1. Academic content
1.1. Natural sciences
1.1.1. Outdoor learning
1.1.1.1. Using PDAs and location-aware devices was found to motivate elementary students and improve their performance in science
1.1.2. Two-tier Tests Guiding Mechanism (T3G)
1.1.2.1. observe predetermined plants in an outdoor nature setting
1.1.2.2. observe and recognize the characteristic features of the plants
1.1.3. Mobile Plant Learning System (MPLS)
1.1.3.1. Supported botany learning at the elementary school level
1.1.4. Connecting the complex scientific content with field observations
1.1.4.1. Improve science learning
1.1.4.2. Enhance motivation
1.1.4.3. Serve as an engaging tool for learning science content in a situated experiential outdoor environment
1.1.4.4. Allow students to check their under- standing of specific academic knowledge and skill objectives.
1.1.4.5. The effects of visual cuing support learning plant leaf morphology
1.2. Mathematics
1.2.1. Collaborative learning opportunities
1.2.1.1. learning field-based geometry concepts
1.2.1.2. Drill and Practice approaches
1.2.2. creating learning videos
1.2.2.1. Collaborative field-based inquiry learning
1.2.2.2. situated
1.2.2.3. experiential
1.2.3. Improved multiplication abilities
1.2.4. Emotional changes
1.2.4.1. support their learning of everyday math outside of the classroom
1.3. Social studies
1.3.1. Connect in-classroom and out-of-classroom learning(E.g. bridging museum learning with classroom learning) contextual learning by mixing real and virtual environments
1.3.2. Role playing and problem-based learn- ing through game play
1.3.2.1. using a mobile guide system
1.3.2.2. using an audiovisual system
1.3.2.3. using a paper- based guided-learning sheet
1.3.3. Using the mobile guide system exhibited more interactions with both their peers and the exhibits than the students who had the audiovisual system or the students who had paper-based guided learning sheets
1.4. Language arts
1.4.1. Students’ native language learning, mostly in the form of text-based literacy, was explored for improved language learning.
1.4.2. The impact that text messaging had on students’ native language lit- eracy skills, with findings that text messaging was positively related to improvement in literacy skills
1.4.3. No significant differences were found between good readers and poor readers in terms of the number of texts sent/received or the number of calls made and received
1.4.3.1. However, poorer readers reportedly spent more time texting and speaking on their mobile phones each day as compared with bet- ter readers.
1.4.4. Describing and quantifying the effect text-messaging abbreviations
1.4.4.1. Used texting as the main form of messaging and took a longer time to read through a text message as compared to reading a message written in the conventional style.
1.4.5. Front-Loading Vocabulary-Designed
1.4.5.1. Programs on mobile phones allowed participants’ motivation to remain high and improved average readers’ vocabulary comprehension.
1.4.6. Effect of mobile- assisted authentic content creation and social meaning making in vocabulary learning
1.4.6.1. Findings revealed that learners were actively engaged in classroom or online discussion of their semantic constructions and their understandings of the proper usage of the prepositions or idioms were enhanced
1.5. ESL and second-language acquisition
1.5.1. Greater language achievement
1.5.2. Significantly higher language acquisition gains through listening and speaking practices enabled by mobile devices
1.5.3. Improve students’ English listening and speaking skills
1.5.4. Implementing an m-learning tool for learning English vocabulary and common sentences
1.5.4.1. the postintervention test scores of the experimental group were found to significantly exceed the scores of the control group
1.5.5. Effectiveness of SMS vocabulary lessons on the small screens of mobile phones
1.5.5.1. students were found to be motivated in learning vocabulary despite the small screen size
1.5.6. Hearing-impaired students learning
1.5.6.1. improved with the after-school access to educational materials provided through wireless technology
2. Comparison studies
2.1. Effectiveness of mobille learning to traditional learning
2.1.1. Positive learning outcomes
2.1.1.1. Better Subject learning achievement
2.1.1.1.1. Natural Science
2.1.1.1.2. History and Social Studies
2.1.1.2. Improved language acquisition
2.1.1.2.1. English Language
2.1.1.3. Improved learning attitude
2.1.1.3.1. Mobile-based problem solving
2.1.2. Neutral learning outcomes
2.1.2.1. Language Acquisition and mobile device use
2.1.2.1.1. No significant in affecting literacy development
2.1.2.2. Mobile device and learning
2.1.2.2.1. No significant in affecting learning results
2.1.3. Learning Context
2.1.3.1. Faciliate learning and provide learning support in real-world Contex
2.1.3.1.1. Out-School (eg. Museum)
2.1.3.1.2. In- School (eg. English practice)l
2.1.4. learning objects
2.1.4.1. Support learning activities
2.1.4.1.1. The use of apps
2.1.4.1.2. Created customized learning objects
2.1.4.1.3. Web-based learning objects
3. Mobilised learning
3.1. Mobilised learning allows for existing curricular objectives to be addressed in a seamless technology-integrated learning environment with a student-cantered focus (Looi et al., 2011; Sha, Looi, Chen, Seow, & Wong, 2012)
3.1.1. Primary affordances
3.1.1.1. offering students
3.1.1.1.1. multiple entry point
3.1.1.1.2. multiple learning paths
3.1.1.1.3. allowing for differentiated learning
3.1.1.2. enabling multiple modality via mobile devices
3.1.1.2.1. students have a tool to create a different learning artifice to suit their needs
3.1.1.3. supporting student improvisation in situ
3.1.1.3.1. student may improvise as needed within the context of learning
