Game-Based Learning (GBL) Success Factors in the Public Higher Education Learning System
Game-Based Learning (GBL) Success Factors in the
Public Higher Education Learning System
M. Norhidayah1,2, N.H.S. Nazmeer1, H. Budiono1,2 and O. Azrina 1,2
1
Faculty of Technology Management and Technopreneurship, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka,
2
Centre for Technopreneurship Development, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka, Malaysia.
norhidayah@utem.edu.my
Abstract—Game-based learning (GBL) is a
form of gaming that leads to learning outcomes.
It is designed to align the subject matter with
how we play the game and the willingness of
the player to apply and execute the matter in
real-life circumstances. GBL defines a modern
form of teaching technique where students are
discovering a significant feature of the game in a
teacher-related learning environment. The goal
of this study is to investigate the performance
of GBL in the quality of learning at higher
public institutions. The questionnaires were
distributed to the target respondents and the
data collected was analyzed using quantitative
analysis methods to identify the study
objectives and its performance. Results have
shown that usefulness, perceived intention to
use, and architectural design have a positive
influence on the relationship to the efficiency
of higher education learning systems. In
conclusion, the outcome reveals that usefulness
is the most important factor affecting the
efficacy of the higher education system.
Keywords—Game-based learning, Usability,
Usefulness, Effectiveness of Learning
I. INTRODUCTION
T HE uses of technology in teaching
and learning plays an important role in
improving understanding among students.
The use of Game-based learning (GBL) helps to
produce results by using the gaming approach.
The game that has been used in GBL is
designed to build a balance within the learning
Article history: Manuscript received 27 August 2020; received in
revised form 17 September 2020; Accepted 17 September 2020.
ISSN: 2590-3551 eISSN: 2600-8122
area between how we play the game and how
the player can treat the real-life scenario by
applying and implementing it. By using GBL in
our learning framework, we benefit a lot not just
from the facts, but also from why and how we
learn it. The acquisition of information through
GBL makes us better understood, completely
equipped to perform reliably, and effective in
the new and unexpected situations [1].
Students are quickly bored by a typical
lecture class and lose their interest. During their
reading hours, they quickly lose concentration.
In higher education, through the introduction
and use of game-based learning, students
become more participative and intuitive [2].
In the 21st-century, the criteria for skills
vary from the skills provided before by our
exiting (or exciting?) learning system [3]. The
innovative and learning skills needed in the 21st
century include critical thinking, imagination,
teamwork, and communication. Moreover, it
is difficult to estimate skills for the 21st century
through traditional evaluation practices such
as common standardized tests [4]. On the other
hand, games need enhanced skills that are
valued by the digital economy in the 21st century
and provide a way to test certain skills that can
be difficult to evaluate [5].
In other continents, GBL is commonly
used. In Asia, too, it is a rising trend. We can
see that game-based learning of Hong Kong
and Singapore has already been extended to
their curricula. Implementing GBL can be an
interactive educational system tool in teaching
at a higher educational level. Thus, this research
aims to study the usability, usefulness, and
perceived intention of GBL in the effectiveness
of the learning system in higher education.
Vol. 4 No. 2 October 2020 39
International Journal of Human and Technology Interaction
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Learning System in Higher Education
Learning is the method where information is
made through the transformation of experience.
Additionally, the mixture of grasping and
transforming experience will result in
knowledge acquisition [6]. Learning systems
could be a system that acknowledges the
mutuality of variable individuals like principals,
assistant principals, teachers, coaches, lecturers,
syllabus and instruction workers, research and
accountability workers enjoying completely
different roles inside advanced institutions
[7]. Different researchers mentioned that a
learning system is a collection of artefacts that
are 'brought together' to make an atmosphere
that may facilitate numerous sorts of learning
methods. It will take a range of various forms
like a book, a computer, a web forum, a college,
and a university. To attain specific learning
outcomes, most learning systems can offer lots
of learning resources and outline of procedures
[8].
At present, world education centres on a
world-class standard program, accenting on
digital literacy from grade school to higher
education. Traditional teaching provision has
never served all groups in society [9]. While
access has greatly improved within the last
decades, the constraints of cash, time, and
location still preclude groups of learners
from collaborating in higher education. This
trend we can see within the case for adults
and a continuous learner. Students in higher
education are a generation that can bring the
country to better progress and will be developed
to be an expert if higher education supports
their learning constantly. In conclusion,
teachers in the higher education system must
have a deep understanding, wide information
access, broad digital literacy, and handy online
learning management. From this skillset, to
promote effectiveness, they can accommodate
advancement and are well prepared to teach
students in the 21st century [10].
B. Game-Based Learning (GBL)
A game is a physical or mental contest that has
specific rules with the aim to amuse or reward
40 ISSN: 2590-3551 eISSN: 2600-8122
the gamers [11]. A game is also defined as an
activity that was designed artificially with a
specific aim, rules, and constraints located in a
specific context [12].
Different from the definition of game,
Game-based learning (GBL) is a medium
of gaining knowledge and skill acquisition
via gameplay where game activities require
the player to solve problems and challenges
provided to gain achievement [13]. GBL is the
use of the power of entertainment by games
to be used inside the learning system. It is also
referred to as the consequences of a balance
between learning and gaming elements [14].
C. Types of GBL Games
GBL can be divided into two types of games.
The first one is the special purpose games. It is
a game that has been developed for educational
purposes. The second type is a game that
designed to be used in an educational context
with the fun factor being implemented inside it
that is called Commercial-Off-The-Shelf games
[15].
There are three types of special-purpose
games that can be defined. Some games aim to
achieve knowledge transfer (cognitive learning
outcomes), skill acquisition (skill-based learning
outcomes), and/or attitudinal behavioural
change (affective learning outcomes). For
games that are designed to achieve knowledge
transfer, it is applied in education such as
math or language typically [15]. Games to aid
skill acquisition are usually for practice or
training session such as in military or corporate
training. Some studies have already studied the
impact of playing games to culture managerial
skills because of the second type of games
[16]. Finally, governments and NGOs use the
third special-purpose game type, used to gain
an understanding of a particular subject. In
the health care industry, games to improve
behaviour are usually found. For instance,
some games encourage physical activity and
children's healthy food. The primary emphasis
of GBL has on targeted a certain form of learned
result; secondary learning output cannot be
excluded. For example, a game that mainly aims
to teach English to children (cognitive results)
Vol. 4 No. 2 October 2020
 Game-Based Learning (GBL) Success Factors in the Public Higher Education Learning System
may also lead to a more favourable attitude
towards the learning of English or English as a
subject (affective learning outcomes) [15]. For
this research, researchers think that the best
game type is skill acquisition because students
can improve their soft skills in higher education
since higher education requires a student to be
skilful and resourceful.
D. Traditional Learning System VS Game-Based
Learning
The majority of researchers now acknowledge
the advantages of digital learning games in terms
of motivation and engagement based on the
results. They found that games and simulations
that are effective and educational give a more
positive impact on learning quality rather than
normal conventional learning. Besides, students
showed a positive attitude in a learning system
that used games as its base compared to the
conventional ones. But we cannot easily jump to
a conclusion where GBL and simulation have a
positive effect on learning and motivation.
E. Usability
Usability is defined as the degree of learnability
of the game [17]. Users deal with the games
easily and naturally. Most of them did not face
game-related issues and did not get instructions
from observations. Usability is often described
in conjunction with the playability of a user
and is characterized as the user's operational
ability to perform a special task known as the
human-computer interface or human agent [18].
Designing educational software needs usability
as a significant agent. It is the capacity that the
product can be used for specialist users for
specific purposes by delivering the satisfaction,
efficiency, and effectiveness of a limited field
of usage. Usability can be implemented in
the education field by focusing on designing
learning activities, user interaction, and
ensuring that learning goals are achieved.
Intuitiveness is a must for the interface in
educational software because the purpose of
GBL is to make users play games that have a
learning context implemented in it [17].
ISSN: 2590-3551 eISSN: 2600-8122
F. Usefulness
There are a lot of advantages of GBL in
technological implementations in various
fields of knowledge. Usefulness is the function
provided by the system. GBL technology gave
an advantage to users to feel motivated where
it uses cognitive methods, differentiating the
alternatives of the solution, giving examples, and
significant results of experience. Educational
games have benefits in education where it can
give people motivation to enroll in local courses
and make them as an instructor, build a learning
group in the area and request needed resources
from the local government and fully implement
them inside educations [17]. A combination of
entertainment and education in GBL makes it
convenient for instructors and easy to use. Plus,
edutainment applications can be manipulated
in pedagogical environments. GBL grants
skills for students such as the ability to manage
complicated missions, finish work in time, and
fast adaption to the change of environments.
Students will take part repeatedly in the
educational operations when they perceive
a relationship between their daily routines
and games aspect. If they are submitted as a
challenge or quiz, they will pay more attention
to edutainment games. Some studies also said
that GBL would lower the development cost
and give a vast experience that is intuitive
for students where the educational content is
presented in games [18].
G. Perceived Intention to Use
Since the mid-1970s, understanding an
individual’s behaviour for using a lot of
information technology systems and tools has
been an essential topic of research. Intention to
use is derived from behavioural intention and
is defined as “the strength of one’s intention to
perform a specified behaviour”. Behavioural
intention is a significant determinant of user
behaviour in technology acceptance since
usage is significantly correlated to behavioural
intention to use. Plus, behavioural intention
is a significant predictor of action [19]. To
simplify, previous research has shown that
behavioural intention to use GBL is both a valid
and reliable measure of GBL usage in the future.
Vol. 4 No. 2 October 2020 41
International Journal of Human and Technology Interaction

