Computers in Human Behavior 28 (2012) 2023–2033

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Digital games in the classroom? A contextual approach to teachers’ adoption

intention of digital games in formal education
Frederik De Grove a,⇑, Jeroen Bourgonjon b,1, Jan Van Looy a,2
a
Research Group for Media and ICT (IBBT-MICT), Ghent University, Korte Meer 7-9-11, B9000 Gent, Belgium
b
Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, H. Dunantlaan 2, B9000 Gent, Belgium

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Interest in using digital games for formal education has steadily increased in the past decades. When it
Available online 20 June 2012 comes to actual use, however, the uptake of games in the classroom remains limited. Using a contextual
approach, the possible influence of factors on a school (N = 60) and teacher (N = 409) level are analyzed.
Keywords: Findings indicate that there is no effect of factors on the school level whereas on a teacher level, a model
Digital games is tested, explaining 68% of the variance in behavioral intention, in which curriculum-relatedness and
Education previous experience function as crucial determinants of the adoption intention. These findings add to
Adoption
previous research on adoption determinants related to digital games in formal education. Furthermore,
Teachers
Technology acceptance
they provide insight into the relations between different adoption determinants and their association
Digital game-based learning with behavioral intention.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Digital games and learning
Since ancient times, there has been a common belief that chil-
dren learn valuable lessons when they are playing. During play,
children practice skills and acquire attitudes that are useful for
their intellectual, social, emotional and motoric development. Play
has received considerable academic attention for its qualities
regarding growth, development and socialization from different
perspectives such as biology, psychology, educational studies and
sociology (Sutton-Smith, 2001). With the arrival of digital games,
a specific body of research has explored what happens with regard
to learning when play is mediated digitally (Papert, 1980). It was
found that many qualities of digital games align well with most
contemporary learning theories. The most-often cited theoretical
foundations include constructivist (Jonassen, 1991; Piaget, 1962;
Vygotskiı̌, 1978) and constructionist learning theory (Papert,
1980). In this vein, Egenfeldt-Nielsen (2005) pointed out several
qualities of digital games. By allowing students to engage with
and experiment in the game world, digital games stimulate learn-
ing by doing (Bogost, 2007; Kirriemuir, 2002). During play students
are actively solving meaningful problems (Antonietti & Cantoia,
2000; Price & Rogers, 2004). This aligns with Piaget’s (Piaget,
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +32 9 264 97 09; fax: +32 9 264 69 92.
E-mail addresses: frederik.degrove@ugent.be (F. De Grove), Jeroen.Bourgonjon
@UGent.be (J. Bourgonjon), j.vanlooy@ugent.be (J. Van Looy).
1 2007; Lepper & Chabay, 1985). Finally, digital games offer
Tel.: +32 (0)9 264 8664; fax: +32 (0)9 264 8688.
2
Tel.: +32 9 264 84 76; fax: +32 9 264 69 92.
1952) understanding of knowledge construction through ‘‘percep-
tual exchanges and experimental interactions between subject and ob-
ject’’ (Wrzesien & Alcanß iz Raya, 2010, p. 178).
Moreover, digital games offer opportunities for students to take
control over their own learning processes. Games can empower
students with low levels of self-efficacy (Sitzmann, 2011) since
they reinforce skill mastery and accommodate multiple learning
styles and abilities (Kebritchi & Hirumi, 2008). Games can also
adapt to the skill level of the player, thus enabling differentiated
instruction (Paraskeva, Mysirlaki, & Papagianni, 2010) and sup-
porting meta-level understanding of how to learn (Andrews,
Woodruff, MacKinnon, & Yoon, 2003; Turkle, 1985). Furthermore,
by providing multiple opportunities to be creative and to view
problems from different perspectives, games may improve critical
thinking skills (Aliya, 2002; Eow & Baki, 2009; McFarlane, Spar-
rowhawk, & Heald, 2002). What is more, there is a widespread be-
lief that digital games motivate students to learn (Mitchell & Savill-
Smith, 2004; Paraskeva, Bouta, & Papagianni, 2008; Prensky, 2001;
_
Tüzün, Yılmaz-Soylu, Karakusß, Inal, & Kızılkaya, 2009). Several
explanations have been discussed in the literature, ranging from
the idea that digital games are popular and cannot be ignored
(Henderson, 2005; Mumtaz, 2001; Oblinger, 2004), to the more
solid academic belief that the unique mixture of narrative,
interaction, conflict, challenge and learning (Crawford, 1982;
Dickey, 2007) is intrinsically motivating (Admiraal, Huizenga,
Akkerman, & Dam, 2011; Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Habgood,
opportunities to transcend subject boundaries bringing together

