EFL Students’ Readiness towards Mobile Learning at Kandahar University in Afghanistan

Document Type : Original Article


Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Languages and Literature Kandahar University, Kandahar, Afghanistan


M-learning is the enhanced form of e-learning that focuses on three common components i.e. place, time, and wireless device. The aim of this research is to identify the perceptions of the students regarding M-learning at Kandahar University. To this end, 191 male and female students responded to a questionnaire designed to ask their perceptions in this regard. The results from the study showed that students have positive attitudes towards M-learning and they are ready for M-learning approach in respect to using wireless devices, the Internet, and necessary applications. Additionally, they can also afford to buy the devices which support m-learning, however, half of the students ask for the providence of Internet through their respective university. Moreover, the Internet connection is also a big challenge especially for students who live in villages and areas far from cities. The study concludes with some issues for further research and some recommendations to authorities in higher education for better implementation of M-learning.


1. Introduction

The traditional mode of teaching and learning is confined to a classroom at a specific time. In this mode, there is no flexibility in the time. But with the development of technology, besides intruding it into the life of humans, it also penetrated the field of education. 

       At first, technology-aided education was at its very first steps with limited features in education as Computer-Based Education (CBE) and Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL). But, gradually it enhanced and transformed into new forms as e-learning and m-learning. Vyas (2014) identifies the distinction as in the mid-1990s, among the first stages, CBE was leading to online education and e-learning. And e-learning was introduced with new features to let students access many resources. According to Liu and Hwang (2010), considering modern technology-based education, learning can be classified into three other types as conventional e-learning, m-learning, and context-aware u-learning. In conventional e-learning, computers and the Internet are focused but m-learning is specified to mobile devices and wireless communication while in context-aware ubiquitous-learning (u-learning), mobile devices accompanied by sensor technology and wireless communication are centralized. 

       Sarrab et al. (2012) contrast “Mobile learning” with “mobile learning”. The earlier s the type of e-learning through mobile computational devices (Quinn2000), (Chabra & Figueiredo2002) anytime at any place. While the latter is a new learning technique using wireless networks and devices, increasing digital learning channels, getting educational facilities, educational information, and educational materials anywhere anytime (Jiugen2010).

       Mobile learning is a new technique in the education system that has become a new field for researchers (Sarrab et al. 2012). Different researchers and scholars have proposed different definitions for M-learning. HussinManapAmir & Krish (2012) say that the letter “m-” stands for “mobile” in m-learning. They also add that it is only an approach to learning, and to enhance the learning process a mobile phone or a tablet PC is used. They further express that it is not the technology but the learning process to focus on. El-Hussein and Cronje (2010) refer the term “mobile” to the mobility of technology, learners, and the process; and Sarrab et al. (2012) relate “mobile” to the possibility of taking place in different locations, different times, and addressing different content areas using either fixed or moveable devices. Thiyagu (2012) and Jan (2016) focus on three common components such as place, time, and wireless devices.

       Mobile technologies have shaped the language learning-teaching mode. According to Looi et al. (2010), and Tai (2012), many researchers have come up with the idea that accepting the mobility and connectivity of mobile devices results in innovation in language learning in various contexts. The Internet makes e-learning easier to become a distance learning around the globe and makes m-learning the next generation for distance learning (Sarrab et al2012). Beckmann (2010) states that in accessing language-learning resources, mobile technologies are more flexible and mobile in comparison to CALL (Computer-assisted language learning). Kim et al. (2013) add that using mobile technologies having social communication features let students learn collaboratively in different environments. Furthermore, approaching materials anywhere and at any time easily is more motivating for students (McNeal & Hooft2006). 

       Mobile Learning has positive effects on students. They can practice as many times as they want. They can do the exercises multiple times and can do assignments very well as they can write and edit them again and again. According to Kukulska-Hulme and Shield (2007), and Sarrab et al. (2012); m-learning strengthens mutual interaction between teachers and students; it also allows learners to personalize learning individually as it enables hesitant and shy students to be active, and communicate more easily, rather than inside the classroom, as they are alone at home. According to Lan and Sie (2010), and Kim et al. (2013), mobile technologies and the Internet allow teachers and students to have instant contact with each other. 

