Predicting Adoption Intentions of Game Simulators in Algorithmic Thinking Development: Applying and Extending UTAUT in Nigerian Higher Education

This study investigated students' behavioral intentions toward adopting game simulators for algorithmic thinking development using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) framework. A cross-sectional survey design was employed to collect data from 611 computing students across nine universities in Northeast Nigeria through a two-stage sampling procedure involving purposive selection of computing faculties followed by random student sampling. A structured questionnaire based on validated UTAUT scales measured performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, and behavioral intention. Data were analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLSSEM) with SmartPLS 4.0 software. The measurement model demonstrated adequate reliability and validity, with Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranging from 0.80 to 0.89. Results showed that performance expectancy (β = 0.28, p < 0.01), effort expectancy (β = 0.22, p < 0.05), and social influence (β = 0.19, p < 0.05) significantly predicted behavioral intention, explaining 27% of variance (R² = 0.27). Facilitating conditions showed no significant effect (β = 0.09, p > 0.05), suggesting infrastructural support does not directly influence adoption intentions. Behavioral intention significantly predicted actual usage behavior (β = 0.41, p < 0.001, R² = 0.17). Gender moderated the performance expectancy-behavioral intention relationship, with stronger effects for male students (β = 0.34) than female students (β = 0.19). These findings demonstrate that game simulator adoption is primarily driven by perceived usefulness, ease of use, and social endorsement. The study provides actionable insights for educators and policymakers, suggesting that successful implementation requires demonstrating educational benefits, ensuring intuitive design, and leveraging peer influence and instructor advocacy

Game simulators, algorithmic thinking, UTAUT

1. M. S. Olajide and O. Adetunji, "EdTech in Nigerian universities," African J. Education and Technology, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 89-102, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. M. N. Yakubu and S. I. Dasuki, "Factors influencing e-learning adoption in Nigeria," Education and Information Technologies, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. S. Deterding et al., "Adaptive games for computational thinking," Educational Technology Research and Development, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. D. Hooshyar et al., "Adaptive games for computational thinking," Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 68, pp. 1867-1889, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Y. Georgiou and T. Bratitsis, "Phygital games for programming," Computers & Education, vol. 210, p. 104968, 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. T.-C. Hsu and S.-Y. Wang, "Puzzle-based games for algorithmic thinking," Computers & Education, vol. 126, pp. 256-270, 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. M. Videnovik et al., "Game-based learning in CS," Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 2123-2136, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. R. Burbaite et al., "Educational games for computational thinking," Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 80, pp. 123-134, 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. V. J. Shute et al., "Measuring problem-solving in games," J. Educational Psychology, vol. 109, no. 3, pp. 425-438, 2017. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. K. Douadi et al., "Micro worlds for algorithmic thinking," Procedia Computer Science, vol. 9, pp. 188-197, 2012. W. M. Albert, "Games in CS education," 2016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. A. N. Varnavsky, "Games in CS education," Programming and Computer Software, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 45-52, 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. O. S. Fasola and A. Akinyemi, "Technology adoption in Nigerian universities," 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. J. Xu et al., "AI chatbots in learning," Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 150, pp. 108-119, 2024. 15. V. Venkatesh et al., "User acceptance of information technology," MIS Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 425-478, 2003. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. A. Luhamya, A. Bakkabulindi, and P. B. Muyinda, "UTAUT model applications," 2017. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. A. Tarhini, R. E. Masa'deh, K. A. Al-Busaidi, A. B. Mohammed, and M. Maqableh, "Factors influencing students' adoption of e-learning: a structural equation modeling approach," J. International Education in Business, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 164-182, 2017. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. N. A. Dahri, N. Yahaya, W. M. Al-Rahmi, A. S. Almogren, and M. S. Vighio, "Investigating factors affecting teachers' training through mobile learning: Task technology fit perspective," Education and Information Technologies, vol. 29, no. 12, pp. 14553-14589, 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. L. Zheng, A. He, Y. Feng, X. Gu, and S. Chen, "Steering through digital transformation: Collective technology adoption in educational institutional culture," in Interdisciplinary Approach to Fostering Change in Schools, IGI Global, 2024, pp. 251-284. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. O. F. Buraimoh, C. H. Boor, and G. A. Aladesusi, "Examining facilitating condition and social influence as determinants of secondary school teachers' behavioural intention to use mobile technologies for instruction," Indonesian J. Educational Research and Technology, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 25-34, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Y. M. Wang, C. L. Wei, and M. W. Wang, "Factors influencing students' adoption intention of brain– computer interfaces in a game-learning context," Library Hi Tech, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 1594-1620, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. S. Hennessy et al., "Barriers to technology in African education," British J. Educational Technology, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 437-450, 2010. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. C. Kazimoglu et al., "Game-based learning for programming," British J. Educational Technology, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 643-654, 2012. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. J. M. Wing, "Computational thinking," Communications of the ACM, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 33-35, 2006. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Hair et al. (2017) - The foundational textbook on PLS-SEM that explains the "10-times rule" for sample size [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. SmartPLS 4 software citation - The analytical tool used in the study [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Hair et al. (2011) - The methodological paper supporting the use of PLS-SEM [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Green Synthesis of Calcium Oxide Nanoparticles from Pigeon Eggshells for Cement Composites
• Needs Analysis: Development of an Interactive Digital Storybook in Teaching Mixtures and their Characteristics among Grade 6 Learners
• Thickness Dependent Structural, Optical, Electrical and Gas Sensing properties of ZnO thin film
• Forensic Chemistry Laboratory Works from Home: Challenges Encountered by Criminology Students During the Conduct of their Laboratory Activities at Home
• The Concept of Wellness Club and How it Differs from the Present Gym?