Next Article in Journal
Bric-a-Brick: Toward a Reframing of Clay-Block Wall Construction
Previous Article in Journal
An Integrated Framework for Assessing Livestock Ecological Efficiency in Sichuan: Spatiotemporal Dynamics, Drivers, and Projections
Previous Article in Special Issue
Artificial Intelligence, Consumer Trust and the Promotion of Pro-Environmental Behavior Among Youth
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 16
10.3390/su17167416
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Enhancing Environmental Literacy Through Digital Game-Based Learning: A Technology-Integrated Attitude Change Approach

by
Szu-Kai Tsai
1,*,
Tsung-Yen Chuang
1 and
Zih-Jiun Lin
2
1
Department of Information and Learning Technology, National University of Tainan, Tainan City 700, Taiwan
2
Tainan Municipal Beimen District Beimen Elementary School, Tainan City 727, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(16), 7416; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167416 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 8 July 2025 / Revised: 13 August 2025 / Accepted: 15 August 2025 / Published: 16 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Motivating Pro-Environmental Behavior in Youth Populations)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Technology-enhanced learning environments are increasingly designed to promote not only knowledge acquisition but also affective and behavioral changes. This study explored how digital game-based learning (DGBL), combined with the Stage Model of Self-Regulated Behavioral Change (SSBC), can support such transformation. Focusing on environmental literacy as a target domain, fifty sixth-grade students were assigned to either a DGBL group or a web-based learning group in a quasi-experimental design. Quantitative data were collected using literacy scales measuring knowledge, sensitivity, and attitude, while qualitative insights were gathered via interviews. Our results showed that while both groups improved in terms of environmental knowledge, the DGBL group demonstrated significantly greater gains in attitudes. The interview findings revealed that the interactive storytelling and role-playing in the game promoted emotional engagement and self-reflection, aligning with the SSBC’s predecision stage. These results highlight the potential of theory-driven digital games to foster deeper cognitive–affective learning and pro-environmental behaviors among young learners.

1. Introduction

Environmental literacy is a wide-ranging concept encompassing knowledge, sensitivity, and attitudes [1,2,3,4]. It aims to increase individuals’ understanding of environmental issues, encourage actions to improve the environment, and achieve sustainable development goals [4]. Conventionally, individuals gain their environmental knowledge through school education and mass media in order to understand the importance and essence of environmental issues and identify necessary pro-environmental behaviors [5,6]. In his previous study, Bamberg [7] presents an interesting example: “My frequent motor-car use contributes to climate change” vs. “I am a person who cares about the environment.” This statement expresses his personal values and beliefs, which might not be consistent with his behavior. While information transmission is highly likely to change individuals’ attitudes toward environmental issues, prompting them to take environmental action, the reality is that factors such as external stimuli and personal preferences often hinder us from taking action in the end [5,7]. Environmental sensitivity refers to the affective and cognitive awareness of environmental issues, while attitudes reflect an individual’s propensity for action. These factors play an important role in linking awareness to environmental behaviors [2,5]. To bridge the gap between attitude and behavior, Bamberg proposed the Stage Model of Self-Regulated Behavioral Change (SSBC), which describes the psychological transitions at different stages of individuals’ behavior in detail, ranging from psychological intent to the process of performing behavior [8]. In other words, people are willing to change their current behavior under certain circumstances [9]. Later studies have eventually proven that the SSBC has significant efficacy in cultivating environmental sensitivity and behavior. Habitual behaviors regarding electricity consumption [9], disposable cups [10], and car use [7] are all good examples of this. The participants of the aforementioned studies, however, are individuals with higher education or moderate-income working-class consumers, who might exhibit different environmental actions and responses to other groups. In view of this, applying the SSBC to younger generations is a research direction that may warrant consideration. Based on various literature reviews, the elementary school stage is not only an important period for forming awareness and values, but also an ideal time for cultivating environmental awareness and a sense of responsibility [11,12]. Therefore, this study intends to explore the idea of extending the application of the SSBC to elementary school students, providing environmental education with novel viewpoints and approaches.
Conventionally, onsite teaching methods fail to effectively integrate contextual experiences with behavioral development. Therefore, implementing more interactive teaching strategies is essential to fostering deeper learner engagement and strengthening students’ behavioral intentions regarding environmental issues [13]. According to Mercer et al. [14], more interactive methods should be adopted to promote the development of environmental behaviors through effective education. Therefore, a shift to more practical, learner-oriented teaching methods is required. It has been proven that digital game-based learning (DGBL) can effectively change individuals’ behaviors and attitudes, and even their mental health, to motivate learning [15,16,17]. Digital games, as a medium, not only transmit information but also enable students to explore, understand, and engage in learning about environmental issues and their consequences [18,19]. Various studies on environmental education indicate that story-based games can increase students’ environmental knowledge, while positively influencing their attitudes and behavioral intent towards the environment [20,21]. The narrative representations in games evoke emotional projections in learners, leading them to envision themselves as characters within the story [22]. They can gain knowledge by exploring and acting freely within games [23]. While applications of game-based learning to environmental literacy are not uncommon in previous studies, this study represents the first attempt to cultivate students’ environmental literacy through the application of the SSBC to DGBL. Therefore, the aim of this study is to integrate DGBL with self-regulatory behavior theory to cultivate environmental literacy among elementary school students.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Application of DGBL to Environmental Literacy

