mobile english language learning (mell) a literature review

Mobile English Language Learning (MELL): a literature review

• Scinapse’s Top 10 Citation Journals & Affiliations graph reveals the quality and authenticity of citations received by a paper.
• Discover whether citations have been inflated due to self-citations, or if citations include institutional bias.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Effects of mobile learning in english language learning: a meta-analysis and research synthesis.

1. Introduction

1.1. m-learning in english education, 1.2. related work, 1.3. purpose of the study, 2.1. selection of the studies, 2.2. data coding, 2.3. calculation of the effect size, 2.4. moderating effect analysis, 2.4.1. education level, 2.4.2. pedagogical approach, 2.4.3. learning environment, 2.4.4. mobile device, 2.4.5. control treatment, 3.1. descriptive data of the studies, 3.2. effects of m-learning on student learning, 3.2.1. heterogeneity test, 3.2.2. publication bias, 3.3. moderator analysis, 4. discussion, 4.1. effects of m-learning on student learning in english education, 4.2. moderator analysis, 4.2.1. education level, 4.2.2. pedagogical approach, 4.2.3. learning environment, 4.2.4. mobile device, 4.2.5. control treatment, 4.3. implications for theory and practice, 5. limitations of the study, 6. future research, author contributions, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• West, M.; Vosloo, S. Policy Guidelines for Mobile Learning ; Kraut, R., Ed.; UNESCO Publishing: Paris, France, 2013; ISBN 978-92-3-001143-7. [ Google Scholar ]
• UNESCO Global Education Coalition. Available online: https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse/globalcoalition (accessed on 15 February 2023).
• Baran, E. A Review of Research on Mobile Learning in Teacher Education. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2014 , 17 , 17–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• van der Vlies, R. Digital Strategies in Education across OECD Countries: Exploring Education Policies on Digital Technologies ; OECD: Paris, France, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hylén, J. Turning on Mobile Learning in Europe: Illustrative Initiatives and Policy Implications ; UNESCO Publishing: Paris, France, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bazzanella, S. Digital Education Strategy and Implementation Plan—African Union ; African Union: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas, N.; Bowen, N.E.J.A.; Reynolds, B.L.; Osment, C.; Pun, J.K.H.; Mikolajewska, A. A Systematic Review of the Core Components of Language Learning Strategy Research in Taiwan. Engl. Teach. Learn. 2021 , 45 , 355–374. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Qiu, J. A Preliminary Study of English Mobile Learning Model Based on Constructivism. Theory Pract. Lang. Stud. 2019 , 9 , 1167–1172. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Orak, S.D.; Al-Khresheh, M.H. In between 21st Century Skills and Constructivism in Elt: Designing a Model Derived from a Narrative Literature Review. World J. Engl. Lang. 2021 , 11 , 166–176. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aziza, N. The Importance of English Language. Int. J. Orange Technol. 2020 , 2 , 22–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rao, P. The Role of English as a Global Language. Res. J. Engl. 2019 , 4 , 65–79. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yu, Z.; Yu, L.; Xu, Q.; Xu, W.; Wu, P. Effects of Mobile Learning Technologies and Social Media Tools on Student Engagement and Learning Outcomes of English Learning. Technol. Pedagog. Educ. 2022 , 31 , 381–398. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Klimova, B. Evaluating Impact of Mobile Applications on EFL University Learners’ Vocabulary Learning—A Review Study. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2021 , 184 , 859–864. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Santos, J.; Figueiredo, A.S.; Vieira, M. Innovative Pedagogical Practices in Higher Education: An Integrative Literature Review. Nurse Educ. Today 2019 , 72 , 12–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Borenstein, M.; Hedges, L.V.; Higgins, J.P.T.; Rothstein, H.R. Introduction to Meta-Analysis , 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2021; ISBN 9780470057247. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glass, G.V.; Smith, M.L.; McGaw, B. Meta-Analysis in Social Research ; Sage Publications Incorporated: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1981. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen, J. Quantitative Methods in Psychology. Psychol. Bull. 1992 , 112 , 155–159. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hedges, L.V.; Olkin, I. Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis ; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1985. [ Google Scholar ]
• Talan, T. The Effect of Mobile Learning on Learning Performance: A Meta-Analysis Study. Educ. Sci. Theory Pract. 2020 , 20 , 79–103. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Güler, M.; Bütüner, S.Ö.; Danişman, Ş.; Gürsoy, K. A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Mobile Learning on Mathematics Achievement. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021 , 27 , 1725–1745. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Burden, K.; Kearney, M.; Schuck, S.; Hall, T. Investigating the Use of Innovative Mobile Pedagogies for School-Aged Students: A Systematic Literature Review. Comput. Educ. 2019 , 138 , 83–100. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, J.H.; Park, H. Effects of Smartphone-Based Mobile Learning in Nursing Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Asian Nurs. Res. 2019 , 13 , 20–29. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Sung, Y.T.; Yang, J.M.; Lee, H.Y. The Effects of Mobile-Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: Meta-Analysis and Critical Synthesis. Rev. Educ. Res. 2017 , 87 , 768–805. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Cho, K.; Lee, S.; Joo, M.H.; Becker, B.J. The Effects of Using Mobile Devices on Student Achievement in Language Learning: A Meta-Analysis. Educ. Sci. 2018 , 8 , 13–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Chen, Z.; Chen, W.; Jia, J.; An, H. The Effects of Using Mobile Devices on Language Learning: A Meta-Analysis. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2020 , 68 , 1769–1789. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lin, J.J.; Lin, H. Mobile-Assisted ESL/EFL Vocabulary Learning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 2019 , 32 , 878–919. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, M.L. The Impact of Mobile Learning on the Effectiveness of English Teaching and Learning—A Meta-Analysis. IEEE Access 2022 , 10 , 38324–38334. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Garzón, J.; Lampropoulus, G.; Burgos, D. Mobile English Learning: A Meta-Analysis. In Proceedings of the Learning Technologies and Systems for Education—ICWL 2022—21st International Conference, ICWL 2022, Tenerife, Spain, 21–23 November 2022; González-González, C.S., Fernández-Manjón, B., Li, F., Peñalvo, F.J.G., Sciarrone, F., Spaniol, M., García-Holgado, A., Moreira, M.A., Hemmje, M., Hao, T., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gurevitch, J.; Koricheva, J.; Nakagawa, S.; Stewart, G. Meta-Analysis and the Science of Research Synthesis. Nature 2018 , 555 , 175–182. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pigott, T.D.; Polanin, J.R. Methodological Guidance Paper: High-Quality Meta-Analysis in a Systematic Review. Rev. Educ. Res. 2020 , 90 , 24–46. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Garzón, J.; Kinshuk; Baldiris, S.; Gutiérrez, J.; Pavón, J. How Do Pedagogical Approaches Affect the Impact of Augmented Reality on Education? A Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis. Educ. Res. Rev. 2020 , 31 , 100334. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Higgins, J.P.T.; Thomas, J.; Chandler, J.; Cumpston, M.; Li, T.; Page, M.J.; Welch, V.A. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. Syst. Rev. 2021 , 10 , 105906. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Krippendorff, K. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology ; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen, L.; Manion, L.; Morrison, K. Research Methods in Education ; Routledge: London, UK, 2002; ISBN 9780203224342. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morris, S.B. Estimating Effect Sizes from Pretest-Posttest-Control Group Designs. Organ. Res. Methods 2008 , 11 , 364–386. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Morris, S.B.; DeShon, R.P. Combining Effect Size Estimates in Meta-Analysis with Repeated Measures and Independent-Groups Designs. Psychol. Methods 2002 , 7 , 105–125. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thalheimer, W.; Cook, S. How to Calculate Effect Sizes from Published Research: A Simplified Methodology. Available online: https://paulogentil.com/pdf/How%20to%20calculate%20effect%20sizes%20from%20published%20research%20-%20a%20simplified%20methodology.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2023).
• Hedges, L.V.; Pigott, T.D. The Power of Statistical Tests for Moderators in Meta-Analysis. Psychol. Methods 2004 , 9 , 426–445. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Lipsey, M.W.; Wilson, D.B. Practical Meta-Analysis ; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2001; ISBN 9780761921684. [ Google Scholar ]
• ISCED 2011 ; UNESCO International Standard Classification of Education. UNESCO Institute for Statistics: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2012; ISBN 9789291891238.
• Hainey, T.; Connolly, T.M.; Boyle, E.A.; Wilson, A.; Razak, A. A Systematic Literature Review of Games-Based Learning Empirical Evidence in Primary Education. Comput. Educ. 2016 , 102 , 202–223. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bano, M.; Zowghi, D.; Kearney, M.; Schuck, S.; Aubusson, P. Mobile Learning for Science and Mathematics School Education: A Systematic Review of Empirical Evidence. Comput. Educ. 2018 , 121 , 30–58. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Garzón, J.; Acevedo, J. Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Augmented Reality on Students’ Learning Effectiveness. Educ. Res. Rev. 2019 , 27 , 244–260. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huedo-Medina, T.B.; Sánchez-Meca, J.; Marín-Martínez, F.; Botella, J. Assessing Heterogeneity in Meta-Analysis: Q Statistic or I2 Index? Psychol. Methods 2006 , 11 , 193–206. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Duval, S.; Tweedie, R. Trim and Fill: A Simple Funnel-Plot-Based Method of Testing and Adjusting for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis. Biometrics 2000 , 56 , 455–463. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Egger, M.; Smith, G.D.; Schneider, M.; Minder, C. Bias in Meta-Analysis Detected by a Simple, Graphical Test. BMJ 1997 , 315 , 629–634. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Rosenthal, R. Parametric Measures of Effect Size. In The Handbook of Research Synthesis ; Cooper, H., Hedges, L., Eds.; Russell Sage Foundation: New York, NY, USA, 1994; pp. 231–244. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ozer, O.; Kılıç, F. The Effect of Mobile-Assisted Language Learning Environment on EFL Students’ Academic Achievement, Cognitive Load and Acceptance of Mobile Learning Tools. EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2018 , 14 , 2915–2928. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Elaish, M.M.; Shuib, L.; Ghani, N.A.; Yadegaridehkordi, E. Mobile English Language Learning (MELL): A Literature Review. Educ. Rev. 2019 , 71 , 257–276. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cohen, A.; Henry, A. Focus on the Language Learner: Styles, Strategies and Motivation 1. In An Introduction to Applied Linguistics ; Routledge: Abington, UK, 2019; pp. 165–189. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bolatli, G.; Kizil, H. The Effect of Mobile Learning on Student Success and Anxiety in Teaching Genital System Anatomy. Anat. Sci. Educ. 2021 , 15 , 155–165. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Afreen, R. Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) in Higher Education: Opportunities and Challenges. Int. J. Emerg. Trends Technol. Comput. Sci. 2014 , 3 , 233–236. [ Google Scholar ]
• Belda-medina, J.; Marrahi-gomez, V. The Impact of Augmented Reality (AR) on Vocabulary Acquisition and Student Motivation. Electronics 2023 , 12 , 749. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Elaish, M.M.; Shuib, L.; Abdul Ghani, N.; Yadegaridehkordi, E.; Alaa, M. Mobile Learning for English Language Acquisition: Taxonomy, Challenges, and Recommendations. IEEE Access 2017 , 5 , 19033–19047. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Garzón, J.; Lampropoulos, G.; Burgos, D. Effects of Mobile Learning in English Language Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis. Electronics 2023 , 12 , 1595. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12071595