0747-5632/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.021
2024 F. De Grove et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 28 (2012) 2023–2033
knowledge from different subjects and depicting their interrela-
tionships (Squire, 2004).
Despite their learning potential and the considerable academic
interest in digital games, however, the uptake in a formal
educational context remains limited (Kenny & McDaniel, 2011).
As a consequence, several studies have explored potential factors
inhibiting the adoption of digital games in the classroom (Kebritch-
i, 2010; Kenny & McDaniel, 2011). Whereas these studies have
been crucial in identifying important adoption determinants, addi-
tional research is required that pays special attention to the rela-
tions between those determinants and how these relations are
associated with the intention of teachers to use digital games in
the classroom. Moreover, recent studies have pointed out the need
to focus on the different stakeholders in the adoption process
(Bourgonjon, Valcke, Soetaert, & Schellens, 2010; Ketelhut & Schif-
ter, 2011). The aim of this study is to assess the impact of known
adoption determinants on the teacher and school level. By explor-
ing the place and role of these factors, we aim to contribute to the
academic debate and research concerning digital game-based
learning.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1. Adoption of technology
Understanding the adoption of digital games in school can be
framed in the broader context of the adoption of information and
communication technologies (ICTs) in formal education. It is ar-
gued that the individual teacher plays a crucial role in deciding
how and why ICTs are used in the classroom (Ertmer, 2005). Hence,
in order to build a conceptual model, we discuss a number of ap-
proaches that consider the role of the individual as a central com-
ponent in the adoption decision.
The theory of reasoned action (TRA) is a psychological theory
of human social behavior (Fishbein, 1979). It is interesting to
understand its core assumptions as it serves as a basis for most
conceptual frameworks that study technology adoption. The TRA
posits that attitudes, beliefs and subjective norm underlie behav-
ioral intention. Intention is in turn considered as a proxy for ac-
tual behavior. Hence, the motivation to pursue a certain
behavior is a function of the weighted sum of the beliefs concern-
ing a certain behavior (attitudes) with the weighted perceived so-
cial norms related to that behavior (subjective norm). The theory
of planned behavior (TBP) builds further on the foundations of the
TRA (Ajzen, 1985, 1991) by adopting the TRA and adding the con-
cept of perceived behavioral control. This concept is similar to
self-efficacy (Ajzen, 1991; Bandura, 1977) and refers to the belief
in one’s ability to perform a certain behavior successfully. The
intention to perform a certain behavior is thus explained through
the contribution of attitudes, subjective norm and perceived
behavioral control. Both the TRA and TPB have been used to ex-
plain a multitude of different behaviors ranging from recycling
(Park, Levine, & Sharkey, 1998) to the adherence to hand hygiene
recommendations (O’Boyle, Henly, & Larson, 2001). Two decades
after Fishbein laid the foundations of the TRA, Davis developed
the technology acceptance model (TAM), a model based on the
assumptions of the TRA with the aim of explaining the adoption
intention towards a certain technology (1985). In its most basic
and parsimonious form, the TAM explains behavioral intention
in terms of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness (Davis,
1989). The former refers to ‘‘the degree to which a person believes
that using a particular system would be free of effort’’ whilst the lat-
ter designates how useful the technology is perceived with regard
to job performance. The TAM is thus specifically focused on tech-
nology usage and has proven to be an efficient and robust model
across different technologies, research fields and target groups
(Chuttur, 2009; Legris, Ingham, & Collerette, 2003). The initial
TAM has been criticized, however, for featuring too few factors
and thus being too limited in explaining the adoption intention.
In order to counter this criticism and to increase its predictive
power, scholars have looked to expand the TAM. Venkatesh and
Davis (2000) propose a model in which the initial TAM is ex-
panded with five antecedents of perceived usefulness and with
two mediators between subjective norm on the one hand and per-
ceived usefulness and use intention on the other. This extended
model explains considerably more variance than the original
TAM. Likewise, a meta-analysis by Sumak and Marjan on the
TAM in studies on e-learning acceptance yields a list of over four-
teen antecedents of perceived usefulness and ease of use (Sumak,
Hericko, & Pusnik, 2011). This trend to look for additional factors
to increase predictive power is crystallized in the unified theory of
acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). The UTAUT combines
insights stemming from the TAM, the TRA, the TPB, innovation
diffusion theory, social cognitive theory and the model of personal
computer utilization (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003).
The result is a model with eight dependent and a multitude of
independent mediating variables (Bagozzi, 2007). Whereas the
original TAM is criticized for being too limited, the UTAUT is crit-
icized for its lack of parsimony, coordination and integration
(Bagozzi, 2007; Legris et al., 2003).
When considering these studies, it is clear that a multitude of
determinants has been proposed to explain adoption behavior.
Integrating all these different determinants in one conceptual
framework is problematic since it would become too unwieldy in
terms of parsimoniousness and data requirements. Hence, the
challenge in building a conceptual model for this study lies in iden-
tifying relevant determinants while at the same time finding a bal-
ance between parsimony and explanatory power. To investigate
the adoption decision of teachers concerning digital games in a for-
mal learning environment, we propose to use the original TAM as a
starting point. This has several advantages. For several decades the
TAM has proven to be an efficient model and it is widely employed
in the field of technology and education (Sumak et al., 2011). It is a
robust model that can be extended with additional factors which
can be selected based on their specific relevance regarding digital
games in a school context. Adding determinants increases the pre-
dictive power of the model and makes it possible to gain insight
into specific factors regarding the adoption decision of teachers.
Furthermore, the ample availability of other studies employing
the TAM makes it possible to formulate hypotheses regarding the
empirical relations between determinants. This will shed light on
the relative importance of different adoption determinants and
on how they relate to one another. The main challenge in under-
standing the adoption process thus lies in identifying and fitting
adoption determinants that are particularly relevant for digital
games in a formal learning context. As advocated by Legris, Ingham
and Collerette, attention should not only be directed towards addi-
tional adoption determinants on the individual level, but also on
the organizational level (Legris et al., 2003). For technology in edu-
cation, the actual decision to use digital games in a classroom is
made by the teacher. Yet not all determinants influencing this
decision reside at the teacher level. Teachers work in a specific
school context with specific organizational characteristics (De
Castell & Jenson, 2003). In building a conceptual framework,
teacher and school level determinants will therefore be taken into
account.
2.2. Determinants of digital game adoption in the classroom
To our knowledge, no empirical research is currently available
analyzing the relations between adoption determinants on the
 F. De Grove et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 28 (2012) 2023–2033 2025