       Adopting an advanced mode of learning while neglecting the traditional mode of learning is today’s phenomenon in higher education. Traxler (2009), & Wagner (2005) assert that m-learning is being more important and indicates an inevitable future as evidenced by the factors such as the growing number and frequency of workshops, seminars, and conferences, around the globe. Wagner (2005) adds that the educational community in higher education does not have enough experience regarding Mobile Learning, as well as the conditions and supplies needed to implement this type of learning. This transition from the older mode of learning to a new mode of learning is studied by Mattmiller (2005) at the University of Wisconsin, US. The study found that a large number of students have started using laptops rather than desktops, and a very high percentage of the students were found using smartphones.

       Internet technology is being penetrated into the life of Afghans. They use it for different purposes in their life as learning, social media, official media, communication, and entertainment as well as business. According to Kimp (2021), the total number of internet users in Afghanistan in January 2021 was 8.64 million. They report that there is an increase of 996 thousand (+13%) between 2020 and 2021. In addition, internet penetration in Afghanistan stood at 22.0% in January 2021. Thus, the Ministry of Higher Education in Afghanistan is trying to penetrate technology into the classrooms at universities. Thus, the significance of the current study is based on the need to identify students' perceptions towards mobile learning. 

       According to Broskoske and Harvey (2000), one of the biggest challenges that occur in the implementation of e-learning programs, in a variety of universities, is the absence of careful planning and pre-preparation based on primary data. An additional reason for conducting this research was to gather information about Mobile Learning that might be useful in planning and policymaking to decision-makers, and designers of curricula in higher education of Afghanistan. 

       Communication companies and new technology, in Afghanistan, are growing these days. They work to provide 4 generation services (4G), or higher-speed electronic content available on the Internet connection. Similarly, the Ministry of Higher Education is investing in providing universities with new modes of teaching through high-speed electronic content. On the contrary, as a main problem, based on the researchers' experience, a large number of students do not have access to the internet and complain of not having a good and stable internet connection. In this situation, there is no data collected, from independent views, about the extent of students’ readiness towards the use of mobile learning. 

       Conversely, KimMims, and Holes (2006) conducted a review of literature on how Mobile Learning technologies can contribute to redesigning the teaching and learning methods in higher education. They found that there were not enough studies regarding students’ readiness and their attitudes towards M-Learning. In spite of the significance of knowledge about the extent of students’ acceptance of mobile learning for decision-makers and curriculum designers, there is a lack of data that provides them with the basic information (Croop2008). Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the level of students’ readiness and their interest in participating in mobile learning activities, as well as to explore Kandahar University’s EFL students’ views about the contribution of mobile learning in teaching and learning processes along with its barriers. 

       M-learning is not practiced in higher education in Afghanistan, hence there were no prior studies carried out regarding m-learning and its implementation in Afghanistan. But, with the lockdown and due to the Covid-XXVX19 virus, almost all classes in universities of higher education were instructed to start teaching courses online. The ministry introduced HELMS (Higher Education Learning Management System) in universities to follow their programs. Similarly, teachers were also allowed to use applications such as Moodle, Google Classroom, and Zoom to let students receive learning materials anywhere anytime. During online teaching, based on students’ comments and complaints, some students were unable to join online classes. So, considering this problem, it was necessary to study M-learning and find out the readiness of the students towards m-learning at Kandahar University. Therefore, the present study seeks to answer the following research questions: (a) How much can the students operate wireless devices and applications necessary for M-learning, (b) How much are the students facilitated with the Internet connection; (c) How much can students financially afford m-learning; (d)What are students’ attitudes towards the implementation of m-learning. 

