1. Home
  2. Vol 30, No 2 (2026)
  3. Rao

Influence of mobile learning app on secondary school students’ mathematics motivation and engagement in Pakistan

Muhammad Shehryar Rao(1), Komal Niazi(2), Dyana Wijayanti(3), Fahad Alam(4),


(1) Department of Mathematics Education, School of Mathematical Sciences, East China Normal University, China
(2) LIAVH Laboratory for Integrated Archaeological Visualization and Heritage, Pratt Institute, USA
(3) Mathematics Education Department, Universitas Islam Sultan Agung, Indonesia
(4) School of Economics and Management, Tongji University, China
Corresponding Author

Abstract


Mathematics education faces significant challenges, with students frequently experiencing anxiety and poor learning outcomes, particularly in developing countries like Pakistan. Mobile learning apps are promising tools for enhancing student engagement and motivation through interactive, personalized learning experiences. This study examines the influence of mobile learning app usage on the mathematics motivation and engagement of secondary school students in Pakistan and investigates how perceived barriers moderate these relationships. Using convenience sampling, 343 students were selected from 15 secondary schools in Sahiwal district. The study employed Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to analyze the data. Results indicate that mobile learning app usage significantly influences students’ mathematics motivation (β = 0.557, p < 0.001) and engagement (β = 0.283, p < 0.001), while mathematics motivation also significantly influences engagement (β = 0.525, p < 0.001). The model explained substantial variance (R² = 0.460 for motivation; R² = 0.616 for engagement). Moreover, barriers negatively moderated these relationships (motivation: β = −0.125, p < 0.01; engagement: β = −0.052, p < 0.05). These findings guide policymakers and app developers in developing contexts. By boosting students’ motivation and engagement, mobile learning can reduce mathematics anxiety, build confidence, and support wellbeing and success.

References


UNESCO Institute for Statistics. More than one-half of children and adolescents are not learning worldwide (Fact Sheet No. 46). Montreal: UIS 2017. http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/fs46-more-than-half-children-not-learning-en-2017.pdf. Accessed 03 July 2025.

ASER Pakistan. Annual status of education report 2023. ASER Pakistan 2023. Accessed 30 June 2025.

Shurygin V and Anisimova T. Modern approaches to teaching future teachers of mathematics: The use of mobile applications and their impact on students’ motivation and academic success in the context of STEM education. Interactive Learning Environments 2023;32(6):2884-2898. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2162548

DataReportal. Digital 2025: Pakistan. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2025-pakistan 2025. Accessed 02 July 2025.

Jamil S. The COVID-19 pandemic and e-learning: The digital divide and educational crises in Pakistan’s universities. American Behavioral Scientist 2023;67(3):267-285. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642231156779

Muslem A, Yusuf YQ, and Juliana R. Perceptions and barriers to ICT use among English teachers in Indonesia. Teaching and Teacher Education 2018;72:19-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.02.012

Liu C, Wang Y, Evans M, and Correia AP. Critical antecedents of mobile learning acceptance and moderation effects: A meta-analysis on technology acceptance model. Education and Information Technologies 2024;29(8):20351-20382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12645-8

Crompton H and Burke D. The use of mobile learning in higher education: A systematic review. Computers & Education 2018;123:53-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.04.007

Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 1989;13(3):319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Venkatesh V and Davis FD. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science 2000;46(2):186-204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926

Al-Emran M, Mezhuyev V, and Kamaludin A. Technology acceptance model in M-learning context: A systematic review. Computers & Education 2018;125:389-412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.003

Pedrotti M and Nistor N. How students fail to self-regulate their online learning experience. In Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (pp. 377-385). Springer 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45153-4_29

Teo T, Milenkovic D, and Lim SC. Technology acceptance model in M-learning context: A systematic review. Computers & Education 2019;109:56-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.02.005

Jagušt T, Botički I, and So HJ. Examining competitive, collaborative and adaptive gamification in young learners’ math learning. Computers & Education 2018;125:444-457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.022

Chang KE, Wu LJ, Lai SC, and Sung YT. Using mobile devices to enhance the interactive learning for spatial geometry. Interactive Learning Environments 2016;24(4):916-934. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2014.948458

Cai S, Liu E, Shen Y, Liu C, Li S, and Shen Y. Probability learning in mathematics using augmented reality: Impact on student’s learning gains and attitudes. Interactive Learning Environments 2020;28(5):560-573. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1696839

Zhao J, Hwang GJ, Chang SC, Yang QF, and Nokkaew A. Effects of gamified interactive E-books on students’ flipped learning performance, motivation, and Meta-cognition tendency in a mathematics course. Educational Technology Research and Development 2021;69(6):3255-3280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10053-0