3.1.1.4. supporting learning creation on the move wit an ease of creating and sharing artefacts
3.2. Learning outside of classrooms
3.2.1. Use of mobile learning in authentic setting outside the classroom
3.2.1.1. students could investigate location-specific phenomena
3.2.1.2. engage in content learning within context-specific
3.2.2. Examples
3.2.2.1. enable by the portability of mobile devices
3.2.2.1.1. students were able to explore and learn beyond the school setting
3.3. Expanding the school day
3.3.1. Anytime access (Sha st al., 2012)
3.3.2. individualise learning by students (Sha st al., 2012)
3.3.2.1. self-regulated learning by using a program based on the K-W-L graphic organiser (Sha st al., 2012)
3.3.3. monitor students own progress (Sha st al., 2012)
3.3.3.1. encountered embedded assessments that allowed instructors to provide individualised feedback and support
3.3.4. access additional help outside the classroom (Sha st al., 2012)
3.3.4.1. learning by creating and testing a multilayered learning environment that allowed students to work through guided and independent field observations with information access (Hung, Lin and Hwang, 2010)
3.4. Conflicts with school electronic device use policy
3.4.1. mobile devices were seen as interruptions to the learning ecology in school building
3.4.2. BYOD
3.4.2.1. students access to mobile devices was limited by school tules that prohibited the use of electronic devices during instructional hours (Brown, 2009 and Wood et al., 2011)
3.4.3. School provided
3.4.3.1. students c an extended their learning from school to home, and their research found a positive outcome to m-learning
3.4.4. Activities (Mifsud and Morch, 2010)
3.4.4.1. teacher-defined
3.4.4.1.1. which were part of the curriculum intended by the teacher
3.4.4.2. student-definded
3.4.4.2.1. which were those activities students completed when not involved in teacher-defender activities
3.5. Digital inequity
3.5.1. reduce socio-educational inequities among students (Ferrer, Belvis and Pamies, 2011)
3.5.1.1. students with the worst academic records showed the most improvement
3.5.1.2. historically disadvantaged students benefitted academically from the use of tablets in their classrooms
3.5.2. access to the mobile device through a school-sponsored program contributed toward socio-educational equity (Ferrer et al., 2011)
4. Non comparison studies
4.1. Potential of mobile learning in using various data sources
4.1.1. Communication and Collaboration
4.1.1.1. ability to access content and communication at any time.
4.1.1.2. develop relationships that enhanced academic understandings
4.1.1.3. enabled coopearative and collaborative creation
4.1.1.4. participation, collaboration and development between students
4.1.1.5. promoting and increasing course-related interaction.
4.1.1.6. improved the quality and quantity of communication between teachers and students.
4.1.1.7. students became more motivated to learn.
4.1.2. Game-based Learning
4.1.2.1. The reason that these digital games make such good teaching tools is that their design caters for the key principals of learning (Oblinger, 2004)
4.1.2.1.1. Active Learning and Discovery
4.1.2.1.2. Social Involvement and Collaboration
4.1.2.1.3. Assessment and Feedback
4.1.2.1.4. Individualisation
4.1.2.1.5. Support and Coaching
4.1.2.2. positive impact of mobile games technologies in terms of teaching and learning (Douch, Attewell, and Dawson, 2010)
4.1.2.2.1. Provide learning opportunities that appeal to learners with a variety of learning styles due to the multisensory nature of the games and devices.
4.1.2.2.2. Engage learners, resulting in improved learner behaviour, motivation and concentration
4.1.2.2.3. Support the process of personalising learning, providing the flexibility to allow learners to work at their own pace and independently.
4.1.2.2.4. Help to improve numeracy and literacy levels
4.1.2.2.5. Assist with the delivery of learning where a language barrier exist
4.1.2.2.6. Make learning more enjoyable
4.1.2.2.7. Provide a tool for assessment that is non-threatening and less stressful for the learner, while also providing the opportunity for instant feedback.
4.1.2.2.8. Gain the attention and focus of a class at the start of a lesson.
4.1.2.2.9. Encourage increased collaboration and peer interaction, as well as promoting a healthy degree of competition amongst the class.
4.1.2.3. factors to assist in introducing games technologies into learning delivery (Douch, Attewell, and Dawson, 2010)
4.1.2.3.1. Practical issues of storage and battery charging need to be considered
4.1.2.3.2. when choosing a game, consider the pre-existing knowledge that maybe required for optimum utilization of the resource.
4.1.2.3.3. Consider the level of the game compared to the learners (too easy? too difficult?).
4.1.2.3.4. Plan lessons to ensure that the game-based learning is embedded into the structure rather than added as an after thought.
4.1.2.3.5. Ensure that the learners are fully aware of the rules surrounding their usage of the devices and the games.
4.1.2.3.6. Take advantage of the element of competition that will motivate the learners and encourage this by ensuring that staff members are involved.
4.1.3. Application Evaluation Studies
4.1.3.1. Functional framework devised by Patten, Arnedillo Sanchez and Tangney (2006) - designed as a tool to analyze and evaluate handheld learning applications by Smartphones and PDA users if it falls into same categories as the mobile learning activities designed by educators.
4.1.3.1.1. Collaborative Activities
4.1.3.1.2. Location Aware applications
4.1.3.1.3. Referential applications
4.1.3.1.4. Ad,iministrative applications
4.1.3.1.5. Data Collection applications
4.1.3.1.6. Interactive applications