Exploring Influential Factors in Engineering Students’ Adoption of Mobile-Based Gamified Learning
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v22i03.59127Keywords:
Quality Education, Students’ Acceptance, Mobile-Based Gamification Learning, Technology Acceptance ModelAbstract
Gamification in education has gained increasing popularity as a means to promote quality education, particularly when integrated with mobile technology to create engaging and accessible learning environments that align with technological advancements. However, a more comprehensive understanding is needed regarding students’ acceptance of such technology, especially in the context of the electrical machinery course. This study investigates students’ acceptance of mobile-based gamified learning (MoGaLearn) in the instruction of electrical machinery. Student acceptance is assessed through the actual use (AU) variable, based on the technology acceptance model (TAM) framework. The theoretical model employed includes key determinants such as perceived ease of use (PEU), perceived usefulness (PU), attitude toward use (A), and behavioral intention (BI). A quantitative, survey-based approach was adopted, involving 136 engineering students who completed a structured questionnaire. Data were analyzed using variance-based structural equation modeling (VB-SEM). The findings reveal that students of the Industrial Electrical Engineering program demonstrate a high level of acceptance toward MoGaLearn in the electrical machinery course. The constructs PEU, PU, A, and BI were empirically found to have a positive and significant influence on students’ acceptance of MoGaLearn. These results highlight the importance of considering these factors in the design, development, selection, and implementation of gamification learning tools in engineering education.
References
[1] A. I. Montero-Izquierdo, J. S. Jeong, and D. González-Gómez, “A future classroom lab with active and gamified STEAM proposal for mathematics and science disciplines: Analyzing the effects on pre-service teacher’s affective domain,” Heliyon, vol. 10, no. 16, p. e35911, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.1016/J.HELIYON.2024.E35911.
[2] W. Kian Tan, M. Shahrizal Sunar, and E. Su Goh, “Analysis of the college underachievers’ transformation via gamified learning experience,” Entertain Comput, vol. 44, p. 100524, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1016/J.ENTCOM.2022.100524.
[3] A. Khaoula, L. Mohamed, E. Aya, A. O. Younes, L. M. Driss, and O. Mustapha, “EduXgame: Gamified learning for secondary education,” Software Impacts, vol. 24, p. 100761, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.1016/J.SIMPA.2025.100761.
[4] H. N. Le, A. Cuenen, T. A. Trinh, D. Janssens, G. Wets, and K. Brijs, “Investigating the immediate and mid-term effect of a gamified e-learning platform for the enhancement of traffic knowledge and skills among Vietnamese adolescents operating powered two-wheelers,” J Safety Res, vol. 90, pp. 62–72, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.1016/J.JSR.2024.06.005.
[5] L. R. Murillo-Zamorano, J. Á. López-Sánchez, M. J. López-Rey, and C. Bueno-Muñoz, “Gamification in higher education: The ECOn+ star battles,” Comput Educ, vol. 194, p. 104699, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2022.104699.
[6] E. Ratinho and C. Martins, “The role of gamified learning strategies in student’s motivation in high school and higher education: A systematic review,” Heliyon, vol. 9, no. 8, p. e19033, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.1016/J.HELIYON.2023.E19033.
[7] F. A. Kareem and P. A. Michael, “An investigation on applications of additive manufacturing of electrical machines,” Mater Today Proc, vol. 58, pp. 86–90, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1016/J.MATPR.2021.12.590.
[8] D. T. P. Yanto, G. Ganefri, S. Sukardi, R. Kurani, and J. P. Yanto, “Examining The Practicality of Mobile-Based Gamification Assessment in Electrical Machine Course: A Study in Industrial Electrical Engineering,” Journal of Applied Engineering and Technological Science, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 349–360, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.37385/jaets.v5i1.2803.
[9] D. T. P. Yanto et al., “Innovative Laboratory Learning: A Study Evaluating the Practicality of Integrated E-Worksheets with Augmented Reality in Electrical Machines Course,” International Journal of Information and Education Technology, vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 996–1005, 2024, doi: 10.18178/ijiet.2024.14.7.2127.
[10] S. Sandoval Pérez, J. M. González López, M. Brambila Pelayo, and J. E. Molinar Solis, “Teaching three-phase half-wave power electronic rectifier with gamified augmented reality support,” Alexandria Engineering Journal, vol. 99, pp. 335–346, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.1016/J.AEJ.2024.04.077.
[11] F. Yang, “Optimization of gamified Learning Education Model based on XR + 5G technology,” Entertain Comput, vol. 51, p. 100731, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.1016/J.ENTCOM.2024.100731.
