Remember me
Home gardens, a long-standing tradition of small-scale food cultivation near human settlements [], remain a cornerstone of agriculture, providing essential sustenance and economic support for families worldwide []. These gardens, cultivated for centuries, serve multifaceted purposes within local food systems. Alongside economic benefits such as financial savings and income generation, they provide year-round nutrition and access to fresh produce and contribute to biodiversity conservation [-]. In addition, home gardens contribute to ecological production, enhance esthetics, and promote sustainable urban development []. Moreover, maintaining and using home gardens contributes significantly to household well-being by promoting psychological and physical health and fostering familiar and social connections and bonds []. Another significant benefit is fostering self-sufficiency as individuals cultivate plants or food crops at home to meet their sustenance needs, thereby reducing dependence on external sources []. This characteristic plays a crucial role in bolstering food security [], a role that was particularly emphasized during the COVID-19 pandemic []. Due to these advantages, home gardening initiatives have expanded to include elementary schools [], urban areas, and household environments []. They remain a valuable pursuit even for economically active individuals who can afford groceries.
Despite the global significance of home gardens, many people are not interested or hesitant to start one [], contributing to their decline [], a trend particularly concerning in countries such as Mexico []. Various strategies have been proposed to promote home gardening, ranging from campaigns highlighting its benefits to educational initiatives offering guidance through manuals, courses, workshops, and guides []. However, these initiatives often focus on individuals already motivated to start gardening, potentially missing the chance to inspire and engage newcomers. Furthermore, these strategies encounter challenges inherent to the multifaceted nature of home gardening, including the necessity to develop skills; address concerns; overcome motivation issues [,]; acquire interdisciplinary knowledge in fields such as biology, chemistry, and economics []; and achieve a balance between theoretical learning and hands-on activities [].
To bridge the gap between promoting home gardening and its adoption, innovative strategies are essential to attract a diverse audience, motivate and empower individuals, and provide practical learning opportunities. It is crucial that these strategies mainly focus on novices—individuals who are open to learning about gardening but may not be strongly motivated to pursue it actively. These individuals often lack extensive knowledge, experience, and confidence in gardening and may not fully grasp its benefits. This situation presents an opportunity to develop accessible and engaging tools that inspire, educate, build confidence, and foster sustained interest in home gardening. Persuasive video games provide a promising platform to enhance users’ knowledge, skills, and experiences through interactive platforms [] and foster positive changes in perceptions, attitudes, or behaviors [,].
Persuasive Video GamesPersuasive video games, also known as serious games for change or persuasive games, aim to actively engage players while promoting positive changes in their thoughts, attitudes, feelings, actions, or behaviors [-]. They integrate interactive gameplay, narrative elements, educational content, and persuasive strategies to foster attitude and behavior change. Despite their serious intent, these games prioritize enjoyment and engagement, leveraging the immersive nature of video games to captivate players and sustain their interest []. They often include informative content relevant to the issue, offering players opportunities for learning and reflection during gameplay []. These games may use procedural rhetoric through interactive gameplay dynamics to convey persuasive messages effectively [] and can use exocentric or endocentric approaches to engage and motivate players []. Successful play encourages players to develop a deeper understanding beyond the game, potentially influencing their behavior afterward. However, the effectiveness of these games hinges on game features, player characteristics, use context [], and the balance of persuasive strategies [].
Persuasive video games are a powerful tool for driving social change []. They are studied extensively for their ability to promote attitude and behavior changes across various issues such as politics, society, environment, and health []. They address social problems such as attitudes toward homelessness [], humanitarian aid willingness [], and workloads [] while also tackling health issues such as physical activity, nutrition, and disease management []. Specific games target smoking cessation [] and medication adherence []. Despite their widespread application, research shows mixed results on their impact, with some studies confirming effectiveness and others not, leading to inconsistent findings [,,]. A systematic review indicated positive or partially positive outcomes [], but effectiveness varied across studies, underscoring the need for rigorous evaluation across diverse contexts and user profiles []. Current research often focuses on overall impacts rather than specific game or user characteristics [], necessitating further studies on how game features affect effectiveness, especially the effect of user enjoyment [].