2. Literature Review

Today, educators mostly acknowledge that the process of teaching and learning has changed dramatically since the last century. In recent years, we have witnessed rapid social and cultural changes, advances in communication and information technologies, as well as the introduction of the Internet within schools. In M-learning, students might not share the same physical environment, but they can share their personal and cultural lives using mobile devices (Koole 2009). Kuuskorpi et al. (2011) claim that these factors have contributed to shaping the teaching and learning process and created shifts in the expectations of the physical learning environment. They have affected teachers, educators, and researchers all over the world. These revolutions have given rise to an urgent need for a new generation of facilities to supply the needs in teaching and learning in the 21st century.

       Since the beginning of the century, knowledge and involvement in the development and delivery of mobile learning have been strengthened and communities of practices that are different from the current communities of e-learning have been developed. Currently, these communities are mainly working through international conferences, workshops, and seminars. Until now, the communities have focused on short-range limited pilots and trials in the developed countries of Europe, North America, and the Pacific Rim. In terms of both its technologies and its pedagogies, mobile learning is apparently immature. However, it is growing speedily (Traxler 2005). It is progressively moving from limited, and short-range trials to larger and more persistent and diverse deployment. Lately, the projects, conferences, publications, and trials are being focused to study its nature and predict the future of mobile education. In this regard, mobility (nature of m-learning) needs to be explored. According to Traxler (2009), for different stakeholders, the nature of mobility has different connotations which can colorize its concept. It may mean learning while traveling, driving, sitting, or walking; it may be hands-free learning or eyes-free learning. Furthermore, he adds that these clarifications affect the implementation of mobile learning. Shiliang and Hongtao (2013) asserted that Regional difference is to be considered. But, devices will not be considered a problem for mobile learning in the near future. They added that multimedia materials and e-books are highly accepted contents in this type of learning. However, they mentioned limited connectivity, bandwidth, and lack of knowledge as obvious obstacles in implementing mobile learning.

       Researchers have conducted different researches regarding mobile learning perception, attitudes, readiness, implementation, etc around the world some of which are as follows. Thiyago (2009) suggested that because of living in a technological and knowledge-based century, the adaptation of technology in education is inevitable. He added that mobile Internet is a greater facility for us to get information at any time we want. However, it also includes varieties of dimensions as shortcomings (Littlejohn et al. 2008). Likewise, Aydin (2007) and Son (2008) found that learners’ attitudes in using the Internet in language learning were positive. Aydin (2007) stated that the Internet improves language use and students' participation as well as transforming teacher-centered approach to learner-centered approach. Son (2008) found that, in learning vocabulary by web-based activities, the explicit response mode has a better outcome rather than the implicit response mode. Likewise, Ghavifekr and Rosdy (2015) showed that integrating ICT into the classrooms is more effective for both teachers and learners. They also asserted that the main factor, in enhancing technology-based teaching and learning, is providing teachers with ICT tools. Similarly, Kumar et al. (2010) asserted that cellphone is a proper vehicle for making educational opportunities available to children in far areas in place and time that are more helpful than formal tutoring. Their study results showed a fair level of academic learning and motivation. Additionally, they exhibited that the degree of such learning might be expanded in case barriers owing to restricted electricity and gender attitudes might be overcome. In another study, Viswanathan and Blom (2010) studied the preliminary steps taken in the field of M-learning for solutions to the problems of financially challenged Indian school children. The expert interviews appeared that the government education system was faced with an extreme need for resources. Additionally, they added that an opportunity develops for educational technology, specifically one related to revitalizing the learning forms and expanding the motivation of not only students but also instructors. 

       For studying the reflection of students, Fahad (2009) found that mobile learning was broadly grasped by the students at King Saud University. In the study, he acknowledged that most of the students supported the idea that flexibility of accessing resources in learning is increased by wireless networks and the students could work independently of lab or library PCs. Similarly, Alhassan (2016) found that students were highly optimistic toward mobile learning and they had the basic knowledge to operate the technical devices. However, they hadn’t experienced mobile learning. In their study, Hussin et al. (2012) found that the learners were properly skilled at knowledge and they were ready for the integration of mobile learning in the teaching-learning process. Moreover, Jan et al. (2016) stated that students’ perceptions of m-learning were positive and most of the students were using various mobile devices that could support m-learning. Because of its characteristics as mobility, reachability, and flexibility, the students showed their interest in its implementation. ZamariAdnanIdris, and Yusof (2012) found that online learning was helpful and interesting for English language learners. However, the problems with the Internet connections were discouraging.

