Cited by 117Educational Games and GamificationTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourEducation and Technology Integration

Investigating elementary school students' technology acceptance by applying digital game-based learning to environmental education

Open access
Cheng, Yuh-Ming, Lou, Shi-Jer, Kuo, Sheng-Huang, Shih, Ru-Chu·2013·Australasian Journal of Educational Technology

Abstract

In order to improve and promote students' environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour, integrating environmental education into the primary education curriculum has become a key issue for environmental education. For this reason, this study aimed to investigate elementary school students' acceptance of technology applying digital game-based learning (DGBL) to environmental education. A total of 32 fourth graders in an elementary school participated in a seven-week DGBL teaching experiment. After the experimental teaching session, a survey concerning "perceived ease of use", "perceived usefulness", and "user intentions" was conducted. The results show that the DGBL system is suitable for both genders at all levels of experience. In addition, the 4th grade students' "perceived ease of use", "perceived usefulness", "attitudes toward use", and "intention to use" reveal a high degree of positive and significant correlations. Furthermore, a path analysis verifies that DGBL acceptance will be directly influenced by a learner's "attitude toward use" and "perceived usefulness." Finally, when designing DGBL for 4th graders, the rich learning content and ease of use should be taken into account because they significantly contribute to a learner's intention to use the system, which may result in greater learning effectiveness.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.14742/ajet.65

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 66 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cheng, Y.-M., Lou, S.-J., Kuo, S.-H., & Shih, R.-C.
Affiliations
  • Shu-Te University (TW)
  • National Pingtung University of Science and Technology (TW)
Venue
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology
Published
2013-02-28
Volume
29
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 1449-3098 (ISSN-L)
  • 1449-5554
OpenAlex
W2167789771
Cited by
114
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3
FWCI
8.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
National Science Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education and Technology Integration
Keywords
digital game-based learning, technology acceptance, environmental education, elementary school students, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, attitude toward using, intention to use, gender differences, fourth grade, educational game design

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review