Persuasive Video Games for AgricultureMost serious video games for agriculture have been designed as educational tools []. Explicitly designed persuasive games are scarce; only a few studies have evaluated their persuasive effects. The educational games cover various aspects of agriculture and vegetable cultivation, including genres such as role-playing games and farm simulators. Examples include “Farmtasia” [], “Little Botany” [], “Herbopolis” [], and Serious Game for Agroecology Learning []. They offer valuable learning experiences in farming practices, sustainable agriculture, herbal medicine agriculture, and ecological awareness, leading to knowledge enhancement. However, there need to be more games specifically focusing on home gardening []. Another group of studies aims to raise awareness of agriculture-related issues. “AgriVillage” [] focuses on environmental concerns in agriculture, including the effects of fertilizers and deforestation on water sources and weather patterns. “RebEarth” [] promotes awareness of hydroponics. Furthermore, individuals who are agricultural novices are often overlooked by current serious video games for agriculture [].
Among the studies evaluating the persuasive effects of serious agricultural games, an example is “Game of Piglets” [], a virtual pig farm that allows students to practice external biosecurity and farrowing management procedures. This simulation and adventure game emphasizes core competencies such as farrowing aid, identifying unwell sows after farrowing, maintaining aseptic conditions during surgeries, and ensuring an optimal piglet environment. These competencies are developed through tasks closely resembling real-life scenarios in pig farms. Evaluation results indicated improved perceived self-efficacy among players. Another instance is “MahindiMaster” [], a serious game simulating crop yields based on farmers’ choices from various input options. These yields are customized using crop model outputs leveraging plot-level soil samples and historical weather data. The game allows farmers to experiment with 3 different fertilizers. Evaluation outcomes revealed positive shifts in players’ beliefs and fertilizer use on their crops. While the evaluation results indicate positive impacts and the viability of using agriculture-focused serious video games to change players’ attitudes and behaviors, the persuasive potential of agricultural video games remains unexplored. It prompts questions about their effectiveness in promoting home gardening among novices.
Inspired by the need for innovative strategies to promote home gardening among novices and recognizing the potential of persuasive video games to influence user knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors, this study addressed existing research gaps in persuasive serious games for home gardening. In total, 3 primary research questions guided our investigation. The first 2 questions focused on the effect of a persuasive game on promoting home gardening among novices:
Can a persuasive video game encourage novices to engage in home gardening?Does a persuasive video game have a more significant impact on changing novices’ knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy, and intentions than a traditional course?In addition, our investigation was guided by the following primary research question that sought to understand how the enjoyment derived from the game influenced its effectiveness:
How does the enjoyment experienced by players of an agriculture-focused persuasive video game relate to the game’s effects?Objectives and HypothesesThis study aimed to design and develop a persuasive video game promoting home gardening among novices called Farmily (Farm+Family) and evaluate its effects.
On the basis of the potential of persuasive video games to promote home gardening, we formulated the hypotheses that Farmily players would exhibit superior outcomes in the following areas after playing (hypothesis 1): home gardening knowledge (hypothesis 1A), attitudes toward home gardens (hypothesis 1B), self-efficacy in home gardening (hypothesis 1C), and intention to start a home garden (hypothesis 1D).
In addition, based on the idea that a persuasive video game offers more effective elements for promoting home gardening among novices compared to a traditional course, we established the hypotheses that Farmily players would demonstrate superior outcomes compared to traditional course attendees in the following areas (hypothesis 2): home gardening knowledge (hypothesis 2A), attitudes toward home gardens (hypothesis 2B), self-efficacy in home gardening (hypothesis 2C), and intention to start a home garden (hypothesis 2D).
Finally, based on the premise that game features, particularly user enjoyment, significantly relate to game outcomes, we formulated the hypotheses that the player’s gaming enjoyment is positively related to (hypothesis 3) home gardening knowledge (hypothesis 3A), attitudes toward home gardens (hypothesis 3B), self-efficacy in home gardening (hypothesis 3C), and intention to start a home garden (hypothesis 3D).
This study was divided into 2 main parts. The first part focused on designing and developing the video game Farmily. The second part involved conducting a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess the impact of Farmily and validate the formulated hypotheses. In the following sections, we provide a detailed description of the Farmily video game.