teacher and school level on the one hand and behavioral intention people with little or no experience will draw on general informa-
on the other. There is, however, a significant body of research that tion concerning the technology. Once individuals gain more expe-
discusses the relevance of potential adoption determinants of rience with a technology, their beliefs are partly adjusted
using digital games in education. In order to identify these deter- according to their experience (Venkatesh, 2000). Hu et al. ob-
minants, a literature review is conducted. served that the effect of ease of use on behavioral intention may
be overly emphasized when an individual has limited knowledge
about or experience with the technology (Hu, Clark, & Ma, 2003).
2.3. Determinants on the teacher level
With the use of digital games in the classroom still in its early
stages, special attention should be devoted to the interpretation
An overview of the relevant literature shows that possible is-
of this relation. In addition, research has found that experience
sues impacting the adoption decision can be categorized into be-
with games affects perceived learning opportunities of students
liefs, skills, experience and curriculum related concerns. Apart
(Bourgonjon et al., 2010). Students with experience in playing dig-
from explicating these categories, we translate them into relevant
ital games have a different view on the possibilities and limita-
adoption determinants for our conceptual framework.
tions of digital games in a classroom whereas students that do
On account of beliefs, several scholars have remarked that the
not have this experience are more dependent on general beliefs.
use of digital games in a classroom is often looked upon with skep-
As previously mentioned, games are generally more strongly asso-
ticism by teachers (Baek, 2008; Becker, 2007; Becker & Jacobsen,
ciated with play than with learning. Those with little or no expe-
2005; Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005, 2006; Ketelhut & Schifter, 2011;
rience will hence draw on such beliefs. We expect the effect of
Michael & Chen, 2006; Rice, 2007; Tüzün, 2007). Digital games
experience to be similar for teachers. Teachers with little or no
are rarely considered as a valuable asset and teachers hold the be-
experience using games in an educational setting will draw on
lief that they are not likely to fit easily into existing teaching rou-
general beliefs about digital games and will associate games less
tines (Becker, 2007; Tüzün, 2007). Therefore, beliefs that digital
with learning than teachers having used games in the classroom
games will impede rather than facilitate teaching can hinder the
before.
uptake of digital games in a classroom. In terms of the TAM this
Finally, the congruency of games with the curriculum plays an
is conceptualized as perceived usefulness which is directly related
important role in the adoption decision (Baek, 2008; Becker & Jac-
to behavioral intention (Davis, 1989). A skeptical attitude towards
obsen, 2005; Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005; Ketelhut & Schifter, 2011;
digital games, however, runs deeper than that. Digital games entail
Rice, 2007; Sandford et al., 2006; Tüzün, 2007; Van Eck, 2006;
playfulness and playful learning is often considered an oxymoron
Wastiau & Kearney, 2009). Teachers are required to teach prede-
(Michael & Chen, 2006). This issue connects to the concern of
termined learning content and this content needs to be taught
whether and to what extent digital games create opportunities
within specific time frames. Digital games, however, are not typ-
for learning (Rice, 2007; Wastiau & Kearney, 2009). Previous re-
ically designed to fit within these content- and time-related con-
search on games in formal education has shown that students
fines. This can complicate their uptake in a classroom setting
who consider digital games as tools offering learning opportunities
(Becker, 2007; Sisler & Brom, 2008). While curriculum-related-
also tend to score higher on their preference for using games in the
ness has not been used in a TAM structure before, it is reasonable
classroom (Bourgonjon et al., 2010). Likewise, learning opportuni-
to expect that it is associated with learning opportunities since
ties are found to be positively associated with games’ perceived
the transfer of knowledge is typically achieved by fulfilling the
usefulness in terms of performance and productivity in the class-
curricular requirements. Similarly, it can be expected that if
room (Bourgonjon et al., 2010). It is therefore reasonable to assume
games are perceived as beneficial to the curriculum that their
that the adoption intention of teachers will be higher if digital
use allows for better job performance, and hence higher useful-
games are believed to be adequate learning tools. Moreover, if dig-
ness. What is more, it is argued that curriculum-relatedness will
ital games are considered as tools that can provide learning oppor-
also be linked with ease of use since less time and effort will have
tunities to students, they will also be perceived as useful to
to be spent figuring out how to fit digital games in the learning
enhance job performance.
environment. Considering the overall importance of the curricular
Several studies have pointed to the importance of skill as an
requirements in formal education, it can also be expected that
adoption determinant. Skill refers to the technological know-
curriculum-relatedness will directly be associated with the inten-
how required to install and operate a game and how to solve
tion to use digital games in a classroom. Finally, as experience
technical problems (Sandford, Ulicsak, & Facer, 2006). These com-
influences beliefs such as ease of use and perceived usefulness,
petences should not be taken for granted. Scholars researching
it is expected that previous experience will influence whether
digital games in the classroom have stressed the need for teacher
digital games are regarded as relevant to the curriculum. Teachers
training and support materials in order to ensure successful
drawing on general beliefs regarding digital games will have less
integration or adoption (Becker, 2007; Ketelhut & Schifter, 2011;
knowledge on curriculum-related possibilities than teachers with
Wastiau & Kearney, 2009). For instance, after using the game
experience.
Europa Universalis II into the classroom, Egenfeldt-Nielsen notes
Based on these insights, several hypotheses can be formulated.
that teachers’ lack of knowledge in using the game impeded the
It should be noted that labels such as ‘‘H1a’’ refer to associations
success of the teaching course (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005). He fur-
between constructs and not to the constructs themselves.
ther points out that teachers played the game for several hours
before using it in the classroom. Hence, skill not only refers to
H1. Usefulness will be positively associated with behavioral
the technical know-how but also to the necessary knowledge re-
intention (H1a) while ease of use will be positively associated
quired to integrate the game in a learning environment. In terms
with behavioral intention (H1b) and on usefulness (H1c).
of the TAM, the belief that one is capable of successfully using a
technology is conceptualized as ease of use. From this perspective,
skill is firmly connected to how experienced one is with technol- H2. Learning opportunities will be positively associated with
ogy. Previous research has shown that experience is associated behavioral intention (H2a) and with usefulness (H2b) while ease
with ease of use, perceived usefulness and behavioral intention of use will be positively associated with learning opportunities
(Davis & Venkatesh, 1996). As pointed out by Venkatesh (2000), (H2c).
2026 F. De Grove et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 28 (2012) 2023–2033
H3. Experience with using games in the classroom will be posi-
tively associated with behavioral intention (H3a), usefulness
(H3b), learning opportunities (H3c) and ease of use (H3d).
H4. Curriculum-relatedness will be positively associated with
behavioral intention (H4a), usefulness (H4b), learning opportuni-
ties (H4c) and ease of use (H4d). In turn, experience will be posi-
tively associated with curriculum-relatedness (H4e).
2.4. Determinants on the school level
On the school level, recurring issues concern infrastructure,
technical support, cost and school culture. Digital games are played
on a personal computer or on a game-specific device. The availabil-
ity of sufficient devices can be an issue for schools (Becker & Jacob-
sen, 2005; Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2004; Rice, 2007). Even when enough
devices are available digital games are often demanding in terms of
graphical processing power (Tüzün, 2007). As a consequence, the
choice of digital games can be limited (Tüzün, 2007; Van Eck,
2006). Technical problems can arise when using high-end digital
games without the proper hardware (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005).
These problems are in turn associated with the technical support
available in schools. Having adequate hardware, software and net-
work support is a necessary condition for the implementation of
any technology (Tüzün, 2007). Hence, when using digital games
in the classroom, it can be expected that technical problems
emerge. If no or insufficient technical support is anticipated, teach-
ers will be less likely to use digital games (Baek, 2008; Egenfeldt-
Nielsen, 2004; Van Eck, 2006). Another barrier that has been re-
