British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 0 No 0 2019 1–12

doi:10.1111/bjet.12839

Review of research on mobile-assisted language learning in

familiar, authentic environments

Rustam Shadiev , Taoying Liu and Wu-Yuin Hwang

Rustam Shadiev is a professor in the School of Education Science, Nanjing Normal University, China. His research
interests include learning and instruction in online synchronous learning environment, human–computer
interaction for collaboration, speech to text recognition (STR) technology for learning and mobile-assisted language
learning. Taoying Liu is a student of Master’s degree program in the School of Education Science, Nanjing Normal
University, China. She is interested in research on mobile-assisted language learning. Wu-Yuin Hwang is a
distinguished professor at the Graduate Institute of Network Learning Technology, National Central University,
Taiwan. His research interests include computer-assisted language learning, HCI and knowledge construction.
Address for correspondence: Wu-Yuin Hwang, National Central University, No.300, Jhongda Road, Jhongli
32001, Taoyuan county, Taiwan. Email: wyhwang1206@gmail.com

Abstract
Familiarity with learning contexts is important in the field of mobile-assisted language
learning (MALL). Several review studies on MALL have been published to date. However,
scholars have not covered certain aspects of familiar contexts in their reviews, such as
which learning/instructional methodologies support learning in familiar contexts or
what the affordances of familiar contexts are for language learning. To address this
gap, the authors in this study reviewed research articles related to MALL in familiar,
authentic environments published in the past 10 years. The reviewed articles were
from journals published in the Social Science Citation Index between 2009 and 2018.
The main aim of this study was to review the published articles to understand (1)
pedagogical approaches, (2) data collection, (3) locations, (4) affordances of authentic
environments and (5) issues in MALL research. The results revealed that the most
frequent items in reviewed articles were task-based learning and communicative language
teaching (pedagogical approaches); questionnaires, pretest and posttests and interviews
(data collection); the local community and campus (locations); daily encounters, language
learning and cognitive load (affordances of authentic environments); and small sample
sizes and short-term interventions (issues in MALL research). Based on the results, the
authors in this study made several suggestions and provided implications for educators
and researchers in the field about MALL in familiar, authentic environments.

Introduction
Currently, mobile technologies play an important part in our daily lives (Liu & Chen, 2015).
Therefore, educators and researchers widely apply them to foreign/second language learning
processes for extending classroom language learning to the real world (Hsu, 2017; Tai, 2012;
Wong, 2013). Some benefits of the technology for language learning were mentioned in related
studies, e.g. seamless learning experience to learn anytime and anywhere (Liu, 2009) or over-
coming limitations and obstacles of a traditional classroom such as a lack of language use oppor-
tunities, individualized learning, feedback and interactions (Ahn & Lee, 2016).

© 2019 British Educational Research Association

2    British Journal of Educational Technology  Vol 0 No 0 2019

Practitioner Notes
What is already known about this topic
• Importance of familiarity with learning contexts was emphasized in the literature.
• Not many review studies focused on MALL in familiar contexts.
What this paper adds
• The results related to the pedagogical foundations, data collection, the familiar con-
texts, affordances of familiar contexts and current research issues were identified.
• Implications and suggestions were provided based on the results.
Implications for practice and/or policy
• The results can be useful for those who consider designing MALL in familiar contexts.
• Pedagogical approaches and issues related to MALL in familiar contexts need to be
reported.
• Consider exploring how physiological data correlates with MALL.
• Familiar authentic locations should be identified and shared among students.

