electronics

Review
Effects of Mobile Learning in English Language Learning:
A Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis
Juan Garzón 1, * , Georgios Lampropoulos 2 and Daniel Burgos 3

1 Faculty of Engineering, Universidad Católica de Oriente, Rionegro 54040, Colombia

2 Department of Information and Electronic Engineering, International Hellenic University,
57001 Thessaloniki, Greece
3 Research Institute for Innovation & Technology in Education (UNIR iTED), Universidad Internacional de La
Rioja (UNIR), 26006 La Rioja, Spain
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: English has become the most important language for communication worldwide, but
learning it as a second language presents multiple challenges. Given its multimedia nature, mobile
learning is an ally in learning this language. However, although the use of mobile devices in English
education has been broadly documented, there is little evidence of its effect on students’ learning.
This article presents a meta-analysis of 62 studies to assess the effects of mobile learning on students’
learning. Moreover, the study considered the moderating effect of education level, pedagogical
approach, learning environment, mobile device, and control treatment. The results show that mobile
learning has a large effect ( g = 0.89) on students’ learning. Regarding education level, the best
results were found at the Bachelor’s level. Similarly, collaborative learning provided the best results
among the pedagogical approaches. As for the learning environment, semi-formal settings, such
as field trips and outdoor activities, performed better than formal settings within classrooms or
laboratories. Furthermore, smartphones yielded better results than any other mobile device. Finally,
the results indicated that mobile learning produces better results than traditional lectures, traditional
pedagogical tools, or other multimedia resources. Therefore, it should be promoted as a pedagogical
alternative to foster quality education for all.

Keywords: English as a second language; meta-analysis; mobile device; mobile learning

Citation: Garzón, J.; Lampropoulos,
G.; Burgos, D. Effects of Mobile
Learning in English Language
Learning: A Meta-Analysis and
Research Synthesis. Electronics 2023,
1. Introduction
12, 1595. https://doi.org/10.3390/ The use of mobile devices for educational purposes has been coined under the term
electronics12071595 “mobile learning” (m-learning). This is an emergent approach to learning, which has
Academic Editor: Christos J. Bouras
experienced a steady growth since 2013, perhaps due to UNESCO’S publication of the
policy guidelines for mobile learning [1]. According to this organization [2], m-learning has
Received: 16 February 2023 the potential to expand and enrich education for all types of learners. Therefore, different
Revised: 17 March 2023 organizations, such as UNESCO [3], OCDE [4], the European Union [5], and the African
Accepted: 27 March 2023 Union [6], have encouraged stakeholders to embrace research on this topic as a strategy to
Published: 29 March 2023 overcome space and time barriers in education.

1.1. M-Learning in English Education

Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Language learning involves four primary skills: reading, writing, listening, and
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. speaking [7]. Therefore, different strategies must be included to help students acquire these
This article is an open access article skills. In this sense, previous studies have noted that using active learning techniques, in
distributed under the terms and which students construct knowledge, is an efficient way to promote multiple abilities when
conditions of the Creative Commons learning a second language [8,9].
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// English is the language that has gained the most notoriety in recent decades [10,11].
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ This language plays a key role in global communication, access to information, career
4.0/). opportunities, cultural exchange, and personal and intellectual development [12]. English is

Electronics 2023, 12, 1595. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12071595 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/electronics

Electronics 2023, 12, 1595 2 of 15

widely used as the language of international communication and is the dominant language
in many fields, including business, technology, and research. As a result, knowledge of
English is essential for effective communication with people from around the world. As the
world becomes increasingly interconnected, fluency in English will become an increasingly
valuable skill. Hence, researchers and teachers are urged to do their best to provide students
with the right pedagogical tools to help them succeed in English language learning.
On the other hand, mobile devices have shown to help present information in mul-
tiple formats [13], helping learners acquire the four basic skills when learning English as
a second language. That is, mobile devices allow students to actively construct knowl-
edge using multiple means in ways hardly possible with other pedagogical alternatives.
However, although mobile devices provide multiple possibilities, it is not the technical
tools that guarantee academic success, but rather, the pedagogical strategies underpinning
educational interventions [14]. We, therefore, pose that using mobile devices as part of a
well-structured academic intervention enhances students’ chances of mastering English as
a second language.

1.2. Related Work

The meta-analysis technique has been extensively implemented by several researchers
to estimate m-learning’s effect on education. A meta-analysis establishes the general
characteristics of an experimental treatment by analyzing the results of individual studies
that have investigated it [15]. The principal purpose of a meta-analysis is to estimate the
magnitude of the effect of an experimental treatment transformed into a standardized mean
difference [16]. Effect sizes are usually measured using Cohen’s d [17] or Hedges’ g [18]
estimates. Both estimates divide the difference between sample means of a continuous
response by the pooled standard deviation. Cohen’s d estimate is more commonly used,
but it is subject to bias for small sample sizes. On the other hand, Hedges’ g eliminates this
bias with a correction factor, whereby this has recently gained popularity in educational
research [15].
Some comprehensive meta-analyses have measured the impact of m-learning on stu-
dents’ learning outcomes [19,20]. Other meta-analytical studies have focused on education
levels [21], mobile devices [22], or pedagogical approaches [23]. Additionally, other studies
have analyzed the effects of m-learning on language learning [24,25] or have focused on
specific English skills, such as vocabulary acquisition [26].
To the best of our knowledge, two meta-analyses have estimated the impact of m-
learning on English learning. First, the study by Chen [27] analyzed 29 studies published
in the gray literature and peer-reviewed journals between 2008 and 2019 and found an
effect of g = 0.89 on student learning. Furthermore, the study found moderating effects
from the education level and the mobile device, but not from the learning environment
or the intervention duration. Second, the meta-analysis by Garzón et al. [28] analyzed
54 studies published in peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings between 2013
and 2022. The study found an effect of g = 0.94 on student English learning. Additionally,
the study found moderator effects by the pedagogical approach, the education level, and
the control treatment.
These studies have made significant contributions to understanding m-learning in
English education. However, some research gaps remain, raising the need for new and
enhanced studies. Concerning the study conducted by Chen [27], the inclusion of non-peer-
reviewed articles did not allow the author to guarantee the quality of the conclusions of
the meta-analysis [29]. Second, the author did not estimate the effect size of m-learning
in the subgroups within the moderator variables. Third, the reduced number of analyzed
studies risked biasing the conclusions of the meta-analysis [30]. Fourth, the study did not
analyze the educational theory underpinning each intervention, ignoring the importance
of the pedagogical approach in guaranteeing academic success [31]. Fifth, the study failed
to analyze the pedagogical strategies included in the control treatment to determine the
amount of knowledge that could be explicitly attributed to m-learning [23].
Electronics 2023, 12, 1595 3 of 15