2.1 Technology Acceptance Model

There are different theories and frameworks used to study the acceptance of new technology. Each of them has a different perspective. Among them, the widely used one is Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). The TAM was proposed by DavisBagozzi, and Warshaw (1989) which is an adaptation of the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) theory. TAM explains users’ behavior towards technological innovations. TRA is used as a theoretical basis for identifying the fundamental bonds between two key beliefs: perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, and users' attitudes, intentions, and actual computer adoption behavior (Davis et al (1989). 

       Davis (1989) explains Perceived usefulness (PU) as the degree to which a user believes a specific system could increase his/her abilities in performing a particular task. ChengHwangWuShadiev, and Xie, (2010) add that the main point of PU is the desire a user has when encountered with a technological device. As long as the users believe in the system which helps them, their attitudes will be positive. 

       Davis (1989) explains Perceived ease of use (PEOU) as the degree to which a user believes a specific system is effortless to function. Cheng et al. (2010) add that the main point of PEOU is the functionality of the system. As long as the users believe that it doesn’t acquire effort to function the system, their attitude will be positive towards the system.

       In this study, the researchers utilize the TAM model in the study and use relevant items in PU and PEOU to predict user attitudes.

3. Methodology

This study is based on descriptive-analytical statistics. To identify the strong and weak aspects of readiness of EFL students towards mobile learning, a questionnaire was used with a sample of the study population to gather data for the research. 

3.1. Research Design 

In this research, the quantitative approach was used to collect and analyze the data obtained from all the respondents. The researchers developed the questionnaire and finalized it before being distributed to the target group of the respondents. Three sections in the questionnaire were designed specifically to address research questions to identify the extent of the students’ readiness towards m-learning at Kandahar University, Kandahar, Afghanistan. 

3.2. Population and Sampling

The population of the study includes male and female students studying at Kandahar University, Afghanistan. The sample has been selected randomly from different classes in the Department of English Language and Literature in the Faculty of Languages and Literature and the Department of English in the Faculty of Education. The total population of the students in these two departments was 381. Based on the sample size, 191 participants were given the questionnaire for data collection.

3.3. Procedures of the Study

The data was collected by survey design through a questionnaire from (n = 191) students.

3.4. Instrument of the Study

To study the research questions, a questionnaire was developed, taking into consideration to have a brief design to get reliable responses from the sample and to ensure collecting back as much as possible of the completed questionnaires. The purpose of the study and the term mobile learning was also introduced within the questionnaire.

       The first section included demographic information as gender, age, class, and faculty. The second section involved 12 five-point Likert scale questions relating to students’ knowledge level regarding computer basic skills, Internet connection facilities, affording m-learning financially, and their attitudes to m-learning.

3.5. Pilot Study

To ensure the reliability and validity of the questionnaire, a pilot study was carried out. After studying the literature, the researchers developed the questionnaire and shared it with research experts and lecturers in the university. After modifying the questionnaire, a pilot study was conducted. In the study, 50 questionnaires were distributed to students. Afterward, the collected data was entered in SPSS for measuring its reliability and validity. 

3.5.1 Reliability of the Questionnaire

To measure the internal reliability, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated. As seen in Table 1 Cronbach’s alpha reached 0.854, which was considered to be suitable for the purpose of this study. 

Table 1 

Questionnaire Reliability

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha

N of Items



3.5.2. Validity of the Questionnaire 

To test the content validity of the questionnaire, the researcher administered this tool to a group of research experts and university lecturers. Their suggestions in the questionnaire were modified. After that, validity was calculated by using Pearson Formula in SPSS. All the twelve items were found valid and they were significant at the level (0.05). Once the referee group agreed that the questionnaire was a valid instrument, the researchers applied it.

3.6. Statistical Procedures

In this study, frequencies, and percentages of students’ responses to the questionnaire’s items were accounted for to identify the extent of their readiness to use mobile learning technologies. 