Outhwaite LA, Gulliford A, and Pitchford NJ. Understanding how educational maths apps can enhance learning: A content analysis and qualitative comparative analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology 2023;54(4):1045-1063. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13339

Sung YT, Chang KE, and Liu TC. The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students’ learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computers & Education 2016;94:252-275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.008

Ramirez G, Shaw ST, and Maloney EA. Math anxiety: Past research, promising interventions, and a new interpretation framework. Educational Psychologist 2018;53(3):145-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1447384

Ryan RM and Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 2000;55(1):68-78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Wang MT, Degol JL, and Ye F. Math achievement is important, but task values are critical, too: Examining the intellectual and motivational factors leading to gender disparities in STEM careers. Frontiers in Psychology 2022;13:Article 809698. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.809698

Jeno LM, Adachi PJ, Grytnes JA, Vandvik V, and Deci EL. The effects of m-learning on motivation, achievement and well-being: A self-determination theory approach. British Journal of Educational Technology 2019;50(2):669-683. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12657

Guay F. Applying self-determination theory to education: Regulations types, psychological needs, and autonomy supporting behaviors. Canadian Journal of School Psychology 2022;37(1):75-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/08295735211055355

Chen KC and Jang SJ. Motivation in online learning: Testing a model of self-determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior 2010;26(4):741-752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.01.011

Fredricks JA, Blumenfeld PC, and Paris AH. School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research 2004;74(1):59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059

Wang MT, Fredricks JA, Ye F, Hofkens TL, and Linn JS. The math and science engagement scales: Scale development, validation, and psychometric properties. Learning and Instruction 2016;43:16-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.008

Chiu TK. Applying the self-determination theory (SDT) to explain student engagement in online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 2021;54(sup1):S14-S30. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1891998

Bervell B and Umar IN. Validation of the UTAUT model: Re-considering non-linear relationships of exogenous variables in higher education technology acceptance research. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2017;13(10):6471-6490. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/78076

Magsayo AH. Factors influencing mobile learning acceptance among higher education students: An extended technology acceptance model. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation 2023;17(3):312-329. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2023.131456

Nikou SA and Economides AA. Mobile-based assessment: Investigating the factors that influence behavioral intention to use. Computers & Education 2017;109:56-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.02.005

Baron RM and Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1986;51(6):1173-1182.

Churchill GA. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 1979;16(1):64-73. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377901600110

DeVellis RF. Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). Sage Publications 2017.

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, and Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods 2009;41(4):1149-1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

Hair JF, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, and Ringle CM. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review 2019;31(1):2-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203

Westland JC. Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 2010;9(6):476-487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2010.07.003

Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, and Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 2003;27(3):425-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

Ryan RM. Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1982;43(3):450-461. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.43.3.450

Appleton JJ, Christenson SL, Kim D, and Reschly AL. Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. Journal of School Psychology 2006;44(5):427-445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002

Brislin RW. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 1970;1(3):185-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301

Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, and Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 2003;88(5):879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Kock N. Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration 2015;11(4):1-10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101

Chin WW. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research 1998;295-336.

Fornell C and Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 1981;18(1):39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

Henseler J, Ringle CM, and Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 2015;43(1):115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8

Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford Press 2011.

Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1988.

Hu LT and Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 1999;6(1):1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Zhao X, Lynch JG, and Chen Q. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research 2010;37(2):197-206. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257

Dowker A, Sarkar A, and Looi CY. Mathematics anxiety: What have we learned in 60 years? Frontiers in Psychology 2016;7:Article 508. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00508

Porter G, Hampshire K, Milner J, Munthali A, Robson E, De Lannoy A, Bango A, Gunguluza N, Mashiri M, Tanle A, and Abane A. Mobile phones and education in Sub‐Saharan Africa: From youth practice to public policy. Journal of International Development 2016;28(1):22-39. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3116

Hamidi H and Chavoshi A. Analysis of the essential factors for the adoption of mobile learning in higher education: A case study of students of the University of Technology. Telematics and Informatics 2018;35(4):1053-1070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.09.016

Niemiec CP and Ryan RM. Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education 2009;7(2):133-144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104318

GSMA. The mobile gender gap report 2022. Mobile forDevelopment. https://www.gsma.com/r/gender-gap/. Accessed 30 June 2025.

Hussain I and Safdar M. Role of information technologies in bridging the gender digital divide in Pakistan. Technology in Society 2020;63:Article 101348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101348

Teo T. Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development and test. Computers & Education 2011;57(4):2432-2440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.008


Full Text: PDF

Article Metrics

Abstract View : 466 times
PDF Download : 189 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.