Garzón J, Lampropoulos G, Burgos D. Effects of Mobile Learning in English Language Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis. Electronics . 2023; 12(7):1595. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12071595

Garzón, Juan, Georgios Lampropoulos, and Daniel Burgos. 2023. "Effects of Mobile Learning in English Language Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis" Electronics 12, no. 7: 1595. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12071595

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Advertisement

Critical research trends of mobile technology-supported English language learning: A review of the top 100 highly cited articles

• Published: 11 October 2022
• Volume 28 , pages 4849–4874, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Monther M. Elaish   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0983-2327 1 ,
• Mahmood H Hussein 2 &
• Gwo-Jen Hwang 3 , 4  

4062 Accesses

4 Citations

Explore all metrics

Around the world, the number of English speakers and the significance of the English language are constantly increasing. Among various technology-supported instructional styles, Mobile Learning (M-Learning) has been recognized as a promising approach to enhance students’ competencies and skills in the English language. By examining previous literature, a number of reviews have been performed to investigate the role of M-learning in the English language. However, none of these studies has highlighted the trends, opportunities, and challenges identified in the most cited articles that focused solely on the English language. Therefore, to address these limitations, this study performed a review of the top 100 most cited articles, published between 2007 and 2020, indexed by the Web of Science, and addressing the English language only. The results revealed that most research in Mobile English Language Learning (M-ELL) followed an experimental design and employed a single mobile learning implementation. Additionally, the current study identified a number of research areas that require additional research attention. For example, further research is needed among students learning from home, more qualitative research is needed, and additional research is required to improve students’ higher-order thinking skills. The outcomes of this study provide a reference to researchers and educators who intend to use mobile technologies in the area of language education, especially in the context of the English language.

Similar content being viewed by others

Assistive technology for the inclusion of students with disabilities: a systematic review

Artificial intelligence in higher education: the state of the field

A systematic literature review of empirical research on ChatGPT in education

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

English has been recognized as one of the most important languages around the globe and the cornerstone of human existence (Abidin et al., 2012 ; Stoios et al., 2019 ). In some countries, English is even used more frequently than the native languages (Rao, 2019 ). As such, there is a critical need for effective and high-quality education in order to produce competent English language users (Barnawi & Al-Hawsawi, 2017 ). To address this continuing interest in the English language, many countries have taken into account English in training programs at all educational levels (Hariharasudan & Kot, 2018 ; Zoghbor, 2018 ). In addition, several developing countries are considering teaching English as well as other foreign languages in school settings (Rahman & Pandian, 2018 ; Sah & Li, 2018 ).

A number of technology-enhanced learning techniques have been applied in English education. However, researchers have given increasing attention to mobile learning (m-learning) since the beginning of the 21st-century (Pedro et al., 2018 ). Given their prevalence and affordability, mobile devices are often described as the tools that have democratized access to technology, as there are more mobile devices in the hands of learners than any other type of technology, and these devices can be utilized for educational purposes, especially in the teaching and learning of the English language (Hockly & Dudeney, 2018 ).

Researchers have given increasing attention to mobile learning (m-learning), especially from 2004 onwards (Elaish, Shuib, Ghani, Mujtaba, et al., 2019a ). Therefore, m-learning is recognized as a beneficial approach to facilitating formal and informal learning and access to knowledge (Traxler, 2007 ; Viberg et al., 2021 ). Due to the popularity of m-learning in second language acquisition, an independent domain of research has emerged, known as mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) (Kukulska-Hulme, 2009 ). Out of MALL, a sub-domain of research has emerged, called m-learning in English language learning (M-ELL), which focuses entirely on using mobile technology to provide an effective environment to teach and learn English (Elaish et al., 2019b ). Several scholars have further emphasized the importance of using mobile technologies for language learning from the perspectives of situated learning (Özüdogru & Özüdogru, 2017 ) and mastery learning (Zhang, 2010 ). That is, enabling learners to practice and apply knowledge in authentic and meaningful contexts and without being limited by location and time is the key to the success of language learning.

Therefore, there is a need to examine how mobile applications have been adopted to facilitate English learning. According to Burke et al., ( 2022 ), many researchers have attempted to investigate m-learning. However, in the context of M-ELL, only a few reviews were conducted (e.g., Elaish et al., 2019b ; Lin & Lin, 2019 ). In addition, by examining these reviews a pattern emerges, which shows that they can be divided into two main categories. The first category consists of reviews that approached M-ELL from a general and broad perspective (e.g., the main research domains, purposes, and evaluation methods used, and who the sample participants are). For instance, Elaish et al., ( 2019b ) and Elaish et al., ( 2021 ) systematically reviewed the findings of 69 and 151 articles published between 2010 and 2015, and 2010 and 2017, respectively.

The second category consists of studies that addressed M-ELL from a specific angle. For example, Lin and Lin ( 2019 ) synthesized the outcomes of 33 research studies published between 2005 and 2018, to examine the effectiveness of m-learning technologies in advancing students’ vocabulary skills. Further, Zhang & Crompton ( 2021 ) reported the outcomes of 438 studies published between 2008 and 2019, to demonstrate how m-learning is being utilized in Chinese higher education in the context of M-ELL.

Lin and Lin ( 2019 ) studied the previous research syntheses on mobile learning and reported their gaps and limitations. These studies offer significant synthetic and annotated bibliographies related to MALL, and have examined this field from different perspectives (Burston, 2014 , 2015 ; Duman et al., 2015 ; Godwin-Jones, 2011 ; Kukulska-Hulme & Shield, 2007 , 2008 ; Sung et al., 2015 ; Viberg & Grönlund, 2012 ). However, these studies adopted a narrative review approach, which failed to report the actual effectiveness of the treatment, not to mention how the treatment effects vary due to the exertion of a single factor or from the combination of other factors.

Zhang & Crompton ( 2021 ) reviewed m-learning research in the recent decade (e.g., Crompton & Burke 2018 ; Duman et al., 2015 ; Kaliisa & Picard, 2017 ; Krull & Duart, 2017 ). These studies revealed current research on mobile learning from different perspectives. However, little systematic research has touched on the status of mobile learning and its research trends in a specific context (China).

Both types of reviews provided detailed and insightful information regarding M-ELL research. However, studies in the first category attempted to evaluate the overall effectiveness of m-learning in advancing students’ English language competencies. As a result, researchers and educators could find it challenging to form a clear consensus pertaining to the effectiveness of M-ELL, especially if they are interested in a specific language skill, geographical location, or research perspective. In terms of studies in the second category, a closer analysis suggests that these reviews followed a more focused approach, in which they looked at a specific English skill or research conducted within a particular nation, in an attempt to highlight the trends and challenges in M-ELL from a specific scholarly view.

In continuation with the focused approach established by Zhang & Crompton ( 2021 ) and Lin and Lin ( 2019 ), the present study aimed to review the trends of M-ELL from the perspective of highly cited articles published in the Web of Science database. The present study makes the following contributions: first, it offers an in-depth analysis through an evidence-based discussion regarding the effectiveness of M-ELL. Second, it provides comprehensive insights into M-ELL trends and challenges from the perspective of highly cited research studies. Therefore, it is hoped that this study will present useful information to aid researchers, educators, and application developers who are interested in M-ELL from three angles: (1) research designs and objectives; (2) learning devices, activities, and learning places; and (3) adopted subjects, sample sizes, analysis methods, and measurement issues by referring to the technology-based learning model (Lin & Hwang, 2019 ). Further, the analysis provided by this study might assist researchers and instructors from other language disciplines in acquiring further evidence concerning the effectiveness of m-learning as an instructional approach. To fulfill the above-mentioned objectives, the present review aimed to address the following research questions:

RQ1: What are the research designs and objectives of the top 100 highly cited M-ELL studies?