ported concerns the access to games. In order to integrate games
in the classroom, they have to be bought (Baek, 2008). Schools
operate on a limited budget which might impede or prevent the
acquisition of relevant software (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005, 2006).
Whether a school decides to invest in technology in general or in
digital games in specific is also related to the school culture. Some
schools will be more open to the use of new technologies and
might actively support such initiatives (Ketelhut & Schifter,
2011). To build our conceptual model, it is argued that the school
policy regarding technology is shaped by the decisions and hence
the beliefs of the headmaster. Similar to the TAM determinants
on an individual level, three constructs are proposed: perceived
ease of implementation, perceived usefulness and learning oppor-
tunities. The first one refers to how easy headmasters perceive the
implementation of digital games into the teaching environment.
Perceived usefulness concerns the degree to which headmasters
perceive digital games to be supportive of teaching. Learning
opportunities, finally, refers to the degree to which headmasters
perceive digital games as relevant to learning.
Considering the fact that schools vary in these regards, it is ex-
pected that the intention to use digital games will differ between
schools. For instance, schools with adequate ICT support and infra-
structure may stimulate teachers to use digital games in the class-
room. In contrast, if a headmaster does not approve of the use of
digital games in a learning environment, this can obstruct their
use altogether. Thus characteristics on a school level are expected
to influence the individual adoption decision of teachers from the
same school.
H5. Factors on a school level will be positively associated with
adoption decision on the teacher level. More specifically, ICT
infrastructure (H5a), technical support (H5b), perceived ease of
implementation (H5c), perceived usefulness (H5d), learning oppor-
tunities (H5e) and cost (H5f) will be positively associated with
behavioral intention.
3. Method
3.1. Procedure and sample
An electronic survey was distributed by e-mail to the headmas-
ters of all secondary schools recognized by the Flemish Ministry of
Education (N = 938). In the accompanying letter, they were asked
to fill out the survey and to disseminate the link of the teacher sur-
vey to the educational staff. After 1 week, a reminder was sent to
those headmasters that did not fill out the survey. In total, 150
headmasters completed the survey. To account for a multi-level
design, we aimed to have at least five teachers per school. Those
schools of which the headmaster filled out the survey but with
insufficient teacher response were contacted by telephone and
asked to convince teachers to participate in the research. In total
533 teachers filled out the survey of which 517 were retained after
data cleaning. The median for experience in teaching was 10 years
(ranging from 0 to 40 years). On average, teachers were 38 years
old (SD = 10.3) and 61% of the teachers was male. To assess school
and teacher determinants jointly, only those schools with at least
five teachers answering the survey were retained. This resulted
in 60 schools and 409 teachers. For the subsequent analysis on
the teacher level, we used the full set of teachers (N = 517). To ob-
tain a representative sample, data were weighted on the basis of
school net and geographical distribution for the school level vari-
ables and on the basis of gender and age for teacher level variables.
Information on these variables was obtained from the website of
the Flemish government.
3.2. Measures
For the exact wording of the measures, refer to Appendix A. All
items were measured using five-point Likert scales ranging from
totally disagree to totally agree. To obtain measures at the teacher
and school level, teachers and headmasters were surveyed. Since
questions for headmasters and teachers were different, two differ-
ent surveys were distributed.
Digital games were defined as any digital game that can be used
in a learning context. As such, we draw on Van Eck’s classification
(Van Eck, 2006) where we consider educational games that have
been built by educators and/or developers as well as commercial
off-the-shelf games that are integrated into the classroom.
3.2.1. Measures at the teacher level
Ease of use, usefulness, experience, behavioral intention and
learning opportunities were constructed on the basis of previous
research using the TAM (Bourgonjon et al., 2010; Venkatesh & Da-
vis, 2000). Where necessary, wording was adapted to the specific-
ity of digital games. For learning opportunities, the item ‘‘digital
games offer opportunities to interact with other students’’ was omit-
ted as it was considered as suggestive in favor of multiplayer
games. Since no reliable measure for curriculum-relatedness was
found, an ad hoc scale was created.
3.2.2. Measures at the school level
Several socio-demographic measures (number of pupils, num-
ber of teachers, number of computer classes, number of computers,
type and availability of technical support, geographical location
and school net) and measures based on existing TAM literature
were taken into account. More specifically, TAM-related measures
concerned the usefulness of implementing digital games at the
school level, the perceived ease of implementing digital games at
the school level and whether headmasters considered digital
games to be tools that offer learning opportunities.
 F. De Grove et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 28 (2012) 2023–2033
3.3. Reliability and construct validity of the research instruments
This section only discusses the psychometric quality of those
measures that are used in our analyses. Reliability and construct
validity are accounted for by testing the factor structure of our dif-
ferent scales using structural equation modeling and by using mea-
sures accounting for convergent and discriminant validity (Blunch,
2008). To test the factor structure, confirmatory factor analysis in
AMOS is used which ‘‘is a way of testing how well measured variables
represent a smaller number of constructs’’ (Hair, Black, Babin,
Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). Testing the factor structure of ease
of use, usefulness, learning opportunities, experience, curricu-
lum-relatedness and behavioral intention results in a good fit
(N = 517, v2/df = 2.5, CFI = .97, TLI = .96, RMSEA = .051, CI90 = .044,
.058). This indicates a satisfactory factor structure.
As proposed by Hair et al. (2006) convergent validity is checked
by means of the coefficient alpha and the average percentage of
variance extracted (AVE). Table 1 (Appendix B) shows that all mea-
sures have an AVE higher than .05 and a Cronbach’s a ranging from
.69 to .93. These results indicate adequate convergent validity. Dis-
criminant validity is examined by comparing the AVE of two con-
structs with the squared correlation of these two constructs. The
rationale behind this is that a latent construct should explain the
variance in its items better than that in another construct (Hair
et al., 2006). Table 2 (Appendix B) shows that none of the squared
correlations is higher than any of the VE values of the pairwise
comparisons. This indicates adequate discriminant validity.
4. Results
4.1. Determinants on the school level
As a first step, it was checked how much of the variation in
behavioral intention could be attributed to factors on the school le-
vel when controlling for the teacher level. To model this variation
we perform a multi-level analysis in MLwiN with school as a level
2 variable and teacher as a level 1 variable (Hox, 2010). The for-
mula for the null-model is as follows:
yij ¼ b0 þ eij þ l0j
whereby yij is the predicted value in behavioral intention for person
i in school j; b0 the grand intercept; eij the unexplained variance for
teachers and l0j is the unexplained variance for schools.
Analysis with standardized weights on both levels returned the
following result:
Behavioral Intentionij ¼ 3:04 þ :92 þ :09
This shows that the mean behavioral intention is 3.04 (SD = .054).
The unexplained variance on the teacher level is .92 (SD = .08) and
is significant (p < .01). At the school level, however, the unexplained
variance is .09 (SD = .06) which is not significant. As a consequence,
our data do not support the hypothesis that the variation in behav-
ioral intention of teachers is related to determinants on a school le-
vel (H5). This means that ICT infrastructure (H5a), technical support
(H5b), perceived ease of implementation (H5c), perceived useful-
ness (H5d), learning opportunities (H5e) and cost (H5f) are not
associated with behavioral intention. Considering these findings, it
is not useful to take school level variables into account in further
analyses.
4.2. Determinants on the teacher level
To assess the relationship between variables, structural equa-
tion modeling in AMOS is used. Fig. 1 shows the path model with
all relevant hypotheses while Table 3 shows the correlation matrix
2027
for all variables. In order to use weighted data, a covariance matrix
is used as input for the model. To assess the significance of the
indirect effects, bootstrapping was used (N = 500) (Blunch, 2008).
Fit indices indicate a good fit (N = 517, v2/df = 2.5, CFI = .97,
TLI = .96, RMSEA = .051, CI90 = .044, .058).
Fig. 2 provides a closer look at the standardized path coeffi-
cients (standardized direct effects) of the relationships while Table
4 shows the standardized direct and indirect effects. Table 5