On the other hand, the study carried out by Garzón et al. [28] aptly addressed the
abovementioned research gaps. However, the authors did not establish the implications of
their results for theory and practice, nor did they discuss the results from the perspective
of previous studies. In the present study, we extended the research of Garzón et al. [28] by
adding significant changes. First, we broadened the time span to studies published by 2023.
Second, we expanded the search for empirical studies in different databases, which allowed
us to identify eight additional empirical studies to answer the research questions. Third, we
employed specialized meta-analysis software to calculate the overall effect more precisely.
Fourth, based on the analysis of the results, we established the implications for theory and
practice and discussed the results from the perspective of previous studies and learning
theories. Fifth, we established some suggestions to guide future research regarding the
effects of m-learning in English language learning.

1.3. Purpose of the Study

This meta-analysis assesses the effects of m-learning on students’ English language
learning. We considered the elements of the population, intervention, comparison, and
outcomes (PICO) framework [32] to guide the study. Using the PICO framework can
help researchers create clear and focused research questions specific to the population and
intervention of interest. It is commonly used in evidence-based research to help guide
the search for relevant research articles and to ensure that the research question is well
defined and answerable with the available evidence. In the present meta-analysis, the
population is composed of learners at all levels of education. The intervention encompasses
the use of mobile devices to learn English in educational settings. The comparison was
made with traditional lectures (traditional teaching methods), traditional pedagogical
tools (not technology-based), and other multimedia resources (non-mobile). Finally, the
outcomes were measured regarding students’ English language acquisition. Moreover, the
study identifies the moderating effect of the education level, the pedagogical approach, the
learning environment, the mobile device, and the control treatment. Within this context,
this study aims to answer the following research questions:
(1) What is the effect of mobile learning on students’ learning of the English language?
(2) What factors moderate the effect of mobile learning on students’ learning of the
English language?
The remainder of this article is structured as follows: Section 2 describes the process
of conducting the meta-analysis, including the study selection, the coding process, the
effect size calculation, and the moderating effect. Section 3 presents the main results of the
meta-analysis, including descriptive and quantitative analysis. Finally, Section 4 discusses
the implications of the results and shows the study’s limitations and some indications for
future research.

2. Methods
We conducted a meta-analysis to measure the effect of m-learning on students’ English
language learning. To identify the effect size of m-learning on student learning, we followed
the four-step procedure recommended in previous studies [15]: selection of the studies,
data coding, calculation of the effect size, and moderating effect analysis.

2.1. Selection of the Studies

This meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews
and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [33] to guarantee transparency, accuracy, and
completeness. The search for the studies was conducted on IEEE Xplore, Science Direct,
Scopus, Taylor and Francis Online, and the Web of Science. These databases were selected,
as they encompass high-quality journals and conference proceedings related to educational
technology. The search terms included “English”, “mobile”, and “education”. In addition,
we used alternative search terms to produce a more comprehensive collection of studies.
Alternative search terms for “English” were “EFL” and “ESL”, alternative search terms for
Electronics 2023, 12, 1595 4 of 15

“mobile” were “ubiquitous” and “handheld”, and alternative search terms for “education”
were “learning” and “teaching”.
We limited the search to studies published from 2013 to align with the UNESCO
policy guidelines for mobile learning [1]. Moreover, we considered only studies from
peer-reviewed journals or conference proceedings to secure the quality and strength of
the analysis [29]. Studies included in the meta-analysis fulfilled the following criteria:
(a) empirical research, (b) include a mobile device, (c) relate to English language learning,
(d) evaluated students’ learning gains, (e) included a control condition, and (f) written in
the English language. On the other hand, studies were excluded if any of the following
reasons were met: (a) work in progress, (b) secondary data analysis, (c) book or thesis,
(d) data obtained through a self-assessment process, or (e) does not provide sufficient
statistical information to calculate the effect size.
The last search was conducted on 20 January 2023, and this allowed us to identify
461 studies. After removing duplicates, we identified 252 potential studies. Two authors
conducted the initial screening based on the title, abstract, and keywords. This process
allowed them to reduce the number of studies to 184. They then reviewed the methods
section of each study based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Missing information in
the studies was requested from the corresponding authors via email, and the study was
discarded if the information was not received in the following week. The study selection
process
Electronics 2023, 12, yielded
x FOR PEER 62 studies relevant to the research questions (see Figure 1). At all stages
REVIEW 5 of of
16

the process, occasional disagreements were resolved through consensus.

Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart

Figure offlowchart
1. PRISMA the studyof selection process.process.
the study selection

2.2. Data Coding

We designed a data extraction form with the following elements: study name, year
of publication, journal of publication, country of the study, type of research design, edu-
cation level, pedagogical approach, learning environment, mobile device, control treat-
Electronics 2023, 12, 1595 5 of 15

2.2. Data Coding

We designed a data extraction form with the following elements: study name, year of
publication, journal of publication, country of the study, type of research design, education
level, pedagogical approach, learning environment, mobile device, control treatment, sample
size, mean values, and standard deviations. The first and third authors individually extracted
the information from each study [34]. Cohen’s kappa statistic was used to measure inter-coder
reliability. This value was 0.87, which indicates a high degree of agreement [35]. Disagreements
were resolved through consensus between the three authors. The data extraction form with
the statistical information of each study can be requested by email to the corresponding author.

2.3. Calculation of the Effect Size

We used the Comprehensive Meta Analysis 4.0 software to conduct the meta-analysis.
We estimated the effect size based on Hedges’ g [18], as this statistic offers more accuracy
compared to the more conventional Cohen’s d value. The effects were analyzed based on
the random-effects model [11] because the study samples were drawn from populations
with varying effect sizes [18]. As recommended, each study contributed a single effect
size [15]. Therefore, an average effect size was calculated if a study provided multiple case
studies or different experimental or control conditions.
We only consider studies that included a control condition to prevent Hawthorne
effects [36]. Consequently, we considered pretest–posttest with control (PPC) and posttest
only with control (POWC) research design studies [36]. Some PPC studies used the
pretest as the covariate and did not report the scores for the pretest. In those cases,
we computed a POWC effect size [37]. The guidelines to infer the effect sizes were as
follows: −0.15 < g < 0.15 negligible; 0.15 ≤ g < 0.40 small; 0.40 ≤ g < 0.75 medium;
0.75 ≤ g < 1.10 large, 1.10 ≤ g < 1.45 very large; and 1.45 ≤ g huge [38].

2.4. Moderating Effect Analysis

We used the homogeneity analysis to evaluate if the effect sizes were homogeneous
across studies [39]. The set of effect sizes was evaluated for homogeneity with the Q, I 2 ,
and p statistics [18]. The analysis of the three values led us to reject the null hypothesis
of homogeneity, suggesting that it is appropriate to test for moderators. We conducted a
preplanned analysis to identify whether the education level, the pedagogical approach, the
learning environment, the mobile device, or the control treatment, moderated the overall
effect size. As previous studies recommended [40], we evaluated the moderating effects
by classifying the studies according to the moderator categories, and then, we evaluated
homogeneity between and within categories.

2.4.1. Education Level

This analysis revealed which levels of education benefit the most from m-learning,
allowing us to establish under what conditions it is advantageous or not to use mobile
devices in English education. We coded the education level in each study according to
the UNESCO classification [41]: preschool education (early childhood education), primary
education, secondary education (including lower secondary education and upper secondary
education), vocational education (including post-secondary non-tertiary education and
short-cycle tertiary education), Bachelor’s level, Master’s level, and doctoral level.

2.4.2. Pedagogical Approach

This analysis helped identify which learning theories best support each specific situ-
ation. This data can be used to inform researchers about what strategies to implement in
m-learning interventions. We classified the studies according to categories proposed in previ-
ous research [31,42]: situated learning (includes context-aware learning), game-based learning,
collaborative learning (includes cooperative learning), cognitive theory of multimedia learn-
ing (multimedia learning), project-based learning (includes problem-based learning), and
inquiry-based learning (includes discovery learning). If a study included elements of different
Electronics 2023, 12, 1595 6 of 15

approaches, we coded it according to the more influential approach in the intervention [31].
Similarly, if a study did not explicitly mention a specific pedagogical approach, we identified
the underlying approach by analyzing the characteristics of the intervention [43].

2.4.3. Learning Environment

This analysis played an important role identifying which contexts favor students’
achievement and enable them to make the most of the advantages of using mobile devices.
We classified the learning environment in each study, following suggestions in previous
research [43]: formal settings (classrooms and laboratories), semi-formal settings (field trips,
outdoor activities, museums, and homes), informal settings (means of transportation, parks,
and recreational places), and multiple settings (more than two settings simultaneously).

2.4.4. Mobile Device

This analysis helped identify which mobile devices should or should not be used
according to students’ characteristics. Additionally, it provided an idea of what type of
device investments should be directed towards. We classified the mobile devices used in
each study according to the different devices used in education in the last decade: personal
digital assistants, smartphones, tablets, game consoles, smartglasses, and smartwatches.

2.4.5. Control Treatment

This analysis was crucial, as it allowed us to identify the learning that can be explicitly
attributed to m-learning. We coded the control treatment in each study following the
categories recommended in previous research [44]: multimedia (other multimedia non-
mobile resources), traditional pedagogical tools (non-technological educational resources),
and traditional lectures (lectures and curriculum-based teaching methods).

3. Results
Below, we present the results of the study according to our research questions. In that
sense, we first present some descriptive data of the studies included in the meta-analysis,
then we identify the effects of m-learning on student learning, and finally, we describe the
results of the moderator analysis.

3.1. Descriptive Data of the Studies

Sixty-two studies published between 2013 and 2023 were included in the meta-
analysis. The participants ( N = 4898) were randomly assigned to the m-learning condition
( N = 2489) or to the control condition ( N = 2409). Two studies were published in 2013,
one in 2014, seven in 2015, five in 2016, six in 2017, four in 2018, ten in 2019, six in 2020,
eight in 2021, eleven in 2022, and two in 2023. The studies were conducted in 19 different
countries on all inhabited continents, which supports the idea that m-learning has attracted
interest worldwide. They were published in 38 peer-reviewed journals and conference
proceedings. As it is common in English education, Computer Assisted Language Learning
published the largest number of studies ( N = 12).