Farmily Video GameDesign and DevelopmentTo create Farmily, we integrated 2 methodologies (): the persuasive system design (PSD) methodology [] and the player-centered, iterative, interdisciplinary, and integrated (P-III) methodology []. The PSD methodology guides the design of persuasive systems [], and accordingly, we followed four key steps aligned with persuasive principles. In step 1, we analyzed the context of persuasion and selected appropriate principles and techniques for Farmily. Steps 2 and 3 focused on defining and developing the game, whereas step 4 involved experimentation to evaluate its effectiveness.
Figure 1. Methodology for the design and development of Farmily. P-III: player-centered, iterative, interdisciplinary, and integrated. During steps 2 and 3 of PSD, given the need to develop a specific persuasive system—a persuasive video game—we used the P-III methodology [] tailored for serious game design. The P-III methodology emphasizes player-centered design, iterative development, and interdisciplinary collaboration. Following the P-III methodology, we engaged experts in human-computer interaction, agriculture, horticulture, education, and software engineering. In stage 1, the concept design phase, extensive research on home gardening informed the definition of user tasks through co-design sessions and expert consultations. Progressing to stage 2, the video game design phase, we used storyboards, focus groups, and paper prototypes, refining the game iteratively based on continuous feedback. Stage 3, the development phase, involved iterative prototyping and testing. We conducted 21 work sessions, incorporating multiple refinement cycles and expert testing sessions.
Theoretical Base and Persuasive TechniquesFarmily is based on the social cognitive theory by Bandura [,], which provides valuable insights into individual learning, development, and behavior maintenance in social contexts. This theory highlights the dynamic interplay of personal factors (cognition, beliefs, skills, and affect), environmental factors (social norms, institutions, and cultural influences), and behavioral factors (observable actions and responses) [,]. This theory proposes that individuals shape their environments through behavior, and vice versa, environments influence behavior and cognition. Learning, as per this theory, happens through direct experience and observing others []. Actions and outcomes offer crucial feedback on behavior appropriateness, with rewards encouraging desirable behaviors and punishments discouraging them. Furthermore, this theory emphasizes self-regulatory processes, which involve activating and sustaining behaviors, cognitions, and emotions directed toward achieving goals. It also highlights various motivational processes, including goals, progress evaluations, outcome expectations, values, and social comparisons. A key concept in the theory by Bandura [,] is self-efficacy, which pertains to one’s belief in their capacity to achieve desired outcomes through specific actions. Self-efficacy significantly impacts motivation, goal setting, and persistence, with individuals who possess high self-efficacy more inclined to pursue challenging objectives and persist despite obstacles.
Drawing from the social cognitive theory by Bandura [,] and the PSD principles by Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa [] and Fogg [], Farmily integrates persuasion techniques. Farmily’s persuasion techniques are classified into primary support, dialogue support, credibility support, and social support, as detailed in . These strategies aim to engage players’ intellect and motivation, guide behavior, and encourage their interest in starting home gardens. They have proven effective in persuasive video games such as “PowerHouse” [] and “Smoke?” [,].
Table 1. Persuasive techniques of Farmily.NameDescriptionPrimary support techniquesFarmily is a 3D simulation single-player game available on desktop and Android platforms. It was developed using the Unity game engine (version 2021.3.8f1; Unity Technologies). The players guide and assist a virtual family in managing a home garden. The target users are individuals aged between 20 and 50 years who are novices in home gardening, chosen for suitability. This age range aligns with Mexico’s economically active population (ages of 15 to 64 years) [] and the gaming demographic [], capturing a significant portion of gamers interested in home gardening. Variations in the age range do not significantly impact the study’s relevant aspects. The game aims to convey messages such as gaining knowledge about home gardening, recognizing its importance and the enjoyment it generates for individuals and their families, understanding commitments and trade-offs, realizing accessibility and rewards, and acknowledging the multidisciplinary knowledge and risks involved.
