). Other challenges
related to ethical and practical implications were addressed by Cushing (2011). They include:
resistance to change amongst lecturers; concerns about new social practices affecting lecturers’
personal time; increasing amount of information to be stored on the device; privacy issues; data
security; and cyber-bullying.
In this context, the aim of this study is to propose a conceptual framework that identifies challenges
listed in the literature regarding m-learning design and implementation. The research question for
this study is: “What has existing research identified as the major challenges for mobile-learning?”
The methodology adopted in this study is an in-depth review of the literature via a categorization of
identified barriers. The proposed framework based on the research may help to analyze as well as
govern the dynamics of the factors and challenges that have been identified in the literature.

52
 International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning
Volume 12 • Issue 1 • January-March 2020

2. METHODOLOGY

In order to establish a listing of challenges for m-learning, a literature review was undertaken to locate
as many different challenges as possible. The study used a qualitative approach to data collection,
comprising a systematic literature review. According to The Campbell Collaboration (2017), a
systematic review summarizes the best available evidence on a specific question using transparent
procedures to locate, evaluate, and integrate the findings of relevant research.
The systematic literature review in this study involves the following key stages:

1. Formulating the review question(s);

2. Planning the review;
3. Locating studies (literature search);
4. Appraising contributions;
5. Analyzing and synthesizing information;
6. Reporting the best available evidence.

In this paper, literature was searched through a two-step process. The first one related to sourcing
literature articles from:

• Electronic academic databases (IEEE, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, EBSCO, Wiley, etc.);

• Reference lists from relevant primary studies and review articles;
• Peer-reviewed or open source journals including: (International Journal of Information and Education
Technology, International Journal of u- and e- Service, Science and Technology, Journal of Educational
Technology Development and Exchange, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology,
Journal of Advanced Research Design, Journal of Information Technology Education, International
Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, International Journal of Computer Applications, Research
in Learning Technology, International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, etc.);
• In order to increase the diversity of papers identified in our study, additional articles were also
located using Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/).

Search terms like: (m-learning, Mobile learning, Mobile technologies, Mobile devices for
learning, Mediated learning through mobile devices, Mobiles technologies enhanced learning,
Virtual mobile learning, etc.) have been combined with a range of synonyms that expressed the
semantics of “challenges” like: (Barriers, Difficulties, Challenges, Problems, Success Factors,
Obstacles, Issues, Failure, etc.). An overall restriction was that articles should be written in English
and published no earlier than 2007, since most m-learning programs took place during the last
decade. Papers were initially selected based on title and abstract. At the end of this initial screening,
a total of 185 articles were selected.
During the second sorting process, the authors reviewed the abstract, introduction, and conclusion
for each article. 125 references were obtained through this second screening. Many articles were
excluded based on the following factors:

• Articles reporting best practices and success stories where the challenges were not addressed
and the success reasons were not explained;
• Articles for commercial purposes (institutes willing to sell their own m-learning programs,
Apps or software);
• Articles for technical purposes (related to protocols or algorithms used in creating
m-learning platform);
• Articles not relevant with regard to the delimitation made on the m-learning definition;
• Articles not belonging to research papers (i.e., proposals, summary of conference, lecture notes, etc.).

53
International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning
Volume 12 • Issue 1 • January-March 2020

The content of the remaining papers were then analyzed to investigate the nature of the challenges.
A qualitative approach of the selected papers has been adopted through content analysis to interpret
the underlying coherence and structure from the papers. Hsieh and Shannon (2005) defined qualitative
content analysis as “a research method for the subjective interpretation of the content of textual data
through the systematic classification process of coding and identifying themes or patterns” (p. 1278).
The analysis of the different papers content took in consideration the data population, the defined
and identified barriers and the context and the limitations of the study. Then, thematic data and
focused coding were used in the analysis to transform data from studies that fit the inclusion criteria
to categorical variables in order to obtain the data to be used for comparison. Our qualitative content
analysis is based on both inductive and deductive approaches. Indeed, in order to draw inference
categories, it’s important to link the collected data with the existing theories and also stimulate
original ideas and theory.
Four main categories emerged (Technological, Learner, Pedagogical and Facilitating Conditions).
Inference categories related to the different challenges were coded and supported by NVivo computer
program, which allows for gaining deeper insights from qualitative and mixed-methods data.
In order to ensure reliability, the consistency of coding performed by the researcher was examined
several times. In cases of different coding, a consensus was reached and codes were corrected. In
total, a list of 48 barriers was identified; however, despite using different terms, it was observed that
a number of located barriers semantically expressed the same challenge. After removing duplications,
24 challenges to m-learning implementation were defined.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This study has identified 24 challenges grouped under four main categories according to their
focus unit (Table 1). These categories are Technological, Learner, Pedagogical and Facilitating
Conditions (TLPFC):