3.2. Effects of m-Learning on Student Learning

All the effect sizes were found to be positive. According to the guidelines, there
were four negligible effects, four small effects, twenty-six medium effects, nine large
effects, eight very large effects, and eleven huge effects. The overall weighted effect size
was g = 0.89, with a 95% confidence interval [0.75–1.03] and p < 0.001, indicating that
m-learning positively impacts student learning in English education. In other words,
using mobile devices in English education can improve knowledge scores by 0.89 standard
deviations, which can be classified as a large effect according to the proposed guidelines [38].
Furthermore, the standard score indicated significant statistical differences in achievement
between the experimental and control groups (z = 12.54, p < 0.001). Figure 2 summarizes
the statistical values for each study included in the meta-analysis.
 Electronics
Electronics 2023, 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
12, 1595 8 of 1615
7 of

Study name Statistics for each study Hedges's g and 95%CI

Hedges's
g p-Value

{1} 0.70 0.00

{2} 2.50 0.00
{3} 0.68 0.01
{4} 0.72 0.01
{5} 1.39 0.00
{6} 0.67 0.00
{7} 0.66 0.04
{8} 0.12 0.69
{9} 0.04 0.83
{10} 0.82 0.00
{11} 0.09 0.81
{12} 0.70 0.00
{13} 1.07 0.00
{14} 0.89 0.00
{15} 1.43 0.00
{16} 2.64 0.00
{17} 0.59 0.02
{18} 0.41 0.10
{19} 0.40 0.05
{20} 0.45 0.05
{21} 0.59 0.03
{22} 1.83 0.00
{23} 1.43 0.00
{24} 0.93 0.00
{25} 0.60 0.05
{26} 0.50 0.06
{27} 1.63 0.00
{28} 0.92 0.00
{29} 0.55 0.07
{30} 2.97 0.00
{31} 1.27 0.00
{32} 0.41 0.00
{33} 1.46 0.00
{34} 0.60 0.03
{35} 1.78 0.00
{36} 1.91 0.00
{37} 1.22 0.00
{38} 1.20 0.00
{39} 0.42 0.08
{40} 0.37 0.21
{41} 0.71 0.01
{42} 1.20 0.00
{43} 0.67 0.00
{44} 0.78 0.00
{45} 0.00 1.00
{46} 0.58 0.04
{47} 1.16 0.00
{48} 0.84 0.00
{49} 0.70 0.01
{50} 1.94 0.00
{51} 0.43 0.02
{52} 1.53 0.00
{53} 2.84 0.00
{54} 0.84 0.00
{55} 0.74 0.03
{56} 0.31 0.00
{57} 0.81 0.00
{58} 0.20 0.31
{59} 0.45 0.03
{60} 0.40 0.03
{61} 0.69 0.02
{62} 0.45 0.05
Pooled 0.89 0.00
Prediction Interval 0.89
-1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00
Fav ours Control Fav ours Experimental

Figure
Figure 2. Summary
2. Summary of of
thethe studies’statistics.
studies’ statistics.

3.2.1. Heterogeneity
3.2.1. Heterogeneity Test
Test
Results indicated that
Results indicated that thethestudies included
studies included in in
thethemeta-analysis
meta-analysishad hadheterogeneous
heterogeneousef-
fects on the
effects onevaluated
the evaluated population,
population, suggesting
suggesting thatthat
the the
variance
varianceamongamong thethe
studies
studieswaswasun-
likely to betodue
unlikely to sampling
be due to sampling errors [15].
errors TheQ𝑄value
[15].The valuewaswas higher
higher than the thecritical
criticalvalue
value
( Q (𝑄 = 317.24
= 317.24 > 81.38,
> 81.38, d f 𝑑𝑓
== 6161)
) at at
a 95%
a 95% significance
significance level from
level from thethe
chi-square
chi-square distribution
distribu-
table.
tionSimilarly, the I 2 index
table. Similarly, the 𝐼was measured
index to identify
was measured tothe level of
identify thetrue
levelheterogeneity. This value
of true heterogeneity.
indicated that 80.77%
This value indicated of that
the total
80.77% variance
of thereflected real differences
total variance in effect
reflected real sizes [45].
differences in Finally,
effect
p-value,
thesizes [45].which was
Finally, the 𝑝 − than
lower 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒, 0.05, alsowas
which indicated
lowerheterogeneity.
than 0.05, alsoThese threeheterogeneity.
indicated values support
theThese three values
assumption supporteffects
of the random the assumption
model andofimply the random effectsof
the possibility model and imply
moderating the
variables.
possibility of moderating variables.
3.2.2. Publication Bias
We evaluated potential publication bias through three methods, namely, a trim-and-
fill plot [46], Egger’s regression test [47], and the classic fail-safe N [48]. As depicted in
Figure 3, the studies are symmetrically plotted according to their combined effect size.
Electronics 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 16

3.2.2. Publication Bias

Electronics 2023, 12, 1595 8 of 15
We evaluated potential publication bias through three methods, namely, a trim-and-
fill plot [46], Egger’s regression test [47], and the classic fail-safe N [48]. As depicted in
Figure 3, the studies are symmetrically plotted according to their combined effect size.
Most of
Most ofthe
thestudies
studiesappear
appearin in
thethe upper
upper partpart
of theofgraph,
the graph, suggesting
suggesting the absence
the absence of pub-of
publication
lication biasbias
[46].[46].
ThisThis visual
visual inspection
inspection waswas confirmed
confirmed throughEgger’s
through Egger’sregression
regression
(t[61] =
(𝑡[61] 5.02,,𝑝p<<0.001).
= 5.02 0.001).Additionally,
Additionally,thetheclassic
classicfail-safe
fail-safeNNfor
forthis
thismeta-analysis
meta-analysis was
was
found to be 998. This value indicates that it would be necessary to include
found to be 998. This value indicates that it would be necessary to include 998 “null” stud- 998 “null”
studies
ies to nullify
to nullify the effect.
the effect. ThisThis analysis
analysis indicates
indicates thatthat
thethe meta-analysis
meta-analysis results
results areare reliable
reliable
and unlikely to suffer publication
and unlikely to suffer publication bias. bias.