Farmily consists of 3 sections: the “Main menu” (), “Education” (), and “Simulation” (). In the main menu, players can register, access the leaderboard, adjust sound settings, and start a gaming session. The educational section is seamlessly integrated into the gameplay, offering tutorials on game mechanics and guidance on executing home gardening tasks both in the game and in real life. The simulation section encompasses the home garden simulation and all associated gameplay mechanics.
Figure 2. Screenshots of the main menu (top) and level selection (bottom). The game is presented in Spanish. The game’s difficulty gradually increases to enhance its educational and persuasive aspects. Farmily offers 20 levels divided into beginner (levels 1-8), medium (levels 9-14), and advanced (levels 15-20) tiers (, bottom). Each tier presents challenges in crop yield, finances, and simulation complexity. The level goals include growing and harvesting crops, ensuring family participation, practicing sustainability, maximizing savings, and providing a comprehensive understanding of home gardening implications and benefits. The game educates players on 12 recommended crops for daily consumption [], empowering informed decisions and gardening optimization. In Farmily, each level follows a systematic progression—players start by preparing compost, clearing undergrowth, and watering and then plow an area spanning 1 to 40 m2. Next, they plant seeds in nurseries, nurture them, and transplant them. Subsequently, players water, fertilize, and apply pesticides as needed to ensure crop health for harvesting.
Figure 3. Screenshots of the education section; home gardening phases (top) and tutorial menu (bottom). The game is presented in Spanish. The game provides indicators for garden health, including a progress bar for the current month and phase, meters for overall garden health and sustainability, and progress bars for vegetable quantity (, top). Detailed plot information, such as humidity and macronutrient levels, is also available. After harvesting all crops, players receive a rating from 1 to 5 stars based on factors such as harvested vegetables, family involvement, sustainable practices, financial economy, and self-sufficiency (, bottom). These ratings unlock new scenarios, motivating players to improve and enhancing replay value. A home garden manual is a central hub for information on crops, fertilizers, pesticides, and game mechanics tutorials (, top). Personalized recommendations based on player actions help optimize gardening strategies (, bottom). A leaderboard fosters competitive excitement by allowing players to compare scores and aim for the top spot (, top).
Figure 4. Screenshots of the simulation section; cultivation (top) and level evaluation with recommendations (bottom). The game is presented in Spanish. EvaluationOverviewIn 2023, an RCT was conducted at a Mexican university, with written permission from the school administrators to conduct the trial at the school facilities.
Participant RecruitmentWe used a convenience sampling approach by inviting 180 students from 9 academic groups to participate based on their availability and interest in the study. Participants were invited without previous information about their backgrounds or characteristics, ensuring a diverse representation across different scholar groups. On the day of the experiment, we verified that participants who agreed to take part met the inclusion criteria, which were (1) being aged between 20 and 50 years; (2) belonging to a family nucleus comprising at least 2 members; (3) having an interest in home gardening; (4) residing in Ciudad Guzmán, Jalisco, Mexico; and (5) having essential elementary-level reading and writing skills in Spanish. Exclusion criteria were applied to individuals who (1) currently or previously had a home garden, (2) had undergone a home gardening course, and (3) had vision or motor impairments that hindered their use of the video game on a PC.
Structure and ProcedureIndividual participants were randomly assigned to either the control group (CG) or the experimental group (EG). Before the intervention (T0), both groups completed 2 pretest questionnaires measuring their knowledge, attitude, self-efficacy, and intention to start a home garden (see the Measured Variables section). During the intervention, participants in the CG engaged in a 1.5-hour home gardening workshop facilitated by an expert in agriculture. The workshop provided participants with the same valuable information regarding the benefits, requirements, and activities associated with maintaining a home garden as that provided in the EG and Farmily. The expert presented the knowledge in a lecture format without hands-on experience with a home garden or interactive activities. This workshop mirrors the traditional way of fostering home gardening. In contrast, participants in the EG played Farmily for 1.5 hours. Finally, after the intervention period (T1), the CG and EG participants completed the same questionnaires applied during the pretest. This posttest measurement served as a valuable indicator of any changes or improvements in these domains following the intervention. In addition to the posttest questionnaires, participants in the EG were also asked to provide feedback on their enjoyment of the video game using a questionnaire.