RQ2: What are the learning devices, activities, and learning places adopted by the top 100 highly cited M-ELL studies?

RQ3: What are the subjects, sample sizes, analysis methods, and measurement issues of the top 100 highly cited M-ELL studies?

2 Mobile Learning background and history

Crompton ( 2013 , p. 4) defined m-learning as “Learning across multiple contexts, through social and content interactions, using personal electronic devices.“ M-learning has become a generic term for mobile integration computing devices in teaching and learning (Grant, 2019 ).

Bransford et al., ( 2005 ) stated that m-learning goes beyond research and pilot projects toward large-scale services. They gave an example of an English in Action (EIA) project which has helped millions of people in Bangladesh improve their communicative English language skills. Two main motivations drive the growing interest in mobile learning. The first is the desire to equip each student with a powerful individual device, as this could provide a personalized and customized learning experience, and it is known that students learn more effectively when they draw on their own current understanding and make their own learning choices. The second is a growing recognition that in the 21st century, people must continue to learn throughout their lives, as knowledge and technologies advance rapidly (Sharples & Pea, 2014 ).

Thanks to the dedicated work of the mobile learning community, the past few years have seen an explosion in the growth of mobile learning across all sectors of education. Current perspectives on mobile learning generally fall into four broad categories: technocentric, relationship to e-learning, augmenting formal education, and learner-centered (Winters, 2007 ).

The educational process relies heavily on mobile learning, and many areas are increasingly developing mobile learning. Mobile apps are now the new breakthrough development of the era in learning skills in all fields, and social media platforms are strengthening the process. Mobile apps are not only text and videos but also tutorials, which show the actual processes (Qureshi et al., 2020 ).

In recent years, the educational model has benefited from the incorporation technologies that enrich the teaching-learning process. The benefits of using mobile devices in learning include constructivist learning, student behavior, learning spaces, collaborative learning, informal and self-directed learning, resources for teachers, technology and support, affordability and portability, availability and flexibility, and motivational learning (Criollo-C et al., 2021 ).

3 Research Method

3.1 article search.

To retrieve the most relevant research articles, a keyword list was determined to figure out the features of the target articles by taking all possible combinations of keywords into account. The keyword list was adopted from Elaish, Shuib, Ghani, Mujtaba, et al. ( 2019a ), Elaish et al. ( 2017 ), and Elaish et al. ( 2021 ). However, the mobile assisted language learning and MALL terms were added to the search strategy due to their importance in collecting the related articles. The adopted keyword list was “((mobile learning) OR (m-learning) OR (mlearning) OR (personalized learning) OR (ubiquitous learning) OR (u-learning) OR (anytime and anywhere learning) OR (mobil * learn *) OR (mobile assisted language learning) OR (MALL)) AND (English language).” Some of these terms were selected because Mehdipour and Zerehkafi ( 2013 ) stated that personalized learning, ubiquitous learning, anytime and anywhere learning as well as handheld learning are among the many m-learning names depending on the field.

3.2 Data source

The Web of Science is the main source for many quantitative studies to obtain bibliographic indicators (Ràfols et al., 2016 ). The selection method of WoS journals is based on their fulfilment of editorial standards and high scientific impact (Braun et al., 2000 ). Based on its perceived objectivity, the WoS has achieved an authoritative status in terms of identifying high-quality journals globally (Lillis & Curry, 2010 ). The WoS was chosen because the quality of the research articles published in this database have been well recognized (Hussein et al., 2021 ). The strategy was used to search for the topics of Social Sciences Citation Index™ (SSCI) publications, as suggested by Chang et al. ( 2018 ). The search was conducted on December 23, 2021 and 1,717 articles were found. By limiting the search to journal articles in the field of education and educational research, a total of 992 articles were kept.

3.3 Selection process

Each of the 992 articles was read separately to check whether mobile learning was used to learn the English language. The top 100 M-ELL cited articles were identified from the 17th to the 574th article. The possible reasons why so many irrelevant articles were selected using this strategy are as follows:

The strategy selected articles which stated that the authors had used the English language to translate from another language for which mobile learning was used.

The strategy selected articles that incorporated some of the previous work related to English language learning.

The strategy selected articles because the authors included the word “English” in their contribution notes.

3.4 Coding Scheme

To provide detailed analysis of the content of articles included in this study, a number of coding schemes were implemented. These coding schemes covered a number of dimensions, namely, basic information, mobile devices (adopted Chang et al., 2018 ), research design (adopted from Johnson & Christensen 2000 ), research methods, roles of mobile learning (adopted Hwang 2014 ), learning place (adopted Hwang et al., 2008 ), statistical methods (adopted from Mertler & Reinhart 2016 ; Wert et al., 1954 ), measurement issues (adopted from Chang et al., 2018 ; Lai, 2019 ), participants (adopted Elaish et al., 2017 , 2019b ), and additional detailed information regarding each scheme which is listed in Table 1 .

4.1 Publication Situation, Nationalities, and journals

Fig. 1 shows the distribution of the top 100 cited articles in M-ELL, during the period 2007 to 2020. According to the results, the earliest article was written by Fallahkhair et al., ( 2007 ); it focused on the development processes of a cross-platform ubiquitous language learning service via interactive television (iTV) and mobile phones to learn the English language. During the period 2010 to 2018, more than six articles were published each year, with the sole exception of 2015. In addition, although this study was conducted at the end of 2021, two articles from the year 2020 were included.

In addition, the articles included in this review were divided into two periods. This follows the classification approach adopted by Lai ( 2019 ), who divided the results of their review into three periods, with each period spanning 7 years; they then compared the three groups. Thus, in the current study, the first period was 2007 to 2013 (45 articles), and the second period was 2014 to 2020 (55 articles). The distribution of articles revealed that more research was published between 2014 and 2020, which implies an increasing interest among researchers and educators in using m-learning in the area of the English language.

Distribution status of highly cited M-ELL studies

In this study, the nationalities of the first author only were taken into consideration. From the results, only 20 nationalities appeared in the highly cited M-ELL articles. According to Fig. 2 , which lists countries and areas with more than two contributions, Taiwan has produced the majority of research (45 articles), followed by China (13 articles), Turkey (7 articles), the United States (5 articles), Australia and Japan (4 articles), and North Cyprus and the United Kingdom (3 articles each).

Nationalities which appeared more than twice in M-ELL articles

Furthermore, the authors of the top 100 highly cited articles came from 68 different institutions. The institute with the highest number of articles (9) is National Taiwan Normal University, while National Cheng Kung University published five articles, National Chengchi University published four articles, and Lunghwa University of Science and Technology published three. Two articles each were published by 15 institutions, while 59 institutions published one each.

It was also found that 80 of the top 100 highly cited M-ELL articles were published by 10 journals, as shown in Fig. 3 . On the other hand, those 10 journals received 91.2% of the citations (4,636 out of 5,080), with Computers & Education alone receiving 26.3% of all citations (1,338 out of 5,080). The British Journal of Educational Technology ranked second in terms of citations, with 687 (just under half of Computers & Education’s citations).

Top 10 journals publishing M-ELL articles

4.2 Types of Mobile Devices

In terms of device usage, Fig. 4 shows that 27 articles adopted smart phones, 19 used traditional mobile devices, and 13 utilized mixed mobile devices. In addition, 13 articles did not specify which type of mobile technology they used in their research. Finally, 17 articles did not employ any mobile devices. There was no use of wearable devices among these 100 articles.

Mobile devices adopted in M-ELL studies

From 2007 to 2013, 45 articles were published. As shown in Fig. 5 , the majority of the research (19 articles) was mainly conducted using Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) (e.g. Cheng et al., 2010 ), followed by smart phones (14 articles) (e.g. Shen et al., 2008 ), while only one study employed tablet PCs in English language learning (e.g. Lan et al., 2007 ).

Mobile devices adopted in M-ELL studies in each period

From 2014 to 2020, the use of smart phones remained relatively stable with 13 articles. The popularity of tablet PCs increased dramatically in this time period (10 articles), along with mixed mobile devices (8 articles). In addition, there was a notable upsurge in the number of studies that did not specify the adopted mobile technology (9 articles) and studies that included no use of mobile technology at all (15). Further, PDA technology attracted no research interest in this period. For instance, Lai ( 2016 ) adopted smart phones to create a mobile immersion environment with the mobile instant messaging application, WhatsApp. In Shadiev et al.‘s ( 2015 ) study, students took pictures of didactic objects in an authentic, familiar environment and used English to describe their pictures in written and oral annotations using tablet PCs. Yao ( 2015 ) used a variety of devices to improve students’ ability to apply English efficiently.

The adoption of Global Positioning Systems (e.g. Khemaja & Taamallah 2016 ), Augmented Reality (e.g. Liu & Tsai 2013 ), or Bluetooth (e.g. Shao & Crook 2015 ) in English language learning was found in the literature. However, some emerging technologies, such as infrared rays and the Internet of Things, were not adopted by these studies.