Moreover, students may increase their basis of III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

technology acceptance effectively using GBL. To accomplish the aims and objectives of the study,
The application of the TAM model would seem this research used a survey for research strategies.
to be favourably indicated for understanding The questionnaire is developed in English to
conceptual issues related to GBL use. ensure that the respondents fully understand
what the questions are about. Plus, the researcher
H. Architectural Design decides to use the simple random sampling
The architecture permits users to act his/her method. The questionnaire paper is divided into
preferred characters in RPG (Role-Playing two sections that are the demographic section and
Game), these ingredients react with realistic the statement about the variable of the research for
International Journal of Human and Technology Interaction (IJHaTI), Vol. 4, No. 21, OctoberApril 2020
world patterns, and that they manage the the respondent to answer. This questionnaire is a
domain pattern of the game and spread of the close-ended type and it was distributed through
usage is significantly correlated to behavioural intention to distributed through the Internet by using Google Form and
multimedia system.
use. Plus, behavioural It is hard
intention to balance
is a significant how
predictor of to directly
the toInternet bysample.
the targeted using Google Form and directly to
action [19].
teach andTo simplify,
what previouswhat
to teach, research has shown
kind of game that is For thedata analysis, descriptive
targeted sample. statistical analysis, Pearsons's
behavioural intention to use GBL is both a valid and reliable correlation analysis, and multiple linear regression analyses
needed
measure ofinGBL education
usage in thefor the Moreover,
future. education system
students may to were used. For data analysis, descriptive statistical
become more
increase their practical
basis [20]. acceptance effectively
of technology analysis, Pearsons's correlation analysis, and
using GBL. The application of the TAM model would seem IV. DATA ANALYSIS
Evaluation of the architectural design is multiple linear
to be favourably indicated for understanding conceptual regression analyses were used.
crucial in making
issues related to GBL use. games usable in the learning A. Pilot Test
A pilot test is a method used by researchers to determine
systemH. includes
Architecturalusability,
Design character design, the the validity of the questionnaire distributed to the respondent.
efficiencies of narrative
The architecture permits users pattern, reaction This research studyIV.
andpreferred
to act his/her was DATA
conducted ANALYSIS
with the pilot test of 30
characters in RPG (Role-Playing Game), these ingredients respondents before the actual questionnaire was distributed.
facilities. The directives of edutainment software A. Pilot Test
react with realistic world patterns, and that they manage the The respondent consists of university and college students
need
domaintopattern
match of with
the gametheandcognitive
spread of architecture
the multimedia of around A Melaka.
pilot test is ofa 20method
A total questions used by researchers
in the questionnaire
system. It is hardand
individuals to balance
human how differences
to teach and what GBLto teach,
has a weretodistributed
determine the validity
to respondents engaged in ofa pilot
the test.
questionnaire
All the
what kind of game is needed in education for the education data were collected in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.
utility
system tofor academic
become content
more practical [20].[21]. distributed to the respondent. This research
Questions in the questionnaire were modified based on the
Evaluation of the architectural design is crucial in making study wasin conducted
results contained the pilot test. with the pilot test of 30
games usable in the learning system includes usability,
I.character
Research
design, Framework
the efficiencies of narrative pattern, and respondents
For before
the pilot test testing, the actual
the reliability test was questionnaire
conducted
using the Statistical Package for Social Science version 20.
In this research framework, the main target is was distributed. The respondent consists of
reaction facilities. The directives of edutainment software
need to match with the cognitive architecture of individuals Cronbach’s Alpha was used to examine the internal reliability
to study the key factors, concept or variables, university
and human differences GBL has a utility for academic content of the and college
pilot test. Reliability students
was considered weakaround Melaka.
when alpha
and
[21]. the presumed relationship among them. coefficient A total scores
of below the range ofin0.6.
20 questions theIf questionnaire
the alpha
Thus, a research
I. Research Frameworkframework is produced as coefficient were
being
scores in the range of 0.6 to 0.8, it is considered as
distributed
moderately to ifrespondents
strong. Lastly, engaged
the alpha coefficient was in
below. The framework
In this research framework, the shown in isFigure
main target to study1theare in the
a range
pilotof test. Allit the
0.8 to 1.0, data were
is considered collected in a
very strong.
key independent
the factors, concept variables
or variables, such and theas presumed
usability, Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Questions in the
relationship among them. Thus, a research framework has is
usefulness,
produced as below.effectiveness,
The frameworkperceived
shown in Figureintention
1 are the to questionnaire
TABLE I. were modified
RELIABILITY STATISTICS based on the
independent
use, variables suchdesign
and architecture as usability, usefulness,the
that affecting results contained in theAlpha
pilot test.
effectiveness, perceived intention to use, and architecture Cronbach's
learning
design that system oflearning
affecting the highersystem
education.
of higher education. For Alpha
Cronbach's the pilot
Basedteston testing, the reliability test
N of Items
Standardized
was conductedItems using the Statistical Package for
Social
.980 Science .980 version 20. Cronbach’s