Measured VariablesThe following variables were measured before (T0) and after (T1) the intervention: (1) knowledge about home gardening, (2) attitude toward home gardening, (3) self-efficacy in home gardening, and (4) intention to start a home garden. In addition, in T1, we measured the users’ enjoyment. describes the measured variables. In the following paragraphs, we describe the methods used for their measurement.
Textbox 1. Description of the measured variables.Knowledge about home gardening
This is the comprehension level of a home garden’s concepts and procedures.Attitude toward home gardening
Fishbein and Ajzen [] define attitude as “an individual’s positive or negative feelings towards realizing an objective behavior.” In line with this, we defined attitude toward home gardening as “an individual’s positive or negative thoughts about having a home garden.”Self-efficacy on home gardens
Self-efficacy is “people’s beliefs about their abilities to produce a certain level of performance that influences events that affect their lives” []. Given this concept, self-efficacy in home gardening was defined as “people’s beliefs about their abilities to have a home garden with a certain level of performance that influences the events that affect their lives.”Intention to start a home garden
Intention is “a person’s motivation in the sense of their conscious plan or decision to exert effort to perform a behavior” []. On the basis of this concept, intention to start a home garden was defined as “the conscious motivation of a person to start a home garden.”Game enjoyment
It is defined as “a person’s perception and response as a result of using or anticipating using a product, system, or service” [].To evaluate participants’ knowledge levels effectively, we developed a 23-item questionnaire with a home gardening expert, ensuring accuracy and relevance. The questionnaire items were strategically structured into 3 difficulty levels (easy, medium, and hard) designed to assess participants’ understanding comprehensively. Each item provided 4 answer options, with only 1 correct answer. For example, sample questions included an easy query, such as “How many days does it take for a plant to germinate?”; a medium-level question, such as “Which of the following statements best describes the advantages of sustainable products?”; and a hard question, such as “What is a critical factor for achieving success in home gardening?”
To assess attitudes toward home gardens, self-efficacy in home gardening, and the intention to start a home garden, we developed a 14-item questionnaire. This questionnaire draws upon the attitude, self-efficacy, and intention scales from the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) []. The UTAUT questionnaire’s validity has been established through rigorous testing and has been shown to account for 70% of the variance in intention []. Furthermore, the scale’s reliability was demonstrated with a Cronbach α of 0.70 across all scales []. The attitude toward home gardens scale comprises 4 items, the self-efficacy scale includes 7 items, and the intention to start a home garden scale consists of 3 items. Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “1—Totally disagree” to “5—Totally agree.” Sample questions include “Are home gardens a beneficial idea?” (attitude toward home gardens), “Compared to other people, can I perform my home gardening activities correctly?” (self-efficacy), and “I plan to start a home garden in the next six months.” (intention to start a home garden).
We used the EGameFlow questionnaire [], a validated tool of 42 items, to assess user enjoyment. Comprehensive testing confirmed the questionnaire’s validity, which was robust enough to account for 74% of the variance in learner enjoyment []. Moreover, the EGameFlow questionnaire exhibited strong reliability, boasting a Cronbach α of 0.942, signifying excellent internal consistency. In addition, it demonstrated good test-retest reliability []. The questionnaire items are categorized into 8 dimensions: concentration (6 items), clear goal (4 items), feedback (5 items), challenge (6 items), autonomy (3 items), immersion (7 items), social interaction (6 items), and knowledge improvement (5 items). Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “1—Totally disagree” to “5—Totally agree.”
Data AnalysisThe data analysis was performed using the R software (version 4.3.0; R Foundation for Statistical Computing) on the Windows platform. A significance level of 5% (P<.05) was used to determine statistical significance. The normality of the numerical data was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Parametric tests were used for normally distributed data, while nonparametric tests were used for nonnormal data. Changes in knowledge within the same group were analyzed using a 1-tailed paired t test. A 2-tailed independent-sample t test was conducted to compare knowledge between groups. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was applied for questions with ordinal values, such as attitude, self-efficacy, intention, and user enjoyment. The 2-tailed paired t test was used to analyze differences from T0 to T1 in ordinal question scales within the same group assuming that the data followed a normal distribution. Alternatively, the Wilcoxon signed rank test was used. For comparisons between groups and when the data followed a normal distribution, a 2-tailed independent-sample t test was used. In the absence of normal distribution, a Mann-Whitney U test was conducted. The internal consistency of the user enjoyment scales was assessed using the Cronbach α. Finally, the bilateral Pearson correlation test was conducted to examine the relationships between user enjoyment and posttest scores on knowledge, attitude, self-efficacy, and intention to start a home garden.
Ethical ConsiderationsThe institutional bioethics review board of the Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada approved all study procedures (BIOETICA_HUM_2023_03). Participants who expressed interest in joining the study provided written informed consent. The study ensured that all collected data were anonymized or de-identified to protect personal information, implementing strict protective measures for any data that could not be fully anonymized. Participation in the study was voluntary and uncompensated.
Of the 180 students and teachers approached, 50 (27.8%) agreed to participate in the study. The participants had an average age of 21.5 (SD 6.8) years, with 66% (33/50) being male and 34% (17/50) being female. Among the participants, the EG consisted of 25 individuals with an average age of 20.2 (SD 0.7) years, comprising 11 (44%) female and 14 (56%) male individuals. The CG also consisted of 25 participants with an average age of 22.7 (SD 9.5) years, including 6 (24%) female and 19 (76%) male individuals.
Knowledge of Home GardeningThe knowledge of participants () in the EG significantly increased from T0 to T1 (mean difference 3.2, SD 0.18; t24=4.26; P<.001). Similarly, the CG showed a significant increase in knowledge (mean difference 5, SD 0.3; t24=6.78; P<.001). Comparing the differences in knowledge increases between groups from T0 to T1, no statistically significant differences were found (t24=–1.71; P=.09). However, the CG had a slightly higher mean increase in knowledge (mean 5, SD 3.68) compared to the EG (mean 3.2, SD 3.75). Analyzing the results based on question difficulty, the EG showed a significant knowledge increase for easy (P=.02), medium (P=.03) and hard (P<.001) questions. Similarly, the CG showed a significant knowledge increase for easy (P<.001) medium (P=.001) and hard (P<.001) questions. There were no significant differences between the groups in the knowledge increase for the questions of easy (t24=–0.68; P=.09) and medium (t24=–0.73; P=.09) difficulty. However, a significant difference was observed for hard questions (t24=0.64; P=.005), with the CG achieving a higher mean score (mean 5.76, SD 1.27) than the EG (mean 4.76, SD 1.39).
Table 2. Results for knowledge on home gardening.QuestionCGaEGbIntergroups, P valuecaCG: control group.
bEG: experimental group.
cP<.05 was considered statistically significant.
dT0: before the intervention.
eT1: after the intervention.
Attitude Toward Home GardeningThe attitude toward home gardening of participants () in the EG significantly increased from T0 to T1 (mean difference 0.8, SD –0.01; z24=2.98; P=.003). When analyzing the results by question, significant differences (P<.05) were found for all items. In contrast, there was no significant difference in the attitude toward home gardening of the CG from T0 to T1 (mean difference –0.05, SD –0.09; z24=−0.54; P=.59) including individual questions. A significant difference was observed in attitude toward home gardening increase between groups from T0 to T1 (z24=2.73; P=.006). Furthermore, the EG exhibited a higher mean increase in attitude toward home gardening (mean 0.8, SD 1.21) than the CG (mean –0.05, SD 1.30).
Table 3. Results for attitude toward home gardening.QuestionCGaEGbIntergroups, P valuecaCG: control group.
bEG: experimental group.
cP<.05 was considered statistically significant.
dT0: before the intervention.
eT1: after the intervention.
fNot applicable.
Self-Efficacy in Home GardeningThe self-efficacy in home gardening of participants () in the EG significantly increased from T0 to T1 (mean difference 0.75, SD –0.01; t24=2.6; P=.02). When analyzing the results by question, all items showed significant differences (P<.05). In contrast, the CG did not show a significant increase in self-efficacy in home gardening from T0 to T1 (mean difference –0.09, SD –0.17; t24=–0.36; P=.72) or in individual questions. Comparing the differences in self-efficacy in home gardening increase between the 2 groups revealed a significant difference (t24=2.21; P=.03). Furthermore, the EG exhibited a higher mean increase in self-efficacy in home gardening (mean 0.75, SD 1.45) than the CG (mean –0.09, SD 1.25).
Table 4. Results for self-efficacy in home gardening.QuestionCGaEGbIntergroups, P valuecaCG: control group.
bEG: experimental group.
cP<.05 was considered statistically significant.
dT0: before the intervention.
eT1: after the intervention.
fNot applicable.
Intention to Start a Home GardenThe intention to start a home garden of participants () in the EG significantly increased from T0 to T1 (mean difference 2.02, SD 0; z24=4.15; P<.001). When analyzing the results by question, all items showed significant differences (P<.05). In contrast, the CG did not show a significant increase in intention to start a home garden from T0 to T1 (mean difference –0.18, SD 1.73; t24=–0.64; P=.53) or in individual questions. Comparing the differences in intention to start a home garden increase between the 2 groups revealed a significant difference (t24=–5.33; P<.001). Furthermore, the EG exhibited a higher mean increase in intention to start a home garden (mean 2.01, SD 1.46) than the CG (mean –0.19, SD 1.46).
Table 5. Results for intention to start a home garden.QuestionCGaEGbIntergroups, P valuecaCG: control group.
bEG: experimental group.
cP<.05 was considered statistically significant.
dT0: before the intervention.
eT1: after the intervention.
fNot applicable.
User EnjoymentResults showed () a significant difference between the participants’ answers and the neutral value in all categories: concentration (z24=4.11; P<.001; Cronbach α=0.90), goal clarity (z24=4.15; P<.001; Cronbach α=0.97), feedback (z24=3.92; P<.001; Cronbach α=0.96), challenge (z24=4.03; P<.001; Cronbach α=0.93), autonomy (z24=3.89; P<.001; Cronbach α=0.89), immersion (z24=3.83; P<.001; Cronbach α=0.93), social interaction (z24=3.82; P<.001; Cronbach α=0.93), and knowledge improvement (z24=3.92; P<.001; Cronbach α=0.96). All categories exhibited a Cronbach α of >0.70, which indicates a high internal consistency in the questionnaire []. These results state that users positively evaluated the video game in all categories.
Table 6. Results for user enjoyment.MeasureQuestions, NT1a score, mean (SD)Neutral valueP valuebRangeCronbach αConcentration64.45 (0.82)3<.0011.67-50.90Goal clarity66.77 (0.81)3<.0011-50.97Feedback54.60 (0.80)3<.0011-50.96Challenge64.52 (0.79)3<.0011.67-50.93Autonomy34.48 (0.84)3<.0011-50.89Immersion74.34 (0.90)3<.0011-50.93Social interaction64.26 (0.91)3<.0011-50.93Knowledge improvement54.61 (0.81)3<.0011-50.96aT1: after the intervention.
bP<.05 was considered statistically significant.
Relationship Between User Enjoyment and Efficacy OutcomesResults showed () no statically significant relationship between user enjoyment scores and posttest knowledge (EGameFlow scale: r23=0.26; P=.20) and intention (EGameFlow scale: r23=0.06; P=.77) scores. In addition, the results showed a positive statically significant relationship between user enjoyment scores and posttest attitude (EGameFlow scale: r23=0.72; P<.001) and self-efficacy (EGameFlow scale: r23=0.67; P<.001) scores.
Table 7. Correlations of user enjoyment scores with posttest efficacy results.CategoryrP valuea (bilateral)Player enjoyment and knowledge0.26.20Player enjoyment and attitude0.72<.001Player enjoyment and self-efficacy0.67<.001Player enjoyment and intention0.06.77aP<.05 was considered statistically significant.
Hypothesis EvaluationOn the basis of the aforementioned results, in this subsection, we summarize the validation of each hypothesis using appropriate statistical methods. In addition, summarizes the statistical significance, indicating whether each hypothesis was confirmed based on these results.
Table 8. Summary of hypothesis evaluation.HypothesisStatistical analysis resultsP valueHypothesis confirmed?1At24=4.26<.001Yes1Bz24=2.98.003Yes1Ct24=2.6.02Yes1Dt24=2.21.03Yes
Comments (0)