This study aimed to improve understanding of the usage of mobile technologies and applications
for language learning and teaching in authentic environments which are familiar to learners.
An authentic environment is one in which the focal point and goal of all activities reflect the
real-world situation in which mastery of the subject matter occurs (Casey, 1996, p. 79). The real
world provides authentic contexts so that learners are able to acquire and practice target lan-
guage using real objects, people, situations, etc. (Lan & Lin, 2016; Shadiev, Hwang, Huang, & Liu,
2015; Wong, King, Chai, & Liu, 2016). For example, learners studying topics related to wild ani-
mals could apply knowledge learned in class to real context in a local zoo by describing its animals
and their diet (Shadiev, Hwang, & Huang, 2017). Mobile technologies can aid such learning; with
the support of mobile devices, students are able to access learning material, create own digital
learning content, share it and then discuss with other classmates how to make it better (Chen,
2013; Liu, 2009; Shadiev, Hwang, & Liu, 2018).
Importance of familiarity with learning contexts was emphasized in the literature (Hwang, &
Chen, 2013). According to Hupbach, Gomez, and Nadel (2011), familiar contexts are contexts
that are familiar and relevant to learners, as they are associated with previous experiences and
events. In addition, familiar contexts help learners predict what will happen in specific places
(Leung & Williams, 2011). Familiar contexts provide rich resources and can be found in locations
visited frequently by students (Wong et al., 2016), such as a convenience store near a school
or home where a student buys grocery items or photocopies learning material. Learners can
practice the target language in familiar contexts by describing objects, people and situations ver-
bally or in writing (Hwang & Chen,2013). For example, a student studying topics related to her
daily routine can explain what she usually buys for lunch in a convenience store near her school
(Huang, Shadiev, Sun, Hwang, & Liu, 2017). In addition, she can explain the best time for buying
lunch, as she knows the store’s routine and can predict that it gets crowded between 11:45 am
and 12:30 pm (Shadiev et al., 2018). Such language practice takes place in a familiar authentic
context, relates to a learner’s everyday experiences and reflects the way the knowledge is used in
real life (Chen, 2013).
Scholars have argued that there are many advantages of being familiar with contexts for a
foreign/second language acquisition. For example, Moeller and Meyer (1995) mentioned that

© 2019 British Educational Research Association

 Review of research on MALL in familiar contexts    3

learners can easily make connections between the new knowledge and their background knowl-
edge of familiar contexts. In addition, information that is integrated with familiar knowledge is
more durable compared to information that is not associated with prior knowledge. Leung and
Williams (2011) suggested that the contextual cueing effect can be better achieved in familiar
contexts. Craig, Smith, and Petersen (2017) claimed that cognitive load can be better managed in
contexts familiar to learners. Furthermore, familiar contexts lower the affective filter and enable
meaningful language learning (Moeller & Meyer, 1995).
To date, several review studies on mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) were carried out.
Burston (2014), in his comprehensive review of existing studies, analyzed the development of
MALL over the past 20 years. He listed the dominant mobile technologies for MALL, the prevalent
methodological approaches for MALL implementation, and several pedagogical challenges fac-
ing mobile technologies exploitation. Golonka, Bowles, Frank, Richardson, and Freynik (2014)
summarized evidence related to the effectiveness of MALL obtained from their review of related
studies. Their results showed that evidence of efficacy of technology use in language learning
and teaching is limited. In addition, the review revealed that most evidence on the effectiveness
of technology on language learning was found from research on technology-assisted pronun-
ciation training, and the use of chat was very beneficial during language learning programs.
Furthermore, Golonka et al. (2014) reported that there was moderate support in the litera-
ture for claims that technology facilitated language output and interaction, affect and moti-
vation, feedback and metalinguistic knowledge. Duman, Orhon, and Gedik (2015) examined
and reported characteristics and research trends of MALL studies. According to their review,
the number of studies increased from 2008 and the highest number was in 2012. The use of
cell phones and PDAs for teaching vocabulary was the most popular among other applications
of technology to assist language learning and teaching. Only few studies framed their research
based on related theories. In addition, most studies used applied and design-based research
with quantitative research methods. Shadiev et al. (2017) reviewed research on MALL focusing
on authenticity of learning environments. In their review, Shadiev et al. (2017) summarized
results into the following categories: trends in publications, technology used, methodology and
current issues. Kukulska-Hulme and Viberg (2018) reviewed MALL studies, specifically explor-
ing how mobile technologies have been used to support collaborative language learning. The
main focus of their review was on affordances, general pedagogical approaches, second and
foreign language pedagogical approaches, second language acquisition principles and affective
designs.
The authors in this study argue that none of these above-described review studies focused on
language learning in familiar contexts. For example, what familiar authentic locations during
MALL were or what affordances did familiar authentic environments provide are still unclear.
Therefore, this present study goes beyond existing review studies because it focuses on MALL in
familiar contexts. Specifically, researchers in this study explore the pedagogical approaches used
in the reviewed articles, data collection, familiar contexts selected for language learning, their
affordances and current research issues. This review study aims to address the following research
questions:

1. What pedagogical approaches were used in the reviewed articles?

2. What were the data collection methods?
3. What familiar authentic locations were selected for MALL?
4. What affordances did familiar authentic environments provide?
5. What were the research issues?