Figure
Figure 3.
3. Funnel
FunnelPlot
Plotof
ofStandard
StandardError
Errorby Hedges’𝑔.
byHedges’ g.

3.3. Moderator
ModeratorAnalysis
Analysis
Table 11summarizes
Table summarizesthe the moderator
moderator analysis.
analysis. We We evaluated
evaluated the between-group
the between-group homo-ho-
geneity (𝑄 ) using
mogeneity ( Q B ) using the mixed method approach to identify group differences. This
the mixed method approach to identify group differences. This value
allowed us to determine whether a variable moderates the impact of m-learning on stu-on
value allowed us to determine whether a variable moderates the impact of m-learning
student
dent achievement.
achievement.

Table 1.
Table Summary of
1. Summary of the
the moderating
moderatinganalysis.
analysis.

Moderator
Moderator N𝑵 g𝒈 𝒑p Description
Description 𝑸B𝑩
Q
Education
Educationlevel
level 7.907.90
Preschool education
Preschool education 2 2 0.51
0.51 0.66
0.66 Medium
Medium
Primary education
Primary education 10 10 0.90
0.90 <0.001
<0.001 Large
Large
Secondary education 21 0.80 <0.001 Large
Secondary education 21 0.80 <0.001 Large
Vocational education 6 0.64 0.03 Medium
Vocational education
Bachelor’s level 22 6 0.64
1.11 0.03
<0.001 Medium
Very large
Bachelor’sapproach
Pedagogical level 22 1.11 <0.001 Very large 8.37
Situated learning
Pedagogical approach 8 0.95 <0.001 Large 8.37
Game-based
Situated learning
learning 11 8 0.78
0.95 <0.001
<0.001 Large
Large
Collaborative learning 7 1.45 <0.001 Very large
Game-based learning 11 0.78 <0.001 Large
Multimedia learning 6 0.65 0.88 Medium
Collaborative
Learning learning
environment 7 1.45 <0.001 Very large 7.96 *
Multimedia
Formal settingslearning 39 6 0.65
0.73 0.88
<0.001 Medium
Medium
Semi-formal
Learning settings
environment 17 1.08 <0.001 Large 7.96 *
Multiple settings
Formal settings 6 39 1.38
0.73 <0.001
<0.001 Very large
Medium
Mobile device 12.06 *
Semi-formal settings
Personal digital assistant 2
17 1.08
1.58
<0.001
<0.001
Large
Huge
Multiple
Smartphone settings 47 6 1.38
0.97 <0.001
<0.001 Very
Largelarge
Mobile device
Tablet 13 0.56 0.07 Medium 12.06 *
Control treatment 23.85 *
Traditional lectures 32 1.04 <0.001 Large
Traditional pedagogical tool 21 0.88 <0.001 Large
Multimedia resource 9 0.43 0.56 Medium
Note: * p < 0.05.
Electronics 2023, 12, 1595 9 of 15

The between-groups analysis indicated that the education level does not moder-
ate m-learning’s effect on student learning ( Q B = 7.90, p = 0.09). The effect was very
large at the Bachelor’s level ( g = 1.11, p < 0.001) and large at the primary education
level ( g = 0.90, p < 0.001) and secondary education level ( g = 0.80, p < 0.001). The ef-
fect was found to be medium on vocational education ( g = 0.64, p = 0.03) and preschool
( g = 0.51, p = 0.66). However, the small sample size does not allow us to establish reliable
conclusions about these last two education levels.
The between-groups analysis indicated that the effect of m-learning on student learning
does not differ significantly according to the pedagogical approach ( Q B = 8.37, p < 0.08).
The effect was found to be huge on collaborative learning ( g = 1.45, p < 0.001), large
on situated learning ( g = 0.95, p < 0.001) and game-based learning ( g = 0.78, p < 0.001),
and medium on multimedia learning ( g = 0.65, p < 0.88). No studies included project-
based learning or inquiry-based learning, perhaps because these approaches are more
common in engineering or science-related fields, respectively [19].
The between-groups analysis indicated that the learning environment moderates
m-learning’s effect on student learning ( Q B = 7.96, p < 0.05). The effect was found
to be very large on multiple settings ( g = 1.38, p < 0.001) and on semi-formal settings
( g = 1.08, p < 0.001) and large on formal settings ( g = 0.81, p < 0.001). No study was
conducted in informal settings.
The between-groups analysis indicated that the mobile device also moderates the
effect of m-learning on student learning ( Q B = 12.06, p < 0.05). The effect was found to
be large when using smartphones ( g = 0.97, p < 0.001) and medium when using tablets
( g = 0.56, p < 0.001). The effect when using personal digital assistants was found to be
huge ( g = 1.58, p < 0.001); however, the small sample size does not allow us to establish
reliable conclusions. No studies used game consoles, smartglasses, or smartwatches.
The between-groups analysis indicated differences in the effect of m-learning on
student learning according to the control treatment ( Q B = 23.85, p < 0.001). The ef-
fect was found to be very large when m-learning is compared with traditional lectures
( g = 1.04, p < 0.001), large when compared with traditional pedagogical tools ( g = 0.43,
p < 0.56), and medium when it is compared with other multimedia resources ( g = 0.47,
p < 0.001).