4. Results

From the study, it is found that 95.3% of the participants were using wireless devices (laptop, iPad, and/or Smart Phone) among which 91.6% of the participants were using Internet for learning in the stated devices. Almost half of the participants, 47.6%, were able to buy Internet data for mobile learning on their own while the remaining participants said that university should provide them with the Internet. More than half of the students, 58.6 %, liked to receive course materials online. Among the students, 70.7%, were residents of Kandahar city where the Internet connection was almost good (Table 2 item 4) while the remaining participants were residents of other cities or villages where Internet connection might not be capable of m-Learning (Table 2 Item 5). 

 Table 2

 Questionnaire Statistics









I am skilled at using portable devices (Laptop, iPad, SmartPhone)











I can use the Internet on the above devices.











I also use PDF, MS Word, and PowerPoint applications on my portable devices.











I have a good Internet connection in Kandahar city.











I have a good Internet connection at my home.











I can regularly access my courses online at my home.











In addition to class, I like to study outside the class (ie. while at home, while traveling, …)











I prefer to study by using smart devices rather than printed materials.











I like to have access to class lectures from anywhere.











I like to cover the lecture later online if I am unable to attend the class.











I will buy a mobile device for learning purposes if I get a good Internet connection from everywhere. (If you don’t have one)











I am ready for mobile learning if the university implements it in near future.











Valid N (listwise)























 In the second part of the questionnaire, the first three items were related to students’ basic knowledge. The first item was regarding how much were they skilled at using the devices. As stated in Table. 1, 40.3% of the participants strongly agreed and 42.9% of the participants agreed that they were skilled at using the devices. While 14.1% of the participants remained neutral and only 2.6% of the participants were not skilled at using the devices. Additionally, they could also use the Internet in the stated devices as 37.7% of the participants strongly agreed and 40.3% agreed to the item while 14.7% of the participants remain neutral and only 7.4% of the participants couldn’t use the Internet in the stated devices. In addition to the Internet, 46.6% of the participants strongly agreed and 30.9% only agreed to the item that they can also use applications such as PDF, MS Word, and PowerPoint in the devices while 12.6% remained neutral and only 9.9% of the participants couldn’t use the applications in the stated devices.

       In this section, 4 items were related to Internet connections. They were used to identify the quality of Internet connections the students have in Kandahar and their residencies. 9.9 % of participants strongly agreed, and 39.8% only agreed that they have a good Internet connection in Kandahar city. While 18.3% were neutral, 19.9% disagreed and 12.0% strongly disagreed with the statement. 10.5% of the participants strongly agreed, 33.5% agreed to the statement that they have a good Internet connection at their home. While 13.6% were neutral, 24.1% disagreed and 18.3% strongly disagreed with the statement which means students, where they live rather than Kandahar, have a slower Internet connection. Another item which found out whether students regularly accessed their courses online from their home, 13.1% of the participants strongly agreed, 28.3% agreed, 21.5% were neutral, 25.7% disagreed and 11.5% strongly disagreed. 

       The other 4 items, in this section, were to find out the students’ attitudes towards m-learning. One statement was “In addition to the class, I like to study outside the class (i.e. while at home or traveling, …). 27.2% of the participants strongly agreed, 39.3% agreed, 17.8% had no decision, 14.1% disagreed, and 1.6% strongly disagreed to the statement. The item which asked whether students agreed to study using the stated devices rather than printed material, 13.1% of the participant strongly agreed, 38.7% agreed, 19.9% had no decision, 19.4% disagreed and 8.9% strongly disagreed. Regarding the statement, “I like to have access to class lectures from anywhere.” 36.1% of the participants strongly agreed, 39.3% agreed, 16.2% had no decision, 6.8% disagreed and 1.6% strongly disagreed. Another statement that showed their attitudes was “I like to cover the lecture later, online if I am unable to attend the class.” 30.4% of the participants strongly agreed, 49.2% agreed, 9.4% had no decision, 8.4% disagreed, and 2.6% strongly disagreed. 