4.3 Research Design

Table 2 shows the distribution of the top 100 cited articles in M-ELL, according to their research design. It was found that 47% were experimental design studies (e.g. Chen & Hsu 2008 ), 19% employed non-experimental designs (e.g. Hsu 2013 ), while 15% of studies conducted mixed methods (e.g. Chen et al., 2019 ), and 13% of studies employed a qualitative design (e.g. Hsieh & Tsai 2017 ). Only 6% employed analytical research. In general, the experimental, non-experimental, and mixed methods decreased in the second period. On the other hand, qualitative design and analytical research increased in the same period.

4.4 Research Methods

According to the results in Table 3 , the research method with the highest percentage is single mobile learning implementation (28%) (e.g. Cavus & Ibrahim 2009 ), followed by comparing different mobile learning designs (24%) (e.g. Sandberg et al., 2014 ), comparing mobile learning with other learning methods (22%) (e.g. Liu 2009 ), and observation of learners’ behaviors and collection of their perceptions of learning through interviews (18%) (e.g. Kearney & Maher 2019 ). The percentages of these three research methods are very similar. On the other hand, literature and theoretical-based analysis was only used in 8% of the studies (e.g. Baran 2014 ).

There is an interesting finding that the use of single mobile learning implementation and comparing different mobile learning designs reduced in the second period. However, the use of observation and interviews and literature and theoretical-based analysis increased in the second period. Comparing mobile learning with other learning methods did not see any changes from the first to the second period.

4.5 Roles of Mobile Learning

Table 4 presents the roles of mobile learning in the M-ELL studies. Approximately one in three studies (29%) employed mobile devices for learners to access learning materials only (e.g. Zheng et al., 2018 ). Although the role of employing mobile devices in learning across contexts (e.g. Y.-M. Huang et al., 2012a , b ) declined during 2014 to 2020, this role was the second most popular choice among researchers in M-ELL, with a utilization rate of 24%. Interestingly, studies that did not use any activities or which did not clearly state the role of the mobile devices during the learning activity increased noticeably during the second period, constituting 20% of studies (e.g. Hoi 2020 ; Serin, 2012 ). Learning with full online support received relatively the same research interest during both periods. Finally, despite the fact that using mobile devices as a tool to evaluate learning materials and learning performance (e.g. Kondo et al., 2012 ) increased during the second period, this role was the least frequently assigned to mobile devices, comprising 10% of the studies only.

4.6 Learning places

Table 5 shows that 31% (e.g. Zhonggen et al., 2019 ) of learning interventions were conducted across learning contexts. In addition, almost 26% of studies (e.g. Dashtestani 2016 ) were conducted in a classroom or laboratory. Studies performed on school campuses and in real-world contexts received similar research interest, with 10% and 8%, respectively. This diversity in learning places indicates that M-ELL allows learners to learn anywhere, especially across contexts and in classrooms or laboratories, as 57% of studies were conducted in these places. However, other locations such as homes attracted very limited research, at 1% only. However, 15% of the studies did not use mobile devices at all (e.g. García-Sánchez & Luján-García 2016 ).

4.7 Statistical methods

Table 6 illustrates that one third of the studies included in this review focused on using descriptive statistical analysis (33%) (e.g. Ma 2017 ), while the two methods of one-way ANOVA / ANCOVA / MANCOVA (e.g. Zou & Xie 2018 ) and t tests (e.g. Oberg & Daniels 2013 ) were employed by 32% of studies. In addition, other analysis methods such interviews attracted notable research attention, as almost one in every four studies conducted interviews with participants. Other statistical methods observed in as few as 6% of studies were two-way ANOVA/ANCOVA/MANOVA/ MANCOVA (e.g. Chang, Lei, et al., 2011) and regression analysis (e.g. Huang et al., 2012a , b ). Additionally, 15% of the studies did not use any statistical method or did not specify which method was used (e.g. Kim & Smith 2017 ).

When the two periods are compared, the results suggest that One-way ANOVA / ANCOVA/MANOVA/MANCOVA, Chi-square/partial least squares, regression analysis, and SEM experienced growth in research interest. However, on the other hand, during the second period, the implementation rate of t tests, interviews, and Two-way ANOVA/ANCOVA/MANOVA/MANCOVA declined.

4.8 Measurement issues

According to the results in Table 7 , the most investigated research outcomes are affect and cognition, with 76% and 74%, respectively. A closer look at these outcomes, especially the cognition category, reveals that improving students’ academic achievement (e.g. Chang, Tseng, et al., 2011) was the most researched outcome, as it was investigated by more than half of the studies included in this review. Other learning outcomes in the cognition category such as collaboration/communication (e.g. Liu et al., 2017 ) and higher-order thinking were not thoroughly examined, comprising only 13% and 10%, respectively, although the studies that focused on communication/collaboration more than doubled during 2014 to 2020. Despite being less observed during the second period, in the affect category, the most studied outcome was satisfaction/interest (e.g. Wang et al., 2009 ), as it was assessed in 25% of the studies included in this review. Concerning other learning outcomes in this category, such as attitude/effort and technology acceptance (e.g. Chang et al., 2013 ), both domains were studied in equal measures, with 15% and 13%, respectively. Further, in the technical category (e.g. Huang et al., 2016 ), 25% of studies addressed improving students’ learning performance from a technical point of view.

4.9 Participants, English Skills, Group size, Assessment, and English Acquisition problems

Most articles in this field (54%) studied the effect of M-ELL on university students (e.g. Chang et al., 2012 ), as shown in Table 8 . Most of the studies recruited participants of the same type, except for 4% of studies adopting mixed groups of participants, such as teachers and students together (e.g. Ng & Nicholas 2013 ) or school and university students (e.g. Jung 2014 ). In addition, 4% of studies did not refer to any research participant. In conclusion, most studies (79%) focused individually on university or school students only. The other types of participants, whether together or separately, received very little attention, especially mixed (students and teachers or school and university students).

English skills could be “vocabulary,” “reading,” “listening,” “speaking,” “writing,” or “grammar.” In the present study, the “targeted English language skills” could be one of the categories: single skill, more than one skill, and all skills. As shown in Table 9 , and 43% of the studies stated that their intervention addressed all English language skills (e.g. Al-Fahad 2009 ) but some of them did not provide any such information, while 18% of the studies aimed to enhance more than one English skill of the participants (e.g. Gu et al., 2011 ). Finally, 20% of the studies focused on the vocabulary skill (e.g. Liu 2016 ).

Regarding studies that investigated one language skill, vocabulary was the most targeted. Overall, 91% of the studies only focused on studying or improving all English language skills together, more than one but not all, vocabulary or reading. The other skills received little focus in terms of being studied either individually or in combination with other skills.

In the M-ELL research, four main types of assessment were carried out, namely questionnaires (e.g. Lim et al., 2011 ), tests (e.g. Sandberg et al., 2011 ), interviews (e.g. Wong & Looi 2010 ), and observations (e.g. Khemaja & Taamallah 2016 ). According to the results in Table 10 , and 39% of the studies used one of these types as the only assessment method for the study; with a utilization rate of 23%, questionnaires were the most employed form of assessment among these four types. It should be noted that some studies did not provide clear information regarding the assessment methods they used (e.g. Mahdi 2018 ), while other studies used a questionnaire and observation, or only conducted a review to study usage trends (e.g. Hsu 2016 ). In addition, during the second period, the assessment method that combined tests, questionnaires, and interviews received more attention than any other method of assessment.

In relation to problems associated with English language acquisition, Table 11 reveals that 96% of studies focused primarily on addressing the lack of studies that test the effect of m-learning technologies (e.g. Hwang et al., 2016 ), promoting students’ motivation (e.g. T. T. Wu, 2018), and highlighting language difficulties or limitations of vocabulary, and unavailability of reading materials (e.g. Liu 2016 ).

More than half of the studies were investigation studies. There were no studies of the curriculum or of teacher quality problems. Only a few studies (1%) were related to cultural problems.

4.10 Some additional items were extracted from the reviewed articles

In the second period, there was an increase in the number of studies focusing on the English language only (41%) (e.g. Chang et al., 2016 ); however, the number of studies that investigated English along with other aspects (e.g. Looi & Wong 2014 ) increased and received more attention, as illustrated in Table 12 . Additionally, all review studies studied English language with other languages (e.g. Duman et al., 2015 ) except for one (Elaish et al., 2019b ).

Finally, Fig. 6 shows that m-learning applications can either be used on their own, purely without any support from other technology, or blended, which means the application in question is used within other technologies; in addition, concerning the type of application used by the studies included in this review, the results in Fig. 6 reveal that around one third of studies employed a non-game application, which refers to the use of a mobile application without showing evidence of gaming, SMS/MMS, or media (e.g. Zhonggen et al., 2019 ). Further, the non-game applications, during both periods, in pure and blended forms, were the most used at a rate of 45%.

Mobile learning taxonomy with M-ELL application type in each period

In pure settings, gaming applications (e.g. Kondo et al., 2012 ) were the second most employed form of technology. Regarding other forms of technology, during the second period, MMS/SMS such as WhatsApp was the third most implemented form of technology at 9% (e.g. Avci & Adiguzel 2017 ).

5 Discussion

Highly cited articles are regarded as valuable and quality indicators for the continuity of research (Garousi & Fernandes, 2016 ). Via analyzing the most cited articles, the potential research foci or designs that could attract a great deal of attention could be identified, and thus helpful recommendation for future studies can be offered (Lai, 2019 ).