(Appendix B) gives an overview of all hypotheses and their results.
Fitting our data to the model explains 68% of the variance in
behavioral intention. When looking at the direct effects, learning
opportunities (b = .31, p < .001), experience (b = .21, p < .001), cur-
riculum-relatedness (b = .17, p < .001) and usefulness (b = .21,
p < .001) have a significant relation with behavioral intention.
There is no direct effect of ease of use on behavioral intention
(b = .13, p = .066). There is, however, a fully mediated effect of ease
of use on behavioral intention through learning opportunities
(b = .17, p < .01). Furthermore, the effect of learning opportunities
on intention is partially mediated through usefulness (b = .15,
p < .01) and the effect of experience on intention is partially med-
iated through curriculum-relatedness, learning opportunities and
ease of use (b = .34, p < .01). The effect of curriculum-relatedness
on intention is partially mediated by ease of use, learning opportu-
nities and usefulness (b = .31, p < .01).
Regarding usefulness, learning opportunities (b = .69, p < .01)
and curriculum-relatedness (b = .16, p < .01) explain 68% of the var-
iance. There is no significant relation with ease of use (b = .00,
p = .97) or experience (b = .09, p = .17). Moreover, curriculum-relat-
edness (b = .16, p < .01) and experience (b = .74, p < .01) explain
68% of the variance in ease of use. As for learning opportunities,
36% of the variance is explained by curriculum-relatedness
(b = .50, p < .01), experience (b = .20, p < .05) and ease of use
(b = .36, p < .05). Experience, finally, has a direct association with
curriculum-relatedness (b = .40, p < .01) explaining 16% of its
variance.
5. Discussion
This study assessed which factors on the teacher and on the
school level influence the individual adoption intention of a tea-
cher. Findings do not support the hypothesis that factors on a
school level are associated with the individual adoption intention.
This is a counterintuitive finding since the literature on games in
education has repeatedly pointed out that factors such as IT infra-
structure and technical support are a conditio sine qua non for dig-
ital game adoption (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005; Tüzün, 2007). In their
research report, Sandford et al. (2006) even come to the conclusion
that ‘‘the survey suggests that the main barriers perceived by teachers
to the use of games are not those of the curriculum or of assessment,
but the technical issues that may need to be overcome’’ (2006, p.
18). This stands in stark contrast with our finding that curricu-
lum-relatedness is a major factor influencing the adoption decision
whilst technical issues play no significant role. A possible explana-
tion could be that the survey of Sandford et al. does not look at
relationships between determinants but only provides a series of
juxtaposed adoption determinants. In our study, teacher and
school determinants are simultaneously taken into account using
a multi-level approach. This allows to control for the influence of
both levels which provides a more reliable assessment of joint
relations.
Moreover, the reason for not finding a relation between school-
level determinants and the adoption decision can be explained in
terms of experience. To date, the experience of teachers with
games in the classroom remains limited. It is therefore possible
that issues on the school level do not play an important role in
2028 F. De Grove et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 28 (2012) 2023–2033
Fig. 1. Tested path model.
the initial adoption decision. Teachers that have never tried to use
digital games in the classroom have not experienced problems
with computers that do not meet the hardware requirements of
digital games. Neither have they experienced the technical prob-
lems that arise when trying to implement games in the classroom.
Thus the initial adoption decision of teachers in the first place re-
sides on the individual level. Once this initial adoption decision
is made, however, issues on the school level could impede further
uptake of digital games. This stresses the need to take experience
into account. Future research could therefore look into the inter-
play between experience and school level determinants to see if
and when school level factors start to matter.
Another explanation for the absence of a school level effect
could be the cultural context in which this research has been per-
formed. The school system in Flanders provides considerable
autonomy to teachers in their choice of what technologies to use.
Other school contexts can be more restrictive. This could result
in differences on a school level as this would considerably interfere
with the individual choice of a teacher. The same holds true for
school systems in which the absolute minimum requirements for
using digital games are not met. Although there was sufficient var-
iation in the structural characteristics such as infrastructure and
support, all schools had several computers and at least one teacher
that was responsible for technical support. It goes without saying
that it would become very hard for teachers to use digital games
in a classroom if a school has almost no computers or nobody with
the required know-how to install and use digital games.
On account of the teacher level, it is interesting to see that the
strongest direct effect on behavioral intention comes from learning
opportunities and not from usefulness. This suggests that beliefs
concerning the learning opportunities that games offer, play a
more pronounced role than the general belief that games can help
teachers in their job performance. This finding is interesting as use-
fulness is typically the most important predictor of behavioral
intention (Davis, 1989). What is more, the relation of ease of use
and experience with usefulness is fully mediated through learning
opportunities. Considering the strong relation between learning
opportunities and usefulness, it seems that the association be-
tween ease of use and experience on the one hand and learning
opportunities on the other takes up most of the shared variance.
This causes the relation with usefulness to be non-significant.
While it is argued that learning opportunities and usefulness are
conceptually different and that discriminant validity and the corre-
lation analysis confirm this, the relation between those concepts
deserves further scrutiny. Based on the results of this study it
seems that learning opportunities could serve as a replacement
for usefulness since it takes into account the variance of ease of
use and experience while also explaining more variance in behav-
ioral intention.
When considering all relations with behavioral intention, we
see that learning opportunities, curriculum-relatedness and expe-
rience play a significant role. For curriculum-relatedness this effect
is for the most part mediated through learning opportunities. This
means that when teachers believe that digital games can be fitted
into the curriculum, they will also be regarded as tools for learning,
which in turn will lead to a higher adoption intention. Hence,
learning opportunities serve as a go-between for curriculum-relat-
edness. This finding is in line with previous research in which
curriculum-relatedness and learning opportunities were both
considered as facilitating factors. Moreover, this study points out
 F. De Grove et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 28 (2012) 2023–2033
Fig. 2. Model with standardized regression coefficients.
that both concepts are closely related. While the association of cur-
riculum-relatedness with the adoption intention is mainly indirect,
there is also a direct one. It suggests that if ease of use, learning
opportunities and usefulness are held constant, there is still shared
variance with behavioral intention. So if digital games fit the
curriculum, on average, teachers will be inclined to use them
regardless of the fact that they provide learning opportunities or
opportunities for better job performance.
The relation of experience with behavioral intention is not only
direct, but also mediated by curriculum-relatedness and learning
opportunities. The finding that experience negatively relates to
learning opportunities is remarkable, especially since they are
positively correlated (see Table 3). This can be explained when
considering that the valence of beliefs resulting from hands-on
experience can vary from negative to positive. The shared variance
of experience with ease of use and curriculum-relatedness results
in positive associations while the remaining variance in experi-
ence is negatively associated with learning opportunities. In other
words, if curriculum-relatedness and ease of use are controlled for
and thus held constant, teachers having experience with games in
the classroom will, on average, consider digital games to have
fewer learning opportunities than teachers with less experience.
This shows the ambivalence of the experience construct. While
experience changes initial beliefs on the use of technology, these
changes are not necessarily positive. Hence, the beliefs concerning
ease of use and curriculum-relatedness relate to positive changes
in experience, whereas negative views due to experience suggest
a decrease in perceived learning opportunities. The complex role
played by experience deserves further research. It would be
interesting to see what factors contribute to positive and negative
2029
experiences and how they relate to relevant adoption determi-
nants.
