# In-service teachers' perceptions of board games in teaching: Impact of the level of seriousness of the games and teachers' characteristics

Nathalie Jobert, Mylène Sanchiz

► To cite this version:

Nathalie Jobert, Mylène Sanchiz. In-service teachers' perceptions of board games in teaching: Impact of the level of seriousness of the games and teachers' characteristics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2025, 10.1016/j.tate.2025.104951. hal-04929102

HAL Id: hal-04929102

https://hal.science/hal-04929102v1

Submitted on 4 Feb 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Research paper

# In-service teachers' perceptions of board games in teaching: Impact of the level of seriousness of the games and teachers' characteristics

Nathalie Jobert<sup>a</sup>, Mylène Sanchiz<sup>b,*</sup> [ID

## ARTICLE INFO

**Keywords:**

Board games

Game-based learning

In-service teachers' perception

Teacher education

Serious games

Commercial-off-the-shelf games

## ABSTRACT

Board games have become popular for teaching practices. Yet, factors of teachers' acceptance of board games remain unknown. In the present mixed-method cross-sectional survey study, 255 in-service French teachers were surveyed to examine the impact commercial-off-the-shelves and serious of board games, prior gaming experience, norms, and attitudes. Findings showed that teachers perceived more opportunities to learn for serious than for commercial-off-the-shelf board games. Attitudes had a positive impact on all variables and exerted a stronger impact than norms. Prior personal and professional gaming experience affected differently teachers' acceptance of board games. Educational implications for teachers' training programs are discussed.

## 1. Introduction

Throughout school, students need to develop multiple transversal skills to learn how to process information, adapt and regulate their behavior. Teachers often need to consider students' heterogeneity to adapt their teaching method. Using active teaching methodologies, notably game-based learning (GBL), supports deep learning and skill development (Bacsa-Károlyi & Fehérvári, 2024; Fiorella & Mayer, 2016; Vita-Barrull et al., 2024). Indeed, playing is argued to foster immersion and crucial socio-emotional competences that support learning-related behavior (Bayeck, 2020; Homer et al., 2019; Lillard et al., 2013; Richard et al., 2023; White et al., 2021). Of note, in France, teachers are highly encouraged to master GBL use in classes to help students benefit from the advantages of GBL (Ministry of French Education, Official Bulletin, 2013).

The educational benefits of GBL have been demonstrated with digital games (for reviews see Bacsa-Károlyi & Fehérvári, 2024; Clark et al., 2016; Mayer et al., 2014; Tokac et al., 2019; Tsai & Tsai, 2020; Wouters et al., 2013). However, board games (BGs) have received much less attention (Bartolucci et al., 2019; Bayeck, 2017, 2020; Gonzalo-Iglesia et al., 2018; Sousa et al., 2023). Yet, a growing amount of empirical evidence tends to highlight that BGs can contribute to learning for primary, secondary school and university students (Armstrong, 2021; Cardinot & Fairfield, 2019; Chiarello & Castellano, 2016; Gonzalo-Iglesia et al., 2018; Von Steinkeller & Grosse, 2022). GBL can be

implemented with educational games, which are also called serious games in multiple recent meta-analyses (Boyle et al., 2016; Hainey et al., 2016). These games are developed to serve a primary educational purpose (Wouters et al., 2013). Serious games are often digital ones. GBL can also be conducted with commercial-off-the shelf (COTS) games, which are primarily designed for entertainment, but used in educational settings to serve a learning purpose (Boyle et al., 2016; Gonzalo-Iglesia et al., 2018; Hainey et al., 2016; Hu & Sperling, 2022; Nousiainen et al., 2018; Van Eck, 2009). Serious (or educational) games as well as COTS games can vary in terms of game mechanics and content sophistication. They are full-featured games with a variety of game genres and game mechanics sophistication. Hence, they are not just mere gamified activities (Bayeck, 2020; Cai et al., 2022; Gui et al., 2023; Krath et al., 2021). COTS and serious games can have different influences on students' learning outcomes and perceptions (Portier-Charneau & Sanchiz, 2024; Sanchiz et al., 2024), which highlights the need to better understand how contextual factors of GBL can influence teachers' perceptions and use of GBL (Bacsa-Károlyi & Fehérvári, 2024).

For both COTS games and serious games, in other words, no matter the level of seriousness of the games and to what extent they were created to serve a learning objective at first, GBL requires teachers to find the appropriate balance between the learning objectives and entertainment, so that students don't disregard the educational content (Graesser, Chipman, Leeming, & Biedenbach, 2009; Hassinger-Das et al., 2017; Portier-Charneau & Sanchiz, 2024; Sanchiz et al., 2024). This

<footnote><sup>a</sup> School of Education, University of Poitiers, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> CeRCA Lab, University of Poitiers, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail address: mylene.sanchiz@univ-poitiers.fr (M. Sanchiz).</footnote>
challenge has raised concerns for teachers (Gutierrez et al., 2023), which is critical, as teachers' willingness to use GBL and the way they implement games in their classrooms can influence the educational benefits of GBL. Hence, prior studies have examined how teachers' characteristics, such as professional experience with games or attitudes towards games, can influence their perceptions of video games or serious digital games (Bourgonjon et al., 2013; Hu & Sperling, 2022; Li et al., 2016; Rüth et al., 2022; Ucus et al., 2015; for a review, see Bacsa-Károlyi & Fehérvári, 2024). However, no prior study has examined in-service teachers' representations of BGs in education. Of note, such studies are consistent with prior studies in education that have examined the predictive influence of teachers' behavioral, normative and control beliefs and the interplay of teachers' personal and social factors on their acceptance and intention to use innovative pedagogical tools (Cobanoglu et al., 2019; Dilek, 2024).

As opposed to digital games, BGs require no digital devices. Consequently, acceptance of BGs may less suffer from the barriers of digital games, such as the lack of technological resources and support for teachers (Hu & Sperling, 2022). A recent meta-analysis confirmed that BGs can foster students' learning (Bayeck, 2017). Non-digital games can also lead to better learning outcomes than digital ones (Xiang et al., 2024). Hence, we argue that it is crucial to better understand how to efficiently implement GBL with BGs in classrooms so that it will support teachers' possibility to vary the pedagogical methods they can use to promote active learning. To do so, the first step is to understand teachers' initial perceptions of GBL with board games. Indeed, teachers' representation of the challenges and potential benefits of GBL can foreseeably impact to what extent teachers may be willing to use GBL and how they would integrate games in their classrooms (Bourgonjon et al., 2013; Hsu et al., 2014; Hu & Sperling, 2022; Li, 2013; Li & Huang, 2016; Rüth et al., 2022).

To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to investigate in-service primary, secondary and university teachers' factors of acceptance of GBL with board games. In this survey study, teachers were exposed to two fictitious scenarios with a serious and a COTS BG (as a proxy for the level of seriousness of the games). Both games involved comparable game mechanics. The study intends to determine whether the level of seriousness of BG, teachers' prior gaming experience, attitudes and norms towards gaming are significant predictors of their initial acceptance of GBL with BGs. Findings will support: (i) teachers' education programs regarding the specific factors of acceptance of GBL with BGs (Bacsa-Károlyi & Fehérvári, 2024) and (ii) the elaboration of a future comprehensive theoretical framework of GBL that can account for the impact of contextual factors (such as the level of seriousness of games) and teachers-related factors on teachers' perceptions of GBL with BGs. Finally, when teachers choose to use game-based learning to teach their learning objectives, they face the key challenge of identifying a relevant game or relevant game mechanics that fit their objectives. The present study will provide valuable insights to understand to what extent prior gaming experience, attitudes, norms and the level of seriousness of the games can support or hinder the selection of relevant games or game mechanics.

# 2. Review of the literature

## 2.1. Board games in education

The benefits of games for education are grounded in several theoretical frameworks: active learning (Bacsa-Károlyi & Fehérvári, 2024; Fiorella & Mayer, 2016; Vita-Barrull et al., 2024) and playing (Richard et al., 2021; for a review of the impact of pretend play see Lillard et al., 2013). Research highlighted that the educational benefits of BGs are related to a learning by doing approach, a facilitated immersion that fosters concentration and motivation, as well as a cooperation and a competition between players that urge them to engage deep information processing (Bayeck, 2020; Chiarello & Castellano, 2016; Mayer, 2020).

BGs offer rich and stimulating situations, they foster deep information processing, and collaboration with other players (Bayeck, 2017; Gashaj et al., 2021; Hassinger-Das et al., 2017; Sousa et al., 2023). Fun, social interactions, competitiveness and challenge can increase students' engagement in a learning activity, even with COTS games that are compatible with the learning objective (Gonzalo-Iglesia et al., 2018). In the context of education, BGs can be used to develop learning-related skills, cognitive functions, behavior, or knowledge for a large age range (Bartolucci et al., 2019; Gashaj et al., 2021; Moya-Higueras et al., 2023; Nakao, 2019; Vita-Barrull et al., 2022; Vita-Barrull et al., 2023; Vita-Barrull et al., 2024, for a review of examples of GBL in various educational contents see Bayeck, 2020). For instance, COTS BGs were shown to improve numerical competencies of 4 years-old children (Gasteiger & Moeller, 2021). Another study with a serious BG about astronomy showed that playing a BG can promote learning of complex scientific knowledge for 14 years-old students (Cardinot & Fairfield, 2022). It is to be noted that few studies have specifically focused on GBL with board games. As an illustration, a recent meta-analysis (Bayeck, 2020) identified only 44 articles that presented empirical studies on BGs for education, and only 4 dealt with COTS BGs.

Teachers tend to have difficulties and mitigated attitudes towards GBL with digital games, which can cause reluctance to integrate GBL in classrooms (Li, 2013; Ucus, 2015). The comparison between digital and board games has received growing interest (Bacsa-Károlyi & Fehérvári, 2024; Martinez et al., 2023), but studies usually compare different digital and board games (Sousa and collaborators, 2023). Some exceptions showed that children can be more prosocial when using board games as compared to digital ones (Von Steinkeller & Grosse, 2022); BG support interactions with peers (Von Steinkeller & Grosse, 2022). However, digital games can be more engaging and pleasant (Sousa et al., 2023; Talan et al., 2020), they can reduce extraneous cognitive load, increase motivation but reduce learning (Sweller, 2010; Xiang et al., 2024). Digital games allow the automatization of some actions that the player would have had to do in a board game (such as rolling a dice or distributing cards), which help students' focus their resource to more relevant actions (Sousa et al., 2023; Xiang et al., 2024). Digital games are argued to be more sophisticated than board ones (Xiang et al., 2024), but such claim overlooks the variety and complexity of modern board games (Bayeck, 2020; Martinez et al., 2023). We argue that studies should ensure to examine GBL by using comparable games in terms of game mechanics sophistication. The present study focuses on two types of non-digital board games, COTS board games and serious board games, that rely on comparably complex game mechanics and game content to particularly examine how the level of seriousness of the game impacts how teachers' perception of GBL with board games.

## 2.2. Differential effects of serious and COTS games on learning

Most studies on GBL focus on digital games (see meta-analyses by Boyle et al., 2016; Cai et al., 2022; Clark et al., 2016; Gui et al., 2023; Hainey et al., 2016; Mayer et al., 2014; Tokac et al., 2019; Tsai & Tsai, 202; Wouters et al., 2013) and few consider the effects of COTS and serious games. Only two of these reviews examined the contributions of COTS and serious games to learning (Boyle et al., 2016; Hainey et al., 2016). The present research overview will mostly rely on studies about digital games.

A great variety of COTS BGs can be found on the market, which contributes to the possibility for teachers to find COTS BGs with game content and game mechanics suitable for their educational purpose. COTS games may support flexible use as well as creative and innovative pedagogical approaches. So far, very few research has examined the different effects of serious and COTS games in classrooms, and most of them focused on digital games (Nousiainen et al., 2018).

COTS games integrate real-life context elements in their game content or game mechanics, which is argued to support knowledge and skill development for various classroom contents (Hu & Sperling, 2022). Yet,
effective use of COTS games by teachers has been understudied. Therefore, the question of how to support appropriate and effective use of BGs for educational content is still an issue. Reflecting upon the issues and advantages of integrating digital COTS games in a classroom, Van Eck (2009) emphasized that teachers should ensure that COTS games: (i) are integrated in students' curriculum (and not added), (ii) offer authentic context in which the learning content is part of the game narrative or mechanics, and (iii) promote collaborative learning (i.e. players can support each other).