4. Discussion
This study answers UNESCO’s call to investigate the potential benefits of using mobile
devices in educational settings. Specifically, we provide information on the affordances of
m-learning for English language learning, considering various contexts, such as different
educational levels, pedagogical approaches, learning environments, mobile devices, and
other pedagogical alternatives. The results of this study can be helpful for researchers
and teachers, providing insights to help them design and develop compelling learning
experiences, materials, and activities. It can be confirmed that m-learning is a flexible and
versatile approach to learning that can be integrated into all education levels, enriching and
supporting existing educational practices, and it can be implemented in diverse contexts
while providing high-quality education for everyone.

4.1. Effects of M-Learning on Student Learning in English Education

The results of the present meta-analysis indicate that m-learning has a large effect on
students’ learning of the English language. These results are similar to those found in the
studies by Chen [27] and Garzón et al. [28]; therefore, the present meta-analysis confirms
that using mobile devices for learning English is a valid pedagogical alternative that can be
promoted to assist teachers and students in the teaching/learning process.
These positive results could be explained by the multimedia nature of mobile devices,
which allows multiple senses to be stimulated to develop skills, such as reading, writing,
listening, and speaking [7]. In addition, mobile devices work as pedagogical tools that
students can use to construct learning actively [9]. These tools can extend learning envi-
Electronics 2023, 12, 1595 10 of 15

ronments to outdoor spaces, thus eliminating space and time constraints. Finally, mobile
devices’ usability allows students to feel more confident in the learning process [9], which
translates into better academic achievement [25].

4.2. Moderator Analysis

The heterogeneity analysis indicated significant variability in the effect sizes. This
suggests that while m-learning has a large effect on student learning, the effect may vary
depending on the specific characteristics of each intervention. Below, we discuss the mod-
erating effect of the education level, the pedagogical approach, the learning environment,
the mobile device, and the control treatment.

4.2.1. Education Level

The results of our meta-analysis present some differences compared with the studies
conducted by Chen [27] and Garzón et al. [28]. First, in contrast to those studies, we did
not find moderating effects by the education level. Moreover, Chen’s [27] study found
negative effects on secondary education students, and our meta-analysis found positive
effects in all education levels, as did the study by Garzón et al. [28]. The study by Chen [27]
did not evaluate m-learning’s effect on each educational level. In this regard, we found
the most favorable results at the Bachelor’s level, which is in line with the findings in the
study by Garzón et al. [28]. It is likely that a combination of variables, such as age, maturity,
autonomy, access to resources, and technological familiarity, all explain why students at
this level perform better than other students [12,13]. These characteristics facilitate Bachelor
education to take place in outdoor spaces, which have proven to be the most effective
learning environments.

4.2.2. Pedagogical Approach

Our results do not indicate a moderating effect of the pedagogical approach, contrary
to the results of the study by Garzón et al. [28]. However, the results in both studies are
similar in identifying collaborative learning as the most beneficial approach in English
education. The most positive results from interventions adopting the collaborative learning
approach can be attributed to its ability to increase students’ confidence [25] and reduce
their cognitive load and anxiety [24]. Additionally, the results of interventions adopting
situated learning or game-based learning approaches were significantly positive. The
situated learning approach helps immerse students in real English learning contexts [14],
while the game-based learning approach increases students’ motivation, which is vital for
students to succeed in any learning process [31].

4.2.3. Learning Environment

The results of the study showed significant differences regarding the learning envi-
ronment, contrary to what was found in the studies by Chen [27] and Garzón et al. [28].
However, the results of the three studies are similar in identifying the best results in educa-
tional interventions carried out outdoors. As for the between-group categories, multiple
settings and semi-formal settings conducted in outer spaces, such as field trips, museums,
or homes, presented the best results in learning English. Learning in outer spaces provides
opportunities for contextual learning, where learners can experience real-life situations
and contexts that can help to reinforce and contextualize their language learning. This
can be particularly useful for English language learners, as it allows them to practice their
language skills in more authentic settings [49]. Additionally, learning in outer spaces can
be motivating and stimulating, as learners are exposed to new environments, people, and
experiences [50]. This can help to maintain learners’ interest and engagement in language
learning, which is crucial for effective language acquisition.
Electronics 2023, 12, 1595 11 of 15

4.2.4. Mobile Device

The results of this meta-analysis indicate significant differences depending on the
mobile device used; however, each evaluated device’s effect was found to be positive. Our
findings contradict the study by Chen [27], as that study found a negative impact when
PDA or smartphone applications were used. It is important to note that the mentioned
study included gray study articles; therefore, the results may have been confounding. In
fact, our results, similar to the study by Garzón et al. [28], found the most positive results
in interventions carried out using smartphones. The efficiency of a mobile device for
learning English depends on the learner’s preferences, learning style, and needs [51]. In
that sense, smartphones may have an advantage over other devices due to their portability
and convenience. Smartphones are relatively cost-effective, which makes them accessible
to a wide range of learners, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds or with
limited financial resources. This has helped make smartphones ubiquitous and widely used
worldwide, significantly enhancing their familiarity in modern contexts. Smartphones are
often seen as more personal devices than other devices, and learners may have a stronger
emotional attachment to them [52]. This can create a sense of ownership and motivation
that may enhance the learning experience.

4.2.5. Control Treatment

Results indicate significant differences according to the control treatment. Hence,
similar to the results in the study by Garzón et al. [28], the effect was found to be large
when compared with traditional lectures and traditional pedagogical tools and medium
when compared with other multimedia resources. These results were expected, as previous
research established that English language learning is more effective when active learning
techniques are employed [8,9]. Consequently, the effects of m-learning are more evident
when compared with traditional passive lectures, which do not motivate the students to
learn the academic content. In the same line, the positive effects of m-learning are less
evident when compared with those of other multimedia resources, as those strategies also
represent active learning techniques.