       The remaining two items showed their readiness for mobile learning. The first one, “I will buy a mobile device for learning purposes if I get a good Internet connection from everywhere. (If you don’t have one now)”. 33.0% of the participants strongly agreed, 47.6% agreed, 9.9% of them couldn’t decide, 6.3% disagreed and 3.1% strongly disagreed. And the second one was “I am ready for mobile learning if the university implements it in near future”. 37.7% of the participants strongly agreed, 41.9% agreed, 11.5% had no decision, 6.8% disagreed, and 2.1% strongly disagreed.

5. Discussion

This research studies the level of Afghan EFL students’ readiness towards m-learningThe study indicated that the readiness level of Afghan EFL students towards m-learning was positive in some aspects except accessing the Internet from everywhere. 

       To answer the first research question, “How much can the students operate wireless devices and applications necessary for M-learning?” It showed that most of the students were good at using wireless devices, the Internet, and necessary applications for M-learning. As Koole (2009) similarly stated that, the more users are experienced, the fewer usability issues they would face.

       The second research question was to find out how much are the students facilitated with an Internet connection. This research question can be answered based on the second three items in the five-point Likert scale questions. Among the participants, 70.7% are residents of Kandahar, where Kandahar University is located, 50.7% of the participants have good Internet connections in the city. 44% of the participants including residents of Kandahar confirmed that they had good Internet connection from their homes. According to Shiliang and Hongtao (2013), limited connectivity and limited bandwidth are the top two obstacles to mobile learning. However, Alhassan (2016) found different results. In his study, 75% of the participants had access to the Internet. On the contrary, Zamari et al. (2012) found that majority of the students have problems accessing the internet. Overall, we conclude that our findings are different from that what Alhassan (2016) and Traxler (2005) found “Students who live away from the university center prefer the use of electronic distance learning methods, including mobile learning technologies.” However, this study found that counting the participants other than residents of Kandahar, services of Internet connection are decreased which implies people living in far areas from cities are not ready for M-Learning and propose Internet connection as a barrier. The third research question is that how much can students’ economy afford m-learning. 95.3% of the participants already use wireless devices among which 91.6% of the participants use Internet for the purpose of learning. 80.6% of the participants like to buy a mobile device for m-learning if they get good Internet connection. However, 47.6% of the participants are willing to buy Internet data for m-learning by themselves. But the remaining have the desire that the university should provide them with the Internet. 

       The fourth research question is to indicate students’ attitudes towards m-learning. In this section, different questions were asked from the participants. 58.6% of the participants agree to receive course materials online and 51.8% /half of the participants like to study using wireless devices rather than printed material while 19.9% are neutral. It is in line with the findings of Alhassan (2016) who found that the participants' responses were supporting the use of mobile learning in the curriculum optionally. In addition to the class, 66.5% of the participants like to study outside the classroom (ie. while at home, traveling,). The participating sample, according to Alhassan (2016), had a higher desire regarding learning outside the classroom. 75.4% of the participants like to have access to class lectures from anywhere they are. 79.6% of the participants like to cover the lecture online if they miss the class. Another item that shows their attitudes towards m-learning is that 79.6% of the participants showed their readiness towards m-learning if the university implements it in near future. Furthermore, Hussin et al. (2012) found that 43% of the participants agreed that they will be ready for mobile learning in the next two years.

5.1. Recommendations 

1. Creating partnerships among universities and local telecommunication companies to provide high-speed Internet services for students at a fair price to solve students’ financial problems regarding m-learning.

2. Telecommunication companies need to provide better Internet connections anywhere to let every student use m-learning. 

5.2. Further Studies

As this study is conducted at Kandahar University only, to generalize the study, other researchers can conduct the study in other institutions as well. Additionally, we need to study related stakeholders’ readiness also as Hussin et al. (2012) stated that in any research regarding readiness, in addition to students, administrators and educators should be studied too. 