In this study, research studies published between 2007 and 2020 and indexed by the Web of Science online repository were selected to analyze and review the 100 most cited articles in the area of M-ELL research. The Web of Science database was selected for the best coverage of scientific journal citations (Farooq & Feizollah, 2021 ; Laato et al., 2022 ). Analysis of research output according to the year of publication shows that M-ELL attracted considerable research attention throughout the years. It was also found that many studies reported that m-learning had positive impacts on participants’ performance or perceptions (Elaish et al., 2017 ; García Botero et al., 2019 ; Kim et al., 2013 ; Liu, 2009 ).

Recently, qualitative and analytical research have received more attention as the preferred research designs in M-ELL studies. This increase in the use of qualitative research in different fields of science and industry has been discussed by Frost ( 2021 ) and Mohajan ( 2018 ). On the other hand, experimental (pre, quasi, true) research designs were still commonly used in this field (47%). Ross & Morrison ( 2013 ) mentioned the importance of the experimental research design in the relevant field, because “The behavioral roots of educational technology and its parent disciplines have fostered usage of experimentation as the predominant mode of research” (p. 1031).

Comparison of two different methods (mobile vs. mobile or mobile vs. traditional) or just single implementation have been used extensively in M-ELL studies (82% in the first period), but this decreased to 67% in the second period, indicating that since the second period, researchers began to study the use of mobile learning in education from different directions, as Wu et al., ( 2012 ) reported after a review of previous studies. This transfer was reinforced after the study of Hwang et al., ( 2014 ) who observed unsatisfactory achievement among students even if they were motivated. Thus, the study in a related field moved from comparison with other methods or measuring single implementation to different directions studied by means of observation and interviews.

Regarding the role of mobile learning, accessing learning material had the highest number of studies (29%). This was also stated by Lai ( 2019 ) who reviewed the top 100 highest cited mobile learning articles. In the second place, with a slight difference, was learning across contexts. This growing interest in this role is justified due to the importance of this role, which provides learning guidance and supplementary materials or feedback to learners via mobile devices. Additionally, Hwang ( 2014 ) observed that this role is essential as it also helps students deal with problems as well as gain real-world knowledge.

Across contexts (learning in more than one place as Hwang et al., ( 2008 ) stated) was found in the highest number of M-ELL studies (31%). This finding is contrary to the observation of Sung et al., ( 2017 ) who stated that the classroom is a good place to conduct mobile learning studies. However, in terms of study period, Sung et al., ( 2017 ) reviewed articles from 2000 to 2015, and therefore their findings were confirmed by this study which found that classrooms or laboratories were the most common places to conduct studies in the first period (2007–2013), comprising 33% of the studies. Homes received less attention (1%), suggesting that more focus on using M-ELL at home may be needed, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The three most widely used statistical methods are descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA, and t tests, either performed individually or in combination in one study. This can be justified as 46% of studies included in this review performed comparisons of instructional styles (mobile vs. mobile or mobile vs. traditional), in which these statistical approaches were implemented to find out whether group means are significantly different from each other or not (Dąbrowska et al., 2009 ). In addition, these three statistical methods are tools of quantitative research studies, which is the most widely used type of research compared to qualitative research (Dimitrov, 2008 ). Moreover, descriptive statistics are summary statistics that summarize features of the collected information and are used in most types of research methods (Mann, 2007 ).

In M-ELL studies, with the exception of review studies, it was found that research interventions which focused on behavioral analysis received very limited research attention. A reasonable explanation for this could be the limited number of studies that followed a qualitative research approach, as Wolcott (2008) maintained that qualitative research is an appropriate way to study human behavior on many topics, even in a different cultural context. This finding is in line with Lai’s ( 2019 ) study which reviewed the top 100 highly cited articles in m-learning as well as Chang et al.‘s ( 2018 ) meta-review to find the research foci of m-learning in nursing training.

Most studies examined all English skills together (or did not specify which skills they focused on), followed by studies that examined vocabulary skills. Few studies looked at other skills such as writing, while no research was conducted on grammar. This finding is in line with Elaish, Shuib, Ghani, and Yadegaridehkordi’s finding ( 2019b ).

Most studies used questionnaires, tests, observations, and interviews as assessment methods to evaluate participants’ achievements or perceptions from the cognition, affect, or technical dimensions. Some studies aimed to analyze the relationships between these dimensions. This implies that further research is needed to investigate students’ behavioral patterns or interactive patterns based on the logs in the m-learning systems.

“Lack of identifying needs, reports, or studies or testing the effect of technologies” was the most studied problem investigated by these English language learning articles (57%). This indicates that this field is still in its infancy and that more studies are needed to cover all of its aspects, trends, and challenges. Receiving far less research attention, motivation was the second most studied problem, as it was covered by 27% of studies. This is contrary to Elaish et al.‘s ( 2021 ) findings. Thus, from the top 100 highly cited articles, we are able to perceive the research trend from a different angle.

Most of the studies (80%) focused only on learning English. However, all review articles (except for one) included studies on English with other languages or fields of science. Different languages (e.g. English, Japanese, and Chinese) generally have different structures and ways of describing terms and meanings. McCloskey ( 1998 ) identified that languages are complex and could be significantly different in terms of their vocabulary, grammar, syntax, and numerous other characteristics. Crystal ( 1987 ) mentioned that the similarity of language structures could be an important factor affecting students’ language learning performance. If a language has a similar structure to that of the students’ native language, the students’ learning load could be much lower than that of learning a completely different language. Boroditsky ( 2001 ) recognized that one’s language affects how one thinks about the world.

6 Conclusion

This study reviewed the top 100 highly cited M-ELL articles in the Web of Science database. The major findings can be summarized as follows: (1) most of the M-ELL studies adopted an experimental research design to examine mobile learning usage for English language learning; (2) single mobile learning implementation was the most frequently adopted research method by the M-ELL studies; (3) in the M-ELL research, most mobile devices were used to access learning materials; (4) in the M-ELL research, most studies were conducted across contexts; (5) the descriptive statistics, t test, and one-way ANOVA/ANCOVA statistical methods were the most widely used in the M-ELL studies; (6) in the M-ELL research, most studies focused on students’ cognition; (7) university students were the most targeted audience in the existing M-ELL literature; (8) most of the M-ELL studies attempted to improve all English skills; (9) questionnaires were the most used assessment methods among the M-ELL studies; (10) the issue “lack of identifying needs, reports, or studies or testing the effect of technologies” has been frequently investigated; (11) in pure and blended learning settings, most of the studies used non-game applications; and (12) smart phones were the most common platform for mobile application to support language learning.

From the discussion of the M-ELL review results, suggestions and recommendations for future work are listed as follows:

There is a need to investigate how M-ELL research was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, especially among students learning from home.

Students’ behavioral and interactive patterns in M-ELL can be applied to identify the relationships between the patterns and their educational outcomes.

There is a need for more qualitative research studies to study the behavior of learners in the context of the English language.

There is a need for further studies to apply mobile learning to grammar, writing, reading, and listening learning.

There is a need for further review of studies focusing only on learning English using mobile learning because the difference between languages affects the results of the study.

In M-ELL studies, there has been very limited interest in higher order thinking skills; therefore, upcoming studies are strongly advised to conduct more research to improve students’ higher order thinking skills in the area of English language.

The term “M-ELL” should be used in relevant studies to help researchers select the exact articles without mixing them with unwanted articles.

7 Limitations

Although this study has presented a detailed analysis of the most cited research articles in M-ELL, the results are limited by three factors, namely keywords, timeline, and database. A more detailed set of keywords, an expanded timeline, and the inclusion of another online repository would have produced a larger number of articles, which in turn could make the findings of this study more inclusive and generalizable.

Data Availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abidin, M. J. Z., Pour-Mohammadi, M., & Alzwari, H. (2012). EFL students’ attitudes towards learning English language: The case of Libyan secondary school students. Asian social science , 8 (2), 119.

Google Scholar  

Al-Fahad, F. N. (2009). Students’ attitudes and perceptions towards the effectiveness of mobile learning in King Saud University, Saudi Arabia.Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8 (2).

Avci, H., & Adiguzel, T. (2017). A case study on mobile-blended collaborative learning in an English as a foreign language (EFL) context.International Review of Research in Open Distributed Learning, 18 (7).

Baran, E. (2014). A review of research on mobile learning in teacher education. Educational Technology & Society , 17 (4), 17–32.

Barnawi, O. Z., & Al-Hawsawi, S. (2017). English education policy in Saudi Arabia: English language education policy in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Current trends, issues and challenges. English language education policy in the Middle East and North Africa (pp. 199–222). Springer.

Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought?: Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive psychology , 43 (1), 1–22.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bransford, J., Barron, B., Pea, R. D., Meltzoff, A., Kuhl, P., Bell, P., & Reeves, B. (2005). Foundations and opportunities for an interdisciplinary science of learning . In: Citeseer.

Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2000). How balanced is the Science Citation Index’s journal coverage? A preliminary overview of macrolevel statistical data.Asist monograph series,251–277.

Burke, P. F., Kearney, M., Schuck, S., & Aubusson, P. (2022). Improving mobile learning in secondary mathematics and science: Listening to students. Journal of computer assisted Learning , 38 (1), 137–151.

Burston, J. (2014). MALL: The pedagogical challenges. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 27 (4), 344–357.

Burston, J. (2015). Twenty years of MALL project implementation: A meta-analysis of learning outcomes. ReCALL , 27 (1), 4–20.

