“…Nistor (2014) further claimed that, when extending technology acceptance models from the business context to the education context, the complexity of acceptance constructs should consider educational contexts (e.g., higher education or lifelong learning; in schools, universities, and organisations) and should reflect both individual factors (e.g., personality or self-efficacy) and social factors (e.g., community, social capital) that are relevant to the learning process. Accordingly, many TAM/UTAUT-based studies added these new related constructs to investigate CBA user acceptance, including different countries (Terzis, Moridis, Economides, & Mendez , 2013), personalities (Terzis et al, 2012b), self-efficacy (Maqableh et al, 2015;Nikou & Economides, 2017;Terzis & Economides, 2011a), and social influence (Acosta-Gonzaga & Walet, 2018;Maqableh et al, 2015;Nikou & Economides, 2017;Terzis & Economides, 2011a). For example, Acosta-Gonzaga and Walet, (2018) extended TAM by including measures of computer self-efficacy and social influence to investigate user acceptance of mathematical CBA.…”