© 2019 British Educational Research Association

4    British Journal of Educational Technology  Vol 0 No 0 2019

Methodology
Both electronic and manual search of articles were carried out to ensure reliability. Preferred
Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) were used to guide this
study’s electronic search. Moher et al. (2015) suggested that PRISMA is an evidence-based set
of items intended to facilitate authors to prepare and report a wide array of systematic reviews
and meta-analyses. PRISMA has been successfully employed in earlier educational studies, e.g.
see the systematic review of Crompton, Burke, and Lin (2019) or Sønderlund, Hughes and Smith
(2018). Peer-Reviewed Instructional Materials Online Database (PRIMO) was used for searching
articles published in the past 10 years. According to Kukulska-Hulme and Viberg (2018), PRIMO
is a search tool which contains sundry databases such as Web of Science, ERIC and Scopus with
the most comprehensive collections of full-text articles and bibliographic records. The authors in
this study excluded all the databases except the Web of Science database. The following search
terms in different combinations were used: MALL, mobile, phone, tablet, smartphone, lan-
guage, learning, teaching, instruction, real, authentic, situated, contextual and familiar. These
terms were chosen because they are often used in connection to MALL in familiar, authentic
environments.
In the beginning, a list with 938 articles matching the search terms was compiled. After that,
the selection of research articles was narrowed down. To this end, a list of articles was screened
using the following inclusion criteria: (1) studies published in Social Science Citation Index (SSCI)
journals; (2) studies published between 2009 and 2018; (3) studies focused on MALL in familiar,
authentic environments; (4) and studies published in English. Two researchers independently
examined all articles against these criteria. After the screening process, an inter-rater agreement
of 95% was achieved. Then the researchers discussed the differences in the screening process and
an inter-rater agreement reached 100% after their discussion.
In total, 22 research articles were selected after the screening process. Table 1 presents details of
the selected articles, i.e. journal, author(s) and publication year. In addition, relevant publica-
tions in these SSCI journals were searched. Manual search in SSCI journals confirmed the articles
which were already identified by the electronic search. Next, content analysis using open coding
was conducted (Creswell, 2014). This approach enabled segmenting information and forming
categories of information about the phenomena being studied. The coding process was conducted
by the same two researchers independently. After the coding process, 96% of agreement was
achieved and it reached 100% after the coders discussed differences and re-examined paper/s in
question.

Results
Results are presented and organized in five main categories: (1) pedagogical approaches; (2) data
collection; (3) locations; (4) affordances of authentic environments; and (5) issues in research. To en-
hance the reader’s comprehension of the findings, an example for each finding was provided.

Pedagogical approaches
The results revealed that several pedagogical approaches were employed in the reviewed studies.
The most common approach was task-based learning (n = 16). This is a student-centered learning
approach that emphasizes the use of the target language to complete meaningful tasks. Usually,
the instructor designs a task, and students use the target language for communication in order
to complete the tasks. Students in Tai (2012) and Wong (2013) worked on tasks that aimed to
make contextual meaning through interacting with living spaces associated with the language
knowledge learned in the classroom using mobile devices.

© 2019 British Educational Research Association

 Review of research on MALL in familiar contexts    5

Table 1: Literature search results

Journal (in alphabetical order) Author(s) (Year)

Computer-Assisted Language Learning Hwang and Chen (2013)

Hwang et al. (2014)
Hwang et al. (2016)
Computers & Education Hsu (2017)
Educational Technology & Society Cheng et al. (2010)
Ho et al. (2017)
Huang et al. (2016)
Lan and Lin (2016)
Shadiev et al. (2015)
Tai (2012)
Wong (2013)
Educational Technology Research and Development Huang et al. (2017)
IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies Shadiev et al. (2017)
Instructional Science Wong et al. (2016)
Interactive Learning Environments Liu and Chen (2015)
Wong et al. (2015)
Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning Liu (2009)
Shadiev et al. (2018)
Wong et al. (2012)
Wong & Looi (2010)
Language Learning & Technology, Chen (2013)
System Chang et al. (2016)

Some scholars employed a communicative language teaching (n = 5) approach. Huang et al. (2017)
claimed that the communicative language teaching method involves knowing not only the
structure and forms of a language but also its function and purposes. Therefore, this approach
emphasizes meaning-based communication instead of the practice of isolated grammatical
forms. Communicative language activities were designed in Cheng, Hwang, Wu, Shadiev, and Xie
(2010) for students to use language as a vehicle for communication with the support of mobile
technology, such as to communicate with each other on topics of campus daily life (living, eating
and transportation).
A self-directed learning (n = 2) approach was employed in two studies. Learning activities in Hsu
(2017) were developed based on a self-directed learning approach. Students took the initiative
and responsibility for their learning by selecting, managing and assessing their own learning
activities. A storytelling (n = 2) approach was also employed. This approach is useful for practicing
the language, i.e. to develop speaking and writing abilities, as it enables students to communi-
cate intentionally using narrative sentences. Storytelling also helps develop language expression,
logic and creativity in students. In Huang et al. (2017), students participated in storytelling learn-
ing activities and applied new knowledge to the real world by creating stories. Other studies used
a five-step vocabulary learning (n = 1), game-based learning (n = 1), inquiry-based learning (n = 1)
and a total physical response (n = 1) approach. No pedagogical approaches were identified in two
reviewed articles (n = 2).