The relation of ease of use with behavioral intention is fully
mediated by learning opportunities. This is remarkable since previ-
ous research has shown that this effect can be overemphasized in
the initial stages of adoption. Ease of use relates to the skills that
are needed to use digital games in a classroom. Available literature
has identified lack of skill as an important barrier to adoption
(Ketelhut & Schifter, 2011; Sandford et al., 2006; Wastiau & Kear-
ney, 2009). It is, however, logical that there is no direct effect on
behavioral intention. Just knowing how to use digital games in a
classroom might be a necessary but not a sufficient condition to
use them. It is only when digital games are considered to be useful
in terms of learning opportunities that teachers will be inclined to
use digital games in the classroom. Thus, while skills play an
important role in the adoption of digital games, this study suggests
that they are to be considered as an antecedent of learning oppor-
tunities. Once teachers know how to implement digital games in
the classroom, they will be able to judge the learning opportunities
offered by games which will in turn positively influence the adop-
tion decision. Considering the strong relation of ease of use with
experience, this again points to the importance of the role played
by experience in the adoption process.
As for experience and curriculum-relatedness, it shows that
teachers with more experience will on average consider digital
games as more suited to fit the curriculum than teachers with
less experience. In turn, curriculum-relatedness will influence
the adoption intention of teachers directly as well as indirectly
through learning opportunities. In this respect it is interesting
to note that experience also relates to curriculum-relatedness
2030 F. De Grove et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 28 (2012) 2023–2033
and thus also influences behavioral intention through this path.
These findings confirm existing research and again underline
the importance of experience. Since experience is mediated by
important antecedents of behavioral intention, the adoption
decision could be influenced by providing teachers with hands-
on experience with games. This will in turn influence curricu-
lum-relatedness and learning opportunities. This is in line with
the study performed by Becker in which it is argued that the
success of digital games starts with the training of teachers
(2007).
The relation of curriculum-relatedness with behavioral inten-
tion is mediated by learning opportunities and usefulness. This
suggests that when digital games are perceived as fitting the cur-
riculum that they will also be perceived as useful tools offering
learning opportunities and job performance which in turn posi-
tively influences the adoption intention. This can be useful when
evaluating which kinds of games to use for education and how to
use them. In academia, a debate exists as to what games to use in
the classroom: existing commercial games or special-purpose
educational ones (Van Eck, 2006). The former often boast signifi-
cantly larger budgets permitting to invest more in the quality of
the experience whereas the latter are more directly aimed at
learning and compatibility with the curriculum. While some
authors have proclaimed digital games to be the lever making a
more constructivist approach towards education possible, one
can wonder to what extent such digital games will be adopted
in the classroom. In light of these findings, it might be tempting
to advocate the implementation of digital games in a learning
context by promoting games that fit the boundaries of contempo-
rary education rather than the other way around. From a teacher’s
perspective, using commercial off-the-shelf games designed with-
out specific curriculum-related learning outcomes might not be
the best way to integrate digital games in the classroom. How-
ever, when considering the joint importance of experience and
curriculum-relatedness such an assumption is not as straightfor-
ward as it seems. Findings from this study point towards the
ambivalent nature of experience. Experience is not necessarily po-
sitive. In fact, much depends on the game that is being used and
how it is received by students. If students react negatively, the
experience of the teacher could very well be negative, regardless
of the learning content that is present in a game. This points to-
wards the tension between experience and curriculum-related-
ness. Digital games that closely follow the curriculum are
sometimes referred to as edutainment and have been called
‘‘chocolate-covered broccoli’’ (Bruckman, 1999). Focusing on
learning content typically downplays the ability of digital games
to provide an engaging and enjoyable playing experience (Egen-
feldt-Nielsen, 2005). The challenge in successfully implementing
digital games in education hence lies in reconciling two appar-
ently contrasting requirements. Digital games should fit the cur-
riculum while they should at the same time provide teachers
with positive experiences when implementing such games into
the classroom. Using edutainment might fulfill the need for cur-
riculum-relatedness and will be less demanding in terms of hard-
ware. While this could initially provide a positive experience, the
question remains as to what extent students will appreciate these
kinds of games. Conversely, commercial games could be more
appealing to students, thus providing positive feedback to the tea-
cher. However, they will be harder to fit into the curriculum and
are more demanding in terms of hardware. This might in turn re-
sult in a negative experience. Considering the strong link of expe-
rience with curriculum-relatedness, future research should take
the content of games into account when studying the role of
experience.
6. Conclusion
Previous studies have identified a range of adoption determi-
nants of digital games in the classroom. This study explored and
explained the relation between those determinants. It does so
based on a representative sample while building on a robust and
accepted conceptual framework. Furthermore, this study takes tea-
cher- as well as school-level determinants into account and how
they relate to each other. At this stage in the adoption process,
our data suggest that factors on a school level do not influence
the individual adoption decision of a teacher. As digital games find
their way into the classroom, future research could evaluate if and
how this relation changes over time.
On a teacher level, experience and curriculum-relatedness play
a crucial role in the successful integration of digital games in for-
mal education. It goes without saying that both aspects are inter-
twined. Making teachers and pre-service teachers familiar with
using digital games in an educational context can only be success-
ful when adequate content is available. Yet, familiarizing teachers
and pre-service teachers with digital games will also allow point-
ing out existing games with relevant content and how to use them.
Policy makers aiming to facilitate the adoption of digital games in
education should therefore be aware that training is only useful
when adequate and hence curriculum-related content is available.
Experience is not only expected to play a crucial role as antecedent
of the key predictors in the model. It seems that it is also an impor-
tant factor in the adoption process that connects individual deter-
minants with determinants on the school level. Therefore, once
teachers and pre-service teachers have become familiar with the
use of digital games in the classroom, a follow-up study could
investigate if and how school level determinants start to play a
role.
On a conceptual level, adding antecedents to the original TAM
structure results in a considerable amount of variance explained
in behavioral intention, usefulness and ease of use. It therefore im-
proves the explanatory power of the original TAM and identifies
important antecedents of usefulness and ease of use with regard
to the adoption of digital games in a formal educational context.
This study thereby answers the call of the field to look for anteced-
ents of ease of use and usefulness to enhance the explanatory
power of the TAM (Legris et al., 2003). Our results, however, sug-
gest a step that might go further than just adding antecedents to
the core TAM model. When looking at the role played by learning
opportunities in the model and comparing this with the role of
usefulness, it seems that learning opportunities could serve as a
replacement for usefulness rather than as an antecedent. The
explanation might be that the concept of learning opportunities
is more focused on the core job of teachers, namely the transfer
of learning content, than that of usefulness. It is beyond the scope
of this study to further explore this issue but future studies might
consider an adapted model when studying the adoption of digital
games in the classroom.
7. Limitations
This study is cross-sectional in design. To better understand the
process of game adoption and the impact of different determinants
over time, a longitudinal approach is essential (Lee, Kozar, & Lar-
sen, 2003). Although representative, the population is limited to
Flemish schools and teachers offering secondary education. More-
over, we had no control over possible self-selection effects for
teachers and schools. Another issue concerns the current state of
the adoption of digital games in an educational environment. As
 F. De Grove et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 28 (2012) 2023–2033 2031