20 Alpha
was used to examine the internal reliability of
Table 1 shows the total number of independent variables
the pilot test. Reliability was considered weak
and the dependent variable in Cronbach's alpha. In this table,
when alpha
Cronbach's alpha coefficient
showed more than> scores below
0.9 with theof range
a value
ofThis
0.980. 0.6.shows
If thethat
alpha
all the coefficient
question of thescores in the
independent and range
dependent variable is reliable and can be used in the pilot test.
of 0.6 to 0.8, it is considered as being moderately
B. Descriptive
strong. Lastly,Analysis
if the alpha coefficient was in the
This section explains the demographic profile of
range of 0.8 to 1.0,
respondents includes their gender, it is considered
age, ethnicity,very
levelsstrong.
of
higher education, and frequency of game playing. Besides,
Fig.
Fig.1.1. Research Framework
Research Framework this section alsoTABLE
analyzed the respondents’
I. RELIABILITY opinions on
STATISTICS
whether the game can be used as a good learning tool or not.
Cronbach's Cronbach's Alpha Based
Table 2 shows the result of 384 collected questionnaires.N of Items
III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
There is Alpha on Standardized
no so much different in terms ofItems
gender. Moreover,
To accomplish the aims and objectives of the study, this
the highest.980
respondent range of age
.980is from 18 – 25 years 20
old
research used a survey for research strategies. The
at the percentage of 90.6% which equivalent to 348
questionnaire is developed in English to ensure that the
respondents. From this result, it shows that almost the entire
respondents fully understand what the questions are about.
respondent is aged between 18 – 25 years old since that is the
Plus, the researcher decides to use the simple random
42 ISSN: 2590-3551 eISSN: standard age for
2600-8122 the4 student
Vol. No. that involved 2020
2 October with this GBL.
sampling method. The questionnaire paper is divided into two
Based on ethnicity, the majority of the respondent's ethnicity
sections that are the demographic section and the statement
is Malay at the percentage of 62.8% that consists of 241
about the variable of the research for the respondent to
 Game-Based Learning (GBL) Success Factors in the Public Higher Education Learning System

Table 1 shows the total number of respondents) respectively. Results also show
independent variables and the dependent that both male and female respondents with
variable in Cronbach's alpha. In this table, a total of 90 respondents are either agree or
Cronbach's alpha showed more than> 0.9 with disagree with the use of the game as a learning
a value of 0.980. This shows that all the question tool in higher education with a percentage
of the independent and dependent variable is of 38.89% (35 respondents) and 61.11% (55
reliable and can be used in the pilot test. respondents) respectively. From this analysis,
it can be deduced that both males and females
B. Descriptive Analysis positively approve the usage of the game as a
This section explains the demographic profile learning tool in higher education. This suggests
of respondents includes their gender, age, that they perhaps want a new way of pedagogy
ethnicity, levels of higher education, and in our current learning system
frequency of game playing. Besides, this
TABLE II. DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS
section also analyzed the respondents’ opinions
Demographic Factors Percentage (%)
on whether the game can be used as a good
learning tool or not. Table 2 shows the result Male 57.3
Gender
Female 42.7
of 384 collected questionnaires. There is no so
18 - 25 Years 90.6
much different in terms of gender. Moreover, 26 - 33 Years 8.1
Age
the highest respondent range of age is from 18 34 - 41 Years 1.0
42 - 50 Years 0.3
– 25 years old at the percentage of 90.6% which
equivalent to 348 respondents. From this result, Malay 62.8
Chinese 27.3
it shows that almost the entire respondent is Ethnicity
Indian 5.2
aged between 18 – 25 years old since that is Others 4.7
the standard age for the student that involved Diploma 21.1
Level of Higher Degree 75.3
with this GBL. Based on ethnicity, the majority Education Master 2.9
of the respondent's ethnicity is Malay at PhD 0.8
the percentage of 62.8% that consists of 241 Responses of the Strongly Disagree 1.3
respondents. The result for the ethnicity follows respondent about Disagree 4.2
the game as a Neutral 23.4
the percentage of the ethnic group in Malaysia. learning tool in Agree 59.6
In terms of education, most of the respondents higher education Strongly Agree 11.5
were degree holders and they are quite positive Many times a day
4.3
on the usage of GBL in higher education. The About once a day
31.3
Frequency of A few times a
majority of respondents also spend about once 8.9
respondents week
6.5
a week playing the game for entertainment playing game Once a week
4.9
A couple of times
and leisure. This shows that respondents like Rarely
5.5
to play games repetitively. This data is good
input that can be used to implement GBL in Analysis Between Level of Higher
teaching and learning at higher education. Also, Education and Responses of Respondents about
to examine relationships within the data that Game as a Learning Tools in Higher Education
might not be readily apparent when analyzing shown in Figure 3. Results show that diploma,
total respondents, we conducted the cross- degree, and master respondents with a total of
tabulations analysis. This analysis presents the 229 respondents agree with the use of the game
result of the entire group and subgroups of as a learning tool in higher education with the
respondents as shown in Figure 2. percentage of 22.27% (51 respondents), 72.93%
Results show that both male and female (167 respondents), and 4.37% (10 respondents)
respondents with a total of 229 respondents respectively.
agree with the use of the game as a learning Results also show that diploma and degree
tool in higher education with a percentage respondents with a total of 90 respondents are
of 65.94% (151 respondents) and 34.06% (78 either agree or disagree with the use of the game

