近年來，移動輔助語言學習（MALL）已成為一種巧妙的語言教學方法。它為研究人員和從業人員提供了完成過去認為不可能完成的任務的機會，例如遠程教學，即時反饋和無縫教學。儘管MALL為語言教學和學習帶來了許多優勢，但使用此方法時用戶的感知是使其成為學習中語言學習的永久組成部分的關鍵。目前，學生對MALL的理解在文學界並不是一個陌生的學科，但是教師對MALL的理解卻很少受到研究者的關注。因此，本研究的目的是調查在職英語作為MALL外語（EFL）老師的觀點。目的是找出影響教師認知的各種變量（性別，年齡，教學水平，教學經驗的年限，學校教學的類型以及願意在教室中使用技術的因素），以及為什麼這些因素很重要。
這項研究使用建構主義理論和社會文化理論的理論框架來考察越南在職EFL教師關於MALL如何增強課堂內外的協作和互動式教學的觀點。此外，它還確定了使用MALL方法設計課程設計時應考慮的最關鍵因素。這項研究的參與者是越南南部不同中學的64名越南在職英語教師。當前的研究使用了Uzunboylu和Özdamlı（2011）的移動學習感知量表（MLPS）。五點李克特量表用於定量數據收集。本研究中的前兩個研究問題已通過使用統計軟件（包括ATMOS 22和SPSS 22.0）進行了定量解決。 MLPS的可靠性和有效性通過驗證性因子分析（CFA）和Cronbach的Alpha值進行了檢查。接下來，使用描述性分析來探索MALL的EFL教師的觀點。進行了多元回歸分析，以發現影響教師認知的最重要因素。最後，進行了半結構化訪談，以深入了解為什麼以及如何構建這些結構至關重要。
調查結果顯示，教師們對MALL表示總體正面評價。此外，多元回歸分析的結果表明，教師的觀點是可以預測的。特別是，多年的教學經驗與教師對移動學習的態度負相關，而在課堂上使用技術的意願與教師的觀念正相關。最後，針對未來的移動學習，提出了幾種將移動學習與以上兩種理論相結合的創新教學方法。

Mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) has emerged as an ingenious language-teaching and -learning approach in recent years. It has provided the opportunity for researchers and practitioners to accomplish tasks that were considered impossible in the past such as providing teaching and learning at a distance, instant feedback, and seamless teaching and learning, etc. Although MALL has brought many advantages to language teaching and learning, the perceptions of users when applying this approach are the keys to make it becomes permanent part of language learning. Currently, students’ perceptions of MALL are not the unfamiliar theme in the body of literature, but teachers’ perceptions of MALL have received little attention from researchers. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate the perceptions of in-service English as a foreign language (EFL) teacher concerning MALL. The purpose is to discover what factors affect teachers’ perceptions among various variables (gender, age, grade-level of teaching, years of teaching experience, type of school teaching, willingess to use technology in classroom), and why these factors are significant.
Drawing upon theoretical frameworks in constructivist theory and socio-cultural theory, the current study examined the perceptions of Vietnamese in-service EFL teachers of how MALL enhanced collaborative and interactive teaching inside and outside of the classroom. In addition, it identified the most crucial factors that should be considered when designing the curriculum design with MALL approach. The participants in this study were 64 Vietnamese in-service EFL teachers from different high schools in the South of Vietnam. The current study adapted the Mobile Learning Perception Scale (MLPS) from Uzunboylu and Özdamlı (2011). Five-point Likert-scale questionnaires were employed to collect the quantitative data. The first two research questions in this study were addressed using a quantitative approach by utilizing statistical software, including ATMOS 22, and SPSS version 22.0. The reliability and validity of the MLPS were examined with Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Cronbach’s Alpha value. Next, a descriptive analysis was employed to explore the perception of EFL teachers of MALL. Multiple regression was performed to discover the most important factor that influenced the teachers’ perceptions. Finally, semi-structured interviews were conducted to deeply understand why and how those constructs were crucial.
The findings revealed that teachers reported overall positive perceptions of MALL. Moreover, the results of multiple regression analyses indicated that teachers’ perceptions were predictable. In particular, year of teaching experience was the variable that had negative relationship with the attitude of teachers towards mobile learning, whereas willingness to use technology in classroom revealed positive correlation with the perceptions of teachers. Finally, several innovative teaching approaches in the combination of mobile learning and the two foregoing theories were suggested for future implementation of m-learning.

Andujar, A. (2016). Benefits of mobile instant messaging to develop ESL writing. System, 62, 63-76.
Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. NursingPlus Open, 2, 8-14.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Cognitive domain.
Brown, H. D. (1987). Principles of language learning and teaching/H. Douglas Brown.–.
Brown, M. W. y Cudeck, R.(1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. En KA Bollen, y JS Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162).
Burnard, P. (1991). A method of analysing interview transcripts in qualitative research. Nurse education today, 11(6), 461-466.
ChanLin, L. J., Hong, J. C., Horng, J. S., Chang, S. H., & Chu, H. C. (2006). Factors influencing technology integration in teaching: A Taiwanese perspective. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(1), 57-68.
Cheong, J., Lee, S., Crooks, S. M., & Song, J. (2012). An investigation of mobile learning readiness in higher education based on the theory of planned behaviour. Computers & Education, 59(3), 1054-1064.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. psychometrika, 16 (3), 297-334. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1007/BF02310555.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.
Domalewska, D. (2014). Technology-supported classroom for collaborative learning: Blogging in the foreign language classroom. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 10(4).