Data collection
The results showed that scholars collected their data by administering a questionnaire (n = 16), a
pretest and posttest (n = 14) and interviews (n = 14). Scholars also analyzed the content created by
students (n = 9), student learning behavior (n = 8), learning performance (n = 5) and cognitive style
© 2019 British Educational Research Association
6    British Journal of Educational Technology  Vol 0 No 0 2019

(n = 1). Questionnaires helped scholars investigate students’ perceptions towards MALL in fa-
miliar authentic environments, such as ease of use of the system (Chen, 2013), usefulness of the
system for learning (Hwang & Chen, 2013), intention to use the system (Hwang, Chen, Shadiev,
Huang, & Chen, 2014), cognitive load, motivation (Chang, Chang, & Shih, 2016) and satisfaction
(Tai, 2012) during learning. In addition, Huang et al. (2017) used a questionnaire to identify the
learning strategies used by students and how frequently they were used.
Scholars aimed to prove the effectiveness of their intervention using the data collected from a pre-
test and posttest (Hsu, 2017). To this end, prior knowledge and learning achievement of students
in a control and treatment groups were measured and compared (Liu & Chen, 2015). Interviews
were used to explore students’ experiences of MALL in familiar authentic environments (Wong,
Chai, Aw, & King, 2015). Content created by students was analyzed in terms of its completeness
and quality (Wong, Chen, & Jan, 2012) or use of strategies (Lan & Lin, 2016). Learning behav-
ior analysis allowed scholars to identify the learning behaviors using technology for language
learning, how frequently students use various functions of the technology, and the relationships
between these behaviors and learning achievement (Hwang, Shih, Ma, Shadiev, & Chen, 2016).
Scholars assessed the learning performance of students for different tasks to study how learn-
ing progresses (Wong, 2013). Finally, some scholars (Ho, Hsieh, Sun, & Chen, 2017) examined
whether cognitive styles affect learning performance.

Familiar authentic locations

Participants in the reviewed studies were at different educational levels, such as elementary
school (Hsu, 2017), secondary school (Huang et al., 2017), university (Chang et al., 2016), gradu-
ate school (Cheng et al., 2010) and adult learners, such as service industry employees and kinder-
garten teachers (Ho et al., 2017). The results related to familiar authentic locations showed that
students practiced the language in a local community (n = 14), such as places around the students’
homes. For example, students described what the weather is like in their city and what people in
their local community do in such weather (Huang et al., 2017). Students in Tai (2012) visited a
local garden, and students in Chang et al. (2016) visited a local temple. All of them practiced their
language skills and tried to understand the culture and architectural features of the learning
locations.
A campus (n = 14) was selected as the learning site in several studies. For example, students visited
places on campus such as the bus stop, bookstore or drink shop to learn location-related vocabu-
lary and sentence patterns and then to practice their speaking skills (Huang, Yang, Chiang, & Su,
2016). Students in Hwang and Chen (2013) practiced the language in the school cafeteria using
familiar situations, such as those occurring during lunch. Hwang et al. (2014) designed a learn-
ing activity for a school playground. Several scholars explored the language–learning process at
home (n = 6); students used objects, scenarios and situations from their natural living contexts
to describe or explain them (Wong et al., 2016). There were also some other locations (n = 2) in
which students learned; scholars indicated that most of them were near the homes or schools of
the students but did not specify what the locations were (Wong, 2013).

Affordances of familiar authentic environments

According to Norman (1988, p. 9), “the term affordance refers to the perceived and actual prop-
erties of the thing, primarily those fundamental properties that determine just how the thing
could possibly be used.” Therefore, in this study, affordance was referred to as the perceived and
actual properties of the familiar, authentic environment/mobile technology that determine how
the familiar, authentic environment/mobile technology could possibly be used. In this section,
results were divided into three subsections: (a) opportunities provided by familiar, authentic
© 2019 British Educational Research Association
 Review of research on MALL in familiar contexts    7