ISSN: 2590-3551 eISSN: 2600-8122 Vol. 4 No. 2 October 2020 43

 International Journal of Human and Technology Interaction
International Journal of Human and Technology Interaction (IJHaTI), Vol.

as a learning
nteraction (IJHaTI), Vol. 4, No.tool in higher2020
21, OctoberApril education with a
nteraction (IJHaTI), Vol. 4, No.
percentage of 21, OctoberApril
21.11% (19 2020
respondents) and
ders and 77.78%
with a total(70 respondents)
of 90 respectively.
respondents are either From
agree or disagree this
with
nders
higher
and with a total
the use ofgame
of the 90 respondents aretool
as a learning either
in agree
higheroreducation
disagree with
nouthigher
once analysis,
the use of the
it can
game
be
as a
assuming
learning tool in
that
higher
a percentage of 21.11% (19 respondents) and 77.78% (70
both diploma
education with
ure. This
out once and degreeof
arespondents)
percentage respondents
21.11% (19From
respectively. positively
respondents) andapprove
this analysis, 77.78% bethe
it can (70
ely. This
ure. respondents) respectively.
GBL in
assumingof that
usage the both asFrom
gamediploma this degree
and
a learning analysis, itincan
toolrespondentsbe
higher
ely. This assuming that both
positively approve diploma
the usage of theand
gamedegree respondents
as a learning tool in International Journal of Human and Technology Interaction (IJHaTI), Vol.
examine
GBL in education.
positively approve the usage of the game as a learning tool in
higher education.
readily
examine higher education.
ucted the
readily
resultthe
ucted of
hown in
result of
hown in Fig.
Fig.4.4. Fig.
Fig. 4.9: Cross-Tab
4.9: Cross-Tab Analysis
Analysis Between
Between Respondents
Respondents Gender and
nts with Gender andTheir TheirGaming
GamingFrequency
Frequency
nts with
ame as a
ame as a
65.94% C. Descriptive analysis for Independent Variable.
65.94%
ectively. C. The Descriptive
items in the analysis
researchfor questionnaire
Independenthave Variable.
been
ectively.
ents with Theinterpreted
items by in using the Likert Scale.
the research To determinehave
questionnaire the
ents
withwith
the minimum and the maximum length of the 5-point Likert type
nwith
withthea been
scale,interpreted by using
the range is calculated thethis
by using Likert Scale. To
formula:
n1%with
(55a determine the minimum and
Range Define = Value max – Value min the maximum Fig. 7.
1%
can (55
be
length Rangeof the 5-point Likert type scale, the range
can the
rove be Fig.
Fig.2.2. Cross-Tab Analysis
Cross-Tab Analysis Between
Between Respondents
Respondents Level of
Level of Higher Fig. 4. Fig. 4.9: Cross-Tab Analysis Between Respondents Gender and
rove the
on. This Higher Education
Education
Fig. and of
and Responses
2. Cross-Tab Analysis Responses
Respondents
Between of Respondents
about
Respondents Game
Levelas about
ofaHigher
Learning is calculated
Afterwards, by using
number Theirthis
one theformula:
ofGaming
least value in the scale was
Frequency
on. This
agogy in ToolsofinRespondents
Higher Education
Game and
Education as aResponses
Learning Tools in Higher Education
about Game as a Learning added to identify the maximum of this cell. The length of the
agogy in Tools in Higher Education C. Descriptive analysis for Independent Variable.
cells is determined in table 4.3.3 below:
Afterwards,
The items number one ofquestionnaire
in the research the least have valuebeen in
theinterpreted
scale
Based was theadded
on by using to identify
the
descriptiveLikert theTomaximum
Scale.
analysis from determine
Figure of
the
5 until
ge (%) minimum
this alland
cell.8, The
Figure the
thelengthmaximum
of the
independent length ofmean
cells
variables the 5-point Likert
is determined
is located in type
in
the
ge .3 (%) scale,range
high the range is calculated
section by using
that ranges this3.67
between formula:
and 5. This
.7
.3 table 4.3.3 below:
shows that majority of respondents agreed with the statement
.6
.7
Range Define = Value max – Value min Fig. 7.
1.6 in the Range
questionnaire regarding the independent variables
01 respectively.
Based on the descriptive analysis from Figure Fig.
03 Afterwards, number one of the least value in the scale was
3.8 5 until
added to Figure 8,
theall
identifyTABLE the Rindependent
maximum
III. of this
ANGE variables
cell. The length
TABLE of the
.3
.8 D. Pears
2.3 mean
cells isisdetermined
located
Scale in in
table the
4.3.3 high
below:
Strengthrange section In this r
27
7.1
that ranges1 between
– 2.33 3.67 and 5. This shows
Low from factors (usabi
Based on the descriptive analysis Figure 5 until
that majority architectural
theof respondents agreed withinthe
.3
9.3
.1
Figure 8, all2.34 – 3.67
independent Moderate
variables mean is located the
3.67 - 5 that High regarding learning syste
98 Fig. 3. Cross-Tab Analysis Between Gender and Responses of statement
high rangein the
section questionnaire
ranges between the
3.67 and 5. This
the correlatio
83 Fig. 3.Respondents
Cross-Tab
Fig. about Game
Analysis
3. Cross-Tab as aBetween
Analysis LearningGender
Between Tools
Genderin Higher
and andEducation
Responses
Responses of shows that majority of respondents agreed with the statement
23
of Respondents about
Respondents about Game
Game as a Learning
as a Learning ToolsEducation
Tools in Higher in Higher
independent variables respectively.
in the questionnaire regarding the independent variables
between the
2.4 Cross-Tab analysis between respondents’
Education gender and their negative, or z
.6
.4
respectively.
.5 Cross-Tab
gaming analysis
frequency hasbetween
shown respondents’ gender and
in Figure 4. Results their
indicate TABLE III. RANGE TABLE Fig
.6 TABLE IV.
3.5 gaming
that mostfrequency
of the malehasrespondents
shown in playing
Figure 4. Results
games manyindicate
times TABLE III. RANGE TABLE
that Cross-Tab
in a most
day with total analysis
of thea male respondents between
playing games
of 138 respondents respondents’
while manyof
most times
the Scale Strength D. Pear
3.3
9.3 in a dayrespondents
with Scale Strength In this
Correlation
59
female
gender anda their
totalplaying
ofgaming
138games
respondents whileamost
about once
frequency of
day with
has thea
shown 1 – 2.33 Low
factors
95
female respondents
total of 58 playing
respondents. Fromgames about
here, we once a day
can conclude thatwith
malea 1 – 2.33 Low <0.20(usab
in Figure
total 4. toResults
of 58 respondents.
respondents like indicate
Fromthemselves
involve here, we can that most
conclude
and spend that of
their timethe
male 2.34 –2.34
3.67 – 3.67 Moderate
Moderate architectural
95 0.21 – 0.3
5 male
playingrespondents
respondents like to Unlike
the game. playing
involve the games
themselves
female, many
and spend
they might times
their
have less in
time 3.67 3.67
-5 -5 High High learning syst
the0.36 – 0.6
correlatio
on and aplaying
interest
thethe
interest in
day with game.
agameUnlike
in media.
totaldue tothe
of 138 female,
their interestthey
respondents might cosmetic,
in books, have less
while
the game due to their interest in books, cosmetic,
most 0.61 – 0.8
between the
onTools
ng and and social
ng Tools
how that of
andthe female
social media. respondents playing games about Fig. 5. Independent Variable: Usability negative,
=1 or
how that
l of 229 once a day with a total of 58 respondents. From TABLE IV.V.
l of tool
ning 229 TABLE
ning
here, we can conclude that male respondents
7% tool
(51
7% (10(51 like to involve themselves and spend their Correlation
7% (10 time playing the game. Unlike the female, they <0.20
Formatted: Footer
pondents 0.21 – 0.3
pondents
might have less interest in the game due to their Formatted: Footer
Formatted: Footer, Right 0.36 – 0.6
interest in books, cosmetic, and social media.4 Formatted: Footer, Right
4 0.61 – 0.8
Fig. 5. Independent Variable:
ISSN: Usability
2590-3551 eISSN:2600-8122 Vol. 4 No
Fig. 5. Independent Variable: Usability =1