Facer, K. (2004). Foreword to the literature in mobile technologies and learning. Futurelab report, 11, 312-325.
Frohberg, D., Göth, C., & Schwabe, G. (2009). Mobile learning projects–a critical analysis of the state of the art. Journal of computer assisted learning, 25(4), 307-331.
Furió, D., Juan, M. C., Seguí, I., & Vivó, R. (2015). Mobile learning vs. traditional classroom lessons: a comparative study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(3), 189-201.
Garcia-Cabot, A., de-Marcos, L., & Garcia-Lopez, E. (2015). An empirical study on m-learning adaptation: Learning performance and learning contexts. Computers & Education, 82, 450-459.
Green, A., & Green, A. (2007). Education and development in a global era: Strategies for'successful globalisation' (Vol. 69). DfID.
Green, L. S. (2013). Language learning through a lens: The case for digital storytelling in the second language classroom. School Libraries Worldwide, 19(2), 23-36.
Gsm Association. (2016). The mobile economy 2018. London: GSM Association.
Hsu, L. (2013). English as a foreign language learners’ perception of mobile assisted language learning: a cross-national study. Computer assisted language learning, 26(3), 197-213.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55.
Hwang, G. J., & Chang, H. F. (2011). A formative assessment-based mobile learning approach to improving the learning attitudes and achievements of students. Computers & Education, 56(4), 1023-1031.
Kaliisa, R., Palmer, E., & Miller, J. (2019). Mobile learning in higher education: A comparative analysis of developed and developing country contexts. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2), 546-561.
Kim, S. (2014). Developing autonomous learning for oral ability using digital storytelling. Language Learning & Technology, 18(2), 20-35.
Klopfer, E., Sheldon, J., Perry, J., & Chen, V. H. (2012). Ubiquitous games for learning (UbiqGames): Weatherlings, a worked example. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(5), 465-476.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Shield, L. (2007, September). An overview of mobile assisted language learning: Can mobile devices support collaborative practice in speaking and listening. In conference EuroCALL’07 Conference Virtual Strand.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Shield, L. (2007, September). An overview of mobile assisted language learning: Can mobile devices support collaborative practice in speaking and listening. In conference EuroCALL’07 Conference Virtual Strand.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., Norris, L., & Donohue, J. (2015). Mobile pedagogy for English language teaching: a guide for teachers.
Liu, T. C., Lin, Y. C., & Paas, F. (2014). Effects of prior knowledge on learning from different compositions of representations in a mobile learning environment. Computers & Education, 72, 328-338.
Macaro, E. (1997). Target language, collaborative learning, and autonomy (Vol. 5). Multilingual matters.
McCaffrey, M. (2011). Why mobile is a must. The Journal, 38(2), 21-22.
Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2017). Mobile-based assessment: Investigating the factors that influence behavioral intention to use. Computers & Education, 109, 56-73.
Normann, A. (2011). Digital storytelling in second language learning: A qualitative study on students’ reflections on potentials for learning (Master's thesis, Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet, Fakultet for samfunnsvitenskap og teknologiledelse, Program for lærerutdanning).
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies. New York, 3.
Pachler, N., Bachmair, B., & Cook, J. (2010). Mobile Learning. Structures, Agency. Practice.
Patton, M. Q. (1998). In SB Merriam. Qualitative research and case study applications in education, 71.
Rau, P. L. P., Gao, Q., & Wu, L. M. (2008). Using mobile communication technology in high school education: Motivation, pressure, and learning performance. Computers & Education, 50(1), 1-22.
Serin, O. (2012). Mobile learning perceptions of the prospective teachers (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus sampling). Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 11(3), 222-233.
Shao, K., Pekrun, R., & Nicholson, L. J. (2019). Emotions in classroom language learning: What can we learn from achievement emotion research?. System, 86, 102121.
Sharples, M. (Ed.) (2006). Big issues in mobile learning. Report of a workshop by the Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence Mobile Learning Initiative, University of Nottingham, UK.
Shield, L., & Weininger, M. J. (1999). Collaboration in a virtual world: Groupwork and the distance language learner. WorldCALL: Global Perspectives on Computer Assisted Language Learning. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger, 99116.
Tai, Y., & Ting, Y. L. (2011). Adoption of mobile technology for language learning: Teacher attitudes and challenges. The Jalt Call Journal, 7(1), 3-18.
Uzunboylu, H., & Ozdamli, F. (2011). Teacher perception for m‐learning: scale development and teachers' perceptions. Journal of Computer assisted learning, 27(6), 544-556.
Van den Berg, G. J. (2001). Duration models: specification, identification and multiple durations. In Handbook of econometrics (Vol. 5, pp. 3381-3460). Elsevier.
Van Van, H. (2010). The current situation and issues of the teaching of English in Vietnam. 立命館言語 文化研究, 22(1).
Viberg, O., & Grönlund, Å. (2013). Cross-cultural analysis of users' attitudes toward the use of mobile devices in second and foreign language learning in higher education: A case from Sweden and China. Computers & Education, 69, 169-180.
Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer‐mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The modern language journal, 81(4), 470-481.
Warschauer, M. (2007). A teacher's place in the digital divide. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 106(2), 147-166.
Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford University Press.
Wu, W. H., Wu, Y. C. J., Chen, C. Y., Kao, H. Y., Lin, C. H., & Huang, S. H. (2012). Review of trends from mobile learning studies: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 59(2), 817-827.