On the downside, COTS BGs may also present challenges. First, it may be difficult for teachers to adapt or to implement COTS games appropriately to fit the educational objectives, notably if the game mechanics and topics are weakly related to the learning curriculum (Van Eck, 2009). Hence, COTS BGs may also present common difficulties with digital games. Teachers may need knowledge and expertise as well as time and resources to know which game to select for their course (Hu & Sperling, 2022). Secondly, using COTS BGs in classrooms also requires students to understand the game rules, and to get familiar with the game. This requirement may enhance cognitive load (Sweller, 2010) and cause loss of interest and engagement for students (Gonzalo-Iglesia et al., 2018). Such difficulties were also found for serious digital games (Pan et al., 2022) or COTS digital games (Van Eck, 2009). With digital games, in the context of history learning, a prior study also pointed out that COTS games may contain misleading information in their content (e.g. inaccurate facts) or in their game mechanics. For instance, first-person shooter games of the 1st World War can cause students to develop an inaccurate representation of weapons speed and reliability (Hoy, 2018). To counterbalance these two challenges, Hoy (2018) suggests that teachers should be using custom-built games to better match the educational objectives and the gameplay, notably with graduate students.

These findings emphasize that choosing a serious or a COTS BG in classroom is far from trivial for teachers. In addition, this choice might be more complicated depending on teachers' knowledge and gaming experience. Indeed, knowing which specific game and game mechanics are the most effective for a learning objective is hard to determine. This issue has not received much reliable evidence. The Learning Mechanics and Game Mechanics LM-GM framework (Arnab et al., 2015) introduced the concept of Serious Game Mechanics, which refers to the overlapping between the game mechanics and the learning mechanics. Game mechanics are considered serious when they match the learning mechanics required to achieve the learning objectives. Such a situation is ideal, as it supports a balance between fun and learning. However, using the LM-GM framework to map learning and game mechanics is difficult and requires knowledge and game experience (Arnab et al., 2015). This pattern raises an uncovered issue: how are game mechanics perceived depending on the level of seriousness of the game?

Several studies showed that teacher-related factors contribute to the benefits of GBL (Hu & Sperling, 2022; Nousiainen et al., 2018, for a review see Bacsa-Károlyi & Fehérvári, 2024), notably their perceptions and acceptance of GBL (Bourgonjon et al., 2013; Hsu et al., 2014; Hu & Sperling, 2022; Li, 2013; Li & Huang, 2016; Rüth et al., 2022). Hence, given the potential benefits of BGs and their limited technical difficulties in a classroom setting, we argue that better understanding the reasons that support or hinder the use of BGs in classroom is a crucial step to help teachers use BGs.

## 2.3. Factors influencing in-service teachers' adoption of game-based learning

Research demonstrated that individuals' acceptance of new technologies can affect adoption and appropriation in education (Bacsa-Károlyi & Fehérvári, 2024; Granić & Marangunić, 2019; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), notably for teachers. Studies examining factors of acceptance of GBL in class often rely on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM model, Davis, 1989). TAM focuses on the factors that

influence perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of new technologies (Bourgonjon et al., 2013; Hu & Sperling, 2022; Rüth et al., 2022; for reviews, see Granić & Marangunić, 2019; Scherer et al., 2020). The TAM model and its later versions posit that acceptance of any technology is related to individuals' perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use (Bourgonjon et al., 2013; Rüth et al., 2022; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008). Updated versions of the TAM have included several determinants of perceived usefulness and ease of use as well as individuals' interindividual characteristics such as teachers' experience (Baek, 2008) or self-efficacy (Rüth et al., 2022). The influence of social processes, such as norms, have also been added in later TAM models. Other models have also examined individuals' "behavioral intention" and the influence of behavioral, normative and control beliefs. The theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) posits that attitudes and subjective norms influence a person's willingness to engage in a particular behavior. Teachers perceive positive and negative outcomes of a specific behavior (in our case using board games in a GBL activity), of their understanding of their peers' approval and of their perceived proficiency at engaging such behavior. Consequently, these combined elements predict interindividuals' intention to use and subsequent adoption of a particular educational tool or method (Cobanoglu et al., 2019; Dilek, 2024). The comprehensive Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT, Venkatesh et al., 2003). UTAUT postulates that performance expectancy (i.e. to what extent a system can support task completion), effort expectancy (i.e. perceived ease of use), social influence (i.e. to what extent others think the system should be used) and facilitating environmental conditions (i.e. norms that the individual's organizational and technical environment associate with the system) predict system use. UTAUT emphasizes that interindividual characteristics may moderate the impact of these factors. Four types of variables related to teachers' adoption of GBL have been studied: (i) psychological variables (demographics, self-efficacy), (ii) teachers' attitudes and beliefs, (iii) teachers' environment attitudes, and (iv) material, organizational and human resources available (Li & Huang, 2016). Surveying over 300 hundred teachers, they showed that perceived ease of use, norms and attitudes exerted the strongest influence, which corroborates the known impact of attitudes and norms on perceived usefulness of digital GBL (Bourgonjon et al., 2013; Hsu et al., 2014; Hu & Sperling, 2022). A survey study with 402 pre-service teachers showed that perceived usefulness of digital GBL was related to teachers' subjective norms (Rüth et al., 2022). Subjective norms refer to perceived professional representations of games and professional reputation, for instance, whether one's colleagues or hierarchy would endorse the use of GBL (Bourgonjon et al., 2013; Rüth et al., 2022). Secondly, teachers' characteristics, such as self-efficacy, were also reported to influence perceived usefulness (Hsu et al., 2017; Li & Huang, 2016; Rüth et al., 2022). Of note, prior gaming experience was also reported to influence pre-service teachers' perception of digital GBL for students (Bourgonjon et al., 2010; Rüth et al., 2022). However, it was not investigated for in-service teachers. Next, job relevance and curriculum relatedness were also reported as significant predictors of teachers' acceptance of games for pre-service teachers (Rüth et al., 2022) and in-service teachers (De Grove et al., 2012).

Overall, the determinants of perceived usefulness (norms, attitudes towards digital GBL, job relevance, curriculum relatedness and perceived opportunities to learn) and the determinants of perceived ease of use (digital GBL self-efficacy, perceived ease of use for teachers and teachers' subjective evaluation of perceived ease of use for students) can influence acceptance of digital GBL (Bacsa-Károlyi & Fehérvári, 2024). Comparing two COTS and two educational digital games, a survey study with 101 pre-service teachers showed that the level of seriousness of the digital games did not affect perceived game value or perceived game enjoyment (Hu & Sperling, 2022). However, prior gaming experience was not considered, and the games presented to participants in the 4 fictitious scenarios were very different in terms of game content and game mechanics. Making them somehow less comparable and blurring
the main impact of the level of seriousness (e.g. serious vs COTS games) of the games.

### 3. Purpose of the study

GBL can be an opportunity to promote students' active learning (Bacsa-Károlyi & Fehérvári, 2024; Vita-Barrull, 2024). Yet, contextual factors related to game type and individual factors related to teachers' characteristics may impact the use and the effects of GBL (Bacsa-Károlyi & Fehérvári, 2024; Hoy, 2018; Hu & Sperling, 2022; Pan et al., 2022; Sanchiz et al., 2024; Sousa et al., 2023). Teachers' acceptability of pedagogical methods can have a tremendous influence on their use of that pedagogy and its effects (Cobanoglu et al., 2019; Dilek, 2024; Granić & Marangunić, 2019; Scherer et al., 2020). Specifically, to what extent the features of serious and COTS board games as well as teachers' perceived usefulness, ease of use, job relevance, curriculum relatedness and perceived opportunities can affect teachers' acceptance of GBL has never been studied before (Bourgonjon et al., 2013; Gutierrez et al., 2023; Hu & Sperling, 2022; Rüth et al., 2022).

The LM-GM framework (Arnab et al., 2015), the active learning framework (Fiorella & Mayer, 2016), as well as the TAM and UTAUT models of individual's acceptance of technologies were used to examine teachers' factors of acceptance of GBL for several key considerations. First, these comprehensive frameworks have received solid empirical evidence to account for teachers' personal and social factors that influence their acceptance of pedagogical tools (Bourgonjon et al., 2013; Granić & Marangunić, 2019; Hu & Sperling, 2022; Rüth et al., 2022; Scherer et al., 2020). These frameworks also align with the comprehensive model of TPB (Ajzen, 1991) that has received recent support (Cobanoglu et al., 2019; Dilek, 2024). The rationale and potential contributions of the present study are also further supported by research that have examined how contextual factors of GBL, such as the level of seriousness of games used in GBL activities can impact students' perceptions and learning outcomes (Portier-Charneau & Sanchiz, 2024; Sanchiz et al., 2024). Thus, the frameworks used in this study should strengthen the reliable interpretation of the present study's results.

Our main research objective was to examine whether the level of seriousness of the game, prior personal and professional gaming experience, prior gaming experience during teacher education as well as subjective norms and attitudes towards gaming influence in-service teachers' acceptance of GBL with BGs. Three research gaps are addressed in our research objectives. First, few studies have investigated the impact of teachers' prior gaming experience and norms on the above-mentioned determinants of GBL acceptance. Second, to the best of our knowledge, no study has examined this question for GBL with BGs. Finally, prior studies focused on one type of school teaching level. To the best of our knowledge, no study examined teachers' factors of acceptance of GBL while considering teachers' school teaching level. Given the growing interest for BGs and the important technical limitations of digital GBL, it has become necessary to understand the specificity of teachers' acceptance of BGs for education.

The present study is the first to examine whether the level of seriousness of the game, prior personal gaming experience, prior professional gaming experience, prior gaming experience during teacher education as well as subjective norms and attitudes towards gaming influence in-service teachers' acceptance of GBL with BGs. To this point, the two following research questions (RQs) were addressed.

* **RQ 1:** Do teachers' perceived usefulness, ease of use, job relevance, curriculum relatedness, opportunities to learn and perceived enjoyment of BGs in education differ as a function of the level of seriousness of the game?

H1. In line with the UTAUT and the Tam models, as well as with

empirical studies about the differentiated effects of serious and entertainment games in education on students' learning outcomes and perceptions (Portier-Charneau & Sanchiz, 2024; Sanchiz et al., 2024), curriculum relatedness and perceived opportunities to learn would be greater for serious BGs as compared to COTS ones, because it can be more challenging to adapt COTS BGs to the educational objectives and curriculum (Hoy, 2018; Van Eck, 2009).

H2. In line with the UTAUT and the Tam models, as well as with empirical studies about the differentiated effects of serious and entertainment games in education on students' learning outcomes and perceptions (Portier-Charneau & Sanchiz, 2024; Sanchiz et al., 2024), teachers should have comparable perceived usefulness, ease of use, job relevance and perceived enjoyment for COTS BGs and serious BGs (Hu & Sperling, 2022).

* **RQ 2:** Do teachers' prior personal and professional gaming experience, prior gaming experience during teacher education, subjective norms and attitudes towards gaming predict perceived usefulness, ease of use, job relevance, curriculum relatedness, opportunities to learn and perceived enjoyment?

H3. In line with the UTAUT, the Tam and the TPB models, personal, professional, during teaching education prior gaming experience should positively predict our 6 dependent variables (Ajzen, 1991; Rüth et al., 2022; Venkatesh et al., 2008).

H4. In line with the UTAUT and the Tam models, attitudes, and norms would positively predict our 6 dependent variables (Bacsa-Károlyi & Fehérvári, 2024; Rüth et al., 2022; Venkatesh et al., 2008).

Similarly to prior works (Hu & Sperling, 2022), a mixed-methods design was used. The level of seriousness of the games (i.e. COTS vs serious games) was designed as a within-subject variable. Interindividual differences and teachers' perceptions of the two different games were collected with a survey. A mixed linear model was used to analyze the data. Specifically, we tested to what extent the level of seriousness of games, teachers' school teaching level, teachers' personal, professional, during teaching education prior gaming experience, attitudes, and norms towards BGs as well as the interaction between the level of seriousness of games and teachers' school teaching levels would predict (i) perceived usefulness, (ii) ease of use, (iii) job relevance, (iv) curriculum relatedness, (v) opportunities to learn and (vi) perceived game enjoyment.

This study will enlighten how COTS and serious games, teachers' experience with BG for education and teachers' school teaching level affect their acceptance of BGs for education. Results will contribute to theoretical frameworks of GBL dealing with teachers' perception of games, game type, game mechanics and learning mechanics (notably the LM-GM framework, Arnab et al., 2015) and it will inform teacher preparation programs to support game adoption, game selection.

### 4. Method

#### 4.1. *Design of the study*

Five hundred and thirty-seven in-service teachers from 19 regions of France were invited via their professional email address to participate to this mixed-method cross-sectional survey study. The required sample size was *n* = 160 for detecting a significant *R*², based on a test power of 0.95, a significance level of 0.05 and a medium-sized effect of *f*² = 0.15. To recruit participants, a multistage sampling was used. First, we selected 10 regions of France that were representative of the urban and rural areas of the country. We contacted all primary and secondary schools via their official contact address provided by the official website of the French Government to invite teachers to participate. Recruitment efforts were to sample teachers with a broad range of experience, from
varying types of schools and to recruit comparable samples of primary and secondary teachers. That procedure was repeated for 9 additional regions of France to ensure that we would reach the minimal required sample size. The same recruitment efforts were made to recruit university teachers. However, to recruit university teachers, we used our network from different universities.

## 4.2. Participants

Five hundred and thirty-seven in-service teachers were surveyed online using LimeSurvey. Due to missing or implausible data, the final data included a final sample of 255 teachers ($M_{age} = 45.0 SD = 10.8$; 196 females, 76,86%). Participants were invited via their professional mail address. Most participants were teaching in secondary school students (52.9%, students' school class range from 6th grade to 13th grade), 38.4% were teaching to primary school and kindergarten students (students' school class range from preschool to 5th grade), whereas 8.60% were teaching to university school students (from 1st year to Master students). Further sample characteristics can be found in Table 1 below. See also appendix 1 for more information about participants' school teaching levels.

Participation was voluntary and an informed consent was required before taking the survey. Data collection has been conducted between November 2023 and April 2024, following the ethical guidelines of the authors' Faculty of Education and the French General Rule about personal data protection.

## 4.3. Data collection

This anonymous survey was conducted with LimeSurvey and included 66 items divided into three sections. The first section (i) collected sociodemographic data and baseline teachers' characteristics (14 items). Sections two and three (ii) and (iii) followed a repeated response design with closed questions and were each composed of 26 items. Section (ii) assessed teachers' acceptance of COTS game in GBL and section (iii) assessed teachers' acceptance of serious BGs in GBL). In other words, for sections ii and iii, participants had to answer the same questions, but regarding two different types of BG (one serious and one COTS BG). Hence, the independent variable "level of seriousness of board games" was a within-subject variable. Total completion time was approximately 35 min. See Table 2 and online supplementary material for more details about the items used and the French version of the material.

<table><caption>**Table 1**
Sociodemographic characteristics of Participants.</caption><thead><tr><th>Characteristics</th><th>Frequency N = 255</th><th>Percentage of responses (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Study level</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>French A-Levels/High School Diploma</td><td>15</td><td>5.9</td></tr><tr><td>Bachelor</td><td>123</td><td>48.3</td></tr><tr><td>Master</td><td>110</td><td>43.1</td></tr><tr><td>PhD.</td><td>7</td><td>2.7</td></tr><tr><td><strong>School location</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mixed suburban area</td><td>54</td><td>21.2</td></tr><tr><td>Rural area</td><td>78</td><td>30.6</td></tr><tr><td>Urban area</td><td>96</td><td>37.6</td></tr><tr><td>Priority Education Area</td><td>20</td><td>7.8</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Time teaching</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1</td><td>14</td><td>5.5</td></tr><tr><td>1-2 years</td><td>12</td><td>4.7</td></tr><tr><td>2-6 years</td><td>14</td><td>5.5</td></tr><tr><td>6-8 years</td><td>16</td><td>6.3</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;8 years</td><td>199</td><td>78.0</td></tr></tbody></table>

<caption>**Table 2**</caption>

Examples of items used to assess perceived usefulness, ease of use, job relevance, curriculum relatedness, opportunities to learn and game enjoyment in the two types of game context (translated back into English for the present article. Items were presented to participants in French).

<table><thead><tr><th>scale</th><th>Number of items</th><th>Examples</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Perceived usefulness</td><td>5</td><td>"Using board Games in school teaching allows me to teach better"</td></tr><tr><td>Ease of use</td><td>3</td><td>"Using board games in school teaching is clear and understandable to me"</td></tr><tr><td>Job relevance</td><td>4</td><td>In the teaching profession, the use of board games in school teaching is important"</td></tr><tr><td>Curriculum relatedness</td><td>3</td><td>"Board games in school teaching would fit into the curriculum"</td></tr><tr><td>Opportunities to learn</td><td>8</td><td>"Board games offer opportunities to experiment with knowledge"</td></tr><tr><td>Game enjoyment</td><td>3</td><td>"I find using board games in school teaching to be enjoyable"</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 4.4. Procedure

At the beginning of the survey, participants were told that the aim of this study was to examine in-service teachers' representations of games in education. They were told that they would be exposed to two fictitious scenarios that presented two examples of different types of BGs they could use in their classroom. Participants were informed that these examples could seem restricted, but they could also imagine several didactic concepts and learning goals that were more relevant for them for each of the two games presented. After that brief introduction, participants filled in the consent form. Next, participants completed the sociodemographic (5 items) and baseline characteristics questionnaire (13 items). Then, in random order (i.e. either about the serious or about the COTS BG first), they completed the two 24-item questionnaires about teachers' acceptance of GBL with BGs.

## 4.5. COTS and serious board games used in the study

Two fictitious examples of BGs were presented to participants. Games were selected based on two criteria. First, the two games needed to be flexible enough to be adapted to any content knowledge and school level (primary, secondary and university school). Second, the two games needed to be as comparable as possible, in terms of game content and game mechanics, so that we would address a common limitation in prior studies. The game mechanic of the two games selected was based on idea and word association. Both games require players to retrieve prior knowledge, make inferences, and integrate information (their own knowledge and their representation of what other players' knowledge). Hence, game mechanics and learning mechanics tend to overlap importantly (Arnab et al., 2015). The games were presented to participants with pictures to illustrate the material, to foster smooth understanding of the game rules and to help teachers imagine how they could use this game with their own students. The presentation of the rules of each game also stated how many players could play each game at once (i.e. the number of minimum and maximum players). Hence, participants could infer that these game-based activities would require to settle several small groups of students. The two games were described as promoting creativity, imagination, observation, vocabulary, and communication with peers.

The COTS BG was dixit (created by Jean-Louis Roubira and Marie Cardouat and edited by Libellud in France), an illustrated card game. In this game, the storyteller tells a short phrase or a word to describe the image on a secret card of their choosing. Then, the other players must secretly select one card in their hand that best matches the storyteller's phrase. All cards are mixed and placed on the table. Players need to guess which card is the storyteller's one.

The serious BG was an adaptation of Code Names (created by Vlaada
Chvátil and edited by Jello in France). In this game, two teams of two compete. The goal is to be the first team that guesses the words that belong to their team among 25 concepts presented on a 5\*5 grid. In each team, the spymaster knows which cards belong to their team, which cards are neutral, and which cards belong to the opposing team. The two spymasters help their teammates guess their team's words. During their turn, the spymaster gives a one-word clue followed by a number, indicating how many word cards on the table relate to that clue. Next, their partner attempts to guess which word(s) the spymaster is hinting at. If they guess correctly, they may continue. If they fail, their turn ends immediately. After introducing the rules, teachers were provided with an actual example of a serious adaptation of this game, in which all words on the grid were specific words related to the concepts of a course. This serious adaptation of the code name tackled Educational Psychology concepts. Teachers were instructed to imagine creating their own set of words to have their students play with concepts from their own course content.

## 4.6. Measures

The present study uses questionnaires that were created and tested in prior studies about pre-service teachers' acceptance of digital games in education. Based on a rigorous translation-back translation process, we adapted Rüth and colleagues' (2022) teachers' acceptance of digital GBL self-assessment questionnaire in French. Their questionnaire was created based on prior works, notably on opportunities to learn (Bourgonjon et al., 2013), attitudes towards gaming (Hsu et al., 2014) and the TAM3 scales (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008). Such theoretical framework and tools are consistent with what is often used to examine teachers' factors of acceptance of teaching practices (Bacsa-Károlyi & Fehérvári, 2024). For the present study, we selected 6 dimensions: (i) perceived usefulness, (ii) ease of use, (iii) job relevance, (iv) curriculum relatedness, (v) opportunities to learn and (vi) perceived game enjoyment. In addition, we also adapted from Rüth and colleagues (2022) items measuring personal characteristics: prior personal gaming experience, prior professional gaming experience, prior gaming experience during teacher education as well as subjective norms and attitudes towards gaming. Of note, norms associated with gaming included items related to professional reputation. For each item, the expression "digital games" was replaced by "board games". The remaining adaptations consisted of translating the items into French. All items were self-assessed with a five-point Likert-scale. See Table 2 for the 5 scales and examples of items.

## 4.7. Reliability and internal consistency of the scales

The survey about teachers' perceptions of games consisted in translated and adapted scales from surveys created for prior studies (i.e. "video games" was replaced by "board games") (Bourgonjon et al., 2013; Hsu et al., 2014). Because the psychometric quality of the scales may be influenced by the context of board games instead of digital games, we conducted Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to ensure that our adaptations did not hamper the psychometric qualities of the scales.

### 4.7.1. Exploratory factor analysis

For the EFA, principal axis factoring with oblimin rotation was carried out to reconstruct the suggested 6-factor structure of the two questionnaires about teachers' perceptions of GBL with board games. Regarding the COTS game questionnaire, all criteria were met: the Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin measure of sphericity exceeded was above 0.60 (minimum KMO = 0.77), and the Bartlett's test of sphericity was significant (*p* < .001). The 5-factor structure identified explained 73.2% of the variance among the items. Unlike prior studies (Rüth, 2022) curriculum relatedness and job relevance loaded on one common factor. Each item loaded high or relatively high on its own factor, and lower on

other factors, except for two items (Perceived opportunities to learn 4 and 5). Regarding the serious game questionnaire, all criteria were met: the Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin measure of sphericity exceeded was above 0.60 (minimum KMO = 0.78), and the Bartlett's test of sphericity was significant (*p* < .001). The same 5-factor structure identified explained 71.7% of the variance among the items. Unlike prior studies (Rüth, 2022) and in line with results of the EFA for the COTS game questionnaire, curriculum relatedness and job relevance loaded on one common factor. Each item loaded high on its own factor, and low on other factors, except for the same two items (Perceived opportunities to learn 4 and 5). Consistently, as these two items were problematic for the two questionnaires, we decided to remove them. Item Perceived enjoyment 1 was also weakly loading on its corresponding factor for the two questionnaires, so we removed it as well. See Tables 3 and 4 below for the results of the EFA.

### 4.7.2. Confirmatory factor analyses

Confirmatory factor analyses were performed to test the factor structure stability and internal consistency. The fit measures for the measurement model were calculated to determine the stability of the 5-factor structure. Error terms were not allowed to correlate. Results of the CFA showed that all fit measures acceptably met the requirements for satisfactory fit (Byrne, 2001): $\chi^2/df = 443$; RMSEA = 0.09; SRMR = 0.044; CFI = 0.93; and TLI = 0.92. For the serious BG, item curriculum relatedness 1 was problematic and was removed. Results of the CFA showed that all fit measures were acceptable (Byrne, 2001): $\chi^2/df = 352$; RMSEA = 0.89; SRMR = 0.04; CFI = 0.94; and TLI = 0.93.

### 4.7.3. Reliability analyses

Finally, we checked internal consistency of teachers' baseline characteristics, attitudes, and norms as well as the consistency of the 6 scales assessing perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, job relevance, curriculum relatedness and opportunities to learn for the two COTS and serious games scales (see Tables 5 and 6). All scales showed a good to very good internal consistency (Cronbach's $\alpha$ > 0.70), except gaming experience during teacher education ($\alpha$ = .60), but it was still within an acceptable range. Answers revealed that most teachers did not receive official training related to GBL during their studies.

## 4.8. Data analyses

To answer our 2 research questions, we performed mixed linear models for each of our five dependent variables related to teachers' acceptance of GBL with BGs. The level of seriousness of the games and teachers' school teaching level were entered as dummy variables. Teachers' personal, professional and during training prior experience with games as well as teachers' norms and attitudes were entered as centered predictors. The interaction term between the two dummy variables was added. In case a significant interaction was found between the level of seriousness of games and school teaching level, post-hoc Bonferroni's tests with adjustments for multiple comparisons were conducted to examine group differences. To control potential random effects related to participants' characteristics, "participant" was entered as a cluster variable. Mixed linear models were chosen because they allowed us to examine our research question while considering (i) the influence of all variables at once and (ii) the potential random effects of other interindividual differences not tackled in the present study. Mixed linear models also allow unbalanced designs by integrating the variances of each group into the estimation (Hox, 2013; Mallinckrodt et al., 2001). As the number of teachers included in each school teaching level was not similar, this was particularly relevant. This mixed linear model was conducted 6 times for each of our 6 DVs related to teachers' acceptance of board games for education: perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, perceived job relevance and curriculum relatedness, perceived opportunities to learn, and perceived game enjoyment. Finally, the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) was reported as an
<caption>**Table 3**</caption>

Principal axis factoring – oblimin rotation (N = 255) for the COTS game questionnaire.

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Item</th><th colspan="5">Factor</th></tr><tr><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>PU1: Donnerait d'excellents résultats scolaires</td><td>0.72</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PU2: Permettrait aux apprenants d'être plus efficaces dans leurs apprentissages</td><td>0.83</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PU3: Permettrait aux apprenants d'améliorer leurs résultats scolaires</td><td>0.98</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PU4: Améliorerait mes compétences en tant que personnel d'éducation</td><td>0.61</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PU5: Améliorerait mon efficacité en tant que personnel d'éducation</td><td>0.65</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PEOU1: Je pense être capable d'utiliser efficacement ce type de jeux en classe</td><td></td><td>0.55</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PEOU2: Je pense qu'il est facile d'utiliser des jeux de société en temps scolaire ou extra/périscolaire pour enseigner</td><td></td><td>0.74</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PEOU3: Je pense que mes interactions avec ce type de jeux en classe seraient simples</td><td></td><td>0.93</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JR1: Dans mon métier, l'utilisation de ce type de jeu est utile</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.90</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JR2: Dans mon métier, l'utilisation de ce type de jeu est importante</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.79</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JR3: L'utilisation de ce type de jeu est pertinente pour les diverses tâches en jeu dans mon métier</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.90</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JR4: Utiliser ce jeu en classe serait un moyen efficace d'aider mes apprenants à développer des compétences</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.80</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CUR1: L'utilisation de ce jeu en contexte scolaire ou extra/périscolaire semble pertinente par rapport au programme que j'enseigne à mes apprenants</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.86</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CUR2: Je perçois les liens que je peux faire entre ce jeu et mes objectifs pédagogiques</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.95</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CUR3: Je pourrais trouver des connaissances ou compétences à travailler avec mes apprenants avec ce jeu</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.79</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>POL1: Permettrait aux apprenants de tester leurs connaissances</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.82</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>POL2: Permettrait aux apprenants de mieux contrôler leurs activités d'apprentissage</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.69</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>POL3: Permettrait aux apprenants de mettre à l'épreuve les connaissances vues en contexte scolaire à de nouvelles situations</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.59</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>POL4: Favoriserait l'amusement au détriment de l'objectif d'apprentissage</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.37</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>POL5: Permettrait aux apprenants d'être plus motivés en classe</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.34</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PJOY1: Je prendrais plaisir à utiliser ce type de jeu en contexte scolaire et/ou extra/périscolaire</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.55</td></tr><tr><td>PJOY2: Mes apprenants prendraient plaisir à utiliser ce type de jeu</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.74</td></tr><tr><td>PJOY3: Mes apprenants s'amuseraient en utilisant ce jeu</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.93</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: PU = perceived usefulness, PEOU = perceived ease of use, JR = job relevance, CUR = curriculum relatedness, POL = perceived opportunities to learn, PJOY = Perceived game enjoyment.

estimate of the mean log-likelihood. The models' goodness-of-fit increases as the AIC decreases. Data met all assumptions of mixed linear models. Analyses were conducted using Jamovi 2.4.14 (The jamovi project, 2024). As the mixed linear models allowed us to examine the impact of the level of seriousness of the game (RQ1), teachers' personal, professional, during teaching education prior gaming experience, attitudes, norms and school teaching level (RQ 2) at once, the results section will first present intercorrelations among variables, then the results of

<caption>**Table 4**</caption>

Principal axis factoring – oblimin rotation (N = 255) for the COTS game questionnaire.

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Item</th><th colspan="5">Factor</th></tr><tr><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>PU1: Donnerait d'excellents résultats scolaires</td><td>0.53</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PU2: Permettrait aux apprenants d'être plus efficaces dans leurs apprentissages</td><td>0.49</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PU3: Permettrait aux apprenants d'améliorer leurs résultats scolaires</td><td>0.55</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PU4: Améliorerait mes compétences en tant que personnel d'éducation</td><td>0.69</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PU5: Améliorerait mon efficacité en tant que personnel d'éducation</td><td>0.73</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PEOU1: Je pense être capable d'utiliser efficacement ce type de jeux en classe</td><td></td><td>0.53</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PEOU2: Je pense qu'il est facile d'utiliser des jeux de société en temps scolaire ou extra/périscolaire pour enseigner</td><td></td><td>0.71</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PEOU3: Je pense que mes interactions avec ce type de jeux en classe seraient simples</td><td></td><td>0.64</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JR1: Dans mon métier, l'utilisation de ce type de jeu est utile</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.79</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JR2: Dans mon métier, l'utilisation de ce type de jeu est importante</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.67</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JR3: L'utilisation de ce type de jeu est pertinente pour les diverses tâches en jeu dans mon métier</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.69</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>JR4: Utiliser ce jeu en classe serait un moyen efficace d'aider mes apprenants à développer des compétences</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.69</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CUR1: L'utilisation de ce jeu en contexte scolaire ou extra/périscolaire semble pertinente par rapport au programme que j'enseigne à mes apprenants</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.81</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CUR2: Je perçois les liens que je peux faire entre ce jeu et mes objectifs pédagogiques</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.78</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CUR3: Je pourrais trouver des connaissances ou compétences à travailler avec mes apprenants avec ce jeu</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.80</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>POL1: Permettrait aux apprenants de tester leurs connaissances</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.68</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>POL2: Permettrait aux apprenants de mieux contrôler leurs activités d'apprentissage</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.62</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>POL3: Permettrait aux apprenants de mettre à l'épreuve les connaissances vues en contexte scolaire à de nouvelles situations</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.71</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>POL4: Favoriserait l'amusement au détriment de l'objectif d'apprentissage</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.45</td><td>0.38</td></tr><tr><td>POL5: Permettrait aux apprenants d'être plus motivés en classe</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.39</td><td>0.38</td></tr><tr><td>PJOY1: Je prendrais plaisir à utiliser ce type de jeu en contexte scolaire et/ou extra/périscolaire</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.44</td></tr><tr><td>PJOY2: Mes apprenants prendraient plaisir à utiliser ce type de jeu</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.89</td></tr><tr><td>PJOY3: Mes apprenants s'amuseraient en utilisant ce jeu</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.97</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: PU = perceived usefulness, PEOU = perceived ease of use, JR = job relevance, CUR = curriculum relatedness, POL = perceived opportunities to learn, PJOY = Perceived game enjoyment.

the mixed linear model per dependent variable.

## 5. Results

### 5.1. Intercorrelations among variables and descriptive screening of the data

Pearson correlations among variables showed that almost all
<table><caption>**Table 5**
Internal consistency, means and standard deviations for teachers' characteristics, attitudes and norms associated with GBL with BGs.</caption><thead><tr><th>Scale</th><th>α</th><th>M (SD)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Prior personal gaming experience (3 items e.g. "I like playing board games")</td><td>0.90</td><td>4.15<br>(0.94)</td></tr><tr><td>Prior professional Gaming experience (4 items e.g. "During my career I have used board games with my students")</td><td>0.77</td><td>3.49<br>(0.94)</td></tr><tr><td>Prior gaming experience during teacher education (2 items e.g. "During my studies, I have gained experience with approaches to teaching with board games")</td><td>0.60</td><td>1.77<br>(0.99)</td></tr><tr><td>Attitudes towards gaming (4 items e.g. "The characteristics of Board games can be helpful for teaching students")</td><td>0.80</td><td>4.06<br>(0.81)</td></tr><tr><td>Norms associated with board gaming and professional reputation (10 items e.g. "People in my school think that I should use board games in school teaching")</td><td>0.80</td><td>3.23<br>(0.64)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: all items used a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree).

<table><caption>**Table 6**
Internal consistency, means and standard deviations for our six DVs related to teachers' acceptance of GBL with BGs as a function of the level of seriousness of the game.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Commercial off the shelf BG</th><th colspan="2">Serious BG</th></tr><tr><th>α</th><th>M (SD)</th><th>α</th><th>M (SD)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Perceived usefulness</td><td>0.90</td><td>3.55 (0.81)</td><td>0.87</td><td>3.57<br>(0.76)</td></tr><tr><td>Perceived ease of use</td><td>0.87</td><td>3.62 (0.98)</td><td>0.83</td><td>3.54<br>(0.91)</td></tr><tr><td>Perceived job relevance and curriculum relatedness</td><td>0.96</td><td>3.71 (1.01)</td><td>0.95</td><td>3.70<br>(0.97)</td></tr><tr><td>Perceived opportunities to learn</td><td>0.82</td><td>3.67 (0.68)</td><td>0.82</td><td>3.78<br>(0.65)</td></tr><tr><td>Perceived game enjoyment</td><td>0.91</td><td>4.08 (0.76)</td><td>0.92</td><td>4.07<br>(0.78)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: all items used a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree).

teachers' characteristics were positively correlated with teachers' acceptance of the serious and the COTS BGs (see Tables 7 and 8). The only exceptions were for prior gaming experience during teacher education which did not correlate with perceived usefulness ($r = 0.12, p = .28$) and perceived enjoyment ($r = -0.07, p = .12$) for the serious game questionnaire. Subjective norms were also not correlated to perceived enjoyment with the serious game ($r = 0.082, p = .06$) and the COTS game ($r = 0.04, p = .51$). Apart from subjective norms, the direction and strength of the correlations observed were consistent with prior findings (Rüth et al., 2022).

5.2 Do the level of seriousness of the game, prior personal and

professional gaming experience, prior gaming experience during teacher education as well as subjective norms and attitudes towards gaming influence in-service teachers' acceptance of GBL with BGs?

Means and standards deviations for all DVs, as a function of the level of seriousness of the game, can be found on Table 9. A descriptive screening of participants' answers showed that teachers had an overall positive acceptance of GBL with BGs.

To answer our research question, a linear mixed model was fitted (estimated using REML and bobyqa optimizer). The level of seriousness of the game (i.e. serious vs COTS), teachers' prior personal, professional, and during teacher education prior gaming experience, attitudes, subjective norms and school teaching level were entered as predictors. All DVs related to teachers' acceptance of GBL with BGs were considered one by one. Participant was used a cluster variable to control for random effects. See Table 10 for means and standards deviations.

### 5.1.1. Perceived usefulness

The model was significant on perceived usefulness (Marginal $R^2 = 0.18$, LRT $X^2(10) = 69.04, p < .001$, AIC = 1079, BIC = 1134). Within this model, the impact of the level of seriousness of the game and school teaching level was not significant ($F(1,252) = 3.07, p = .08$ and $F(2,247) = 1.83, p = .16$). Prior personal gaming experience, professional gaming experience and gaming experience during teaching education were not significant ($F(1,247) = 0.59, p = .44, F(1, 247) = 1.37, p = .24$ and $F(1,247) = 1.63, p = .20$). Attitudes and subjective norms significantly predicted perceived usefulness ($F(1, 247) = 12.95, p < .001$ and $F(1, 247) = 8.11, p = .005$). Finally, the interaction between the level of seriousness of the game and school teaching level did not reach significance ($F(2,252) = 2.19, p = .11$). See Table 11 for fixed parameter estimates. Random component was: $SD = 0.57, Variance = 0.032, ICC = 0.591, 95\% CI [0.49, 0.63]$.

### 5.1.2. Ease of use

The model was significant (Marginal $R^2 = 0.29$, LRT $X^2(10) = 277.88, p < .001$, AIC = 1216, BIC = 1271). The impact of the level of seriousness of the game and school teaching level was not significant ($F(1,252) = 0.69, p = .41$ and $F(2,247) = 0.31, p = .89$). Prior personal gaming experience reached significance $F(1,247) = 6.65, p = .01$, whereas prior professional gaming experience and gaming experience during teaching education did not ($F(1,247) = 0.021, p = .65$ and $F(1,247) = 0.70, p = .40$). Attitudes significantly predicted perceived usefulness ($F(1, 247) = 43.07, p < .001$ but subjective norms did not $F(1,247) = 0.53, p = .47$). Finally, the interaction did not reach significance ($F(2,252) = 0.12, p = .89$). See Table 12. Random component was: $SD = 0.63, Variance = 0.40, ICC = 0.57, 95\% CI [0.54, 0.70]$.

### 5.1.3. Job relevance and curriculum relatedness

The model was significant (Marginal $R^2 = 0.38$, LRT $X^2(10) =$

<table><caption>**Table 7**
Pearson correlations among all variables for the COTS BG context.</caption><thead><tr><th>Variable</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th><th>7</th><th>8</th><th>9</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.PU</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2.PEOU</td><td>0.43***</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3.JRCUR</td><td>0.67***</td><td>0.63***</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4.POL</td><td>0.66***</td><td>0.51***</td><td>0.72***</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5. PJOY</td><td>0.34***</td><td>0.42***</td><td>0.49***</td><td>0.41***</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>6.EXP-P</td><td>0.18***</td><td>0.25***</td><td>0.20**</td><td>0.19**</td><td>0.27***</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>7.EXP-Pro</td><td>0.32***</td><td>0.41***</td><td>0.50***</td><td>0.41***</td><td>0.25***</td><td>0.32***</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>8.EXP-TE</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.13*</td><td>0.13*</td><td>0.09</td><td>-0.05</td><td>-0.015</td><td>0.282***</td><td>-</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>9.ATT</td><td>0.38***</td><td>0.53***</td><td>0.58***</td><td>0.48***</td><td>0.33***</td><td>0.37</td><td>0.67***</td><td>0.162**</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>10.SN</td><td>0.26***</td><td>0.22***</td><td>0.34***</td><td>0.23***</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.38***</td><td>0.39***</td><td>0.38***</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: PU = perceived usefulness, PEOU = perceived ease of use, JRCUR = job relevance and curriculum relatedness, POL = perceived opportunities to learn, PJOY = Perceived game enjoyment, EXP-G = game experience - personal, EXP-Pro = game experience - professional, EXP-TE = game experience - teacher education, ATT = attitude towards gaming, SN = subjective norms. Grey cells correspond to general game perception and experience (not specific to the Game).
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
<table><caption>**Table 8**

Pearson correlations among all variables for the serious BG context.</caption><thead><tr><th>Variable</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th><th>7</th><th>8</th><th>9</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.PU</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2.PEOU</td><td>0.44***</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3.JRCUR</td><td>0.64***</td><td>0.56***</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4.POL</td><td>0.66***</td><td>0.52***</td><td>0.69***</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5. PJOY</td><td>0.36***</td><td>0.40***</td><td>0.51***</td><td>0.43***</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>6.EXP-P</td><td>0.18***</td><td>0.31***</td><td>0.20***</td><td>0.20***</td><td>0.24***</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>7.EXP-Pro</td><td>0.31***</td><td>0.38**</td><td>0.50**</td><td>0.40***</td><td>0.27***</td><td>0.32***</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>8.EXP-TE</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.13**</td><td>0.13**</td><td>0.09*</td><td>-0.07</td><td>-0.02</td><td>0.28***</td><td>-</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>9.ATT</td><td>0.39***</td><td>0.53***</td><td>0.58***</td><td>0.51***</td><td>0.35***</td><td>0.37***</td><td>0.67***</td><td>0.16**</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>10.SN</td><td>0.26***</td><td>0.24***</td><td>0.24***</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.38***</td><td>0.40***</td><td>0.38***</td><td>0.38***</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: PU = perceived usefulness, PEOU = perceived ease of use, JRCUR = job relevance and curriculum relatedness, POL = perceived opportunities to learn, PJOY = Perceived game enjoyment, EXP-G = game experience - personal, EXP-Pro = game experience - professional, EXP-TE = game experience - teacher education, ATT = attitude towards gaming, SN = subjective norms. Grey cells correspond to general perceptions (not related to the Serious Code Name Game).
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

<table><caption>**Table 9**

Means and standards deviations (SD) for all DVs, as a function of the type of game context.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Game type</th></tr><tr><th>Commercial off-the-shelf game</th><th>Serious game</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Perceived usefulness</td><td>3.52 (0.81)</td><td>3.55 (0.77)</td></tr><tr><td>Ease of use</td><td>3.55 (1.02)</td><td>3.46 (0.95)</td></tr><tr><td>Job relevance and curriculum relatedness</td><td>3.71 (1.01)</td><td>3.66 (0.99)</td></tr><tr><td>Opportunities to learn</td><td>3.67 (0.68)</td><td>3.78 (0.65)</td></tr><tr><td>Perceived enjoyment</td><td>4.08 (0.78)</td><td>4.07 (0.79)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: maximum score = 5.

<table><caption>**Table 10**

Means and standards deviations (SD) for all DVs, as a function of the level of seriousness of the game and school level.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2">Game type</th><th colspan="3">School teaching level</th></tr><tr><th>Primary</th><th>Secondary</th><th>University</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Perceived usefulness</td><td>COTS</td><td>3.77 (0.70)</td><td>3.56 (0.89)</td><td>3.71(0.74)</td></tr><tr><td>Serious</td><td>3.73 (0.63)</td><td>3.60 (0.78)</td><td>4.03 (0.82)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Ease of use</td><td>COTS</td><td>3.73 (0.91)</td><td>3.51 (1.06)</td><td>3.50 (0.90)</td></tr><tr><td>Serious</td><td>3.67 (0.85)</td><td>3.41 (0.97)</td><td>3.48 (0.92)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Job relevance and curriculum relatedness</td><td>COTS</td><td>3.98 (0.69)</td><td>3.65 (1.05)</td><td>3.66 (1.13)</td></tr><tr><td>Serious</td><td>3.82 (0.82)</td><td>3.61 (1.01)</td><td>3.84 (1.10)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Opportunities to learn</td><td>COTS</td><td>3.76 (0.47)</td><td>3.62 (0.73)</td><td>3.87 (0.47)</td></tr><tr><td>Serious</td><td>3.84 (0.53)</td><td>3.74 (0.69)</td><td>4.01 (0.47)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Perceived enjoyment</td><td>COTS</td><td>3.98 (0.98)</td><td>4.10 (0.72)</td><td>4.11 (0.67)</td></tr><tr><td>Serious</td><td>4.02 (0.81)</td><td>4.07 (78)</td><td>4.20 (0.77)</td></tr></tbody></table>

14144.209, *p* < .001, AIC = 1087, BIC = 1142). The impact of the level of seriousness of the game and school teaching level was not significant *F* (1, 252) = 0.02, *p* = .88 and *F* (1, 247) = 1.77, *p* = .17). Prior personal gaming experience and gaming experience during teaching education were not significant (*F* (1, 247) = 0.06, *p* = .80, and *F* (1, 247) = 0.11, *p* = .74). However, prior professional gaming experience reached significance (*F* (1, 247) = 7.15, *p* < .01). Attitudes and subjective norms significantly predicted job relevance (*F* (1, 247) = 40.12, *p* < .001 and *F* (1, 247) = 8.85, *p* = .003). The interaction was not significant (*F* (2, 252)

<table><caption>**Table 11**

Fixed effects parameters estimates for perceived utility.</caption><thead><tr><th>Name</th><th>Estimate</th><th>SE</th><th>95% CI</th><th>t</th><th>P</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>3.56</td><td>0.12</td><td>3.32</td><td>3.80</td><td>29.74</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Level of seriousness of the game</td><td>-0.04</td><td>0.10</td><td>-0.23</td><td>0.16</td><td>-0.38</td><td>0.71</td></tr><tr><td>School teaching level 2-1</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.14</td><td>-0.22</td><td>0.31</td><td>0.37</td><td>0.71</td></tr><tr><td>School teaching level 3-1</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.20</td><td>-0.23</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.78</td><td>0.43</td></tr><tr><td>Prior personal gaming experience</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.05</td><td>-0.06</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.77</td><td>0.44</td></tr><tr><td>Prior professional gaming experience</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.06</td><td>-0.05</td><td>0.20</td><td>1.17</td><td>0.24</td></tr><tr><td>Prior gaming experience during teacher education</td><td>-0.60</td><td>0.05</td><td>-0.15</td><td>0.03</td><td>-1.28</td><td>0.20</td></tr><tr><td>Attitudes</td><td>0.26</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.40</td><td>3.60</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Subjective norms</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.39</td><td>2.85</td><td>0.005</td></tr><tr><td>Level of seriousness of the game X school teaching level 2-1*2-1</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.11</td><td>-0.14</td><td>0.29</td><td>0.67</td><td>0.50</td></tr><tr><td>Level of seriousness of the game X school teaching level 2-1*3-1</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.69</td><td>2.04</td><td>0.04</td></tr></tbody></table>

Nota Bene: reference level for the level of seriousness of the game: serious game, for school level: primary school.

= 2.43, *p* = .09). Random component was: *SD* = 0.67, Variance = 0.45, ICC = 0.711, 95% CI [0.59, 0.73]. See Table 13.

### 5.1.4. Opportunities to learn

The model was significant (Marginal R² = 0.28, LRT X²(10) = 113.22, *p* < .001, AIC = 743, BIC = 798). The impact of the level of seriousness of the game was significant, whereas school teaching level was not (*F* (1,252) = 8.04, *p* = .005 and *F* (1,247) = 2.66, *p* = .07). Post Hoc Bonferroni's comparison showed that teachers perceived more opportunities to learn for the serious as compared to COTS BGs (*M* = 3.69 *SE* = 0.05 and *M* = 3.80 *SE* = 0.05, *p* = .005). Prior personal gaming experience, prior professional gaming experience and gaming experience during teaching education were not significant (*F* (1,247) = 0.02, *p* = .89, *F* (1,247) = 2.76, *p* = .10 and *F* (1,247) = 0.08, *p* = .77). Attitudes were significant but and subjective norms were not (*F* (1,247) = 34.34, *p* < .001 and *F* (1,247) = 1.68, *p* = .20). The interaction was not significant (*F* (2,25) = 0.18, *p* = .84). Random component was: *SD* = 0.49, Variance = 0.24, ICC = 0.73, 95% CI [0.43, 0.53]. See Table 14.

### 5.1.5. Perceived enjoyment

The model was significant (Marginal R² = 0.16, LRT X²(10) = 61.21,
<table><caption>**Table 12**
Fixed effects parameters estimates for teachers' perceived ease of use.</caption><thead><tr><th>Name</th><th>Estimate</th><th>SE</th><th>95%CI</th><th>t</th><th>p</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>3.45</td><td>0.14</td><td>3.18</td><td>3.71</td><td>25.34</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Level of seriousness of the game</td><td>-0.06</td><td>0.12</td><td>-0.29</td><td>0.17</td><td>-0.48</td><td>0.63</td></tr><tr><td>School teaching level 2-1</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.15</td><td>-0.17</td><td>0.43</td><td>0.82</td><td>0.41</td></tr><tr><td>School teaching level 3-1</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.23</td><td>-0.40</td><td>0.49</td><td>-0.20</td><td>0.84</td></tr><tr><td>Prior personal gaming experience</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.25</td><td>2.58</td><td>0.01</td></tr><tr><td>Prior professional gaming experience</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.07</td><td>-0.11</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.46</td><td>0.65</td></tr><tr><td>Prior gaming experience during teacher education</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.05</td><td>-0.06</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.84</td><td>0.40</td></tr><tr><td>Attitudes</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.37</td><td>0.70</td><td>6.56</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Subjective norms</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.09</td><td>-0.11</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.73</td><td>0.47</td></tr><tr><td>Level of seriousness of the game X school teaching level 2-1*2-1</td><td>-0.04</td><td>0.13</td><td>-0.29</td><td>0.22</td><td>-0.30</td><td>0.77</td></tr><tr><td>Level of seriousness of the game X school teaching level 2-1*3-1</td><td>-0.03</td><td>0.20</td><td>-0.36</td><td>0.43</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.87</td></tr></tbody></table>

Nota Bene: reference level for the level of seriousness of the game: serious game, for school level: primary school.

<table><caption>**Table 13**
Fixed effects parameters estimates for job relevance.</caption><thead><tr><th>Name</th><th>Estimate</th><th>SE</th><th>95%CI</th><th>t</th><th>p</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>3.56</td><td>0.13</td><td>3.30</td><td>3.81</td><td>67.24</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Level of seriousness of the game</td><td>-0.17</td><td>0.09</td><td>-0.34</td><td>0.01</td><td>-0.98</td><td>0.07</td></tr><tr><td>School teaching level 2-1</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.15</td><td>-0.09</td><td>0.48</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.19</td></tr><tr><td>School teaching level 3-1</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.22</td><td>-0.34</td><td>0.51</td><td>-1.74</td><td>0.70</td></tr><tr><td>Prior personal gaming experience</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.05</td><td>-0.09</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.31</td><td>0.80</td></tr><tr><td>Prior professional gaming experience</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.33</td><td>2.57</td><td>0.008</td></tr><tr><td>Prior gaming experience during teacher education</td><td>-0.02</td><td>0.05</td><td>-0.12</td><td>0.08</td><td>-0.53</td><td>0.74</td></tr><tr><td>Attitudes</td><td>0.51</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.35</td><td>0.67</td><td>6.46</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Subjective norms</td><td>0.27</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.45</td><td>3.19</td><td>0.003</td></tr><tr><td>Level of seriousness of the game X school teaching level 2-1*2-1</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.10</td><td>-0.07</td><td>0.32</td><td>1.33</td><td>0.22</td></tr><tr><td>Level of seriousness of the game X school teaching level 2-1*3-1</td><td>0.35</td><td>0.16</td><td>-0.37</td><td>0.66</td><td>-1.21</td><td>0.03</td></tr></tbody></table>

Nota Bene: reference level for the level of seriousness of the game: serious game, for school level: primary school.

p < .001, AIC = 1086, BIC = 1141). The impact of the level of seriousness of the game and of school teaching level was not significant (F (1,252) = 0.27, p = .60 and F(1,247) = 2.24, p = .11). The impact of prior personal gaming experience, prior professional gaming experience, and prior gaming experience during teaching education reached significance (F(1,247) = 3.82, p = .05, F(1,247) = 3.66, p = .05, and F (1,247) = 4.25, p = .04). As presented in Table 15, prior personal and prior professional gaming experience had a positive impact on perceived enjoyment, whereas prior gaming experience during teacher education had a negative impact. Attitudes were significant but and subjective norms were not (F(1,247) = 12.35, p < .001 and F(1,247) = 0.03, p = .87). The interaction was not significant (F(2,252) = 0.45, p = .63).

<table><caption>**Table 14**
Fixed effects parameters estimates for perceived opportunities to learn.</caption><thead><tr><th>Name</th><th>Estimate</th><th>SE</th><th>95%CI</th><th>t</th><th>p</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>3.54</td><td>0.09</td><td>3.36</td><td>3.73</td><td>38.006</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Level of seriousness of the game</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.20</td><td>3.65</td><td>0.005</td></tr><tr><td>School teaching level 2-1</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.10</td><td>-0.07</td><td>0.34</td><td>1.25</td><td>0.20</td></tr><tr><td>School teaching level 3-1</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.15</td><td>-0.002</td><td>0.60</td><td>1.94</td><td>0.052</td></tr><tr><td>Prior personal gaming experience</td><td>0.005</td><td>0.04</td><td>-0.07</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.85</td></tr><tr><td>Prior professional gaming experience</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.05</td><td>-0.02</td><td>0.18</td><td>1.66</td><td>0.13</td></tr><tr><td>Prior gaming experience during teacher education</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.04</td><td>-0.08</td><td>0.06</td><td>-0.29</td><td>0.83</td></tr><tr><td>Attitudes</td><td>0.34</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.46</td><td>5.86</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Subjective norms</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.07</td><td>-0.04</td><td>0.21</td><td>1.30</td><td>0.20</td></tr><tr><td>Level of seriousness of the game X school teaching level 2-1*2-1</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.07</td><td>-0.10</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.62</td></tr><tr><td>Level of seriousness of the game X school teaching level 2-1*3-1</td><td>-0.03</td><td>0.11</td><td>-0.16</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.59</td></tr></tbody></table>

Nota Bene: reference level for the level of seriousness of the game: serious game, for school level: primary school.

<table><caption>**Table 15**
Fixed effects parameters estimates for perceived enjoyment.</caption><thead><tr><th>Name</th><th>Estimate</th><th>SE</th><th>95%CI</th><th>t</th><th>p</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>3.86</td><td>0.11</td><td>3.63</td><td>4.08</td><td>33.39</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Level of seriousness of the game</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.11</td><td>-0.18</td><td>0.26</td><td>0.42</td><td>0.68</td></tr><tr><td>School teaching level 2-1</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.53</td><td>2.11</td><td>0.04</td></tr><tr><td>School teaching level 3-1</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.19</td><td>-0.13</td><td>0.63</td><td>1.30</td><td>0.20</td></tr><tr><td>Prior personal gaming experience</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.04</td><td>-0.004</td><td>0.18</td><td>1.95</td><td>0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Prior professional gaming experience</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.06</td><td>-0.000</td><td>0.23</td><td>1.91</td><td>0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Prior gaming experience during teacher education</td><td>-0.09</td><td>0.04</td><td>-0.18</td><td>-0.004</td><td>-2.06</td><td>0.04</td></tr><tr><td>Attitudes</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.37</td><td>3.51</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Subjective norms</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.08</td><td>-0.14</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.87</td></tr><tr><td>Level of seriousness of the game X school teaching level 2-1*2-1</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.16</td><td>-0.21</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.61</td><td>0.54</td></tr><tr><td>Level of seriousness of the game X school teaching level 2-1*3-1</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.12</td><td>-0.16</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.63</td><td>0.53</td></tr></tbody></table>

Nota Bene: reference level for the level of seriousness of the game: serious game, for school level: primary school.
Random component was: $SD = 0.50$, Variance = 0.25, ICC = 0.47, 95% CI [0.42, 0.56]. See Table 15.

## 5.2. Summary of results: impact of the level of seriousness of the games on teachers' acceptance of GBL with board games

Of the five variables related to teachers' acceptance of BG (i.e. perceived usefulness, ease of use, job relevance and curriculum relatedness, opportunities to learn and perceived enjoyment), results showed that the level of seriousness of the game only affected perceived opportunities to learn. Perceived opportunities were greater for the serious than for the COTS BG, but no impact of the level of seriousness of the games appeared on curriculum relatedness, which tended to corroborate H1. Results also tended to corroborate H2, as comparable perceived usefulness, ease of use, job relevance and curriculum relatedness as well as perceived enjoyment were found for COTS BGs and serious BGs.

## 5.3. Summary of results: impact of teachers' characteristics on teachers' acceptance of GBL with board games

All teachers' characteristics did not positively predict all five dependent variables related to teachers' acceptance of BG, which partially validated H3. School teaching level had no significant impact. Prior personal experience with BGs was associated with greater perceived ease of use and lower perceived game enjoyment. Prior professional experience with BGs positively predicted job relevance and curriculum relatedness, as well as perceived enjoyment. Prior gaming experience during teaching negatively predicted perceived enjoyment. H4 was also partially validated. Attitudes positively predicted all variables, whereas subjective norms were associated with positive perceived usefulness, job relevance and curriculum relatedness but not with perceived ease of use, perceived opportunities to learn and perceived enjoyment.

# 6. Discussion

This study examined in-service primary, secondary and university teachers' factors of acceptance of GBL with BGs. Despite promising evidence of the educational benefits of BGs (Bayeck, 2020), few studies have investigated teachers' representations. Yet, better understanding the factors of acceptance of BGs would support teachers' relevant use of BGs in classrooms. We investigated whether the level of seriousness of the game (COTS BGs vs serious BGs), prior personal and professional gaming experience, prior gaming experience during teacher education, subjective norms and attitudes towards gaming influence teachers' acceptance of GBL with BGs.

## 6.1. Do teachers' perception of GBL with BGs differs as a function of the level of seriousness of the game?

Teachers perceived more opportunities to learn for their students for the serious BG as compared to the COTS one, no matter their school teaching level (H1). This finding corroborated prior studies about the influence of contextual features on individuals' perception and confirmed that it can be difficult to adapt COTS BGs (Hu & Sperling, 2022; Portier-Charneau & Sanchiz, 2024; Rouet et al., 2017; Sanchiz et al., 2024; Van Eck, 2009; Venkatesh et al., 2003). It also aligns with recent studies that showed that the level of seriousness, as manipulated by introducing a GBL activity as a game or as a learning task, can influence secondary school or university students' learning outcome and increase their perceived utility of the game (Portier-Charneau & Sanchiz, 2024; Sanchiz et al., 2024).

In contrast with Hu and Sperling's work (2022) who dealt with pre-service teachers and digital GBL, our study surveyed in-service teachers, and notably experienced ones (most participants had more than 8 years of teaching experience). In their discussion, the authors warned that

more experienced teachers would most likely avoid using COTS games or would use COTS games with caution. Our findings partially confirm this assumption. In-service teachers did not perceive COTS games as less related to their curriculum, but they perceived fewer opportunities to learn. It is possible that teachers perceived that COTS BGs would put too much emphasis on the entertainment objective, leading students to disregard the educational content and to focus on playing/winning the game. This perceived unbalanced allocation of students' resources could thus reduce perceived learning opportunities.

On a theoretical point of view, GBL aims at supporting active engagement via the game mechanics and the game content. Which specific game and game mechanics are the most effective for which type of learning objective is hard to determine and not much studied. The LM-GM framework introduced the concept of Serious Game Mechanics, which refers to the overlapping between the game mechanics and the learning mechanics (Arnab et al., 2015). As the present findings showed that COTS game can be associated to fewer opportunities to learn for teachers, it is possible that the overlapping between the Game mechanics and the learning Mechanics is more difficult to find for COTS as compared to educational games.

## 6.2. Which teachers' characteristics predict perceived usefulness, ease of use, job relevance, curriculum relatedness, opportunities to learn and perceived enjoyment?

Teachers' personal characteristics affected their perception of GBL with board games, but this influence varied as a function of the factors considered (H3), consistently with models of acceptability (Bourgonjon et al., 2013; Davis et al., 1988; Hu & Sperling, 2022; Rüth et al., 2022; Venkatesh et al., 2003).

To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first to show that school teaching level had no significant impact, which aligns with a prior study emphasizing the minor influence of teachers' demographics on acceptance of GBL (Li & Huang, 2016).

Teachers' prior gaming experience had a significant impact, unlike prior studies with about GBL with digital games that included pre-service teachers (Rüth et al., 2022) or in-service teachers (Bourgonjon et al., 2011). Prior professional gaming experience positively predicted job relevance and curriculum relatedness, as well as perceived enjoyment. These patterns emphasize that teachers require time, knowledge and playing experience to identify relevant game content and game mechanics for their learning objectives. Unlike what was sometimes argued in prior studies (Van Eck, 2009), prior personal gaming experience positively impacted perceived ease of use and negatively impacted perceived enjoyment. It is likely that being a player increases teachers' confidence in using games or in helping their students understand the rules of the games. However, with mere personal playing experience, teachers might not know how to implement BGs in classrooms efficiently, resulting in disappointment and lower perceived enjoyment. We argue that these patterns further emphasize that using serious and COTS BGs in education is no trivial matter. It requires teachers to be experienced and trained on how to select, create, or use BGs efficiently. In addition, prior gaming experience during teaching education had a negative impact on perceived enjoyment. It was also below-average, which corroborates prior studies showing that teachers are not trained or not trained enough to master how to use GBL efficiently (Hu & Sperling, 2022; Nousiainen et al., 2018). Teachers may believe that the training they received would not help them select games, adapt games to their objectives, or implement the games in their class. Trained teachers may also be aware that using games in classroom can be challenging and it does not necessarily motivate learners or engage them in the task (Portier-Charneau & Sanchiz, 2024; Sanchiz et al., 2024; Wouters et al., 2013).

Finally, attitudes towards gaming positively predicted all five variables related to acceptance of GBL with board games (H4) (Bourgonjon et al., 2013; Davis et al., 1988; Hu & Sperling, 2022; Rüth et al., 2022;
Venkatesh et al., 2003). Such patterns corroborated prior empirical findings with digital games (Farjon et al., 2019; Hsu et al., 2021; Palha & Matic, 2023). Subjective norms, that tackled teachers' representation of how their professional environment perceives GBL with BGs, were positively related to perceived usefulness, job relevance and curriculum relatedness, consistently with prior studies about digital games (Bourgonjon et al., 2013; Rüth et al., 2022). It is interesting to note that subjective norms seem to have a more minor role in the context of GBL with BGs than with digital games. Of note, during data collection, several national policy makers were largely advertising the potential negative effects of screen and digital technologies for children and adolescents in France. Educational practitioners, such as teachers, were exposed to that warning. It is possible that GBL with BGs received less defiance than digital games, which resulted in lower perceived pressure from the educational institutions to use BGs in classrooms and reduced the weight of that subjective norms on teachers' perception of GBL with BG.

Altogether, these findings align with studies on GBL with digital games and point out the need to take measures regarding teachers' education (Bacsa-Károlyi & Fehérvári, 2024). More broadly speaking, these findings fuel the UTAUT model acceptance (Venkatesh et al., 2003) that emphasizes that interindividual characteristics (i.e. prior personal and professional gaming experience, and attitudes), as well as facilitating environmental conditions (i.e. norms associated with BG for education from the educational institution, peers and hierarchy) influence teachers' acceptance of BG for education acceptance. In addition, our findings also point out that contextual factors, such as the type of game considered (i.e. COTS or serious games), can influence teachers' perceived learning opportunities of GBL with board games. Broadly speaking, the level of seriousness of games can influence teachers' intention to use GBL, perceived GBL barriers and presumably their appropriation of GBL as well as students' potential learning outcomes. The lack of unified theoretical framework of GBL has already been highlighted in literature (Bacsa-Károlyi & Fehérvári, 2024; Krath et al., 2021). Our findings contribute to future theoretical and empirical research by addressing the largely unknown issue of the impact of teachers' perceptions of contextual factors of GBL. We argue that contextual factors related to the games as well as the overlap between the game mechanics and the learning mechanics should be considered in a unified theoretical model of GBL. While some studies have considered the use of digital and/or non-digital games in GBL, we argue that it is as important to consider the level of seriousness of games in teaching practices and education.

## 7. Practical implications for teachers and game designers

In line with studies demonstrating that GBL can be an effective active pedagogy, our findings emphasize that developing teachers' training programs about the implementation of GBL with serious and COTS BGs is necessary to support GBL efficient use and to help teachers expand their practices with varying pedagogical methodologies (Bacsa-Károlyi & Fehérvári, 2024; Homer et al., 2019; Richard et al., 2023; Vita-Barrull et al., 2024; White et al., 2021). Relying on personal prior experience as a BG player is not enough to ensure a relevant use of BGs in classrooms. As recommended in studies about digital games (Hu & Sperling, 2022; Rüth et al., 2022; Van Eck, 2009), such training programs should provide knowledge about the potential benefits and limitations of using BGs in classrooms. Indeed, they should help teachers identify: (i) relevant situations that would present useful opportunities to learn for their students, and (ii) relevant board games that align with their curriculum and teaching objectives. For instance, referring to the LM-GM framework (Arnab et al., 2015), teachers' training programs could also support teachers' knowledge of the relationships between playing and learning. Teachers could be trained to identify the learning mechanics required to achieve their planned learning objectives and the game mechanics that would be relevant to fit those learning mechanics.

Consequently, game designers that create serious games or COTS games intended to be used for educational purposes, should also pay attention to make more explicit the game mechanics at stake in their games. Clarification of the game mechanics would help teachers identify which competences and knowledge are required to play a game and to what extent they can support the development of new competence and knowledge.

Last, teacher training programs should also raise teachers' awareness regarding the potentially misleading impact of prior personal gaming experience. Being a player does not mean that one will be able to efficiently use GBL with BGs in classrooms. Providing evidence-based knowledge on the differential impact of personal and professional prior gaming experience as well as the impact of GBL with BGs on education could also help teachers be more cautious and more confident in using games with their students. Such an example could also serve as an illustration to demonstrate how personal myths and beliefs can be misleading (see for instance the preference-performance paradox) (Uttl et al., 2017), notably for GBL (Portier-Charneau & Sanchiz, 2024).

## 8. Limitations and perspectives

First, participants were mostly female in-service teachers (76,86%). This predominance of women is representative of French in-service teachers and observed in other countries. Rüth and colleagues (2022) surveyed a majority of women (85%) in Germany as well as Hu and Sperling (2022) who surveyed 88.1% female pre-service teachers. In addition, participants reported above-average means for all DVs related to acceptance of GBL with BGs. In addition, most teachers declared having high personal prior gaming experience with BGs. Hence, caution must be taken, as our sample was most likely composed of BGs players or teachers interested in BGs. Because all survey studies face this potential sample recruitment bias, more evidence is needed to ensure the generalizability of the results.

Teachers in this study were exposed to only two examples of BGs (one serious and one COTS). We carefully selected these examples so that: (i) all teachers could consider these examples credible, no matter their teaching content and school level, and (ii) the serious and COTS BGs could be comparable in terms of game content and game mechanic (which is often a limitation observed in prior studies). However, this limited number of examples could have restricted participants' thinking. Future studies could expose in-service teachers to a broader range of games that tap into different game contents and game mechanics.

Consistently, teachers' disciplines could also play a role in how they perceive educational or COTS BG for education. In the present study, we wanted to examine the impact of teachers' prior gaming experience, attitudes and norms no matter their school teaching level or discipline. Of note, depending on their school teaching level, teachers in France may teach all disciplines (in primary school for instance) or multiple disciplines (in middle school or high school). This question has not been directly or indirectly examined with BGs but several meta-analyses have shown that school teaching discipline can mediate the benefits of GBL with digital games (Bacsa-Károlyi & Fehérvári, 2024; Cai et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2020; Gui et al., 2023; Kacmaz & Dubé, 2022). Hence, future studies should consider the impact of school teaching discipline and teaching objectives. Likewise, the present study surveyed teachers' representations of GBL with board games regarding the use of board games in classroom-time and out-of-classroom-time settings (for instance at the end of the school day). In France, some teachers can be involved in extra-curricular activities, to help students with specific needs or to provide meaningful activities during breaks, notably in primary or middle school. As we considered all school teaching levels, we chose to let teachers answer by considering their global teaching activities, and not to focus only on in-classroom time. However, most of these items were related to measurement error and were thus dropped from the analyses. Future works could examine teachers' representations and use of GBL with board games as a function of the teaching
context (i.e. in classroom time or out-of-classroom-time).

Future studies could also examine teachers' classroom management skills, which refers to teachers' ability to create an environment that supports learning and involves managing transitions, instructional time, behavior and providing feedback (König, 2015; Weyers et al., 2024). Indeed, two prior studies with pre-service teachers pointed that digital games could suffer from barriers related to classroom management, such as how to group students to play, how to manage interactions, how to provide instructional support so that all students, no matter their prior gaming experience can benefit from the activity (Can & Cagiltay, 2006; Hu & Sperling, 2022). The present study considered teachers' prior professional gaming experiences, which can be related to their perceived classroom management skills with games (see for instance: I've been pleased with my experiences using board games in the classroom with my learners). Future studies could deepen the investigation of the relationships between teachers' classroom management skills and GBL with board games. Indeed, as students' prior gaming expertise can influence the impact of the games on student behavior and learning outcome (Portier-Charneau & Sanchiz, 2024; Sanchiz et al., 2024), it is crucial for teachers to have enough experience with games and with classroom management to ensure that GBL activities are set in a suitable way.

Of note, the present study did not identify job relevance and curriculum relatedness as two independent factors of teachers' acceptance of board games, unlike prior studies with digital games (Bourgonjeon et al., 2013; Rüth et al., 2022). This difference may be partly explained by the lower presence of technical and logistical issues with board games as compared to digital games. Indeed, prior studies have demonstrated that the relevance of the use of digital games suffers from barriers related to technological equipment, lack of training with digital equipment, lack of technical support within the school or stereotypical perceptions about digital games (Hu & Sperling, 2022; Kaimara et al., 2021). The context of board games most likely reduces these difficulties. Consequently, the relevance of the use of board games for teaching seems to be more connected to the relatedness between the features of the board games and the curriculum. Hence, the relationships between job relevance and curriculum relatedness in the context of board games deserve further scrutiny in future works.

Finally, future studies should further examine teachers' actual use of serious and COTS BGs and test their actual impact on students' learning outcomes to better understand why they would perceive fewer

opportunities to learn for COTS BGs. To fuel our above-mentioned assumption, future studies could also examine how students would perceive serious and COTS BGs in a classroom setting, as well as how they would behave.

## 9. Conclusion

Board games are becoming increasingly popular instructional tools in education to promote active learning. However, the tremendous range of existing commercial-of-the-shelf board games as well as the wide range of possibilities to adapt or to create serious board games can represent a challenge for teachers. The present study highlights how difficult it can be for teachers to map their learning objective, students' learning processes required by the game mechanics with COTS and serious board games opportunities to learn. Contextual and individual factors can influence teachers' ability to connect game mechanics and learning mechanics. Hence, teachers need more evidence-based knowledge and professional training programs to be able to use efficiently BGs in classroom and to have the opportunity to master a wider variety of teaching practices to contribute to students' learning.

## CRediT authorship contribution statement

**Nathalie Jobert:** Writing – review & editing, Resources, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization.
**Mylène Sanchiz:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization.

## Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

## Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all teachers who participated in this study.

# Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2025.104951.

# Appendixes

## Appendix 1

Detailed information about participants' school teaching levels and equivalence between French, UK and USA school teaching levels.

<table><thead><tr><th>French school Level</th><th>USA/UK equivalent</th><th>Frequency<br>N = 255</th><th>Percentage of responses (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Maternelle</td><td>Kindergarten/nursery school</td><td>44</td><td>17.2</td></tr><tr><td>Primaire</td><td>Elementary school/Primary school</td><td>54</td><td>21.2</td></tr><tr><td>Collège</td><td>Middle school/secondary school</td><td>75</td><td>29.4</td></tr><tr><td>Lycée</td><td>High school/secondary school</td><td>60</td><td>23.5</td></tr><tr><td>Université</td><td>University/College</td><td>22</td><td>8.6</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: for the sake of the analyses, school teaching levels nursery school (e.g. kindergarten) and primary school (e.g. elementary school) were combined into “Primary school” and French school teaching levels “collège” and “lycée” (e.g. middle school and high school) were combined as “secondary school”.
# Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

# References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of planned behavior. *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50*, 179–211.

Armstrong, A. (2021). Playing settlers of Catan enhances student learning of probability in liberal arts mathematics. *Primus, 31*(10), 1136–1148.

Bacsa-Károlyi, B., & Fehérvári, A. (2024). Teachers' views on gameful practices—A scoping review. *Teaching and Teacher Education, 150*, Article 104730.

Bartolucci, M., Mattioli, F., & Batini, F. (2019). Do board games make people smarter?: Two initial exploratory studies. *International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 9*(4), 1–14.

Bayeck, R. Y. (2017). Reforming adult education through content and teaching approaches. *Dialogues in Social Justice: Adult Education Journal, 2*(1).

Bayeck, R. Y. (2020). Examining board gameplay and learning: A multidisciplinary review of recent research. *Simulation & Gaming, 51*(4), 411–431.

Bourgonjon, J., De Grove, F., De Smet, C., Van Looy, J., Soetaert, R., & Valcke, M. (2013). Acceptance of game-based learning by secondary school teachers. *Computers & education, 67*, 21–35.

Bourgonjon, J., Valcke, M., Soetaert, R., & Schellens, T. (2010). Students' perceptions about the use of video games in the classroom. *Computers & Education, 54*(4), 1145–1156.

Boyle, E. A., Hainey, T., Connolly, T. M., Gray, G., Earp, J., Ott, M., ... Pereira, J. (2016). An update to the systematic literature review of empirical evidence of the impacts and outcomes of computer games and serious games. *Computers & Education, 94*, 178–192.

Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. *Basic concepts, applications, and programming*. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cai, Z., Mao, P., Wang, D., He, J., Chen, X., & Fan, X. (2022). Effects of scaffolding in digital game-based learning on student's achievement: A three-level meta-analysis. *Educational Psychology Review, 34*(2), 537–574.

Can, G., & Cagiltay, K. (2006). Turkish prospective teachers' perceptions regarding the use of computer games with educational features. *Educational Technology & Society, 9* (1), 308–321.

Cardinot, A., & Fairfield, J. A. (2019). Game-based learning to engage students with physics and astronomy using a board game. *International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 9*(1), 42–57.

Chen, C. H., Shih, C. C., & Law, V. (2020). The effects of competition in digital game-based learning (DGL): A meta-analysis. *Educational Technology Research & Development, 68*(4), 1855–1873.

Chiarello, F., & Castellano, M. G. (2016). Board games and board game design as learning tools for complex scientific concepts: Some experiences. *International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 6*(2), 1–14.

Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. *Review of Educational Research, 86* (1), 79–122.

Cobanoglu, R., Capa-Aydin, Y., & Yildirim, A. (2019). Sources of teacher beliefs about developmentally appropriate practice: A structural equation model of the role of teacher efficacy beliefs. *European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 27*(2), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2019.1579547

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. *MIS Quarterly, 13*, 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

De Grove, F., Bourgonjon, J., & Van Looy, J. (2012). Digital games in the classroom? A contextual approach to teachers' adoption intention of digital games in formal education. *Computers in Human Behavior, 28*(6), 2023–2033.

Dilek, H. (2024). Seeing the whole picture: Exploring the predictors of preschool teachers' intentions toward child-centred approach from a socio-psychological perspective. *Teaching and Teacher Education, 152*, Article 104796.

Farjon, D., Smits, A., & Voogt, J. (2019). Technology integration of pre-service teachers explained by attitudes and beliefs, competency, access, and experience. *Computers & Education, 130*, 81–93.

Gashaj, V., Dapp, L. C., Trninic, D., & Roebers, C. M. (2021). The effect of video games, exergames and board games on executive functions in kindergarten and 2nd grade: An explorative longitudinal study. *Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 25*, Article 100162.

Gasteiger, H., & Moeller, K. (2021). Fostering early numerical competencies by playing conventional board games. *Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 204*, Article 105060.

Gonzalo-Iglesia, J. L., Lozano-Monerrubio, N., & Prades-Tena, J. (2018). Noneducational board games in University Education. Perceptions of students experiencing Game-Based Learning methodologies. *Revista Lusófona de Educação, 41*, 45–62.

Graesser, A. C., Chipman, P., Leeming, F., & Biedenbach, S. (2009). Deep learning and emotion in serious games. In U. Ritterfeld, M. Cody, & P. Vorderer (Eds.), *Serious games: Mechanisms and effects* (pp. 81–100). New York and London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.

Granić, A., & Marangunić, N. (2019). Technology acceptance model in educational context: A systematic literature review. *British Journal of Educational Technology, 50* (5), 2572–2593.

Gui, Y., Cai, Z., Yang, Y., Kong, L., Fan, X., & Tai, R. H. (2023). Effectiveness of digital educational game and game design in STEM learning: A meta-analytic review. *International Journal of STEM Education, 10*(1), 36.

Gutierrez, A., Mills, K., Scholes, L., Rowe, L., & Pink, E. (2023). What do secondary teachers think about digital games for learning: Stupid fixation or the future of education? *Teaching and Teacher Education, 133*, Article 104278.

Hainey, T., Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., Wilson, A., & Razak, A. (2016). A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. *Computers & Education, 102*, 202–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004

Hassinger-Das, B., Toub, T. S., Zosh, J. M., Michnick, J., Golinkoff, R., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2017). More than just fun: A place for games in playful learning/¿Más que diversion: El lugar de los juegos reglados en el aprendizaje lúdico. *Infancia Y Aprendizaje, 40*(2), 191–218.

Homer, B. D., Plass, J. L., Rose, M. C., MacNamara, A. P., Pawar, S., & Ober, T. M. (2019). Activating adolescents’ “hot” executive functions in a digital game to train cognitive skills: The effects of age and prior abilities. *Cognitive Development, 49*, 20–32.

Hox, J. J. (2013). 14 multilevel regression and multilevel structural equation modeling. *The Oxford handbook of quantitative methods, 281*.

Hoy, B. (2018). Teaching history with custom-built board games. *Simulation & Gaming, 49*(2), 115–133.

Hsu, C. Y., Liang, J. C., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2014). Exploring preschool teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge of educational games. *Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49*, 461–479. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.49.4.c

Hsu, C. Y., Liang, J. C., Chuang, T. Y., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2021). Probing in-service elementary school teachers' perceptions of TPACK for games, attitudes towards games, and actual teaching usage: A study of their structural models and teaching experiences. *Educational Studies, 47*(6), Article 734e750. https://doi.org/10.1080/30355698.2020.1729099

Hsu, C. Y., Tsai, M. J., Chang, Y. H., & Liang, J. C. (2017). Surveying in-service teachers' beliefs about game-based learning and perceptions of technological pedagogical and content knowledge of games. *Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20*(1), 134–143.

Hu, H., & Sperling, R. A. (2022). Pre-service teachers' perceptions of adopting digital games in education: A mixed methods investigation. *Teaching and Teacher Education, 120*, Article 103876.

Kacmaz, G., & Dubé, A. K. (2022). Examining pedagogical approaches and types of mathematics knowledge in educational games: A meta-analysis and critical review. *Educational Research Review, 35*, Article 100428.

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.

König, J. (2015). Measuring classroom management expertise (CME) of teachers: A video-based assessment approach and statistical results. *Cogent Education, 2*(1), Article 991178. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2014.991178

Krath, J., Schürmann, L., & Von Korflesch, H. F. (2021). Revealing the theoretical basis of gamification: A systematic review and analysis of theory in research on gamification, serious games and game-based learning. *Computers in Human Behavior, 125*, Article 106963.

Li, Q. (2013). Digital games and learning: A study of preservice teachers' perceptions. *International Journal of Play, 2*(2), 101–116.

Li, S. C. S., & Huang, W. C. (2016). Lifestyles, innovation attributes, and teachers' adoption of game-based learning: Comparing non-adopters with early adopters, adopters and likely adopters in Taiwan. *Computers & Education, 96*, 29–41.

Lillard, A. S., Lerner, M. D., Hopkins, E. J., Dore, R. A., Smith, E. D., & Palmquist, C. M. (2013). The impact of pretend play on children's development: A review of the evidence. *Psychological Bulletin, 139*(1), 1.

Mallinckrodt, C. H., Clark, W. S., & David, S. R. (2001). Accounting for dropout bias using mixed-effects models. *Journal of Biophysical Statistics, 11*(1–2), 9–21.

Martinez, L., Gimenes, M., & Lambert, E. (2023). Video games and board games: Effects of playing practice on cognition. *PLoS One, 18*(3), Article e0283654.

Mayer, R. E. (2020). Cognitive foundations of game-based learning. In J. L. Plass, R. E. Mayer, & B. D. Homer (Eds.), *Handbook of game-based learning* (pp. 83–110). The MIT Press.

Moya-Higueras, J., Solé-Puiggené, M., Vita-Barrull, N., Estrada-Plana, V., Guzmán, N., Arios, S., ... March-Llanes, J. (2023). Just play cognitive modern board and card games, it's going to be good for your executive functions: A randomized controlled trial with children at risk of social exclusion. *Children, 10*(9), 1492.

Nakao, M. (2019). Special series on “effects of board games on health education and promotion” board games as a promising tool for health promotion: A review of recent literature. *BioPsychoSocial Medicine, 13*(1), 5.

Nousiainen, T., Kangas, M., Rikala, J., & Vesisenaho, M. (2018). Teacher competencies in game-based pedagogy. *Teaching and Teacher Education, 74*, 85–97.

Palha, S., & Matic, L. J. (2023). Predisposition of in-service teachers to use game-based pedagogy. *Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 21*(4), 286–298.

Pan, Y., Ke, F., & Xu, X. (2022). A systematic review of the role of learning games in fostering mathematics education in K-12 settings. *Educational Research Review, 36*, Article 100448.

Portier-Charneau, C., & Sanchiz, M. (2024). Effects of the instructional message used to introduce game-based learning, prior knowledge, prior gaming experience and flow on learning. *Information and Learning Sciences*. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-11-2023-0185, ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print.

Richard, S., Clerc-Georgy, A., & Gentaz, E. (2023). Pretend play-based training improves some socio-emotional competences in 5-6-year-old children: A large-scale study assessing implementation. *Acta Psychologica, 238*, Article 103961.
Rouet, J. F., Britt, M. A., & Durik, A. M. (2017). Resolv: Readers' representation of reading contexts and tasks. *Educational Psychologist, 52*(3), 200-215.

Rüth, M., Birke, A., & Kaspar, K. (2022). Teaching with digital games: How intentions to adopt digital game-based learning are related to personal characteristics of pre-service teachers. *British Journal of Educational Technology, 53*(5), 1412-1429.

Sanchiz, M., Gimenes, M., & Lambert, E. (2024). Learning with board games: Interplay of context and students' prior knowledge. *The Journal of Experimental Education, 1-24*. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2024.2414025

Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Viveros, B. S. (2020). A meta-analysis of teaching and learning computer programming: Effective instructional approaches and conditions. *Computers in Human Behavior, 109*, Article 106349.

Sousa, C., Rye, S., Sousa, M., Torres, P. J., Perim, C., Mansuklal, S. A., & Ennami, F. (2023). Playing at the school table: Systematic literature review of board, tabletop, and other analog game-based learning approaches. *Frontiers in Psychology, 14*, Article 1160591.

Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. *Educational Psychology Review, 22*, 123-138.

Talan, T., Doğan, Y., & Batdı, V. (2020). Efficiency of digital and non-digital educational games: A comparative meta-analysis and a meta-thematic analysis. *Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52*(4), 474-514.

The jamovi project. (2024). jamovi [Computer Software] Version 2.5. https://www.jamovi.org.

Tokac, U., Novak, E., & Thompson, C. G. (2019). Effects of game-based learning on students' mathematics achievement: A meta-analysis. *Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35*(3), 407-420.

Tsai, Y. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2020). A meta-analysis of research on digital game-based science learning. *Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36*(3), 280-294.

Ucus, S. (2015). Elementary school teachers' views on game-based learning as a teaching method. *Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186*, 401-409.

Uttl, B., White, C. A., & Gonzalez, D. W. (2017). Meta-analysis of faculty's teaching effectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related. *Studies In Educational Evaluation, 54*, 22-42.

Van Eck, R. (2009). A guide to integrating COTS games into your classroom. In *Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education* (pp. 179-199). Igi Global.

Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. *Decision Sciences, 39*(2), 273-315.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. *Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 53*(9), 1689-1699. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

Vita-Barrull, N., Estrada-Plana, V., March-Llanes, J., Guzmán, N., Fernández-Muñoz, C., Ayesa, R., & Moya-Higueras, J. (2023). Board game-based intervention to improve executive functions and academic skills in rural schools: A randomized controlled trial. *Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 33*, Article 100216.

Vita-Barrull, N., Estrada-Plana, V., March-Llanes, J., Sotoca-Orgaz, P., Guzmán, N., Ayesa, R., & Moya-Higueras, J. (2024). Do you play in class? Board games to promote cognitive and educational development in primary school: A cluster randomized controlled trial. *Learning and Instruction, 93*, Article 101946.

Von Steinkeller, A., & Grosse, G. (2022). Children are more social when playing analog games together than digital games. *Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 6*, Article 100195.

Weyers, J., Kramer, C., Kaspar, K., & König, J. (2024). Measuring pre-service teachers' decision-making in classroom management: A video-based assessment approach. *Teaching and Teacher Education, 138*, Article 104426.

White, R. E., Thibodeau-Nielsen, R. B., Palermo, F., & Mikulski, A. M. (2021). Engagement in social pretend play predicts preschoolers' executive function gains across the school year. *Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 56*, 103-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.03.005

Wouters, P., Van Nimwegen, C., Van Oostendorp, H., & Van Der Spek, E. D. (2013). A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. *Journal of Educational Psychology, 105*(2), 249.

Xiang, M., Zhang, L., Wang, X., & Shang, J. (2024). Acquisition of math knowledge in digital and non-digital game-based learning classrooms: Impact of intrinsic motivation and cognitive load. *Entertainment Computing*, Article 100869.