Cavus, N., & Ibrahim, D. (2009). m-Learning: An experiment in using SMS to support learning new English language words. British Journal of Educational Technology , 40 (1), 78–91.

Chang, C. C., Lei, H., & Tseng, J. S. (2011a). Media presentation mode, English listening comprehension and cognitive load in ubiquitous learning environments: Modality effect or redundancy effect?Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(4).

Chang, C. C., Tseng, K. H., Liang, C., & Yan, C. F. (2013). The influence of perceived convenience and curiosity on continuance intention in mobile English learning for high school students using PDAs. Educational Technology & Society , 22 (3), 373–386.

Chang, C. C., Tseng, K. H., & Tseng, J. S. (2011b). Is single or dual channel with different English proficiencies better for English listening comprehension, cognitive load and attitude in ubiquitous learning environment? Computers & Education, 57(4), 2313–2321.

Chang, C. C., Yan, C. F., & Tseng, J. S. (2012). Perceived convenience in an extended technology acceptance model: Mobile technology and English learning for college students.Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28 (5).

Chang, C. Y., Lai, C. L., & Hwang, G. J. (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.

Chang, C., Chang, C. K., & Shih, J. L. (2016). Motivational strategies in a mobile inquiry-based language learning setting. System , 59 , 100–115.

Chen, C. M., & Hsu, S. H. (2008). Personalized intelligent m-learning system for supporting effective English learning. Educational Technology & Society , 11 (3), 153–180.

Chen, C. M., Liu, H., & Huang, H. B. (2019). Effects of a mobile game-based English vocabulary learning app on learners’ perceptions and learning performance: A case study of Taiwanese EFL learners. ReCALL , 31 (2), 170–188.

Cheng, S. C., Hwang, W. Y., Wu, S. Y., Shadiev, R., & Xie, C. H. (2010). A mobile device and online system with contextual familiarity and its effects on english learning on campus. Educational Technology & Society , 13 (3), 93–109.

Criollo-C, S., Guerrero-Arias, A., Jaramillo-Alcázar, Á., & Luján-Mora, S. (2021). Mobile learning technologies for education: Benefits and pending issues. Applied Sciences , 11 (9), 4111.

Crompton, H. (2013). A historical overview of mobile learning: Toward learner-centered education. In Z. Berge, & L. Muilenburg (Eds.), Handbook of mobile learning (3 vol., pp. 3–14). Routledge.

Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2018). The use of mobile learning in higher education: A systematic review. Computers & Education , 123 , 53–64.

Crystal, D. (1987). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language (2 vol.). Cambridge University Press Cambridge.

Dąbrowska, E., Rowland, C., & Theakston, A. (2009). The acquisition of questions with long-distance dependencies.Cognitive Linguistic, 20 (3).

Dashtestani, R. (2016). Moving bravely towards mobile learning: Iranian students’ use of mobile devices for learning English as a foreign language. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 29 (4), 815–832.

Dimitrov, D. M. (2008). Quantitative research in education: Intermediate & advanced methods . Whittier.

Duman, G., Orhon, G., & Gedik, N. (2015). Research trends in mobile assisted language learning from 2000 to 2012. ReCALL , 27 (2), 197–216.

Elaish, M. M., Shuib, L., Ghani, N. A., Mujtaba, G., & Ebrahim, N. A. (2019a). A bibliometric analysis of m-learning from topic inception to 2015. International Journal of Mobile Learning Organisation, 13(1), 91–112.

Elaish, M. M., Shuib, L., Ghani, N. A., & Yadegaridehkordi, E. (2019b). Mobile English language learning (MELL): A literature review. Educational Review, 71(2), 257–276.

Elaish, M. M., Shuib, L., Ghani, N. A., Yadegaridehkordi, E., & Alaa, M. (2017). Mobile learning for English language acquisition: taxonomy, challenges, and recommendations. Ieee Access : Practical Innovations, Open Solutions , 5 , 19033–19047.

Elaish, M. M., Shuib, L., Hwang, G. J., Ghani, N. A., Yadegaridehkordi, E., & Zainuddin, S. Z. (2021). Mobile English language learning: a systematic review of group size, duration, and assessment methods.Computer Assisted Language Learning,1–27.

Fallahkhair, S., Pemberton, L., & Griffiths, R. (2007). Development of a cross-platform ubiquitous language learning service via mobile phone and interactive television. Journal of computer assisted Learning , 23 (4), 312–325.

Farooq, A., & Feizollah, A. (2021). Federated learning research: trends and bibliometric analysis. Federated Learning Systems (pp. 1–19). Springer.

Frost, N. (2021). Qualitative Research Methods in Psychology: Combining Core Approaches 2e . McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

García-Sánchez, S., & Luján-García, C. (2016). Ubiquitous knowledge and experiences to foster EFL learning affordances. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 29 (7), 1169–1180.

García Botero, G., Questier, F., & Zhu, C. (2019). Self-directed language learning in a mobile-assisted, out-of-class context: do students walk the talk? Computer Assisted Language Learning , 32 (1–2), 71–97.

Garousi, V., & Fernandes, J. M. (2016). Highly-cited papers in software engineering: The top-100. Information and Software Technology , 71 , 108–128.

Godwin-Jones, R. (2011). Mobile apps for language learning. Language learning & technology , 15 (2), 2–11.

Grant, M. M. (2019). Difficulties in defining mobile learning: Analysis, design characteristics, and implications. Educational Technology Research and Development , 67 (2), 361–388.

Gu, X., Gu, F., & Laffey, J. M. (2011). Designing a mobile system for lifelong learning on the move. Journal of computer assisted Learning , 27 (3), 204–215.

Hariharasudan, A., & Kot, S. (2018). A scoping review on Digital English and Education 4.0 for Industry 4.0. Social sciences , 7 (11), 227.

Hockly, N., & Dudeney, G. (2018). Current and future digital trends in ELT. Relc Journal , 49 (2), 164–178.

Hoi, V. N. (2020). Understanding higher education learners’ acceptance and use of mobile devices for language learning: A Rasch-based path modeling approach. Computers & Education , 146 , 103761.

Hsieh, W. M., & Tsai, C. C. (2017). Taiwanese high school teachers’ conceptions of mobile learning. Computers & Education , 115 , 82–95.

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.

Hsu, L. (2016). Examining EFL teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and the adoption of mobile-assisted language learning: a partial least square approach. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 29 (8), 1287–1297.

Huang, C. S., Yang, S. J., Chiang, T. H., & Su, A. Y. (2016). Effects of situated mobile learning approach on learning motivation and performance of EFL students. Educational Technology & Society , 19 (1), 263–276.

Huang, R. T., Jang, S. J., Machtmes, K., & Deggs, D. (2012a). Investigating the roles of perceived playfulness, resistance to change and self-management of learning in mobile English learning outcome. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(6), 1004–1015.

Huang, Y. M., Huang, Y. M., Huang, S. H., & Lin, Y. T. (2012b). A ubiquitous English vocabulary learning system: Evidence of active/passive attitudes vs. usefulness/ease-of-use. Computers & Education, 58(1), 273–282.

Hussein, M. H., Ow, S. H., Elaish, M. M., & Jensen, E. O. (2021). Digital game-based learning in K-12 mathematics education: a systematic literature review.Education and Information Technologies,1–33.

Hwang, G. J. (2014). Definition, framework and research issues of smart learning environments-a context-aware ubiquitous learning perspective. Smart Learning Environments , 1 (1), 1–14.

Hwang, G. J., Tsai, C. C., & Yang, S. J. (2008). Criteria, strategies and research issues of context-aware ubiquitous learning. Journal of Educational Technology Society , 11 (2), 81–91.

Hwang, W. Y., Huang, Y. M., Shadiev, R., Wu, S. Y., & Chen, S. L. (2014). Effects of using mobile devices on English listening diversity and speaking for EFL elementary students.Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30 (5).

Hwang, W. Y., Shih, T. K., Ma, Z. H., Shadiev, R., & Chen, S. Y. (2016). Evaluating listening and speaking skills in a mobile game-based learning environment with situational contexts. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 29 (4), 639–657.

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2000). Educational research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches . Allyn & Bacon.

Jung, H. J. (2014). Ubiquitous learning: Determinants impacting learners’ satisfaction and performance with smartphones. Language learning & technology , 18 (3), 97–119.

Kaliisa, R., & Picard, M. (2017). A systematic review on mobile learning in higher education: The African perspective.TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 16 (1).

Kearney, M., & Maher, D. (2019). Mobile learning in pre-service teacher education: Examining the use of professional learning networks.Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35 (1).

Khemaja, M., & Taamallah, A. (2016). Towards situation driven mobile tutoring system for learning languages and communication skills: Application to users with specific needs. Educational Technology & Society , 19 (1), 113–128.

Kim, D., Rueckert, D., Kim, D. J., & Seo, D. (2013). Students’ perceptions and experiences of mobile learning. Language learning & technology , 17 (3), 52–73.

Kim, Y., & Smith, D. (2017). Pedagogical and technological augmentation of mobile learning for young children interactive learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments , 25 (1), 4–16.

Kondo, M., Ishikawa, Y., Smith, C., Sakamoto, K., Shimomura, H., & Wada, N. (2012). Mobile assisted language learning in university EFL courses in Japan: Developing attitudes and skills for self-regulated learning. ReCALL , 24 (2), 169–187.

