A Systematic Literature Review on Mathematics Mobile Applications in Education

Gayatiri A/P Balasubramaniam, Murugan A/L Rajoo, Mohd Faizal Nizam Lee Bin Abdullah


The usage of mobile applications in today’s teaching and learning system is an active area of research. This study was a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) using the PRISMA model by identifying various appropriate and relevant kinds of literature to identify the usability of mobile applications in education. Data search was carried out using criteria determined by researches from various search engines such as Google Scholar, ERIC, Scopus, Research gate and others as SLR was performed on papers obtained from these databases. In total 77 articles were retrieved; out of which 30 were similar to the purpose of this paper. Out of 30, only 15 articles were relevant to this study. Furthermore, the data were analysed using a qualitative approach to describing the research findings. The results showed that three main research themes have been found, namely the purpose of the study, targeted population and research design. Outline, the analysis results of these articles stated that the implementation of mathematics mobile applications in education is still under consideration in Malaysia. These findings are expected to serve as a foundation for teachers, education observers, and education policymakers at all levels of government, including local, state, and federal governments, as well as the Ministry of Education, to develop policies that support the development of mathematics mobile applications in education. The findings of SLR provided insight into the field's primary contributions, gaps, and chances, which created a conversation about essential research areas in future.


Mathematics mobile applications, education, teaching and learning, usability

Full Text:



Kumar Basak, S., Wotto, M., & Bélanger, P. (2018). E-learning, M-learning and D-learning: Conceptual definition and comparative analysis. E-Learning and Digital Media, 15(4), 191–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753018785180 2. Ibrahim, N. (2017). Conceptual Model of Mobile Learning Application for Kindergarten Children. 3. Sonthitham, A., Ruangsiri, K., & Thongchaisuratkul, C. (2019). Development and Efficiency Validation of Training Course on Smart Farm based on STEM Education: A Case Study of Abalone Mushroom. 2019 International Conference on Power, Energy and Innovations (ICPEI), 122–1 https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPEI47862.2019.8944942 4. Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y., & Froyd, J. E. (2020). Research and trends in STEM education: a systematic review of journal publications. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00207-6 5. Mutambara, D., & Bayaga, A. (2020). Predicting Rural Stem Teachers’ Acceptance of Mobile Learning in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Journal of Construction Project Management and Innovation, 10(2), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.36615/jcpmi.v10i2.404 6. Darmaji, Kurniawan, D. A., Astalini, Lumbantoruan, A., & Samosir, S. C. (2019). Mobile learning in higher education for the industrial revolution 4.0: Perception and response of physics practicum. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 13(9), 4–20. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v13i09.10948 7. Supandi, Ariyanto, L., Kusumaningsih, W., & Aini, A. N. (2018). Mobile phone application for mathematics learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 983(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/983/1/012106 8. H. Helaluddin and A. Alamsyah, “Kajian Konseptual tentang Social-emotional Learning (SEL) dalam Pembelajaran Bahasa,” Al-Ishlah: Jurnal Pendidikan, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 2019. 9. C. Amundsen and M. Wilson, “Are We Asking The Right Questions? A Conceptual Review of Educational Development Literature in Higher Education,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 90–126, 2012. 10. K. E. Matthews et al., “SoTL and Students’ Experiences of Their Degree-level Programs: An Empirical Investigation,” Teaching and Learning Inquiry, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 75–89, 2013. 11. M. M. Kennedy, “Defining A Literature,” Educational Researcher, vol. 36, no. 3, pp.139–147, 2007. 12. B. Kitchenham, Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews. Keele, UK: Keele University, 2004. 13. D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, and D. G. Altman “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis: The PRISMA Statement,” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 151, no. 4, pp. 264–269, 2009. 14. S. B. Hartmann, L. Q. N. Braae, S. Pedersen, and M. S. Khalid, “The Potentials of Using Cloud Computing in Schools: A Systematic Literature Review,” TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 190–202, 2017. 15. H. Kwon and E. Lee, “Research Trends and Issues of Education for Sustainable Development-related Research in South Korea,” Journal of Baltic Science Education, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 379–388, 2019. 16. M. Peter, T. Diekötter, and K. Kremer, “Participant Outcomes of Biodiversity Citizen Science Projects: A Systematic Literature Review,” Sustainability, vol. 11, no. 2780, pp. 1–18, 2019. 17. Handal, B., Campbell, C., Cavanagh, M., & Petocz, P. (2016). Characterising the perceived value of mathematics educational apps in preservice teachers. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28(1), 199–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-015-0160-0 18. Sonthitham, A., Ruangsiri, K., & Thongchaisuratkul, C. (2019). Development and Efficiency Validation of Training Course on Smart Farm based on STEM Education: A Case Study of Abalone Mushroom. 2019 International Conference on Power, Energy and Innovations (ICPEI), 122–125. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPEI47862.2019.8944942 19. Yunanto, A. A., Herumurti, D., Kuswadayan, I., Hariadi, R. R., & Rochimah, S. (2019). Design and implementation of the educational game to improve arithmetic abilities for children. Proceedings of 2019 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology and Systems, ICTS 2019, 27–31. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICTS.2019.8850966 20. Kyriakides, A. O., Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M., & Prodromou, T. (2016). Mobile technologies in the service of students’ learning of mathematics: the example of game application A.L.E.X. in the context of a primary school in Cyprus. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28(1), 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-015-0163-x 21. Soto, M., & Ambrose, R. (2016). Screencasts: Formative Assessment for Mathematical Thinking. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 21(2), 277–283.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-015-9272-6 22. Razak, M. S. A., Abdul-Rahman, S., & Mahmud, Y. (2021). Mathematics Performance Monitoring System Using Data Analytics. 2021 2nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Data Sciences, AiDAS 2021.https://doi.org/10.1109/AiDAS53897.2021.9574210 23. Gurjanow, I., & Ludwig, M. (2020). Mathematics Trails and Learning Barriers. In International Perspectives on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematical Modelling.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37673-4_23 24. Čeretková, S., & Bulková, K. (2020). Mathematics trails in initial teachers´ education in Slovakia. 19th Conference on Applied Mathematics, APLIMAT 2020 Proceedings,232–237. 25. Soboleva, E. V., Chirkina, S. E., Kalugina, O. A., Shvetsov, M. Y., Kazinets, V. A., & Pokaninova, E. B. (2020). Didactic potential of using mobile technologies in the development of mathematical thinking. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(5). https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/118214 26. Alkhateeb, M. A., & Al-Duwairi, A. M. (2019). The Effect of Using Mobile Applications (GeoGebra and Sketchpad) on the Students’ Achievement. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 14(3), 523–533.https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/5754 27. Papadakis, S. (2021). Teaching mathematics with mobile devices and the Realistic Mathematical Education ( RME ) approach in kindergarten 1 Introduction 2 Literature review. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research, 1(1), 5–18.https://doi.org/10.25082/AMLER.2021.01.002 28. Etcuban, J. O., & Pantinople, L. D. (2018). The Effects of Mobile Application in Teaching High School Mathematics. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 13(3), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/3906 29. Becker, S., Klein, P., Gößling, A., & Kuhn, J. (2020). Using mobile devices to enhance inquiry-based learning processes. Learning and Instruction, 69(May), 101350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101350 30. Al-Takhyneh, B. (2018). Attitudes towards Using Mobile Applications in Teaching Mathematics in Open Learning Systems. International Journal of E-Learning and Distance Education, 33(1), 1–16. 31. Rante, S. V. N., Helaluddin, Wijaya, H., Tulak, H., & Umrati. (2020). Far from expectation: A systematic literature review of inclusive education in Indonesia.Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(11), 6340–6350.https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.082273 32. T. Hoang, “Teacher Self-efficacy Research in English as Foreign Language Contexts: A Systematic Review,” Journal of Asia TEFL, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 976–990, 2018. 33. H. Kartal and F. Guner, “A Review of Articles that Include the Schools’ Readiness Dimension,” European Journal of Educational Research, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 431–443,2018. 34. P. J. Williams, “Research in Technology Education: Looking Back to Move Forward,” International Journal of Technology and Design Education, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 1–9,2013. 35. M. Calik, S. Unal, B. Costu, and F. O. Karatas, “Trends in Turkish Science Education,” Essays in Education, vol. special edition, pp. 23–45, 2008. 36. Buck, G., Cook, K., Quigley, C., Eastwood, J., & Lucas, Y. (2009). Profiles of urban, low SES, African American girls’ attitudes toward science: A sequential explanatory mixed-methods study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(4), 386–410.https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809341797 37. Casey, D., O’Hara, M. C., Meehan, B., Byrne, M., Dinneen, S. F., & Murphy, K. (2016).A Mixed Methods Study Exploring the Factors and Behaviors That Affect Glycemic Control Following a Structured Education Program: The Irish DAFNE Study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(2), 182–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689814547579


  • There are currently no refbacks.