The Role of Perceived Ease of Use and Usefulness in Students' Adoption of Gamification Technologies: Evidence from Malaysia

This study applies to the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to explore the factors shaping students' intentions to adopt gamification tools in educational settings. Specifically, it investigates how perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness influence the adoption intentions of 137 undergraduate accounting students from a public university in Malaysia. Using SmartPLS for analysis, the results reveal that perceived usefulness strongly impacts students' behavioral intention, while perceived ease of use does not show a significant effect. The research validates the TAM within the Malaysian context and offers valuable insights for both academic research and practical applications in the adoption of technology in higher education.

Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use

1. Alharbi, S., & Drew, S. (2014). Using the technology acceptance model in understanding academics’ behavioural intention to use learning management systems. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 5(1), 143-155. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Başal, A., & Kaynak, N. E. (2020) Perceptions of pre-service English teachers towards the use of digital badges. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 57(2), 148-162. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2019.1649172. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 624-640. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Colling, J., Wollschläger, R., Keller, U., Preckel, F., & Fischbach, A. (2022). Need for cognition and its relation to academic achievement in different learning environments. Learning and Individual Differences, 93, 102110 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: defining" gamification". In Proceedings of the 15th international academic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media environments (pp. 9-15). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Ding, L., Er, E., & Orey, M. (2018). An exploratory study of student engagement in gamified online discussions. Computers & Education, 120, 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.007. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In 2014 47th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp. 3025-3034). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.377 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Hsu, C. & Lu, H. (2007). Consumer behavior in online game community: A motivational factor perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1642-1659. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Kaimara, P., Fokides, E., Oikonomou, A., & Deliyannis, I. (2021). Potential barriers to the implementation of digital game-based learning in the classroom: Pre-service teachers’ views. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 26(4), 825-844 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and strategies for training and education. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Leng, G., & Lada, S. (2011). An exploration of Social Networking Sites (SNS) adoption in Malaysia using Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) And Intrinsic Motivation. Journal of Internet Banking & Commerce, 16(2), 1- 27. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Lin, C. T., & Chuang, S. S. (2017). Project-based Learning incorporating Interdisciplinary Curriculums Increase Learners' Satisfaction. International Journal of Education and Social Science, 4(9), 29-39 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Martí-Parreño, J., Galbis-Córdova, A., & Currás-Pérez, R. (2021). Teachers’ beliefs about gamification and competencies development: A concept mapping approach. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 58(1), 84-94, doi: 10.1080/14703297.2019.1683464. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. O'Connor, D. L., & Menaker, E. S. (2008). Can massively multiplayer online gaming environments support team training?. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(3), 23- 41 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Pfost, M., & Artelt, C. (2013). Reading literacy development in secondary school and the effect of differential institutional learning environments. Schriften der Fakultät Humanwissenschaften der Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, 229 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Rodríguez, M., Díaz, I., Gonzalez, E. J., & González-Miquel, M. (2018). Motivational active learning: An integrated approach to teaching and learning process control. Education for Chemical Engineers, 24, 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2018.06.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2016). An investigation of the factors that influence pre-service teachers’ intentions and integration of Web 2.0 tools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(1), 37-64 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Sánchez-Mena, A., Martí-Parreño, J., & Miquel-Romero, M. J. (2019). Higher education instructors’ intention to use educational video games: An QCA approach. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67, 1455-1478. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Toda, A.M., Klock, A.C.T., Oliveira, W. et al. Analysing gamification elements in educational environments using an existing Gamification taxonomy. Smart Learn. Environ. 6, 16 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-019-0106-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273-315. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Wu, J. H., & Wang, S. C. (2005). What Drives Mobile Commerce? An Empirical Evaluation of the Revised Technology Acceptance Model. Information & Management, 42(5), 719-729 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. 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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Yoo, C., Kwon, S., Na, H., & Chang, B. (2017). Factors affecting the adoption of gamified smart tourism applications: An integrative approach. Sustainability, 9, 1-21. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Zacharis, N. Z. (2012). Predicting college students' acceptance of podcasting as a learning tool. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 9(3) (2012), 171-183 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics in web and mobile apps. O'Reilly Media, Inc. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Role of Value and Growth Stocks in Portfolio Returns: Insights From the Nigerian Stock Market
• The Impact of Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) and Profitability on Firm Value Moderated by Firm Size
• Assessment of the Impact of Environmental Operating Costs on Return on Assets: Evidence from Listed Breweries in Nigeria
• Mobile Money and Digital Financial Services Ecosystem in Adamawa State
• A Quantitative Approach of Professional Skepticism and Fraud Detection among Malaysian Internal Auditors