Krull, G., & Duart, J. M. (2017). Research trends in mobile learning in higher education: A systematic review of articles (2011–2015).International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18 (7).

Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2009). Will mobile learning change language learning? ReCALL , 21 (2),157–165.

Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Shield, L. (2007). An overview of mobile assisted language learning: Can mobile devices support collaborative practice in speaking and listening. ReCALL , 20 (3), 1–20.

Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Shield, L. (2008). An overview of mobile assisted language learning: From content delivery to supported collaboration and interaction. ReCALL , 20 (3), 271–289.

Laato, S., Farooq, A., Vilppu, H., Airola, A., & Murtonen, M. (2022). Higher Education during Lockdown: Literature Review and Implications on Technology Design. Education Research International , 2022 .

Lai, A. (2016). Mobile immersion: An experiment using mobile instant messenger to support second-language learning. Interactive Learning Environments , 24 (2), 277–290.

Lai, C. L. (2019). Trends of mobile learning: A review of the top 100 highly cited papers. British Journal of Educational Technology , 51 (3), 721–742.

Lan, Y. J., Sung, Y., & Chang, K. E. (2007). A mobile-device-supported peer-assisted learning system for collaborative early EFL reading. Language learning & technology , 11 (3), 130–151.

Lillis, T. M., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in global context . Routledge London.

Lim, T., Fadzil, M., & Mansor, N. (2011). Mobile learning via SMS at Open University Malaysia: Equitable, effective, and sustainable. International Review of Research in Open Distributed Learning , 12 (2), 122–137.

Lin, H. C., & Hwang, G. J. (2019). Research trends of flipped classroom studies for medical courses: A review of journal publications from 2008 to 2017 based on the technology-enhanced learning model. Interactive Learning Environments , 27 (8), 1011–1027.

Lin, J. J., & Lin, H. (2019). Mobile-assisted ESL/EFL vocabulary learning: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 32 (8), 878–919.

Liu, P. L. (2016). Mobile English vocabulary learning based on concept-mapping strategy. Language learning & technology , 20 (3), 128–141.

Liu, P. H. E., & Tsai, M. K. (2013). Using augmented-reality‐based mobile learning material in EFL English composition: An exploratory case study. British Journal of Educational Technology , 44 (1), E1–E4.

Liu, G. Z., Chen, J. Y., & Hwang, G. J. (2017). Mobile-based collaborative learning in the fitness center:A case study on the development of English listening comprehension with a context-aware application. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49 (2), 305–320.

Liu, T. Y. (2009). A context-aware ubiquitous learning environment for language listening and speaking. Journal of computer assisted Learning , 25 (6), 515–527.

Looi, C. K., & Wong, L. H. (2014). Implementing mobile learning curricula in schools: A programme of research from innovation to scaling. Educational Technology & Society , 17 (2), 72–84.

Ma, Q. (2017). A multi-case study of university students’ language-learning experience mediated by mobile technologies: A socio-cultural perspective. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 30 (3–4), 183–203.

Mahdi, H. S. (2018). Effectiveness of mobile devices on vocabulary learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research , 56 (1), 134–154.

Mann, P. S. (2007). Introductory statistics . John Wiley & Sons.

McCloskey, D. N. (1998). The rhetoric of economics . Univ of Wisconsin Press.

Mehdipour, Y., & Zerehkafi, H. (2013). Mobile learning for education: Benefits and challenges. International Journal of Computational Engineering Research , 3 (6), 93–101.

Mertler, C. A., & Reinhart, R. V. (2016). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation . Routledge.

Mohajan, H. K. (2018). Qualitative research methodology in social sciences and related subjects. Journal of Economic Development Environment and People , 7 (1), 23–48.

Ng, W., & Nicholas, H. (2013). A framework for sustainable mobile learning in schools. British Journal of Educational Technology , 44 (5), 695–715.

Oberg, A., & Daniels, P. (2013). Analysis of the effect a student-centred mobile learning instructional method has on language acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 26 (2), 177–196.

Özüdogru, M., & Özüdogru, F. (2017). The Effect of Situated Learning on Students Vocational English Learning. Universal Journal of Educational Research , 5 (11), 2037–2044.

Pedro, L. F. M. G., Barbosa, C. M. M., d., O., & Santos, C. M. (2018). d. N. A critical review of mobile learning integration in formal educational contexts. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education , 15 (1), 1–15.

Qureshi, M. I., Khan, N., Gillani, H., S. M. A., & Raza, H. (2020). A Systematic Review of Past Decade of Mobile Learning: What we Learned and Where to Go.International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 14 (6).

Ràfols, I., Molas-Gallart, J., Chavarro, D. A., & Robinson-García, N. (2016). On the dominance of quantitative evaluation in ‘peripheral’countries: Auditing research with technologies of distance. Available at SSRN 2818335 .

Rahman, M. M., & Pandian, A. (2018). A critical investigation of English language teaching in Bangladesh: Unfulfilled expectations after two decades of communicative language teaching. English Today , 34 (3), 43–49.

Rao, P. S. (2019). The role of English as a global language. Research Journal of English , 4 (1), 65–79.

Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (2013). Experimental research methods. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 1007–1029). Routledge.

Sah, P. K., & Li, G. (2018). English medium instruction (EMI) as linguistic capital in Nepal: Promises and realities. International Multilingual Research Journal , 12 (2), 109–123.

Sandberg, J., Maris, M., & De Geus, K. (2011). Mobile English learning: An evidence-based study with fifth graders. Computers & Education , 57 (1), 1334–1347.

Sandberg, J., Maris, M., & Hoogendoorn, P. (2014). The added value of a gaming context and intelligent adaptation for a mobile learning application for vocabulary learning. Computers & Education , 76 , 119–130.

Serin, O. (2012). Mobile learning perceptions of the prospective teachers (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus sampling). Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology , 11 (3), 222–233.

Shadiev, R., Hwang, W. Y., Huang, Y. M., & Liu, T. Y. (2015). The impact of supported and annotated mobile learning on achievement and cognitive load. Educational Technology & Society , 18 (4), 53–69.

Shao, Y., & Crook, C. (2015). The potential of a mobile group blog to support cultural learning among overseas students. Journal of studies in international education , 19 (5), 399–422.

Sharples, M., & Pea, R. (2014). Mobile learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 501–521). Cambridge University Press.

Shen, R., Wang, M., & Pan, X. (2008). Increasing interactivity in blended classrooms through a cutting-edge mobile learning system. British Journal of Educational Technology , 39 (6), 1073–1086.

Stoios, H. (2019). Review of leitner, G., A. hashim & H.G. wolf (2016) communicating with asia: The future of English as a global language. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 42(2), pp. 218-220. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.00026.sto

Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., & Yang, J. M. (2015). How effective are mobile devices for language learning? A meta-analysis. Educational research review , 16 , 68–84.

Sung, Y. T., Yang, J. M., & Lee, H. Y. (2017). The effects of mobile-computer-supported collaborative learning: Meta-analysis and critical synthesis. Review of educational research , 87 (4), 768–805.

Traxler, J. (2007). Defining, discussing and evaluating mobile learning. International Review of Research in Open Distance Learning , 8 (2), 1–12.

Viberg, O., Andersson, A., & Wiklund, M. (2021). Designing for sustainable mobile learning–re-evaluating the concepts “formal” and “informal”. Interactive Learning Environments , 29 (1), 130–141.

Viberg, O., & Grönlund, Å. (2012). Mobile assisted language learning: A literature review. 11th World Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning.

Wang, M., Shen, R., Novak, D., & Pan, X. (2009). The impact of mobile learning on students’ learning behaviours and performance: Report from a large blended classroom. British Journal of Educational Technology , 40 (4), 673–695.

Wert, J. E., Neidt, C. O., & Ahmann, J. S. (1954). Statistical methods in educational and psychological research . Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Winters, N. (2007). What is mobile learning.Big issues in mobile learning, 7 (11).

Wong, L. H., & Looi, C. K. (2010). Vocabulary learning by mobile-assisted authentic content creation and social meaning‐making: two case studies. Journal of computer assisted Learning , 26 (5), 421–433.

Wu, W. H., Wu, Y. C. J., Chen, C. Y., Kao, H. Y., Lin, C. H., & Huang, S. H. (2012). Review of trends from mobile learning studies: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education , 59 (2), 817–827.

Yao, C. B. (2015). Constructing a user-friendly and smart ubiquitous personalized learning environment by using a context-aware mechanism. IEEE transactions on learning technologies , 10 (1), 104–114.

Zhang, A. B. (2010). The integration of mastery learning in English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction. International Journal of Instructional Media , 37 (1), 91–103.

Zhang, J., & Crompton, H. (2021). Status and trends of mobile learning in English language acquisition: a systematic review of mobile learning from Chinese databases. Asian Journal of Distance Education , 16 (1), 1–15.

Zheng, L., Li, X., & Chen, F. (2018). Effects of a mobile self-regulated learning approach on students’ learning achievements and self-regulated learning skills. Innovations in Education and Teaching International , 55 (6), 616–624.

Zhonggen, Y., Ying, Z., Zhichun, Y., & Wentao, C. (2019). Student satisfaction, learning outcomes, and cognitive loads with a mobile learning platform. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 32 (4), 323–341.

Zoghbor, W. (2018). Revisiting English as a foreign language (EFL) vs English lingua franca (ELF): The case for pronunciation. Intellectual Discourse , 26 (2), 829–858.