the use of digital games in education is still in its early stages, a
majority of teachers has yet to develop beliefs and attitudes to-
wards this medium. This again calls for a longitudinal approach. Fi-
nally, it should be noted that behavioral intention is not the same
as actual use (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Future research could look
into actual use and how it relates to behavioral intention.
Acknowledgements
This study was sponsored by the Flemish government, the King
Baudouin Foundation and the Interdisciplinary Institute for Broad-
band Technology. It was also supported by the Research Founda-
tion Flanders.

Appendix A

Table 1 Usefulness Digital games enhance the quality of my job

Convergent validity. Digital games in my job increases my
N Variance extracted Coefficient a productivity
Digital games enhances my effectiveness in
U 5 .63 .86
EOU 2 .61 .74
my job
LO 5 .57 .89 I find digital games to be useful in my job
EXP 2 .88 .93 Using digital games makes teaching easy
CURR 2 .53 .69
BI 2 .84 .92 Ease of use I know how to use digital games in
classroom setting
Note: EOU = ease of use; U = usefulness; LO = learning opportunities; BI = behavioral
intention; EXP = experience; CURR = curriculum-relatedness. I have the necessary skills to use digital
games in a classroom setting

Experience I have used digital games before in the

classroom
Table 2 I have experience with the use of digital
Discriminant validity.
games in the classroom
VE construct A VE construct B Squared correlations
Learning Digital games offer opportunities to
BI  U .84 .63 .40 opportunities experiment with knowledge
BI  EOU .84 .61 .36
BI  LO .84 .57 .40
Digital games offer opportunities to take
BI  EXP .84 .88 .27 control over the learning process
BI  CURR .84 .53 .25 Digital games offer opportunities to
U  EOU .63 .61 .26 experience things you learn about
U  LO .63 .57 .53
Digital games offer opportunities to
U  EXP .63 .88 .11
U  CURR .63 .53 .22 stimulate transfer between various subjects
EOU  LO .61 .57 .21 Digital games offer opportunities to think
EOU  EXP .61 .88 .46 critically
EOU  CURR .61 .53 .17 Digital games offer opportunities to
LO  EXP .57 .88 .07
LO  CURR .57 .53 .21
motivate students
EXP  CURR .88 .53 .11
Curriculum- Digital games fit the curriculum
relatedness
It is clear how digital games can be used to
fit the curriculum
Table 3 Behavioral I’m planning to use digital games in the
Correlation matrix for teacher level variables.
intention classroom
EXP BI U EOU LO In the future, I intend to use digital games in
BI .51 the classroom
U .33 .61
EOU .65 .49 .38
LO .26 .57 .72 .36
CURR .33 .46 .46 .33 .43

Note: all correlations are significant at the 0.001 level. Appendix B

Tables 1–5.

Table 4
Standardized direct and indirect effects.

EXP CURR EOU LO U

Indirect Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Direct
CURR 0 .40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EOU .06 .75 0 .16 0 0 0 0 0 0
LO .50 .20 .06 .50 0 .36 0 0 0 0
U .26 (.09) .39 .17 .25 (.00) 0 .69 0 0
BI .22 .21 .29 .17 .17 (.13) .14 .31 0 .21

Note: numbers between parentheses are not significant.

2032 F. De Grove et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 28 (2012) 2023–2033

Table 5
Hypotheses results.

Hypothesis Results
H1a Usefulness will be positively associated with behavioral intention Confirmed
H1b Ease of use will be positively associated with behavioral intention Not confirmed
H1c Ease of use will be positively associated with usefulness Not confirmed
H2a Learning opportunities will be positively associated with behavioral intention Confirmed
H2b Learning opportunities will be positively associated with usefulness Confirmed
H2c Ease of use will be positively associated with learning opportunities Confirmed
H3a Experience with using games in the classroom will be positively associated with behavioral intention Confirmed
H3b Experience with using games in the classroom will be positively associated with usefulness Confirmed
H3c Experience with using games in the classroom will be positively associated with learning opportunities Not confirmed
H3d Experience with using games in the classroom will be positively associated with ease of use Confirmed
H4a Curriculum-relatedness will be positively associated with behavioral intention Confirmed
H4b Curriculum-relatedness will be positively associated with usefulness Confirmed
H4c Curriculum-relatedness will be positively associated with learning opportunities Confirmed
H4d Curriculum-relatedness will be positively associated with ease of use Confirmed
H4e Experience will be positively associated with curriculum-relatedness Confirmed
H5a ICT infrastructure will be positively associated with behavioral intention Not confirmed
H5b Technical support will be positively associated with behavioral intention Not confirmed
H5c Perceived ease of implementation will be positively associated with behavioral intention Not confirmed
H5d Perceived usefulness will be positively associated with behavioral intention Not confirmed
H5e Learning opportunities will be positively associated with behavioral intention Not confirmed
H5f Cost will be positively associated with behavioral intention Not confirmed