• Technological challenges include technology infrastructure, bandwidth and connectivity, software

and interface design, compatible technology and technical support;
• Learner challenges are technological difficulty, perceived usefulness and ease of use, perceived
mobility value, perceived playfulness, self-management of learning, social support, cost of using
mobile technologies and mobile self-efficacy;
• Pedagogical challenges include faculty professional development, training for students, faculty
acceptance of m-learning technologies, computer literacy among faculty, content language and
pedagogical model;
• Facilitating Conditions challenges are set up cost, security and ethical issues, institutional support
and research.

Each individual category is representing a set of sub-challenges. In total, 24 challenges to

m-learning implementation has been identified in Table 1.
Table 2 shows the number of papers related to all of the sub challenges. The mean value of the
number of papers per category reveals: 18 papers in the technological category, 11 papers addressing
the learner category, 14 papers regarding the pedagogical category and 16 papers as part of the
facilitating conditions category. More details about the research papers per sub category can be
found in the appendix.
Significant investments have been made to provide infrastructure, content, and resources
related to the integration of mobile devices into learning environments (Johnson, Smith, Willis,
Levine, & Haywood, 2011); however, technical difficulties are still an important aspect in the
implementation and integration of m-learning technologies in education (Qureshi et al., 2012). This

54
 International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning
Volume 12 • Issue 1 • January-March 2020

Table 1. List of sub challenges

Sub-Challenges Description
Technological Category
- Refers to physical, technical, and functional characteristics of a mobile device
- Screen size, low resolution, tiny keyboard of mobile devices
Technology - Small storage size, battery consumption, small memory
infrastructure - Slow CPU speed of mobile devices
- Supporting application software
- Mobile application platforms set up.
- Wireless equipment
- Lack of Wi-Fi
Bandwidth and
- Low bandwidth
Connectivity
- Poor Internet connectivity
- Network accessibility.
Software and - Design of applicable Apps
interface design - Interface design of mobile platforms
Compatible - Incompatibility of content with m-learning management systems and mobile devices.
technology
- Unavailability of technical staff and lack of facilities to complete various activities (installation,
Technical support
operation, network).
Learner Category
Technological - Students facing technological difficulty in using m-learning applications and technologies.
difficulty
- Perceived usefulness: Student’s beliefs that using mobile learning will enhance his or her
Perceived of
learning performance and experience.
usefulness and ease
- Perceived ease of use: student’s belief that using mobile learning would not require a lot of
of use
effort.
Perceived mobility - Student awareness of the mobility value of mobile services and systems.
value
Perceived - Student experience pleasure or enjoyment from using m-learning systems.
playfulness
-Self management of - Self-disciplined feeling in order to engage in autonomous learning.
learning
- Support from peers, friends and other important individuals like family about the use of
Social support
m-learning,
Cost of using mobile - Students facing high cost of using mobile technologies.
technologies
Mobile self-efficacy - Students self-confidence in using mobile technology as part of their learning process.
Pedagogical Category
- Faculty facing technological difficulty in using m-learning applications.
Faculty professional
- Lack of faculty training and professional development in response to the adoption of
development
m-learning programs.
- Lack of training for students in response to the use of m-learning applications and mobile
devices in a pedagogical context.
Training for students
- Lack of official sensitizing campaign about distraction by the multitude of irrelevant apps and
websites.