N:2600-8122 Vol. 4 No. 2 October 2020 TABLE V.

N:2600-8122 Vol. 4 No. 2 October 2020

44 ISSN: 2590-3551 eISSN: 2600-8122 Vol. 4 No. 2 October 2020

 Game-Based Learning (GBL) Success Factors in the Public Higher Education Learning System
ology
ology Interaction
ologyInteraction (IJHaTI),
Interaction(IJHaTI), Vol.
(IJHaTI),Vol. 4,
Vol.4, No.
4,No. 21,
No.21, OctoberApril
21,OctoberApril 2020
OctoberApril2020
2020

TABLE V. TABLE 4: STRENGTH OF PEARSON

CORRELATION COEFFICIENT
Variables Pearson Strength of
Correlation Correlation
Usability 0.677 Very Strong
Usefulness 0.725 Very Strong
Perceived 0.708 Very Strong
Intention to Use
Fig. 6. Independent Variable: Usefulness
Fig.6.6. Independent
Fig. Independent Variable:Usefulness
Usefulness
Fig. 6. IndependentVariable:
Variable: Usefulness Architectural 0.616 Very Strong
Design

dentsGender
dents Gender and
dents Genderand
and From the result in table 4, the highest
correlation is between the usefulness and the
Variable.
Variable.
Variable.
ire have been effectiveness of the learning system in higher
re
ire have
have been
been
determine
determine the
determine thethe education with a positive correlation of 0.708.
oint Likert
oint Likert
point type
Likerttype
type The lowest Pearson Correlation value belongs
mula:
mula:
rmula:
Fig. 7. Independent Variable: to the relationship between architectural design
n
nin Fig. 7. Independent
Fig. Variable:Perceived Intention
Perceived Intention to Use
to Use
Fig.7.7. Independent
IndependentVariable:
Variable:Perceived
PerceivedIntention
IntentiontotoUse
Use
and the effectiveness of the learning system
in higher education. Its correlation coefficient
in the
ninthe scale
thescale was
scalewas
was
he
he length of the is 0.616. The other variables correlation
helength
lengthof
ofthe
the
between the independent variable (IV) and the
dependent variable (DV) mostly are positive.
Figure
Figure 555 until
Figure until
until
is located
sislocated in the Therefore, the positive linear relationship will
locatedininthe
the
67
67
67 andand 5.
and 5. This
5. This
This cause an increase in one variable if the other is
th the
hththe statement
thestatement
ndent
statement
variables
increased.
ndent
ndent variables
variables
Fig. 8. Fig.
Independent
Fig. Variable:
8.8. Independent
Independent Variable:Architectural
Variable: Design
ArchitecturalDesign
Architectural Design
Fig. 8. Independent Variable: Architectural Design
E. Multiple Regression Analysis
D.
D. Pearson’s
D. Pearson’s Correlation
Pearson’sCorrelation
Correlation Multiple regression analysis is utilized to
D. Pearson’s
In
In this Correlation
research, the researcher intended to study the
In this research, the
this research, the researcher
researcher intended
intended to to study
study the
the test the hypothesized relationship between
In factors
this
factors
factors research,
(usability,
(usability, the researcher
usefulness,
(usability,usefulness,
usefulness, perceived
perceived
perceived intended
intention
intention
intentionto touse,
to
to study
use,
use, and
and
and
architectural design) that influence the effectiveness of the independent variables that are usability,
ee
te thearchitectural
factors design)
architectural that
that influence
(usability,
design) the
the effectiveness
usefulness,
influence perceived
effectiveness of
of the
the
learning
learning system
learningsystem
systemin in higher
inhigher education.
highereducation. Pearson's
education.Pearson's
Pearson'sgoalgoal
goalto to make
tomake
make usefulness, perceived intention to use, and
intention
the to
correlation use,
analysis and
in this architectural
study design)
the
thecorrelation
correlationanalysis
analysisin inthis studyisis
thisstudy to
isto find
tofind the
findthe relationship
therelationship
relationship architectural design towards the dependent
that influence
between
between
between the
the the effectiveness
independent
the independent
independent variable
variable isis
variable of the
whether
is whether
whether learning
ititit isis
is positive,
positive,
positive,
negative,
negative, or zero. variable that is the effectiveness of the learning
system
negative, inororhigher
zero.
zero. education. Pearson's goal to
system in higher education.
make
TABLE
TABLEthe
TABLE
IV.correlation
IV.
IV. TTTHE
HERRANGEOF
HE RANGE
OFanalysis
ANGE OF
THEC
THE in this
C ORRELATION
THE CORRELATION
ORRELATION M study
MATRIX
ATRIX
MATRIX OO UTPUTis
OUTPUT to
AND
UTPUTAND
AND
SSSTRENGTH
TRENGTHOF OF R ELATIONSHIP
TRENGTH OFRRELATIONSHIP
find the relationship between the independent
ELATIONSHIP
TABLE VI. MODEL SUMMARIES OF MULTIPLE
Correlation
Correlation
Correlation Coefficient
Coefficient
Coefficient(r) (r) Strength
Strength of
Strengthof Relationship
Relationship
variable is whether it(r) is positive, ofnegative,
Relationshipor REGRESSIONS
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20 None
None
None
zero. 0.21 – 0.35 Weak Positive Model R R Square Adjusted Std. Error
0.21
0.21––0.35
0.35 Weak
WeakPositive
Positive R Square of the
0.36 –––0.60
0.36 0.60 Moderate
0.60RANGE OF THE Moderate Positive
ModeratePositive
TABLE0.36
IV. THE CORRELATIONPositiveMATRIX Estimate
0.61