References Dickey, M. D. (2007). Game design and learning: A conjectural analysis of how
massively multiple online role-playing games (MMORPGs) foster intrinsic
motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 253–273.
Admiraal, W., Huizenga, J., Akkerman, S., & Dam, G. (2011). The concept of flow in
Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2004). Practical barriers in using educational computer
collaborative game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3),
games. On the Horizon, 12(1), 18–21.
1185–1194.
Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2005). Beyond edutainment exploring the educational
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. INJ.
potential of computer games. Future.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2006). Overview of research on the educational use of video
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
games. Digital Kompetanse, 1(3), 184–213.
Aliya, S. K. (2002). The role of computer games in the development of theoretical
Eow, Y. L., & Baki, R. (2009). Form one students’ engagement with computer games
analysis, flexibility and reflective thinking in children: A longitudinal study.
and its effect on their academic achievement in a Malaysian secondary school.
International Journal of Psychophysiology, 45(149).
Computers and Education, 53(4), 1082–1091.
Andrews, G., Woodruff, E., MacKinnon, K., & Yoon, S. (2003). Concept development
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for
for kindergarten children through a health simulation. Journal of Computer
technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development,
Assisted Learning, 19(2), 209–219.
53(4), 25–39.
Antonietti, A., & Cantoia, M. (2000). To see a painting versus to walk in a painting:
Fishbein, M. (1979). A theory of reasoned action: Some applications and implications.
An experiment on sense-making through virtual reality. Computers and
Habgood, M. P. J. (2007). The effective integration of digital games and learning
Education, 34(3), 213–223.
content. University of Nottingham.
Baek, Y. K. (2008). What hinders teachers in using computer and video games in the
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate data
classroom? Exploring factors inhibiting the uptake of computer and video
analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
games. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 11(6), 665–671.
Henderson, L. (2005). Video games: A significant cognitive artifact of contemporary
Bagozzi, R. P. (2007). The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal
youth culture.
for a paradigm shift. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4),
Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Routledge.
244–254.
Hu, P. J. H., Clark, T. H. K., & Ma, W. W. (2003). Examining technology acceptance by school
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
teachers: A longitudinal study. Information and Management, 41(2), 227–241.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191.
Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new
Becker, K. (2007). Digital game based learning once removed: Teaching teachers.
philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development,
British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 478–488.
39(3), 5–14.
Becker, K., & Jacobsen, D. M. (2005). Games for learning: Are schools ready for
Kebritchi, M. (2010). Factors affecting teachers’ adoption of educational computer
what’s to come? In DIGRA changing views – Worlds in play. Vancouver.
games: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 256–270.
Blunch, N. J. (2008). Introduction to structural equation modelling using SPSS and
Kebritchi, M., & Hirumi, A. (2008). Examining the pedagogical foundations of
AMOS.
modern educational computer games. Computers and Education, 51(4),
Bogost, I. (2007). Persuasive games: The expressive power of videogames. The MIT
1729–1743.
Press.
Kenny, R. F., & McDaniel, R. (2011). The role teachers’ expectations and value
Bourgonjon, J., Valcke, M., Soetaert, R., & Schellens, T. (2010). Students’ perceptions
assessments of video games play in their adopting and integrating them into
about the use of video games in the classroom. Computers and Education, 54(4),
their classrooms. British Journal of Educational Technology.
1145–1156.
Ketelhut, D. J., & Schifter, C. C. (2011). Teachers and game-based learning:
Bruckman, A. (1999). Can educational be fun. Game developers conference (Vol. 99).
Improving understanding of how to increase efficacy of adoption. Computers
CA: San Jose.
and Education, 56(2), 539–546.
Chuttur, M. (2009). Overview of the technology acceptance model: Origins,
Kirriemuir, J. (2002). The relevance of video games and gaming consoles to the higher
developments and future directions. In Working papers on information systems
and further education learning experience. Techwatch report TSW, 2.
(Vol. 9). Sprouts, USA: Indiana University.
Lee, Y., Kozar, K. A., & Larsen, K. R. T. (2003). The technology acceptance model: Past,
Crawford, C. (1982). The art of computer game design. Osborne/McGraw-Hill.
present, and future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems,
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with
12(1), 50.
everyday life. Basic Books.
Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information
Davis, F. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user
technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information
information systems: Theory and results. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
and Management, 40(3), 191–204.
Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
Lepper, M. R., & Chabay, R. W. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and instruction:
information technology. Mis Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Conflicting views on the role of motivational processes in computer-based
Davis, F., & Venkatesh, V. (1996). A critical assessment of potential measurement
education. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 217–230.
biases in the technology acceptance model: Three experiments. International
McFarlane, A., Sparrowhawk, A., & Heald, Y. (2002). Report on the educational use of
Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 45(1), 19–45.
games: An exploration by TEEM of the contribution which games can make to the
De Castell, S., & Jenson, J. (2003). Serious play. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(6),
education process.
649–665.
 F. De Grove et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 28 (2012) 2023–2033
Michael, D., & Chen, S. (2006). Serious games: Games that educate, train, and inform.
Boston, MA: Thomson Course Technology.
Mitchell, A., & Savill-Smith, C. (2004). The use of computer and video games for
learning: A review of the literature.
Mumtaz, S. (2001). Children’s enjoyment and perception of computer use in the
home and the school. Computers and Education, 36(4), 347–362.
Oblinger, D. G. (2004). The next generation of educational engagement. Journal of
Interactive Media in Education (1).
O’Boyle, C. A., Henly, S. J., & Larson, E. (2001). Understanding adherence to hand
hygiene recommendations: The theory of planned behavior. American Journal of
Infection Control, 29(6), 352–360.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books
Inc..
Paraskeva, F., Bouta, H., & Papagianni, A. (2008). Individual characteristics and
computer self-efficacy in secondary education teachers to integrate technology
in educational practice. Computers and Education, 50(3), 1084–1091.
Paraskeva, F., Mysirlaki, S., & Papagianni, A. (2010). Multiplayer online games as
educational tools: Facing new challenges in learning. Computers and Education,
54(2), 498–505.
Park, H. S., Levine, T. R., & Sharkey, W. F. (1998). The theory of reasoned action and
self-construals: Understanding recycling in Hawai’i. Communication Studies,
49(3), 196–208.
Piaget, J. (1952). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 16(5), 413–414.
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation (Vol. 24). New York: Norton.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5),
1–6.
Price, S., & Rogers, Y. (2004). Let’s get physical: The learning benefits of interacting
in digitally augmented physical spaces. Computers and Education, 43(1–2),
137–151.
Rice, J. W. (2007). New media resistance: Barriers to implementation of computer
video games in the classroom. Learning and Teaching with Electronic Games, 35.
Sandford, R., Ulicsak, M., & Facer, K. (2006). Teaching with games: Using computer
games in formal education. Bristol: Futurelab.
2033
Sisler, V., & Brom, C. (2008). Designing an educational game: Case study of ‘Europe
2045’. Transactions on Edutainment I, 5080, 1–16.
Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness
of computer-based simulation games. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 489–528.
Squire, K. (2004). Replaying history: Learning world history through playing civilization
III. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University.
Sumak, B., Hericko, M., & Pusnik, M. (2011). A meta-analysis of e-learning
technology acceptance: The role of user types and e-learning technology
types. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2067–2077.
Sutton-Smith, B. (2001). The ambiguity of play. Harvard University Press.
Turkle, S. (1985). The second self. Simon & Schuster.
Tüzün, H. (2007). Blending video games with learning: Issues and challenges with
classroom implementations in the Turkish context. British Journal of Education
Technology, 38(3), 465–477.
_
Tüzün, H., Yılmaz-Soylu, M., Karakusß, T., Inal, Y., & Kızılkaya, G. (2009). The effects of
computer games on primary school students’ achievement and motivation in
geography learning. Computers and Education, 52(1), 68–77.
Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It’s not just the digital natives who
are restless. Educase Review, 41(2), 16–30.
Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control,
intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model.
Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology
acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2),
186–204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unified view. Mis Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
Vygotskiı̌, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Harvard Univ Pr..
Wastiau, P., & Kearney, C. (2009). How are digital games used in schools. Evaluation,
54.
Wrzesien, M., & Alcan ß iz Raya, M. (2010). Learning in serious virtual worlds:
Evaluation of learning effectiveness and appeal to students in the E-Junior
project. Computers and Education, 55(1), 178–187.