4.3. Implications for Theory and Practice

The positive results at all educational levels indicate that using mobile devices is
an effective strategy to help all students learn English, regardless of their age. At most
education levels, institutions tend to exploit the bring your own device (BYOD) concept
to lower the costs related to purchasing devices [53]. This fact positively affects students’
confidence, yielding better academic results because the usability of the pedagogical tool
(i.e., the mobile device) is intrinsically improved. Additionally, recent research has shown
a strong correlation between students’ attitudes toward using technology and language
learning outcomes [54]. As younger learners grow up surrounded by technology, they
are more accustomed to handling mobile devices from an early age. This fact improves
usability and justifies the positive effect of integrating m-learning in English education at
all levels of education.
Our results confirm that the pedagogical approaches play a crucial role in English
language learning, as they determine the success of an educational intervention. Specifi-
cally, pedagogical approaches derived from the constructivist theory (i.e., situated learning,
collaborative learning, game-based learning, multimedia learning) help create a support-
ive and engaging learning environment, encourage student participation, and promote
language acquisition [9]. The right approach can also address students’ diverse needs
and learning styles, increase motivation and self-confidence, and foster critical thinking
skills [8]. Therefore, this may imply that a well-designed pedagogical approach can lead to
improved language proficiency and enhanced communicative competence in English.
Our results show that the learning environment significantly impacts the success
and effectiveness of the learning process. Each student has their own learning style and
preferences. Therefore, a proper learning environment should accommodate different
Electronics 2023, 12, 1595 12 of 15

learning styles, such as visual, auditory, and kinesthetic, to ensure that all students have
equal opportunities to learn and succeed. The flexibility of m-learning flexibility allows
these styles to be taken out of the classroom, thus satisfying each student’s needs and
preferences. Consequently, a positive and supportive learning environment motivates
students, develops their language skills, helps them interact with others, helps them receive
valuable feedback, and helps them gain cultural exposure.
The use of mobile devices offers a variety of benefits for English language learners;
however, mobile devices provide two specific advantages, which are difficult to find when
using other pedagogical alternatives. First, learning English is enhanced by authentic edu-
cational contexts [55], which is validated by the success of interventions using collaborative
learning and situated learning approaches. In this regard, mobile devices provide timely
access to online communities where students can interact with native English speakers
and other English language learners. This helps students practice their speaking, listening,
reading, and writing skills, as well as gain new insights into the culture and customs of
English-speaking countries. Second, mobile devices provide multimedia options, such as
audio, video, and text capabilities, making them ideal for delivering various language learn-
ing materials, including videos, audio recordings, and interactive quizzes. Additionally,
the portability of mobile devices allows students to access multimedia learning materials
and practice their skills whenever and wherever.
Finally, the g value found in this meta-analysis indicates that m-learning has a large
effect on students’ learning of the English language. Nonetheless, it was important to verify
that this effect is due to the use of mobile devices and not the educational intervention per
se. Consequently, we compared the effects of m-learning treatments against those in the
control groups. Our results indicated that m-learning yields better results when compared
either with traditional lectures, traditional pedagogical tools, or other multimedia resources.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the positive effect size is due to the use of mobile devices.

5. Limitations of the Study

There are three significant limitations that must be considered when interpreting the
results of this meta-analysis. First, as depicted in Figure 1, 69 empirical studies were dis-
carded because they did not provide sufficient statistical information to calculate the effect
size. Therefore, those studies could have provided valuable information to understand the
whole picture of the effects of m-learning on English language learning. Second, the study
selection protocol included five databases to search for journal and conference articles.
However, the inclusion of additional databases and different types of research, such as
doctoral theses or book chapters, could have enriched the study’s conclusions. Third,
Figure 3 shows that publication bias is not a threat in this meta-analysis. Nonetheless,
adding unpublished studies (usually rejected because some journals tend to publish only
positive results) could modify the overall results presented in this study.

6. Future Research
This meta-analysis provides valuable information for understanding m-learning’s
effect on student learning. However, limitations in its scope and the results of our analysis
allowed us to identify some gaps that could be addressed in future research. First, we
analyzed the moderating effect of the education level, the pedagogical approach, the learn-
ing environment, the mobile device, and the control treatment. However, future research
could evaluate the moderating effects of variables, such as intervention duration, sample
size, or student personality traits. Such analysis could provide a broader understanding of
m-learning’s effectiveness in English education. Second, m-learning has been described as
an effective approach for all types of students. However, neither this nor previous studies
have analyzed the effects of m-learning on people with special needs (whether cognitive or
physical). Therefore, future research should analyze the effect of using mobile devices in
special needs education. Such research could validate m-learning as an essential approach
to learning that improves quality education for all. Third, this study analyzes English
Electronics 2023, 12, 1595 13 of 15

learning as a general variable. However, learning English requires different skills, such as
reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Hence, we propose that future studies analyze
the effect of mobile learning on each specific skill. This information is valuable as it informs
about which specific context best supports each component of learning English.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.G.; methodology, J.G. and G.L.; software, J.G.; validation,
J.G. and D.B.; formal analysis, J.G. and D.B.; investigation, J.G. and G.L.; resources, D.B.; data curation,
J.G. and G.L.; writing—original draft preparation, J.G.; writing—review and editing, G.L. and D.B.;
visualization, J.G. and D.B.; funding acquisition, D.B. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research has been partially funded by the Research Institute for Innovation and
Technology in Education (UNIR iTED) at Universidad Internacional de La Rioja (UNIR).
Data Availability Statement: All data related to the investigation process are stored personally by
the authors; however, they can be shared with interested parties. All data can be formally requested
from the corresponding author of the study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study, in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or
in the decision to publish the results.