[12] F. D. Davis, R. P. Bagozzi, and P. R. Warshaw, “User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models,” Manage Sci, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 982–1003, 1989, Accessed: Nov. 28, 2024. [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2632151 .
[13] S. R. Natasia, Y. T. Wiranti, and A. Parastika, “Acceptance analysis of NUADU as e-learning platform using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) approach,” Procedia Comput Sci, vol. 197, pp. 512–520, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1016/J.PROCS.2021.12.168.
[14] M. Al Breiki and A. Al-Abri, “The Extended Technology Acceptance Model (ETAM): Examining Students’ Acceptance of Online Learning During COVID-19 Pandemic,” International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, vol. 17, no. 20, pp. 4–19, 2022, doi: 10.3991/ijet.v17i20.29441.
[15] X. Yuan and Q. Zheng, “Analysis of interactive impact and student behavior of teaching online courses based on gamified learning,” Entertain Comput, vol. 50, p. 100672, May 2024, doi: 10.1016/J.ENTCOM.2024.100672.
[16] H. Zhang and F. Li, “The multidimensional influence structure of college students’ online gamified learning engagement: A hybrid design based on QCA-SEM,” Heliyon, vol. 10, no. 18, p. e36485, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.1016/J.HELIYON.2024.E36485.
[17] Z. Ma and W. Li, “Design of online teaching interaction mode for vocational education based on gamified-learning,” Entertain Comput, vol. 50, p. 100647, May 2024, doi: 10.1016/J.ENTCOM.2024.100647.
[18] P. Derrick Dodoo and D. Eshun Yawson, “Towards an understanding of multi-generational higher education cohorts in gamified entrepreneurship education,” Heliyon, vol. 10, no. 11, p. e31689, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1016/J.HELIYON.2024.E31689.
[19] M. Grijalvo, A. Segura, and Y. Núñez, “Computer-based business games in higher education: A proposal of a gamified learning framework,” Technol Forecast Soc Change, vol. 178, p. 121597, May 2022, doi: 10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2022.121597.
[20] M. C. Kao, Y. H. Yuan, and Y. X. Wang, “The study on designed gamified mobile learning model to assess students’ learning outcome of accounting education,” Heliyon, vol. 9, no. 2, p. e13409, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.1016/J.HELIYON.2023.E13409.
[21] A. Omotosho, T. Tyoden, P. Ayegba, and J. Ayoola, “A Gamified Approach to Improving Student’s Participation in Farm Practice – A Case Study of Landmark University,” International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), vol. 13, no. 05, pp. 94–109, May 2019, doi: 10.3991/IJIM.V13I05.9404.
[22] Y. Navarro-Castillo, I. Pablo-Lerchundi, and G. Morales-Alonso, “Kahoot! as a tool to enhance learning for engineering students in economics & management courses,” The International Journal of Management Education, vol. 23, no. 2, p. 101173, Jul. 2025, doi: 10.1016/J.IJME.2025.101173.
[23] Y. Wirani, T. Nabarian, and M. S. Romadhon, “Evaluation of continued use on Kahoot! as a gamification-based learning platform from the perspective of Indonesia students,” Procedia Comput Sci, vol. 197, pp. 545–556, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1016/J.PROCS.2021.12.172.
[24] V. Venkatesh and F. D. Davis, “Theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies,” Manage Sci, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 186–204, 2000, doi: 10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
[25] N. F. Richter, S. Hauff, A. E. Kolev, and S. Schubring, “Dataset on an extended technology acceptance model: A combined application of PLS-SEM and NCA,” Data Brief, vol. 48, p. 109190, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.1016/J.DIB.2023.109190.
[26] R. Estriegana, J. A. Medina-Merodio, and R. Barchino, “Student acceptance of virtual laboratory and practical work: An extension of the technology acceptance model,” Comput Educ, vol. 135, pp. 1–14, Jul. 2019, doi: 10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2019.02.010.
[27] A. Panagiotarou, Y. C. Stamatiou, C. Pierrakeas, and A. Kameas, “Gamification acceptance for learners with different E-skills,” International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 263–278, 2020, doi: 10.26803/IJLTER.19.2.16.
[28] S. Ç. Yazici, “Examining experienced chemistry teachers’ perception and usage of virtual labs in chemistry classes: a qualitative study using the technology acceptance model 3,” Educ Inf Technol (Dordr), 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10639-023-11985-1.