Zou, D., & Xie, H. (2018). Personalized word-learning based on technique feature analysis and learning analytics. Educational Technology & Society , 21 (2), 233–244.

Download references

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Information Technology, University of Benghazi, Benghazi, Libya

Monther M. Elaish

Department of Software Engineering, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Mahmood H Hussein

Graduate Institute of Digital Learning and Education, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan

Gwo-Jen Hwang

Yuan Ze University, Taoyuan, Taiwan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monther M. Elaish .

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest/competing interests.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Research involving human participants and/or animals.

This research did not include human or animal participants, hence, for this type of study formal consent is not required.

Informed consent

As a corresponding author, I confirm that this paper has been read and approved for submission by the all the name authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Elaish, M.M., Hussein, M.H. & Hwang, GJ. Critical research trends of mobile technology-supported English language learning: A review of the top 100 highly cited articles. Educ Inf Technol 28 , 4849–4874 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11352-6

Download citation

Received : 03 June 2022

Accepted : 12 September 2022

Published : 11 October 2022

Issue Date : May 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11352-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Mobile learning
• Applications in subject areas
• Teaching/learning strategies
• Pedagogical issues
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Advanced Search

Mobile English Learning : A Meta-analysis

New citation alert added.

This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:

You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.

To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.

New Citation Alert!

Please log in to your account

Information & Contributors

Bibliometrics & citations, view options, recommendations, can learning motivation predict learning achievement a case study of a mobile game-based english learning approach.

This study applied a quasi-experimental design to investigate the influence and predictive power of learner motivation for achievement, employing a mobile game-based English learning approach. A system called the Happy English Learning System, ...

SMS enhanced vocabulary learning for mobile audiences

The paper reports on a small pilot study to explore the role of Short Message Service (SMS) in English as Second Language (ESL) vocabulary learning for mobile audiences. In this study, SMS was integrated into web-based vocabulary learning. Ten ...

A Systematic Review on Mobile Technology-Assisted English Learning

Mobile English language learning has drawn global attention. This study systematically examined the literature in the recent eleven years. It visualized the general trend of the number of related publications in a decade; discussed the attitudes of ...

Information

Published in.

Universidad de La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain

Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Madrid, Spain

Durham University, Durham, UK

Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain

Mercatorum University, Rome, Italy

Université de Caen Normandie, Caen, France

University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain

University of Hagen, Hagen, Germany

South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China

Springer-Verlag

Berlin, Heidelberg

Publication History

Author tags.

• English Learning
• Meta-Analysis
• Mobile Learning

Contributors

Other metrics, bibliometrics, article metrics.

• 0 Total Citations
• 0 Total Downloads
• Downloads (Last 12 months) 0
• Downloads (Last 6 weeks) 0

View options

Login options.

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Share this publication link.

Copying failed.

Share on social media

Affiliations, export citations.

• Please download or close your previous search result export first before starting a new bulk export. Preview is not available. By clicking download, a status dialog will open to start the export process. The process may take a few minutes but once it finishes a file will be downloadable from your browser. You may continue to browse the DL while the export process is in progress. Download
• Download citation
• Copy citation

We are preparing your search results for download ...

We will inform you here when the file is ready.

Your file of search results citations is now ready.

Your search export query has expired. Please try again.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Critical research trends of mobile technology-supported English language learning: A review of the top 100 highly cited articles

Affiliations.

• 1 Benghazi, Libya Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Information Technology, University of Benghazi.
• 2 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Department of Software Engineering, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Malaya.
• 3 Taipei, Taiwan Graduate Institute of Digital Learning and Education, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology.
• 4 Taoyuan, Taiwan Yuan Ze University.
• PMID: 36247024
• PMCID: PMC9552133
• DOI: 10.1007/s10639-022-11352-6

Around the world, the number of English speakers and the significance of the English language are constantly increasing. Among various technology-supported instructional styles, Mobile Learning (M-Learning) has been recognized as a promising approach to enhance students' competencies and skills in the English language. By examining previous literature, a number of reviews have been performed to investigate the role of M-learning in the English language. However, none of these studies has highlighted the trends, opportunities, and challenges identified in the most cited articles that focused solely on the English language. Therefore, to address these limitations, this study performed a review of the top 100 most cited articles, published between 2007 and 2020, indexed by the Web of Science, and addressing the English language only. The results revealed that most research in Mobile English Language Learning (M-ELL) followed an experimental design and employed a single mobile learning implementation. Additionally, the current study identified a number of research areas that require additional research attention. For example, further research is needed among students learning from home, more qualitative research is needed, and additional research is required to improve students' higher-order thinking skills. The outcomes of this study provide a reference to researchers and educators who intend to use mobile technologies in the area of language education, especially in the context of the English language.

Keywords: Applications in subject areas; M-ELL; Mobile learning; Pedagogical issues; Teaching/learning strategies.

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2022, Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of interest/Competing interestsThe authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Distribution status of highly cited…

Distribution status of highly cited M-ELL studies

Nationalities which appeared more than…

Nationalities which appeared more than twice in M-ELL articles

Top 10 journals publishing M-ELL…

Top 10 journals publishing M-ELL articles

Mobile devices adopted in M-ELL…

Mobile devices adopted in M-ELL studies

Mobile devices adopted in M-ELL studies in each period

Mobile learning taxonomy with M-ELL…

Mobile learning taxonomy with M-ELL application type in each period

Similar articles

• Understanding the role of digital immersive technology in educating the students of english language: does it promote critical thinking and self-directed learning for achieving sustainability in education with the help of teamwork? Tang F. Tang F. BMC Psychol. 2024 Mar 13;12(1):144. doi: 10.1186/s40359-024-01636-6. BMC Psychol. 2024. PMID: 38481260 Free PMC article.
• Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas. Crider K, Williams J, Qi YP, Gutman J, Yeung L, Mai C, Finkelstain J, Mehta S, Pons-Duran C, Menéndez C, Moraleda C, Rogers L, Daniels K, Green P. Crider K, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022. PMID: 36321557 Free PMC article.
• The use of structured debate as a teaching strategy among undergraduate nursing students: A systematic review. Cariñanos-Ayala S, Arrue M, Zarandona J, Labaka A. Cariñanos-Ayala S, et al. Nurse Educ Today. 2021 Mar;98:104766. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2021.104766. Epub 2021 Jan 15. Nurse Educ Today. 2021. PMID: 33508636 Review.
• A Framework for Competencies for the Use of Mobile Technologies in Psychiatry and Medicine: Scoping Review. Hilty D, Chan S, Torous J, Luo J, Boland R. Hilty D, et al. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Feb 21;8(2):e12229. doi: 10.2196/12229. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020. PMID: 32130153 Free PMC article. Review.
• Student and educator experiences of maternal-child simulation-based learning: a systematic review of qualitative evidence protocol. MacKinnon K, Marcellus L, Rivers J, Gordon C, Ryan M, Butcher D. MacKinnon K, et al. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Jan;13(1):14-26. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1694. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015. PMID: 26447004
• Abidin MJZ, Pour-Mohammadi M, Alzwari H. EFL students’ attitudes towards learning English language: The case of Libyan secondary school students. Asian social science. 2012;8(2):119.
• Al-Fahad, F. N. (2009). Students’ attitudes and perceptions towards the effectiveness of mobile learning in King Saud University, Saudi Arabia.Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8(2).
• Avci, H., & Adiguzel, T. (2017). A case study on mobile-blended collaborative learning in an English as a foreign language (EFL) context.International Review of Research in Open Distributed Learning, 18(7).
• Baran E. A review of research on mobile learning in teacher education. Educational Technology & Society. 2014;17(4):17–32.
• Barnawi, O. Z., & Al-Hawsawi, S. (2017). English education policy in Saudi Arabia: English language education policy in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Current trends, issues and challenges. English language education policy in the Middle East and North Africa (pp. 199–222). Springer.

Related information

Linkout - more resources, full text sources.

• Europe PubMed Central
• PubMed Central
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

• DOI: 10.3390/EDUCSCI9030179
• Corpus ID: 199177803

Use of Smartphone Applications in English Language Learning—A Challenge for Foreign Language Education

• Jaroslav Kacetl , B. Klimova
• Published in Education sciences 11 July 2019
• Education, Computer Science

Figures and Tables from this paper

160 Citations

Smartphone applications for young english language learners, development of a mobile web application for learning thai as a foreign language, using mobile applications for language learning as part of language classes, vocabulary mobile learning application in blended english language learning, exploration and exploitation of mobile apps for english language teaching: a critical review, smartphone apps as a motivating tool in english language learning, the use of mobile apps as strategies in teaching vocabularies among english teachers.

• Highly Influenced

E-Learning and Social Media for ELT — Teachers’ Perspective

The use of the mobile application "drops" in the process of learning foreign languages, development of insvagram: an english subject-verb agreement mobile learning application, 30 references, review on use of mobile apps for language learning.

• Highly Influential

Mobile phones and/or smartphones and their apps for teaching English as a foreign language

Mobile english language learning (mell): a literature review, the effect of mobile applications on english vocabulary acquisition, trends in the research design and application of mobile language learning: a review of 2007–2016 publications in selected ssci journals, mobile english learning: an empirical study on an app, english fun dubbing, why and how do distance learners use mobile devices for language learning, designing a smartphone app to teach english (l2) vocabulary, the effect of using mobile applicatıons on literal and contextual vocabulary instruction, impact of mobile learning on students’ achievement results, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers