1. Agudo-Peregrina, Á. F., Hernández-García, Á., & Pascual-Miguel, F. J. (2014). Behavioral intention, use behavior and the acceptance of electronic learning systems: Diferences between higher education and lifelong learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 301–314.
2. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). New York: Springer.
3. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. New Jersey: Pretice-Hall.
4. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411.
5. Arif, M. S. (2012). The efect of computer self-efcacy and technology acceptance model on behavioral intention in internet banking system. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 57(2012), 448–452.
6. Braak, J. (2004). Domains and determinants of university students’ self-perceived computer competence. Computers & Education, 43(3), 299–312.
7. Burston, J. (2013). Mobile-Assisted Language learning: A selected annotated bibliography of implementation studies 1994–2012. Language, Learning and Technology, 17(3), 157–224.
8. Burston, J. (2015). Twenty years of MALL project implementation: A meta-analysis of learning outcomes. ReCALL, 27(1), 4–20.
9. Burston, J., & Giannakou, K. (2021). MALL Language Learning outcomes: A comprehensive meta-analysis 1994–2019. ReCALL FirstView.
10. Castañeda, J. A., Muñoz-Leiva, F., & Luque, T. (2007). Web acceptance model (WAM): Moderating efects of user experience. Information & Management, 44(4), 384–396.
11. Chan, S. L., Lin, C. C., Chau, P. H., Takemura, N., & Fung, J. T. C. (2021). Evaluating online learning engagement of nursing students. Nurse Education Today, 104, 104985.
12. Chen, R. (2010). Investigating models for pre-service teachers’ use of technology to support student-centered learning. Computer & Education, 55, 32–42.
13. Chinnery, G. M. (2006). Going to the MALL: Mobile assisted language learning. Language, Learning and Technology, 10(1), 9–16.
14. Chou, Ch., Wu, H Ch., & Chen, Ch H. (2011). Re-visiting college students’ attitudes toward the Internetbased on a 6-T model: Gender and grade level diference. Computers & Education, 56(4), 939–947.
15. Chun, W. H. K. (2016). Updating to remain the same: Habitual new media. MIT press.
16. Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., & Veith, H. (2001). Progress on the state explosion problem in model checking. Informatics: 10 Years Back, 10 Years Ahead, 176-194.
17. Comas-Quinn, A., Mardomingo, R., & Valentine, C. (2009). Mobile blogs in language learning: Making the most of informal and situated learning opportunities. ReCALL, 21(1), 96–112.
18. Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efcacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211.
19. Cui Peilin. (2020). A Study on the Blended Teaching Mode of College English Listening and Speaking Based on U-Campus. Shenyang Normal University.
20. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness: Perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. Management Information Systems Quarterly., 13(3), 983–1003.
21. Feng Huanhua. (2017). A Study on Blended Learning Based on WeChat Public Platform. Yunnan University.
22. Godwin-Jones, R. (2017). Smartphones and language learning. Language, Learning and Technology, 21(2), 3–17.
23. González-Gómez, F., Guardiola, J., Martín-Rodríguez, O., & Montero-Alonso, M. A. (2012). Gender differences in e-learning satisfaction. Computers & Education, 58(1), 283–290.
24. Holden, H., & Rada, R. (2011). Understanding the infuence of perceived usability and technology selfefcacy on teachers’ technology acceptance. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(4), 343–367.
25. Hoppe, H. U., Joiner, R., Milrad, M., & Sharples, M. (2003). Guest editorial: Wireless and mobile technologies in education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 255–259.
26. Hou, Z., & Aryadoust, V. (2021). A review of the methodological quality of quantitative mobile-assisted language learning research. System, 100, Article 102568.
27. Hsu, C. L., & Lu, H. P. (2004). Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with social infuences and fow experience. Information & Management, 41(7), 853–868.
28. Hung, M.-L., Chou, C., Chen, C.-H., & Own, Z.-Y. (2010). Learner readiness for online learning: Scale development and student perceptions. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1080–1090.
29. Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2009). Will mobile learning change language learning? ReCALL, 21(2), 157–165.
30. Kukulska-Hulme, A., Beirne, E., Conole, G., Costello, E., Coughlan, T., Ferguson, R., ... & Whitelock, D. (2020). Innovating pedagogy 2020: Open university innovation report 8.
31. Lan, Y. J., Sung, Y. T., & Chang, K. E. (2013). From particular to popular: Facilitating EFL mobile-supported cooperative learning. Language, Learning and Technology, 17(3), 23–38.
32. Laurillard, D. (2007). Pedagogical forms of mobile learning: framing research questions.153-157.
33. Lee, D. Y., & Lehto, M. R. (2013). User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Computers & Education, 61, 193–208.
34. Li, C., & Lalani, F. (2020, April). The COVID-19 pandemic has changed education forever. In World economic forum, 29.
35. Lin, K. (2011). E-Learning continuance intention: Moderating efects of user E-learning experience. Computer & Education, 56(2), 515–526.
36. Liu, I. F., Chen, M. C., Sun, Y. S., Wible, D., & Kuo, C. H. (2010). Extending the TAM model to explore the factors that afect intention to use an online learning community. Computers & Education, 54(2), 600–610.
37. Liu, X. (2010). Empirical testing of a theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: An exploratory study of educational wikis. Communication Education, 59(1), 52–69.
38. Moran, M., Hawkes, M., & Gayar, O. E. (2011). Tablet personal computer integration in higher education: Applying the unifed theory of acceptance and technology model to understands supporting factors. Journals of Education Computing Research., 42(1), 79–101.
39. Naismith, L., & Corlett, D. (2017). Proceedings of the 16th World Conference on MobileandContextual Learning.
40. Naujoks, N., Bedenlier, S., Gläser-Zikuda, M., Kammerl, R., Kopp, B., Ziegler, A., & Händel, M. (2021). Self-regulated resource management in emergency remote higher education: status quo and predictors. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 672741.
41. Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2017). Mobile-based assessment: Investigating the factors that infuence behavioral intention to use. Computers & Education, 109, 56–73.
42. Padilla-MeléNdez, A., Del Aguila-Obra, A. R., & Garrido-Moreno, A. (2013). Perceived playfulness, gender diferences and technology acceptance model in a blended learning scenario. Computers & Education, 63, 306–317.
43. Pallant, J. (2011). Survival manual. In A step-by-step guide to data analysis using SPSS.
44. Park, S. Y. (2009). An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 150–162.
45. Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878–912.
46. Pynoo, B., Devolder, P., Tondeur, J., Braak, J., Duyck, W., & Dyck, P. (2011). Predicting secondary school teachers’ acceptance and use of a digital learning environment: A cross-sectional study. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 568–575.
47. Reid, M., & Levy, R. (2008). Integrating trust and computer self-efcacy with TAM: An empirical assessment of costumer acceptance of banking information system (BIS) in Jamaica. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce., 12(3), 1–18.
48. Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Computers & Education, 128, 13–35.
49. Schumacher, P., & Morahan-Martin, J. (2001). Gender, internet and computer attitudes and experiences. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(1), 95–110.
50. Sheldon, P. (2016). Facebook friend request: Applying the theory of reasoned action to student-teacher relationships on Facebook. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 60(2), 269–285.
51. Situjinni. (2018). Empirical Study on the Application of the Mobile App “English Liulishuo” in Spoken English Learning for Non-English Major Students. Northwest Normal University.
52. Stockwell, G., & Hubbard, P. (2013). Some emerging principles for mobile-assisted language learning. The International Research Foundation for English Language Education, 2013, 1-15.
53. Sumak, B., Hericko, M., Pusnik, M., & Polancic, (2011). Factors afecting acceptance and use of Moodle: An empirical study based on TAM. Slovenian Society Informatika, 35(1), 91–100.
54. Tarhini, A., Hone, K., & Liu, X. (2014). Measuring the moderating efect of gender and age on e-learning acceptance in England: A structural equation modeling approach for an extended technology acceptance model. Educational Computing Research, 51(2), 163–184.
55. Taylor, R. (1990). Interpretation of the correlation coefcient: A basic review. Journal of diagnostic medical sonography, 6(1), 35–39.
56. Teo, T. (2009). The impact of subjective norm and facilitating conditions on pre-service teachers’ attitude toward computer use: a structural equation modelling of an extended technology acceptance model. Journal Education Computing Research, 40(1), 89–109.
57. Teo, T., & Noyes, J. (2011). An assessment of the infuence of perceived enjoyment and attitude on the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: A structural equation modelling approach. Computer & Technology, 57(2), 1645–1653.
58. Terzis, V., & Economides, A. A. (2011). Computer based assessment: gender diferences in perceptions and acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2108–2122.
59. Thompson, S. H. T., & Lim, V. K. G. (1996). Factors infuencing personal computer usage: The gender gap. Women in Management Review, 11(8), 18–26.
60. Turner, M., Kitchenham, B., Brereton, P., Charters, S., & Budgen, D. (2010). Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology,52(5), 463–479.
61. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 1194, 342–365.
62. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal feld studies. Management Science, 46, 186–204.
63. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. B. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a Unifed view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
64. Weng, C., & Tsai, C. (2015). Social support as a neglected e-learning motivator afecting trainee’s decisions of continuous intentions of usage. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(2), 177–192.
65. Whitley, B. E. (1997). Gender diferences in computer-related attitudes and behavior: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 13(1), 1–22.
66. Wong, K. T., Goh, S. C., Fahri, Hafzul, & Osman, Rosma. (2010). Computer attitudes and use among novice teachers; The moderating efects of school environment. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 7, 93–112.
67. Xia, X. (2022). Influencing factors and promoting strategies of college students' mobile learning: From the perspective of self-regulated learning. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Big Data and Education. 103-107.
68. Yang, Y., & Wang, X. (2019). Modeling the intention to use machine translation for student translators: An extension of Technology Acceptance Model. Computers & Education, 133, 116–126.
69. Yang, Y., Gao, Z., & Han, Y. (2021). Exploring Chinese EFL learners' achievement emotions and their antecedents in an online English learning environment. Frontiers in psychology, 12, 722622.