0.61 –– 0.80
0.80
0.61 – 0.80
OUTPUT AND STRENGTH OFVery
Very
Very Strong
Strong Positive
StrongPositive
Positive
RELATIONSHIP 1 .761a .579 .575 .34904
y
yty =1
=1
=1 Perfect
Perfect
Perfect Positive
Positive
Positive
Correlation Coefficient (r) Strength of Relationship
a. Predictors: (Constant), Architectural Design Average,
TABLE V.
<0.20TABLE V. TABLE4:
TABLE 4: STRENGTH
TRENGTHOF
NoneOF PEARSONCCORRELATION
ORRELATION Usefulness Average, Usability Average, Perceived Intention
TABLE V. TABLE 4:CSSOEFFICIENT
TRENGTH OFPPEARSON
EARSON CORRELATION
CCOEFFICIENT
OEFFICIENT Formatted:
to Use
Formatted:
Formatted: Footer
AverageFooter
Footer
0.21 – 0.35 Weak Positive
Formatted:
Formatted: Footer,
Formatted:Footer, Right
Footer,Right
Right
0.36 – 0.60 Moderate Positive
555 From the research analysis by using
0.61 – 0.80 Very Strong Positive
multiple regression analysis in Table 5, R
=1 Perfect Positive is 0.761, which is a high correlation (strong
111 eISSN:2600-8122
eISSN:2600-8122 Vol.
Vol.444 No.
eISSN:2600-8122 Vol. No.
No.222October
October 2020
October2020
2020 correlation) between the independent variable
and dependent variable. It is strong because
the value is more than 0.5 and shows the

ISSN: 2590-3551 eISSN: 2600-8122 Vol. 4 No. 2 October 2020 45

International Journal of Human and Technology Interaction

respondent is good on the key success factor of y = .789 + .075 x1+ .302 x2 + .205 x3 + .184 x4
the game-based learning in the effectiveness of
the learning system in higher education. Other In the discussion of the coefficient, the beta
than that, the coefficient of determination, that value of the unstandardized coefficient will be
represent, as R 2 is the proportion of variance used for the regression equation. If the p-value
in one variable associate with the variability in of the test statistic is <0.05, the test statistic has
a second variable. From the result, it shows R a statistically significant relationship and if
2 is 0.579 which means 57.9% of the variation the p-value of the test statistic is >0.05, the test
was explained by the independent variable, statistic is not statistically significant [22].
while the rest is explained by other causes. From the equation, the coefficient of
That's means 42.1% of the different factors that usability is 0.075 which means that every unit
influenced the effectiveness of the learning increase in each factor, there will be an increase
system in higher education used for this study. in the effectiveness of the learning system in
higher education with value 0.055, and the
TABLE VII. ANOVA
standard coefficient value of beta 0.090 with
Model Sum of df Mean F Sig. a t-value of 1.362. The p-value of this factor
Squares Square
was not significant with 0.174 values. Perhaps
1 Regression 63.508 4 15.877 130.319 .000b
the respondent didn't see the benefits and the
Residual 46.174 379 .122 effectiveness of GBL in the higher education
Total 109.682 383 system. Therefore, [17] mentioned that usability
a. Dependent Variable: Dependent Variable Average can be implemented in the education field by
b. Predictors: (Constant), Architectural Design Average, focusing on designing learning activities, user
Usefulness Average, Usability Average, Perceived Intention
to Use Average interaction, and ensuring that learning goals are
achieved.
The F-ratio (F= 130.319, p= 0.000) indicates For the second factor, which is usefulness,
that the result of the regression model could the beta value of the unstandardized coefficient
occur by chance. However, the significance of is 0.302, and the standard coefficient value of
ANOVA and the p-value of the coefficient must beta 0.345 with a t-value of 4.888. The p-value of
indicate p<0.05. It shows that the model was this factor was significant with 0.000 values.
significant with 0.000 significant values. The third factor is the perceived intention to
use which the beta value of the unstandardized
TABLE VIII. COEFFICIENTS coefficient is 0.205 while the standard coefficient
Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. value of beta 0.231 with a t-value of 3.460. The
Coefficients Coefficients
Model p-value of this factor was significant since the
B Std. Beta
Error
value was 0.001.
The last factor is the architectural design.
(Constant) .789 .153 5.173 .000
The unstandardized coefficient beta value is
Usability .075 .055 .090 1.362 .174
Average 0.184 while the standard coefficient value of
Usefulness .302 .062 .345 4.888 .000 beta is 0.169 with a t-value of 3.539. This factor
Average was significant since the p-value is 0.000.
1
Perceived .205 .059 .231 3.460 .001
Intention to
Use Average F. Hypothesis Testing
Architectural .184 .052 .169 3.539 .000 In discussing the research finding of hypotheses
Design 1, 2, 3, and 4, the analysis was done using the
Average
Multiple Regression Analysis. Only three
a. Dependent Variable: Dependent Variable Average independent variables that are usefulness,
perceived intention to use and architectural
Based on the table 4.5.3, the linear design were significant towards the effectiveness
equations were developed as following where of the learning system in higher education.