[29] S. M. E. Sepasgozar, “Immersive on-the-job training module development and modeling users’ behavior using parametric multi-group analysis: A modified educational technology acceptance model,” Technol Soc, vol. 68, p. 101921, Feb. 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHSOC.2022.101921.
[30] S. Huang and H. Zhang, “Gamification acceptance model towards online learning among college students: an empirical study based on mediation and moderation,” Asian Education and Development Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 150–167, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1108/AEDS-11-2023-0152.
[31] A. Alnuaim, “The Impact and Acceptance of Gamification by Learners in a Digital Literacy Course at the Undergraduate Level: Randomized Controlled Trial,” JMIR Serious Games, vol. 12, pp. e52017–e52017, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.2196/52017.
[32] D. T. P. Yanto, F. Eliza, G. Ganefri, S. Sukardi, M. Kabatiah, and A. Andrian, “Android-Based Courseware as an Educational Technology Innovation for Electrical Circuit Course: An Effectiveness Study,” International Journal of Information and Education Technology, vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 1835–1843, 2023, doi: 10.18178/ijiet.2023.13.12.1996.
[33] D. T. P. Yanto et al., “Exploring Student Acceptance of Virtual Laboratory in Learning: The Role of Perceived Relevance and Information Technology Experience,” International Journal of Information and Education Technology, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 478–487, 2025, doi: 10.18178/ijiet.2025.15.3.2259.
[34] F. Anderle, A. Cattoni, P. Venuti, and A. Pasqualotto, “Exploring the impact and acceptability of gamified tools to address educational needs in decoding and writing skills: A pilot study,” Res Dev Disabil, vol. 160, p. 104967, May 2025, doi: 10.1016/J.RIDD.2025.104967.
[35] D. T. P. Yanto, Ganefri, Sukardi, J. P. Yanto, R. Kurani, and Muslim, “Engineering Students’ Acceptance of Augmented Reality Technology Integrated with E-Worksheet in The Laboratory Learning,” International Journal of Online and Biomedical Engineering (iJOE), vol. 20, no. 03, pp. 39–54, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.3991/ijoe.v20i03.46101.
[36] D. T. P. Yanto et al., “The Affecting Factors of Students’ Attitudes Toward the Use of a Virtual Laboratory: A Study in Industrial Electrical Engineering,” International Journal of Online and Biomedical Engineering (iJOE), vol. 19, no. 13, pp. 4–16, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.3991/ijoe.v19i13.41219.
[37] D. T. P. Yanto, Sukardi, M. Kabatiah, H. Zaswita, and O. Candra, “Analysis of Factors Affecting Vocational Students’ Intentions to Use a Virtual Laboratory Based on the Technology Acceptance Model,” International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 94–111, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.3991/ijim.v17i12.38627.
[38] F. D. Davis, “A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems,” 1985. [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/35465050
[39] F. D. Davis, “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology,” MIS Q, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 319–339, 1989, doi: 10.2307/249008.
[40] C. Antonietti, A. Cattaneo, and F. Amenduni, “Can teachers’ digital competence influence technology acceptance in vocational education?,” Comput Human Behav, vol. 132, p. 107266, Jul. 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHB.2022.107266.
[41] J. F. . Hair, G. T. M. . Hult, C. M. . Ringle, and Marko. Sarstedt, A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), Second. Los Angeles: Sage, 2017.
[42] J. Hair and A. Alamer, “Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) in second language and education research: Guidelines using an applied example,” Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, vol. 1, no. 3, p. 100027, Dec. 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RMAL.2022.100027.
[43] D. T. P. Yanto et al., “Evaluating the Practicality of Android-Based Courseware in Enhancing Electrical Circuit Proficiency among Vocational Students,” International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), vol. 18, no. 02, pp. 27–42, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.3991/ijim.v18i02.46341.
[44] G. Dash and J. Paul, “CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM methods for research in social sciences and technology forecasting,” Technol Forecast Soc Change, vol. 173, p. 121092, Dec. 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2021.121092.
[45] R. Sharma, C. Tan, D. Gomez, C. Xu, and A. K. Dubé, “Guiding teachers’ game-based learning: How user experience of a digital curriculum guide impacts teachers’ self-efficacy and acceptance of educational games,” Teach Teach Educ, vol. 155, p. 104915, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.1016/J.TATE.2024.104915.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Oriza Candra, Doni Tri Putra Yanto, Hermi Zaswita, Agariadne Dwinggo Samala, Soha Rawas, Juana Maria Arcelus Ulibarrena
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