6. Conclusion

As the process of teaching and learning is being renewed progressively, and innovations continue rapidly in the field. Ministry of Higher Education in Afghanistan is transforming the process from traditional approaches to new approaches, which include technological devices and the Internet. This paper has presented the findings of a preliminary study of m-learning readiness among Afghan EFL students at Kandahar University. The results showed that the students had positive attitudes toward m-learning and they were ready for the M-learning approach in respect to knowledge of using wireless devices, the Internet, and necessary applications, additionally, they could also afford to buy the devices which support m-learning. However, half of the students ask the university to provide them with the Internet. Likewise, an Internet connection is also a big challenge especially for those students who live in villages and areas far from the cities. 

       As stated above, the strong and weak points of the EFL students’ readiness towards m-learning at Kandahar University could be of more aiding-tools for stakeholders like the Ministry of Higher Education, policymakers, and teachers in planning their policies related to teaching and learning in Higher Education of Afghanistan. Kandahar University and the Ministry of Higher Education have to be ready to provide budget for infrastructures and tools as well as training university lecturers for M-Learning. Additionally, The University needs to provide free internet services to the students. Moreover, the Ministry of Information and Technology of Afghanistan needs to provide good internet services in both cities and rural areas. 

Alhassan, R. (2016). Mobile Learning as a Method of Ubiquitous Learning: Students' Attitudes, Readiness, and Possible Barriers to Implementation in Higher Education. Journal of Education and Learning, 5(1), 176-189.
Aydin, S. (2007). Attitudes of EFL Learners towards the Internet. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 6(3), 18-26.
Beckmann, E. A. (2010). Learners on the move: Mobile modalities in development studies. Distance Education, 31(2), 159-173. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2010.498081
Broskoske, S., & Harvey, F. (2000). Challenges Faced by Institutions of Higher Education Migrating to Distance Learning. In  Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Papers Presented at the National  Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (Vol. 23, pp. 37-42).
Chabra, T.  &  Figueiredo  J. (2002). How to Design and Deploy Handheld Learning. http://www.empoweringtechnologies.net/eLearning/eLearning_exPov5_files/frame.htm, 2002. 
Cheng, S. C., Hwang, W. Y., Wu, S. Y., Shadiev, R., & Xie, C.-H. (2010). A Mobile Device and Online System with Contextual Familiarity and its Effects on English Learning on Campus. Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 93–109. 
Croop, F. (2008). Student Perceptions Related to Mobile Learning in Higher Education  (Doctoral Dissertation). Northcentral University.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management science, 35(8), 982-1003.
Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 189-211. 
El-Hussein, M.  O. M.,  &  Cronje,  J.  C. (2010). Defining Mobile Learning in the  Higher Education Landscape. Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 12-21.
Fahad N. Al-Fahad. (2009). Students' Attitudes and Perceptions towards the Effectiveness of Mobile Learning in King Saud University, Saudi Arabia. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8(2), 111-119.
Ghavifekr, S., & Rosdy, W. A. W. (2015). Teaching and learning with technology: Effectiveness of ICT integration in schools. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 1(2), 175-191.
Hussin, S., Manap, M. R., Amir, Z., & Krish, P. (2012). Mobile learning readiness among Malaysian students at higher learning institutes. Asian Social Science, 8(12), 276-283.
Jan, S. R., Ullah, F., Ali, H., & Khan, F. (2016). Enhanced and Effective Learning through Mobile Learning an Insight into Students Perception of Mobile Learning at University Level. International Journal of Scientific Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, 2(2), 674-681.
Jiugen, Y., Ruonan, X., & Jianmin, W. (2010, July). Applying Research of Mobile Learning Mode in Teaching. In 2010 International Forum on Information Technology and Applications (Vol. 3, pp. 417-420). IEEE.