environments for language learning; (b) how familiar, authentic environments can help lan-
guage learning; and (c) the issues that students experience during learning in familiar, authen-
tic environments. The difference between the first two subsections is that the former is related
to resources provided by familiar, authentic environments for the learning process, whereas the
latter is related to different processes such as cognitive, emotional and motivational processes,
that are associated with the learning process and that take place within a learner.
Familiar, authentic environments provided various opportunities for language learning, i.e. daily
encounters (n = 22), real communication (n = 2) and first-hand experience (n = 1). For example, in
their daily lives, students encountered objects, scenarios and manipulation (Wong, 2013; Wong
et al., 2016); situations, directions and actions (Huang et al., 2016); and peers for interaction
(Hwang & Chen, 2013) in authentic contexts and used them for language learning. Students
were able to communicate with real people in authentic contexts, such as the owners of stores or
restaurants (Tai, 2012). In addition, students obtained first-hand experience of authentic physi-
cal contexts (Wong et al., 2016).
Familiar, authentic environments were helpful for different purposes: to facilitate language learning
(n = 21), motivation (n = 7), engagement (n = 2), inspiration (n = 1) and parental involvement (n = 1);
to distribute cognition (n = 1); and to manage cognitive load (n = 1). For example, in terms of language
learning, familiar contexts triggered vocabulary use, authentic language use and engagement (Wong
et al., 2016). Students were able to apply new knowledge to the real world (Hwang & Chen, 2013) and
analyze their learning experiences (Huang et al., 2017). Familiar environments promoted collabora-
tion, memorization and understanding of learning materials (Ho et al., 2017) and student reflection
and provided contexts for authentic assessment of learning within the tasks (Hwang et al., 2014).
In addition, students were able to immerse themselves in the situations (Lan & Lin, 2016), act out
phrases associated with learned information (Liu & Chen, 2015) and improvise, i.e. to use their imag-
ination to create learning content using new ideas and experiences (Wong & Looi, 2010). Learning in
familiar contexts facilitated learning motivation (Huang et al., 2016; Hwang & Chen, 2013).
Issues related to language learning in familiar contexts were not identified in 15 studies. In the
other studies, the following issues were reported: cognitive load (n = 3), distractions (n = 1), insuffi-
cient competence (n = 1), prohibition (n = 1) and unidentified location (n = 1). Scholars warned that
learning in technology-supported familiar, authentic environments is complex and may impose a
high cognitive load on students. Huang et al. (2016) claimed that distractions are common in the
real world and may hamper students’ concentration on learning. Lan and Lin (2016) cautioned
that some students have insufficient pragmatic competence to have appropriate social communi-
cation when they learn in the real world. Another issue is the prohibition by parents for students
to take smartphones outside of the home (Wong, 2013). Finally, Hwang et al. (2016) mentioned
the unidentified location issue. Unidentified locations where content was created cause confu-
sion for students who study that content, and they hamper their understanding of the content
because they are not sure of the surrounding contexts in which the content was created.

Issues in MALL research

Several issues were identified in the reviewed articles. Small sample size (n = 12) was the most
frequently reported issue. Scholars acknowledged their use of small samples and that this issue
limits the generalization of results to a wider population. Short-term intervention (n = 11) was the
next most frequently reported issue. Scholars admitted the short exposures of their treatments
and for this reason their results may have little relevance to the findings of related research
with long-term exposures (Chen, 2013). Equality of treatment and control conditions were not
fair in some studies (n = 4); that is, students in a control group learned in a classroom using a

© 2019 British Educational Research Association

8    British Journal of Educational Technology  Vol 0 No 0 2019

traditional method, whereas students in an experimental group learned in familiar authentic

contexts using mobile technology (Huang et al., 2016; Hwang & Chen, 2013).
Control group was absent in two studies (n = 2), so scholars tested the effectiveness of their inter-
vention with a treatment group only (Tai, 2012). An instructor-centered approach (n = 2) was
employed in two studies. In one study, learning sites were designated by the instructor (Huang
et al., 2016), and in the other, the learning content was created by the instructor (Tai, 2012).
Some scholars admitted that they had no control of time (n = 2). That is, they could not control the
time during which the learning process occurred because students worked on tasks in different
locations (Liu & Chen, 2015). Another issues were difficulty in recording some learning behavior
(n = 1), one-way interaction (n = 1) and technological constrains (n = 1). Scholars of six studies did
not report any issues in their research.