continued on following page

55
International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning
Volume 12 • Issue 1 • January-March 2020

Table 1. Continued

Sub-Challenges Description
Faculty acceptance - Lack of m-learning acceptance among faculty (misperception and attitude).
of m-learning
technologies
Computer literacy - Lack of computer literacy among faculty.
among faculty
Content language - Lack of conversion of m-learning content in other languages.
- Need of a pedagogical theory for designing effective mobile learning courses.
- Limited evaluation and assessment methodology for mobile learning activities.
Pedagogical model
- Lack of adaptive learning methodology on the context of m-learning.
- Bridging formal and informal in learning, teaching and assessment.
Facilitating Conditions Category
Set up cost - High cost of setting up the m-learning system.
- Openness of m-learning systems challenging
- Security of personal information of students/staff/faculty such as, personal data collected
Security and ethical indirectly (e.g., without the implicit user’s consent)
issues - Mobile phone number, IP address, location data
- International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI)
- Virus and malwares attacks on m-learning systems and devices operating systems.
- Lack of administrative support in crafting m-learning related policies and resources
- Lack of institutional policy regarding the adoption and implementation of m-learning programs
Institutional support - Lack of policy regarding Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) strategy that is formally
communicated to learners
- Need of standard policy on mobile app integration.
- Need for more research initiatives focusing on themes such as:
- Improving the usability of mobile learning technology
Research
- Designing new forms of informal learning supported by personal mobile devices
- Evaluating learning that occurs outdoors and across locations.

study identified five challenges as part of the Technological category that related specifically to:
technology infrastructure, bandwidth and connectivity, software and interface design, compatible
technology and technical support. The study of Khaddage et al. (2015) found that by understanding
the technologies, infrastructure and architecture behind mobile applications, one can better identify a
successful implementation of these apps in education. They also identified the following technological
challenges: device/hardware-software, infrastructure and network; apps and devices, usability and
navigation delivery access and implementation.
The learner aspect takes into account individual’s cognitive abilities, emotions, attitudes and
possible motivations. Eight challenges have been identified under this category: Technological
difficulty, perceived of usefulness, and ease of use, Perceived mobility, Perceived playfulness,
Students self-management of learning, Cost of using mobile technology, Mobile self-efficacy and
Social support. Digital literacy, unfortunately, is a challenge both for teachers and learners (Brown
& Mbati, 2015). It is also essential to identify prejudice and attitude and convince the learner about
the practicality and benefit of the new technology (Joo, Kim, & Kim, 2016). According to Lepp,
Barkley & Karpinski (2015), some recent findings suggest a careful consideration of the relationship
between cell phone use, and the use of social media, and academic performance. Sung et al. (2016:
266) bring a definition of this orchestration as “the efforts of building harmonious relationships
among components to enable compatible, efficient, and effective technology-enhanced teaching and
learning environments”. Teacher-related barriers were placed within the Pedagogy category of our

56
 International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning
Volume 12 • Issue 1 • January-March 2020

Table 2. Number of papers per sub category

proposed model as done by Khaddage et al. (2015). The learner aspect in The Framework for the
Rational Analysis of Mobile Education model of Koole (2009) took into accounts the individual’s
cognitive abilities, memory, prior knowledge, emotions, and possible motivations.
The pedagogical challenge affects all involved stakeholders (teachers, students, parents,
administrators). Many concerns regarding design principles, frameworks models and instructional
strategies have been highlighted by teachers. The pedagogical category includes six challenges: Faculty
professional development, Training for students, Faculty’s acceptance of m-learning technologies,
Computer literacy among faculty, Pedagogical model and Content language. Challenges related to
teachers’ adoption of mobile technologies have emerged from the fact that they are not adequately
prepared to investigate the advantages or make informed decisions about use of mobile technology
in education (Kukulska-Hulme et al., 2009; Schuck et al., 2013). Khaddage et al. (2015) focused on
design principles and frameworks that teachers should follow in creating mobile learning environments,
and what instructional strategies can best be deployed to enhance student learning. Teaching via
apps is usually dynamic unlike teaching via a book where the content is usually static (Khaddage &
Lattemann, 2013; Khaddage & Cosío, 2014). At this point, teachers must have training that focus
on the pedagogy of integrating these devices as well as useful strategies for classroom management.
Other barriers were identified that are not related to any of the three categories we discussed
above, but they are supporting and impacting them. These barriers have been grouped in a new central
category, entitled “Facilitating Conditions”. It includes set up cost, security, safety and ethical issues,
institutional support and research. Set up cost has been considered as part of this category because
most school systems have not found a sustainable way to provide the same device for all students.
Schools often do not have an infrastructure for allowing an entire school population to access the
Internet without adding costly Wi-Fi access nodes (Khaddage et al., 2015). According to Viberg
(2015), there are ten vital rules during designing mobile learning: cost, system usability, choice of