46 ISSN: 2590-3551 eISSN: 2600-8122 Vol. 4 No. 2 October 2020

 way for the education system to be more effective in the
F. Hypothesis Testing future. The process of implementation does not have to be
In discussing the research finding of hypotheses 1, 2, 3, instantaneous, but slowly in step. As a recommendation, our
and 4, the analysis was done Game-Based Learning
using the Multiple (GBL) Success
Regression Factors
education in the
system canPublic
take aHigher
deep lookEducation Learning
at this matter System
and try
Analysis. Only three independent variables that are to implement GBL in higher education since most of the
respondents are positive towards the implementation of GBL.
usefulness, perceived intention to use and architectural design
Concerning the usability factor which failed to achieve
G. Summary of Finding
were significant towards the effectiveness of the learning that significance
positive GBL would towardlower the development
the effectiveness of the learning cost
system in higher education.
Overall from the hypothesis testing from table system andofgivehigher a vast experience
education, respondents maythat is intuitive
well have been
G. Summary of Finding had at least experienced in using the game as a learning tool.
4.7, the p-value of hypothesis H1 was rejected [17] formentioned
students where the educational content is
that usability can be implemented in the
Overall from the hypothesis testing from table 4.7, the p-
because of t-table < t-calculated
value of hypothesis H1 was rejected because of t-table < t-
while the presented
education field byin games.
focusing on This could
designing be one
learning way for
activities,
p-value user
theinteraction,
education andsystem
ensuringto that learning
be more goals arein the
effective
calculatedof hypothesis
while the p-value ofH2, H3, and
hypothesis H2, H3, H4andwereH4
achieved. Perhaps the respondent didn't see the benefits and
were accepted becauseof t-table < <t-calculate.
of t-table
accepted because t-calculate. thefuture. Theofprocess
effectiveness GBL in theof higher
implementation
education system. doesIf not
thehave to bewants
government instantaneous,
to implement GBL butinslowly
the future,init step.
TABLE
TABLEIX. IX. SUMMARY
SUMMARY RRESULT ESULT OF HOF HYPOTHESIS highly recommends that they do marketing to promote the
YPOTHESIS TESTING As aofrecommendation,
ideology GBL to ensure that people our education
are well aware of whatsystem
TESTING
Y = value of dependent variable can take a deep look at this matter and try to
is GBL.
variable a = constant implement GBL in higher education since most
b, c, d, e = coefficients ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
x1, x2, x3, x4 = value of independent variable of the respondents are positive towards the
The authors would like to thank the Faculty of Technology
IV df α t table t calculat Hypothesi Result
implementation
Management of GBL.
and Technopreneurship, Universiti Teknikal
e s Test Malaysia Concerning
Melaka and Centre the of Technopreneurship
usability factor which
Usability 1.362 t table < Rejected Development (CTeD) for their support in obtaining the info
t calculate H1 andfailed
materialto achieve
in the positive
development significance
of our work and we also wanttoward
Usefulness 4.888 t table
t calculate
> Accepte to thank
the anonymous
effectiveness refereesof
whosethecomments
learningled to improve
system of
d H2
the presentation of our work. Lastly, we also thank the
Perceived
Intention to
379 0.05 1.649 3.460 t table
t calculate
> Accepte
d H3
higher
Ministry education,
of Higher Educationrespondents may well have
for FRGS/1/2017/SS01/FPTT-
Use been had research
CTED/F00347 at leastgrant.
experienced in using the game
Architectura 3.539 t table > Accepte
l Design t calculate d H4 as a learning tool. [17] mentioned that usability
REFERENCES
[1] can beJessica.
Trybus, implemented
(2015). “Game-Based in the education
Learning: What it is, Why field
it by
Finally, the multiple regression analysis was used and all
Finally,
of these the were
results also multiple regression
proven that analysis
the most influencing
focusing on It’s
Works and Where designing learning
Going.” New Media Institute activities, user
[2] Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital game-based learning in high school
factorused
was is usefulness,
and all perceived
of theseintention
resultstoalsouse, were
and interaction, and ensuring
computer science education: that effectiveness
Impact on educational learningandgoals
architectural design with a p-value of 0.000. The significant student motivation. Computers and Education, 52(1), 1-12.
proven that are achieved. Perhaps the respondent didn't
relationship can the most influencing
be represented as the followingfactor
equationis [3] Squire, K., Giovenetto, L., Devane, B., & Shree, D. (2005). From users