References
1. West, M.; Vosloo, S. Policy Guidelines for Mobile Learning; Kraut, R., Ed.; UNESCO Publishing: Paris, France, 2013; ISBN 978-92-3-001143-7.
2. UNESCO Global Education Coalition. Available online: https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse/globalcoalition
(accessed on 15 February 2023).
3. Baran, E. A Review of Research on Mobile Learning in Teacher Education. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2014, 17, 17–32.
4. van der Vlies, R. Digital Strategies in Education across OECD Countries: Exploring Education Policies on Digital Technologies; OECD:
Paris, France, 2020.
5. Hylén, J. Turning on Mobile Learning in Europe: Illustrative Initiatives and Policy Implications; UNESCO Publishing: Paris, France, 2012.
6. Bazzanella, S. Digital Education Strategy and Implementation Plan—African Union; African Union: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2022.
7. 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. [CrossRef]
8. Qiu, J. A Preliminary Study of English Mobile Learning Model Based on Constructivism. Theory Pract. Lang. Stud. 2019, 9,
1167–1172. [CrossRef]
9. 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. [CrossRef]
10. Aziza, N. The Importance of English Language. Int. J. Orange Technol. 2020, 2, 22–24.
11. Rao, P. The Role of English as a Global Language. Res. J. Engl. 2019, 4, 65–79.
12. 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. [CrossRef]
13. Klimova, B. Evaluating Impact of Mobile Applications on EFL University Learners’ Vocabulary Learning—A Review Study.
Procedia Comput. Sci. 2021, 184, 859–864. [CrossRef]
14. Santos, J.; Figueiredo, A.S.; Vieira, M. Innovative Pedagogical Practices in Higher Education: An Integrative Literature Review.
Nurse Educ. Today 2019, 72, 12–17. [CrossRef]
15. 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.
16. Glass, G.V.; Smith, M.L.; McGaw, B. Meta-Analysis in Social Research; Sage Publications Incorporated: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1981.
17. Cohen, J. Quantitative Methods in Psychology. Psychol. Bull. 1992, 112, 155–159. [CrossRef]
18. Hedges, L.V.; Olkin, I. Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1985.
19. Talan, T. The Effect of Mobile Learning on Learning Performance: A Meta-Analysis Study. Educ. Sci. Theory Pract. 2020, 20, 79–103.
[CrossRef]
20. Güler, M.; Bütüner, S.Ö.; Danişman, Ş.; Gürsoy, K. A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Mobile Learning on Mathematics Achieve-
ment. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021, 27, 1725–1745. [CrossRef]
21. 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. [CrossRef]
22. 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. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. 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. [CrossRef]
Electronics 2023, 12, 1595 14 of 15

24. 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. [CrossRef]
25. 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. [CrossRef]
26. 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. [CrossRef]
27. 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. [CrossRef]
28. 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.
29. Gurevitch, J.; Koricheva, J.; Nakagawa, S.; Stewart, G. Meta-Analysis and the Science of Research Synthesis. Nature 2018, 555,
175–182. [CrossRef]
30. Pigott, T.D.; Polanin, J.R. Methodological Guidance Paper: High-Quality Meta-Analysis in a Systematic Review. Rev. Educ. Res.
2020, 90, 24–46. [CrossRef]
31. 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. [CrossRef]
32. 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.
33. 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. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Krippendorff, K. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2018.
35. Cohen, L.; Manion, L.; Morrison, K. Research Methods in Education; Routledge: London, UK, 2002; ISBN 9780203224342.
36. Morris, S.B. Estimating Effect Sizes from Pretest-Posttest-Control Group Designs. Organ. Res. Methods 2008, 11, 364–386.
[CrossRef]
37. 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. [CrossRef]
38. 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-%20
a%20simplified%20methodology.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2023).
39. Hedges, L.V.; Pigott, T.D. The Power of Statistical Tests for Moderators in Meta-Analysis. Psychol. Methods 2004, 9, 426–445.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Lipsey, M.W.; Wilson, D.B. Practical Meta-Analysis; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2001; ISBN 9780761921684.
41. ISCED 2011; UNESCO International Standard Classification of Education. UNESCO Institute for Statistics: Montreal, QC, Canada,
2012; ISBN 9789291891238.
42. 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. [CrossRef]
43. 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. [CrossRef]
44. Garzón, J.; Acevedo, J. Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Augmented Reality on Students’ Learning Effectiveness. Educ. Res. Rev.
2019, 27, 244–260. [CrossRef]
45. 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. [CrossRef]
46. 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. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47. Egger, M.; Smith, G.D.; Schneider, M.; Minder, C. Bias in Meta-Analysis Detected by a Simple, Graphical Test. BMJ 1997, 315,
629–634. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. 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.
49. 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. [CrossRef]
50. Elaish, M.M.; Shuib, L.; Ghani, N.A.; Yadegaridehkordi, E. Mobile English Language Learning (MELL): A Literature Review.
Educ. Rev. 2019, 71, 257–276. [CrossRef]
51. 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.
52. 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. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Electronics 2023, 12, 1595 15 of 15

53. Afreen, R. Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) in Higher Education: Opportunities and Challenges. Int. J. Emerg. Trends Technol.
Comput. Sci. 2014, 3, 233–236.
54. Belda-medina, J.; Marrahi-gomez, V. The Impact of Augmented Reality (AR) on Vocabulary Acquisition and Student Motivation.
Electronics 2023, 12, 749. [CrossRef]
55. 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. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.