57
International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning
Volume 12 • Issue 1 • January-March 2020

technology, roles, equipment management, support for teachers, administration, collaboration services
or application and security issue. Meta-analytical papers (Chee, Yahaya, Ibrahim & Noor Hassan,
2017; Al-Zahrani & Laxman, 2016; Hung & Zhang, 2012; Wu et al., 2012; Hwang & Tsai, 2011)
reveal a progression on the number of studies related to the effectiveness of m-learning followed by
m-learning system design (Chee et al., 2017).
Security has also been taken into consideration regarding concerns about network and growing
threats to data security and privacy, given that in most cases learners are allowed to use their own
mobile devices to access m-learning services and resources. Burden (2009) recorded five ethical
concerns about introducing m-learning into the classroom: cyber bullying; the potential for public
dissemination of information originally intended for a limited audience; the ease and speed with
which digital materials can be shared compared to older non-digital artefacts; the risk of unethical
use of archived materials; and levels of parental and student consent to recording classroom activity.
O’Bannon and Thomas (2014) shared important barriers when using mobile phones in the classroom
which include the possibility of disruption, cheating, cyber bullying and accessing inappropriate
content on the Internet.
Lack of institutional support has been found to be an important barrier impacting the
implementation of m-learning programs. A real concern about the use of mobile devices inside schools
and expressed by teachers is the potential for additional distractions, cheating and Internet safety.
The challenge that education is now facing is that the majority of educational institutions have yet to
establish a standard policy on mobile app integration, and a mechanism for integration is yet to be put
in place (Khaddage et al. 2015). Lai et al. (2013) state there is a need to develop policy guidelines for
equitable access, privacy, intellectual property, e-waste, and health and safety at the local, national,
and international levels. Aaron and Lipton (2017) state that digital devices and a nonrestrictive
classroom policy on the use of those devices contributed to poorer retention of classroom material.
M-learning is considered as an emerging field in education research. In this context, there is a real
need of research activities to focus more about the dynamics, the potentials, the barriers, limitations
and benefits of mobile learning. Indeed, teacher support and teacher training have been the least
explored topics in mobile learning research (Ekanayake & Wishart, 2014). Research is beginning to
document the relationship between motivation and mobile learning (Ciampa 2013), as well as mobile
learning and self-regulation (Sha et al., 2011).
The final outcome of this study is a conceptual framework on m-learning challenges including
four main categories (Technological, Learner, Pedagogical and Facilitating Conditions). The proposed
framework (TLPFC) in Table 3 outlines the structure of m-learning challenges.

4. CONCLUSION

This paper set out to answer the research question: “What has existing research identified as the
major challenges for mobile-learning?” Literature concerning m-learning implementation success
is extensive, however only few frameworks effectively consolidates the literature concerning the
interplay of m-learning implementation challenges. Based on the findings, the researchers developed
the TLPFC framework for guiding mobile learning implementations. This dynamic framework consists
of the four most commonly discussed issues in mobile learning: pedagogy, technology, learner and
facilitating conditions.
The outcome of this study is a contribution to practice when designing an m-learning project.
The TLPFC framework will help educators to better understand the challenges that impact m-learning
implementation and provide a valuable dynamic view on models and frameworks both from a practical
and a scientific point of view. This framework can also be used to guide research in understanding
which challenges are under-researched and should be given more focus.
Although considerable effort was made to include a wide range of articles in this study, we do
not claim the TLPFC framework to be finished. From a practical and a scientific perspective, each