usefulness,
from the analysisperceived
as a multipleintention to use, and
regression equation: see the benefits
to Designers : Buildingand the effectiveness
a self-organizing game-based of GBL in
learning
environment. Techtrends , 49 (5), 34-42.
architectural design with a p-value of 0.000. [4] the higher
Binkley, education
M., Erstad, O., Herman, system.
J., Raizen,If S.,the government
Ripley, M., &
Y = a + cx2 + dx3 + ex4 Runmble, M. (2014, December 8). Partnership for 21st century skills.
wants to implement GBL in the future, it highly
The significant relationship can be represented Retrieved from http://www.p21. org/
[5] recommends
Shute, V. J. (2011).that
Stealththey do inmarketing
assessment computer-basedto promote
games to
as the following
where equation
Y = .789 +.302 x2 + .205from the x4
x3 + .184 analysis as a support learning. Computer games and instruction, 55(2), 503e524.
multiple regression equation: the ideology of GBL to ensure that people
[6] Kolb, D.A. (1984): Experiential learning: experience as the source of
are
V. CONCLUSION
well aware
learning of what
and development. is GBL.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
The study suggested recommendations that are based on [7] Tseng V., Let’s Advance Education as a Learning System, Published
Ythe
= astudy
+ cx2 + dx3Firstly,
findings. + ex4usefulness, perceived intention to by APA Division 15 (PsychEd), 30 April 2015
use and architectural design shows significant positive [8] Fong J., Wang F.L and Kwan R. (2009), Handbook of Research on
Hybrid Learning Models: Advanced Tools, Technologies and Formatt
towards the key success factor of game-based learning (GBL) Applications ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
where Y = .789 +.302 x2 + .205 x3 + .184 x4 Formatt
The authors would like to thank7 the
Faculty of Technology Management
V. CONCLUSION and Technopreneurship, Universiti
ISSN: 2590-3551 eISSN:2600-8122 Teknikal Malaysia
Vol. 4 No. 2 October 2020 Melaka and Centre of
The study suggested recommendations that are
based on the study findings. Firstly, usefulness, Technopreneurship Development (CTeD) for
perceived intention to use and architectural their support in obtaining the info and material
design shows significant positive towards the in the development of our work and we also
key success factor of game-based learning (GBL) want to thank anonymous referees whose
in the effectiveness of the learning system of comments led to improve the presentation of
higher education. The Minister of Education or our work. Lastly, we also thank the Ministry of
those who are involved in applying GBL in the Higher Education for FRGS/1/2017/SS01/FPTT-
education system may take into consideration CTED/F00347 research grant.
the factor of usefulness, perceived intention
to use, and architectural design. For the
usefulness factor, they need to study what is
the best method to present the game in a useful
manner of education. Some studies mentioned

ISSN: 2590-3551 eISSN: 2600-8122 Vol. 4 No. 2 October 2020 47

International Journal of Human and Technology Interaction
REFERENCES
[1] Trybus, Jessica. (2015). “Game-Based Learning:
What it is, Why it Works and Where It’s Going.”
New Media Institute
[2] Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital game-based
learning in high school computer science
education: Impact on educational effectiveness
and student motivation. Computers and
Education, 52(1), 1-12.
[3] Squire, K., Giovenetto, L., Devane, B., & Shree, D.
(2005). From users to Designers : Building a self-
organizing game-based learning environment.
Techtrends, 49 (5), 34-42.
[4] Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S.,
Ripley, M., & Runmble, M. (2014, December 8).
Partnership for 21st century skills. Retrieved
from http://www.p21. org/
[5] Shute, V. J. (2011). Stealth assessment in
computer-based games to support learning.
Computer games and instruction, 55(2), 503e524.
[6] Kolb, D.A. (1984): Experiential learning:
experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
[7] Tseng V., Let’s Advance Education as a Learning
System, Published by APA Division 15 (PsychEd),
30 April 2015.
[8] Fong J., Wang F.L and Kwan R. (2009), Handbook
of Research on Hybrid Learning Models:
Advanced Tools, Technologies and Applications
[9] Biggs J., (2012), What the Student Does: Teaching
For Enhanced Learning.
[10] Hodhod, R and et.al (2010) Issues of Choosing
the Suitable Virtual Learning Environment.
[11] Zyda, M. (2005).From visual simulation to virtual
reality to games. IEEE Computer.
[12] Hays, R. T. (2005). The Effectiveness of
Instructional Games : A Literature Review and
Discussion. Orlando: Technical Report 2005-004
Naval Air Warfare Center Learning Systems Division.
[13] Kirriemuir, J., & McFarlane, A. (2004). Literature
review in games and learning (Vol. 8). Bristol,
UK: Futurelab.
[14] Nussbaum, M., & Beserra, V. d. S. (2014).
Educational videogame design. In Advanced
learning technologies (ICALT), 2014 IEEE 14th
international conference on (pp.2e3). IEEE.
48 ISSN: 2590-3551 eISSN: 2600-8122
[15] All, A., Castellar, E. P. N., & Van Looy, J. (2015).
Towards a conceptual framework for assessing
the effectiveness of digital game-based learning.
Computers & Education, 88, 29e37.
[16] Corsi, T. M., Boyson, S., Verbraeck, A., van
Houten, S.-P., Han, C., & MacDonald, J. R.
(2006). The real-time global supply chain game:
new educational tool for developing supply
chain management professionals. Transportation
Journal, 61e73.
[17] Saleh, Nada & Prakash, Edmond & Manton,
Rob. (2014). Factors Affecting the Acceptance
of Game-based Learning. International Journal of
Computer Applications. 92. 10.5120/16066-5201.
[18] H. Hussain, Z. C. Embi, and S. Hashim, “A
conceptualized framework for edutainment,”
Informing Science: InSiteWhere Parallels Intersect,
pp. 1077–1083, 2003.
[19] Shroff, R. H., & Keyes, C. J. (2017). A proposed
framework to understand the intrinsic
motivation factors on university students’
behavioral intention to use a mobile application
for learning. Journal of Information Technology
Education: Research, 16, 143-168.
[20] G. Huesca, J. Noguez, L. Neri, and V. Robledo-
Rella, “Work in progressusing interactivity video
games factors to define role playing games as
a supporting tool for learning by doing,” in
Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2010 IEEE.
IEEE, 2010, pp. T1E–1.
[21] D. Sobral, I. Machado, and A. Paiva,
“Machiavellian characters and the edutainment
paradox,” in Intelligent Virtual Agents. Springer,
2003, pp. 333–340.
[22] Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A., 2012.
Research Methods for Business Student.
Vol. 4 No. 2 October 2020