Discussion and conclusion

The results were sorted into five categories and the following items were discussed most often in
the articles reviewed: (1) pedagogical approaches: task-based learning and communicative language
teaching; (2) data collection: a questionnaire, a pretest and posttest and interviews; (3) locations: local
community and campus; (4) affordances of authentic environments: daily encounters, language
learning and cognitive load; (5) issues in research: small sample size and short-term intervention.
Scholars in most studies designed learning activities based on task-based learning/communica-
tive language teaching approaches because the learning process took place outdoor and students
completed assigned tasks by producing language output. However, scholars in several studies did
not indicate which pedagogical approaches were employed for the design of MALL activities. Such
information is essential as it lets readers know the background in which the learning activities
were designed. As such, it should be explicitly indicated in research articles. These findings are
in line with those obtained in earlier review studies. For example, Burston (2014) and Kukulska-
Hulme and Viberg (2018) also revealed that several authors employed task-based and communi-
cative teaching approaches. Golonka et al. (2014) reported about issues in the reviewed research.
They claimed that some studies had poor description of the research design so evaluation of the
efficacy of MALL was problematic.
In most studies, pretest and posttest design was employed to test the effectiveness of the inter-
vention on learning outcomes; this type of research design allowed the collection of objective
evidence. Scholars used a questionnaire to ensure that their participants perceived the technol-
ogy positively and accepted it for their learning. Interviews provided useful information when it
was difficult or impossible to directly observe students (Creswell, 2014). In addition, interviews
allowed students to describe detailed personal information (Fraenkel, Wallen, & Hyun, 2014).
Similar results were obtained in earlier review studies (Duman et al., 2015; Golonka et al., 2014).
For example, Duman et al. (2015) stated that surveys were the primary research method followed
by pretest/posttest design in reviewed MALL studies.
In most studies, the students worked on assigned tasks in their local communities/campus
because their daily routines were closely related to these locations, and yet these locations were
familiar and convenient to visit (Wong et al., 2016). Students usually spend most of their time in
their community/school where they live, learn and attend some sport/academic-related activi-
ties, e.g. clubs or cram schools (Cheng et al., 2010; Hwang et al., 2014). Other review studies also
claimed that MALL took place mostly in local communities of the students or their campus. For
example, Shadiev et al. (2017) claimed that some learning sites were in classroom, campus or
some specified locations, e.g. local community. This suggests that the finding of this review is in
line with earlier review studies on MALL.
© 2019 British Educational Research Association
 Review of research on MALL in familiar contexts    9

Students produced, communicated and shared language outputs such as photo (Lan & Lin, 2016),
textual (Liu & Chen, 2015) and audio (Tai, 2012) artifacts using mobile technology. Familiar, authen-
tic environments provided various opportunities such as daily encounters and facilitated language
learning (Shadiev et al., 2017). However, several issues related to language learning in familiar,
authentic environments were reported, such as cognitive load (Shadiev et al., 2015), distractions
(Huang et al., 2016), insufficient competence (Lan & Lin, 2016), prohibition (Wong, 2013) and
unidentified location (Hwang et al., 2016). It is important to know the issues related to language learn-
ing in familiar authentic environments; however, this information was not identified in fifteen stud-
ies. Therefore, the researchers in this study urge educators and researchers to report this important
information, as it may help others avoid the most common issues. Other review studies also reported
about affordances; however, those affordances were related to the use of technology (Burston, 2014;
Golonka et al., 2014; Kukulska-Hulme & Viberg, 2018). In contrast, this present study focused on
affordances of familiar authentic environments. Similar issues related to MALL were also reported in
Kukulska-Hulme and Viberg (2018); for example, they warned about risk of distraction.
No issues in MALL research were reported in six studies. This is a substantial limitation of these
studies, as information on issues in MALL research and how they can be addressed can be use-
ful to the field. In addition, the issues and limitations were acknowledged by the authors in the
reviewed studies themselves. Authors frequently fail to recognize design failings, therefore under-
estimating the problems in the studies reviewed. Small sample size and short-term interventions
were acknowledged as research limitations in most of the articles reviewed (Hsu, 2017; Liu &
Chen, 2015). Suggestions such as increasing sample size and carrying out studies for longer time
in the future were proposed to address these issues (Hwang et al., 2016). The findings of this
study are in line with earlier review studies. For example, Golonka et al. (2014) claimed that some
studies had poor description of the research design, poor choice of researching variables and lack
of relevant data about participants. Such negligence hinders evaluation of the efficacy of MALL.
This present study goes beyond existing review studies because it focuses on MALL in familiar
contexts. In this study, research articles related to MALL published in the past ten years were
reviewed. This study aimed to improve understanding of the usage of mobile technologies and
applications for language learning and teaching in familiar, authentic environments. The authors
in this study provide up-to-date information on MALL with respect to the pedagogical approaches,
data collection, familiar contexts selected for language learning, their affordances and current
research issues. Important results were revealed and discussed by the authors. Based on these
results, several suggestions for teaching and research community in the field were made and
they are as follows. First, pedagogical approaches employed for MALL design were not revealed
in some research articles so it is suggested that such important information should be explicitly
indicated. Second, the researchers in this study also found that most studies employed surveys
and experimental research methods and therefore, it is suggested that different types of data can
also be collected. For example, physiological data (e.g. physical activity, attention and relaxation)
can be collected using wearable sensing technologies and how such data correlates with MALL
can be explored to contribute to the field. Third, this review showed that most learning sites were
local community or campus and because local community and campus settings have rich but not
all resources for learning it is suggested extending them to other locations. For example, MALL
can be situated in some popular entertainment sites (e.g., a shopping mall, cinema or theater)
which are familiar and students visit them often. Such environments are authentic, with many
objects, scenarios and situations related to entertainment, and may increase learning motivation.
Fourth, several issues during MALL were identified and here, the researchers in this study offer
some possible solutions. To avoid cognitive overload (a) students need to practice how to apply
new knowledge to the real world in the classroom before going to authentic environments; (b)
© 2019 British Educational Research Association
10    British Journal of Educational Technology  Vol 0 No 0 2019

learning tasks need to be assigned in simple-to-complex order; (c) the instructors need to ensure
that students are aware of what they need to do and how to do it when working on assigned
tasks (Shadiev et al., 2015). To avoid distraction-related issues, students need to select learning
sites with less distraction. Perhaps teachers or parents may give some suggestions to students
regarding the appropriateness of selected learning sites (i.e. with fewer distractions), as well as
ensure that students are focused on their learning (i.e. they are not distracted by other unrelated
resources). To develop a pragmatic competence in the target language, it is suggested adopting
the context-based language learning approach which enables learners to have appropriate social
communication experiences and leads to pragmatic competence (Lan & Lin, 2016). Finally, it is
recommended informing parents about the notion of learning in the real world using technol-
ogy and its benefits for their children to address the prohibition issue. This can be done through
“meet-the-parents” sessions (Wong, 2013). Finally, locations where content is created should
be identified and shared among students, e.g. using online maps. Fifth, the researchers in this
study found that most studies did not report issues related to MALL in familiar context or MALL
research. The researchers in this study suggest reporting such important information with possi-
ble solutions because it may help educators and researchers avoid the most common issues.

Statements on open data, ethics and conflicts of interest

The dataset will be provided on request after we finish this project.
The study was performed following the Institutional Ethical Guidelines.
There is no any potential conflict of interest in this work.

References
Ahn, T. Y., & Lee, S. M. (2016). User experience of a mobile speaking application with automatic speech
recognition for EFL learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4), 778–786.
Burston, J. (2014). MALL: The pedagogical challenges. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(4), 344–
357. https​://doi.org/10.1080/09588​221.2014.914539
Casey, C. (1996). Incorporating cognitive apprenticeship in multi-media. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 44(1), 71–84. https​://doi.org/10.1007/bf023​00327​
*Chang, C., Chang, C. K., & Shih, J. L. (2016). Motivational strategies in a mobile inquiry-based language
learning setting. System, 59, 100–115. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.04.013
*Chen, X. B. (2013). Tablets for informal language learning: Student usage and attitudes. Language Learning
& Technology, 17(1), 20–36. 10125/​24503​
*Cheng, S.-C., Hwang, W.-Y., Wu, S.-Y., Shadiev, R., & Xie, C.-H. (2010). A mobile device and online sys-
tem with contextual familiarity and its effects on English learning on campus. Educational Technology &
Society, 13(3), 93–109. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9237-6
Craig, M., Smith, J., & Petersen, A. (2017, November). Familiar contexts and the difficulty of programming
problems. In Proceedings of the 17th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research
(pp. 123–127). ACM.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative. Boston, MA:
Pearson Education.
Crompton, H., Burke, D., & Lin, Y. C. (2019). Mobile learning and student cognition: A systematic review
of PK-12 research using Bloom's Taxonomy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2), 684–701.
https​://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12674​
Duman, G., Orhon, G., & Gedik, N. (2015). Research trends in mobile assisted language learning from
2000 to 2012. ReCALL, 27(02), 197–216. https​://doi.org/10.1017/S0958​34401​4000287
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2014). How to design and evaluate research in education. New
York: McGraw-Hill.

© 2019 British Educational Research Association

 Review of research on MALL in familiar contexts    11

Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2014). Technologies for foreign
language learning: A review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 27(1), 70–105. https​://doi.org/10.1080/09588​221.2012.700315
*Ho, S. C., Hsieh, S. W., Sun, P. C., & Chen, C. M. (2017). To activate English learning: Listen and speak in
real life context with an AR featured u-learning system. Educational Technology & Society, 20(2), 176–187.
*Hsu, T. C. (2017). Learning English with augmented reality: Do learning styles matter? Computers &
Education, 106, 137–149. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe​du.2016.12.007
*Huang, C. S. J., Yang, S. J. H., Chiang, T. H. C., & Su, A. Y. S. (2016). Effects of situated mobile learning
approach on learning motivation and performance of EFL students. Educational Technology & Society,
19(1), 263–276.
*Huang, Y. M., Shadiev, R., Sun, A., Hwang, W. Y., & Liu, T. Y. (2017). A study of the cognitive diffu-
sion model: Facilitating students' high level cognitive processes with authentic support. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 505–531. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9475-0
Hupbach, A., Gomez, R., & Nadel, L. (2011). Episodic memory updating: The role of context familiarity.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(4), 787–797.
*Hwang, W. Y., & Chen, H. S. L. (2013). Users' familiar situational contexts facilitate the practice of EFL in
elementary schools with mobile devices. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(2), 101–125. https​://
doi.org/10.1080/09588​221.2011.639783
*Hwang, W. Y., Chen, H. S. L., Shadiev, R., Huang, Y. M., & Chen, C. Y. (2014). Improving English as a
foreign language writing in elementary schools using mobile devices in familiar situational contexts.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(5), 359–378. https​://doi.org/10.1080/09588​221.2012.733711
*Hwang, W. Y., Shih, T. K., Ma, Z. H., Shadiev, R., & Chen, S. Y. (2016). Evaluating listening and speak-
ing skills in a mobile game-based learning environment with situational contexts. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 29(4), 639–657. https​://doi.org/10.1080/09588​221.2015.1016438
Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Viberg, O. (2018). Mobile collaborative language learning: State of the art. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 49(2), 207–218. https​://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12580​
*Lan, Y. J., & Lin, Y. T. (2016). Mobile seamless technology enhanced CSL oral communication. Educational
Technology & Society, 19(3), 335–350.
Leung, J. H., & Williams, J. N. (2011). The implicit learning of mappings between forms and contextually
derived meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(1), 33–55.
*Liu, T. Y. (2009). A context-aware ubiquitous learning environment for language listening and speaking.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(6), 515–527. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00329.x
*Liu, P. L., & Chen, C. J. (2015). Learning English through actions: A study of mobile-assisted language learn-
ing. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(2), 158–171. https​://doi.org/10.1080/10494​820.2014.959976
Moeller, A. K., & Meyer, R. J. (1995). Children's books in the foreign language classroom: Acquiring natural lan-
guage in familiar contexts.
Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., … Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred
reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement.
Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1–9. https​://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.
*Shadiev, R., Hwang, W. Y., & Huang, Y. M. (2017). Review of research on mobile language learn-
ing in authentic environments. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(3–4), 284–303. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/09588​221.2017.1308383
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.
Shadiev, R., Hwang, W. Y., & Liu, T. Y. (2018). A study of the use of wearable devices for healthy and en-
joyable English as a Foreign language learning in authentic contexts. Educational Technology & Society,
21(4), 217–231.
Sønderlund, A. L., Hughes, E., & Smith, J. (2018). The efficacy of learning analytics interventions in higher ed-
ucation: A systematic review. British Journal of Educational Technology. https​://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12720​
*Tai, Y. (2012). Contextualizing a MALL: Practice design and evaluation. Educational Technology & Society,
15(2), 220–230. https​://doi.org/10.2753/RES10​60-93935​40408​

© 2019 British Educational Research Association

12    British Journal of Educational Technology  Vol 0 No 0 2019

*Wong, L. H. (2013). Analysis of students' after-school mobile-assisted artifact creation processes in a

seamless language learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 198–211.
*Wong, L. H., Chai, C. S., Aw, G. P., & King, R. B. (2015). Enculturating seamless language learning through
artifact creation and social interaction process. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(2), 130–157.
https​://doi.org/10.1080/10494​820.2015.1016534
*Wong, L. H., Chen, W., & Jan, M. (2012). How artefacts mediate small-group co-creation activities in a
mobile-assisted seamless language learning environment? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(5),
411–424. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00445.x
Wong, L. H., King, R. B., Chai, C. S., & Liu, M. (2016). Seamlessly learning Chinese: Contextual meaning
making and vocabulary growth in a seamless Chinese as a second language learning environment.
Instructional Science, 44(5), 1–24.
*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.
https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00357.x
*Research articles reviewed in this present study

Supporting Information
Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end
of the article.

© 2019 British Educational Research Association