58
 International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning
Volume 12 • Issue 1 • January-March 2020

Table 3. (TLPFC) framework description

Technological Pedagogical
• Technology infrastructure • Faculty professional development
• Bandwidth and Connectivity • Training for students
• Software and interface design • Faculty acceptance of m-learning
• Compatible technology technologies
• Technical support • Computer literacy among faculty
• Content language
• Pedagogical model
m-learning challenges
Learner Facilitating Conditions
• Technological difficulty • Set up cost
• Perceived of usefulness and ease of use • Security, safety and ethical issues
• Perceived mobility • Institutional support
• Perceived playfulness • Research
• Student self-management of learning
• Social support
• Cost of using mobile technologies
• Mobile self-efficacy

obstacle should be tested towards regular update of this conceptual framework. At this point, more
research should be planned in order to improve, extend, and test the value of the framework in practice,
especially as mobile technology evolves.
This study was limited to papers published between 2007 and 2017 and accessible in an
electronic environment. For this reason, papers published outside this period and inaccessible in
an electronic environment were not included in the study. These limitations should be taken into
account in future studies. TLPFC proposed framework is based on qualitative content analysis
of validated literature. There is a need to quantitatively evaluate, and systematically adapt the
framework structures. The researchers suggest the use of a practical questionnaire to support
quantitative evaluation of the challenges. It is recommended that future studies be conducted using
the TLPFC developed in this study to further address challenges when using mobile technology
and other emerging technologies in education.

59
International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning
Volume 12 • Issue 1 • January-March 2020

REFERENCES

Aaron, L., & Lipton, T. (2017). Digital distraction: Shedding light on the 21st-century college classroom. Journal
of Educational Technology Systems, 1–16.
Alhajri, R. (2016). Prospects and Challenges of Mobile Learning Implementation: A Case Study. Journal of
Information Technology & Software Engineering, 6(5), 189. doi:10.4172/2165-7866.1000189
Alhazmi, A. K., Rahman, A. A., & Zafar, H. (2014). Conceptual model for the academic use of Social Networking
Sites from student engagement perspective. In IEEE Conference on e-Learning, e-Management and e-Services
(IC3e). IEEE. doi:10.1109/IC3e.2014.7081232
Asiimwe, E. & Grönlund, A. (2017). Practices and challenges in an emerging m-learning environment.
International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology,
13(1), 103-122.
Baran, E. (2014). A Review of Research on Mobile Learning in Teacher Education. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society, 17(4), 17–32.
Campbell Collaboration. (2017). Campbell systematic reviews: policies and guidelines, version 1.3. Retrieved
from https://campbellcollaboration.org/media/k2/attachments/Campbell_Policies_and_Guidelines.pdf
Chang, C., Lai, C., & Hwang, G. (2018). Trends and research issues of mobile learning studies in nursing
education: A review of academic publications from 1971 to 2016. Computers & Education, 116, 28–48.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.09.001
Chee, K. N., Yahaya, N., Ibrahim, N. H., & Noor Hassan, M. (2017). Review of Mobile Learning Trends 2010-
2015: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(2), 113–126.
Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., Tsai, C. C., & Tseng, Judy C. R. (2010). A two-tier test approach to developing
location-aware mobile learning system for natural science course. Computers & Education, 55, 1618-162.
Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/3091834/A_two-tier_test_approach_to_developing_location-
aware_mobile_learning_systems_for_natural_science_courses
Ciampa, K. (2013). Learning in a mobile age: an investigation of student motivation. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 30, 82-96. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1029037
Cochrane, T. D. (2010). Exploring mobile learning success factors. ALT-J. Research in Learning Technology,
18(2), 133–148. doi:10.1080/09687769.2010.494718
Cochrane, T. D. (2010). Exploring mobile learning success factors. Alt-j, 18(2), 133-148. Retrieved from http://
www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09687769.2010.494718
Cushing, A. (2011). A case study of mobile learning in teacher training-Mentor ME (mobile enhanced mentoring).
MedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung, 19, 1–14.
Dahlstrom, E., & Bichsel, J. (2014). ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology.
Louisville, CO: ECAR.
Ekanayake, S. Y., & Wishart, J. (2014). Integrating mobile phones into teaching and learning: A case study
of teacher training through professional development workshops. British Journal of Educational Technology.
doi:10.1111/bjet.12131
El-Hussein, M. O. M., & Cronje, J. C. (2010). Defining Mobile Learning in the Higher Education Landscape.
Educational Technology & Society, 13, 12–21. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/journals/13_3/3.pdf
GSMA. (2017). The mobile economy. Retrieved from https://www.gsma.com/newsroom/press-release/number-
of-global-mobile-subscribers-to-surpass-five-billion-this-year/
GSMA. (2018). The mobile economy 2018. Retrieved from https://www.gsma.com/mobileeconomy/wp-content/
uploads/2018/05/The-Mobile-Economy-2018.pdf
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health
Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687 PMID:16204405

60
 International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning
Volume 12 • Issue 1 • January-March 2020

Jeng, Y. L., Wu, T. T., Huang, Y. M., Tan, Q., & Yang, S. J. H. (2010). The Add-on Impact of Mobile Applications
in Learning Strategies: A Review Study. In Educational Technology & Society (Vol. 13, pp. 3–11). Retrieved
from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.174.1194&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A., & Haywood, K. (2011). The 2011 Horizon Report. Austin, TX:
The New Media Consortium.
Joo, Y. J., Kim, N., & Kim, N. H. (2016). Factors predicting online university students’ use of a mobile learning
management system (m-LMS). Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4), 611-630. Retrieved
from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11423-016-9436-7
Khaddage, F., Christensen, R., Lai, W., Knezek, G., Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2015). A model driven framework
to address challenges in a mobile learning environment. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4), 625–640.
doi:10.1007/s10639-015-9400-x
Khaddage, F., & Cosío, J. H. (2014). Trends and barriers on the fusion of mobile apps in higher education
where to next and how? In M. Searson & M. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology
& Teacher Education International Conference 2014 (pp. 903-909). Chesapeake: AACE. Retrieved from https://
www.learntechlib.org/p/130879/
Khaddage, F., & Lattemann, C. (2013). The future of mobile apps for teaching and learning. In Z. Berge & L.
Muilen-burg (Eds.), Handbook of mobile learning: Definitions (pp. 119–128). London: Routledge.
Koole, M. L. (2009). A model for framing mobile learning. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile learning: Transforming
the delivery of education and training (pp. 25–47). Edmonton: AU Press, Athabasca University; Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.452.8674&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Kukulska-Hulme, A., Sharples, M., Milrad, M., Arnedillo-Sánchez, I., & Vavoula, G. (2009). Innovation in
mobile learning: A European perspective. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1(1), 13–35.
doi:10.4018/jmbl.2009010102
Lepp, A., Barkley, J., & Karpinski, A. (2015). The Relationship Between Cell Phone Use and Academic
Performance in a Sample of U.S. College Students. SAGE Open, (January–March): 1–9.
Negas, M. C., & Ramos, P. (2011). Critical Factors in the Use of Mobile Learning by “Digital Natives” on
Portuguese Teaching. In Proceeding of the European Conference on Information Management & Evaluation
(pp. 333–340). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313620769_Critical_factors_in_the_
use_of_mobile_learning_by_Digital_Natives_on_Portuguese_teaching
O’Bannon, B., & Thomas, K. (2014). Teacher perceptions of using mobile phones in the classroom: Age matters!
Computers & Education, 74, 15–25. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.006
Park, E., Baek, S., Ohm, J., & Chang, H. (2014). Determinants of player acceptance of mobile social network
games: An application of extended technology acceptance model. Telematics and Informatics, 31(1), 3–15.
doi:10.1016/j.tele.2013.07.001
Pimmer, C., Mateescu, M., & Grohbiel, U. (2016). Mobile and ubiquitous learning in higher education
settings. A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 490–501. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2016.05.057
Qureshi, I., Ilyas, K., Yasmin, R., & Whitty, M. (2012). Challenges of implementing e-learning in a Pakistani
university. Knowledge Management & E-Learning. International Journal (Toronto, Ont.), 4, 310–324.
Schuck, S., Aubusson, P., Kearney, M., & Burden, K. (2013). Mobilising teacher education: A study of a
professional learning community. Teacher Development, 17(1), 1–18. doi:10.1080/13664530.2012.752671
Sha, L., Looi, C.-K., Chen, W., & Zhang, B. (2011). Understanding mobile learning from the perspective
of self-regulated learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(4), 366–378. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2729.2011.00461.x
Sharples, M. (2013). Mobile learning: research, practice and challenges. Retrieved from http://oro.open.
ac.uk/37510/2/sharples.pdf
Sharples, M. (2013). Mobile learning: research, practice and challenges. Distance Education in China, 3(5),
5-11. Retrieved from: http://oro.open.ac.uk/37510/2/sharples.pdf

61
International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning
Volume 12 • Issue 1 • January-March 2020

Sharples, M., & Roschelle, J. (2010). Special Issue on Mobile and Ubiquitous Technologies for Learning.
IEEE transactions on learning technologies, 3(1). Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6a85/
e92a69635d7d1517e9d6a980604336504aa8.pdf
Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2005). Towards a theory of mobile learning. Proceedings of mLearn 2005.
Compass Project. Retrieved from http://www.compassproject.net/sadhana/teaching/readings/sharplesmobile.pdf
Shih-hsien, Y. A. N. G. (2012). Exploring college students’ attitudes and self-efficacy of mobile learning.
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(4). Retrieved from: http://www.tojet.net/
articles/v11i4/11414.pdf
Suárez, A., Specht, M., Prinsen, F., Kalz, M., & Ternier, S. (2018). A review of the types of mobile activities
in mobile inquiry-based learning. Computers & Education, 118, 38–55. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.004
Suhail, N. A. (2017). Assessing Mobile Learning Readiness in Kampala University, Uganda. International
Journal of Computer Applications, 170(2). Retrieved from http://www.ijcaonline.org/archives/volume170/
number2/suhail-2017-ijca-914712.pdf
Sung, Y., Chang, K., & Liu, T. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on
students’ learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computers & Education, 94, 252–275.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.008
Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., & Liu, T. C. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and
learning on students’ learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computers & Education,
94, 252–275. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.008
Suzaitul, A. Z., Masrom, M., & Amirah, S. A. (2016). Implementation of mobile learning apps in Malaysia
higher education institutions. In e-Proceeding of the 4th Global Summit on Education. Retrieved from:
https://worldconferences.net/proceedings/gse2016/fullpaper/GE%20117%20IMPLEMENTATION%20
OF%20MOBILE%20LEARNING%20APPS%20IN%20MALAYSIA%20HIGHER%20EDUCATION%20
INSTITUITIONS.pdf
Tabor, S. W. (2016). Making mobile learning work: Student perceptions and implementation factors. Journal
of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 15, 75–98. Retrieved from http://www.jite.org/
documents/Vol15/JITEv15IIPp075-098Tabor2449.pdf
Tan, G., Ooi, K., Sim, J., & Phusavat, K. (2012). Determinants Of Mobile Learning Adoption: An Empirical
Analysis. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 52(3). Retrieved from https://aprender.ead.unb.br/pluginfile.
php/107803/mod_folder/content/0/Artigos%20Selecionados%20Outubro%202015/Emp%C3%ADricos/2012%20
Tan%20Ooi%20Sim%20Phusavat.pdf?forcedownload=1
Teri, S., Acai, A., Griffith, D., Mahmoud, Q., Ma, D. W., & Newton, G. (2014). Student use and pedagogical
impact of a mobile learning application. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 42(2), 121–135.
doi:10.1002/bmb.20771 PMID:24375862
Thomas, T. D., Singh, L., & Gaffar, K. (2013). The utility of the UTAUT model in explaining mobile learning
adoption in higher education in Guyana. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information
and Communication Technology, 9(3), 71. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1071379.pdf
Traxel, J. (2009). Learning in a mobile age. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1(1), 1–12.
doi:10.4018/jmbl.2009010101
Traxler, J. (2007). Defining, Discussing, and Evaluating Mobile Learning: The Moving Finger Writes and
Having Writes. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(2), 1–12. doi:10.19173/
irrodl.v8i2.346
Tsinakos, A., & Ally, M. (2013). Global Mobile Learning Implementation and Trends. Beijing, China: China
Central Radio & TV University Press. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/5277085/Global_Mobile_
Learning_Implementation_and_Trends_Open_Book
Uden, L. (2007). Activity theory for designing mobile learning. International Journal of Mobile Learning and
Organisation. Retrieved from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/709a/5e458991ac16dda287c6284ba8d672dd5
2cc.pdf