Kemp, S. (2021, February 11). Digital 2021: Afghanistan. Datareportal.https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2021-afghanistan
Kim, D., Rueckert, D., Kim, D. J., & Seo, D. (2013). Students’ perceptions and experiences of mobile learning. Language Learning & Technology, 17(3), 52-73.
Kim, S. H., Mims, C., & Holmes, K. P. (2006). An introduction to current trends and benefits of mobile wireless technology use in higher education. AACE journal, 14(1), 77-100.
Koole, M. L. (2009). A Model for Framing Mobile Learning. Mobile learning: Transforming the Delivery of Education and Training, 1(2), 25-47.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Shield, L. (2007). An overview of mobile assisted language learning: Can mobile devices support collaborative practice in speaking and listening. ReCALL, 20(3), 1-20.
Kumar, A., Tewari, A., Shroff, G., Chittamuru, D., Kam, M., & Canny, J. (2010, April). An Exploratory Study of Unsupervised Mobile Learning in Rural India. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 743-752).
Kuuskorpi, M., & González, N. C. (2011). The Future of the Physical Learning Environment: School Facilities that Support the User.
Lan, Y-F., & Sie, Y-S. (2010). Using RSS  to Support Mobile  Learning Based on Media Richness Theory. Computer & Education, 55, 723-732. 
Littlejohn, A., Falconer, I., & Mcgill, L. (2008). Characterising effective eLearning resources. Computers & Education, 50(3), 757-771.
Liu, G. Z., & Hwang, G. J. (2010). A Key Step to Understanding Paradigm Shifts in e‐learning: Towards Context‐aware Ubiquitous Learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), E1-E9.
Looi, C.-K., Seow, P., Zhang, B., So, H.-J., Chen, W., & Wong, L.-H. (2010). Leveraging Mobile Technology for Sustainable Seamless Learning: A Research Agenda. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 154–169 
Mattmiller, B. (2005). Student Survey Shows Surging Demand for Wireless Access. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved March 9, 2010, from http://www.news.wisc.edu/11486.html
McNeal, T., & Van't Hooft, M. (2009). Anytime, Anywhere: Using Mobile Phones for Learning. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 2(2), 24-31.
Quinn C.  “M-Learning:  Mobile, Wireless, In-Your-Pocket  Learning,” http://www.linezine.com/2.1/features/cqmmwiyp.htm, 2000.  
Sarrab, M., Elgamel, L., & Aldabbas, H. (2012). Mobile learning (m-learning) and educational environments. International Journal of Distributed and Parallel Systems, 3(4), 31-38.
Shiliang, L., & Hongtao, S. (2013). Changing the way of learning: Mobile learning in China. Tsinakos & M. Ally (Eds.), Global mobile learning implementations and trends, 143-156.
Son, J-B. (2008). Using web-based Language Learning Activities in the ESL Classroom. Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 4(4), 34-43.
Tai, Y. (2012). Contextualizing a MALL: Practice Design and Evaluation. Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 220–230. 
Thiyagu, K (2009). “M-learning is the Future Learning”, Edutracks, 8(6), 1-3.
Thiyagu, K. (2012). Perception towards Mobile Learning Activities among Post Graduate Students. Journal on School Educational Technology, 8(1), 35-40.
Traxler,  J. & Kukulska-Hulme, A.  (2005). Evaluating Mobile Learning: Reflections on Current Practice, Proceedings of MLEARN2005, Cape Town: MLEARN.
Traxler, J. (2005). Mobile Learning: It's here but what is it. Interactions, 9(1), 1-12.
Traxler, J. (2009). Current state of mobile learning. Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training, 1, 9-24.
Viswanathan, D., & Blom, J. (2010). New metaphors from old practices—Mobile learning to revitalize education in developing regions of the world. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 3(1), 18-23.
Vyas, N. & Nirban, V.S. (2014). Students’ Perception on the Effectiveness of Mobile Learning in an Institutional Context. International Association of Research in Foreign Language Education and Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 26-36.
Wagner, E. D. (2005). Enabling mobile learning. EDUCAUSE review, 40(3), 41-42.
Zamari, Z. M., Adnan, A. H. M., Idris, S. L., & Yusof, J. (2012). Students’ perception of using online language learning materials. Procedia-social and behavioral sciences, 67, 611-620.
Volume 6, Issue 4
Pages 39-56
  • Receive Date: 13 December 2021
  • Revise Date: 24 January 2022
  • Accept Date: 30 January 2022