62
 International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning
Volume 12 • Issue 1 • January-March 2020

Uğur. N. G., & Tuğba, K. O. Ç. (2016). Diffusion of m-learning: Sakarya University case. In Education Research
Highlights in Mathematics, Science and Technology 2016 (p. 96). Retrieved from: https://www.isres.org/books/
chapters/ERHMST2016-13_11-09-2017.pdf
Vafa, S., & Chico, D. E. (2013). A needs assessment for mobile technology use in medical education. International
Journal of Medical Education, 4, 230-235. Retrieved from https://www.ijme.net/archive/4/mobile-technology-
in-medical-education.pdf
Valk, J. H., Rashid, A. T., & Elder, L. (2010). Using mobile phones to improve educational outcomes: An
analysis of evidence from Asia. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(1),
117–140. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v11i1.794
Vavoula, G., & Sharples, M. (2009). Meeting the challenges in evaluating mobile learning: A 3-level evaluation
framework. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1(2), 54–75. doi:10.4018/jmbl.2009040104
Velev, G. (2014). Challenges and Opportunities of Cloud-Based Mobile Learning. International Journal of
Information and Education Technology (IJIET), 4(1). Retrieved from http://www.ijiet.org/papers/367-L0030.pdf
Viberg, O. (2015). Design and use of mobile technology in distance language education: Matching learning
practices with technologies-in-practice. Örebro University.
Wang, X. (2016). Faculty’s Knowledge, Pedagogy, and Integration Levels in the Implementation of Ipads as an
Instructional Tool. Dissertations. Retrieved from http://digscholarship.unco.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1
397&context=dissertations
Wang, Y., Wu, M., & Wang, H. (2009). Investigating the determinants and age and gender differences in the
acceptance of mobile learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 92–118. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2007.00809.x
Yu, S., Ally, M., & Tsinakos, A. (2018). Mobile and Ubiquitous Learning: An International Handbook. Singapore:
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-6144-8
Zurita, G., & Nussbaum, M. (2004). A constructivist mobile learning environment supported by a wireless
handheld network. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/
a68d/b551ed8b5859497c57bc0fbd141f1305d4f1.pdf

Mourad Benali is a professor at the Regional Centre for the Educational and Training Professions - Oujda , Morocco.
He is also an associate professor at CEDUC laboratory, Faculty of Humanities and arts, University Mohammed
I, Oujda- Morocco. His current areas of research include e-learning, mobile learning, digital competences, and
use of emerging technologies in training and education. Mr. Mourad Benali is the founder of Moroccan Education
and Resource Network (MEARN). He is recognized as distinguished trainer in different national workshops on the
integration of ICTs in the field of education and training. He has managed several educational projects and provided
technical support to a large number of schools to integrate information and communication technology into teaching
and learning practices. Mr. Benali holds a PHD degree on Uses of mobile technologies and academic learning

Mohamed Ally is Professor in the Centre for Distance Education and Researcher in the Technology Enhanced
Knowledge Research Institute (TEKRI) at Athabasca University. He is a Certified Training and Development
Professional by the Institute for Performance and Learning. He obtained his B.Sc. from York University in Toronto,
Canada; M.A. from Concordia University in Montreal, Canada; and Ph.D. from University of Alberta, Canada. His
current areas of research include distance education, mobile learning, e-learning, and use of emerging technologies
in training and education. Dr. Ally was President of the International Federation of Training and Development
Organizations (IFTDO) and is one of the Founding Directors of the International Association of Mobile Learning
(IamLearn). He was also on the board of the Institute for Performance and Learning (formerly the Canadian Society
for Training and Development). He recently edited twelve books on the use of emerging technologies in education
and training. His book “Mobile Learning: Transforming the Delivery of Education and Training” won the Charles
A. Wedemeyer Award for significant contribution to distance education. Dr. Ally has published in peer-reviewed
journals, chapters in books and encyclopedia and served on many journal boards and conference committees.
He has presented keynote speeches, workshops, papers, and seminars in many countries.

63