The concept of environmental literacy stems from the Environmental Education Awareness Program in the 1990s, in which several environmental literacy structures are based on the guideline principles and goals of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) [24]. Environmental literacy was defined as the ability to perceive and interpret environmental health, which can be maintained or addressed by taking action [2]. Fielding and Head [25] further point out that environmental action is not only determined by environmental knowledge but also influenced by several emotional factors (i.e., the locus of control and environmental concerns). In this regard, environmental knowledge and attention to affective domains are required to motivate people to carry out environmental actions [22]. “Affective domains” refer to individuals’ environmental awareness, sensitivity, attitude, value, control perspective (the sense of one’s ability to influence situations through personal behavior), and personal responsibility (the sense of obligation to the environment) [1].
Digital games are considered to help promote situated learning and provide students with pleasant learning experiences [26]. They can exhibit changes in environmental domains and the influence of environmental behaviors in real time [27,28]. For example, Kawaguchi et al. [29] chose the Satoyama Initiative, named after a well-known traditional rural landscape in Japan, as the theme of a digital game. This game simulates ecological succession mechanisms and enables students to experience this century-long process in a short time. Related studies indicate that through game simulations, students also gain a much better understanding of the Satoyama environmental management model. Discussion, questioning, and role-playing during the game all help elevate the users’ environmental literacy. In addition, students’ engagement with real stories will increase their willingness to participate and the efficacy of teaching [30].
Digital game experiences can enhance students’ ability to understand and solve virtual environmental problems. During gameplay, affective resonance can be evoked in students when they are deeply engaged with game characters [31,32]. Harker-Schuch et al. [33] argue that games serve as a natural tool for education on climate change and related issues, enabling players to gain designed experiences through practical operations and participation rather than absorbing information through conventional reading and teaching. Wu and Lee [34] emphasize that the “first-hand” experience provided by games has much better teaching efficacy than conventional teaching methods, because game-induced emotional approaches indicate that brains prefer 3D vision to other sensory inputs. Environmental education varies nationally, because different countries set different requirements based on factors such as their own environment, economy, and demographics [35,36]. Although the domain of DGBL has been explored extensively in Taiwan [37], most studies have primarily focused on its applications in scientific education, with limited attention given to its potential for enhancing environmental behavior. This gap between theoretical research and practical implementation highlights the need for further investigation. Given the demonstrated benefits of game-based learning—such as increasing student engagement, enhancing motivation, and improving learning efficacy—this study aims to develop a digital game centered on Taiwan’s environmental issues. Through this approach, this study seeks to foster students’ environmental awareness and deepen their understanding of sustainability challenges.

2.2. Stage Model of Self-Regulated Behavioral Change (SSBC)

The SSBC was initially designed to respond to and change harmful environmental behavior. This theory, based on a specific affective and social–cognitive structure, enables both theorists and practitioners to better understand how individuals can modulate their behavior through a series of periodic changes, thereby reducing their harmful impact on the environment [8,9]. The SSBC hypothesizes that behavioral change adheres to four timeline phases: 1. Predecision: Individuals can identify the existence of environmental issues and comprehend their importance through affective induction. 2. Preaction: The change in environmental behavior only occurs when individuals are willing to take action, with such willingness being influenced by multiple psychological indices. 3. Action: Individuals materialize their willingness to take action and begin executing behaviors. 4. Postaction: Individuals continue executing new behavioral modes until they become habits (Figure 1). The SSBC emphasizes that before behavioral changes occur, individuals need to go through a series of perception processes. The predecision stage involves perception toward environmental issues, target setting, and solution evaluations. Throughout the different stages, Bamberg, employing the concept of effective behavior to explain theories, designates the psychological variables that have a significant influence on task completion at every stage. Once completed, individuals can proceed to the next stage. According to Hines et al. [38], environmental behavior primarily requires individuals’ intent to take action, which is influenced by different psychological variables. The prerequisite for individuals taking action with intent is perceiving the existence of issues and having appropriate action plans. Based on the aforementioned studies, it is clear that the predecision stage is grounded in individuals’ ability to identify the sources of environmental issues and perceive the importance of these factors through arousing affective awareness. In view of the study by Markowitz et al. [39], however, people often experience a sense of uncertainty, or even doubt, regarding environmental issues, because they can sometimes be difficult to observe and detect, leading to disbelief in the environmental consequences that they cause. If environmental issues can be perceived in a more psychological or observable manner, people will gain a deeper insight into these issues. Digital game mechanisms enable learners to experience processes of environmental change, thereby making them understand the influence behind their own behavior [29,33]. Therefore, it is noticeable that the initial stage of personal behavioral change occurs when individuals can perceive the importance of the environment, enabling their consequent behavioral transformation. The SSBC serves as a theoretical framework, aiding in the understanding and promotion of this transformation process. In this study, the predecision stage is selected as the foundation for the system design, as it encompasses key elements of environmental literacy, including cognitive understanding of environmental issues, emotional attitudes, and action-oriented motivations. Building on this framework, DGBL is integrated into the predecision stage to strengthen students’ awareness and values in relation to environmental issues before they take action, thereby enhancing their intention to engage in pro-environmental behaviors. Accordingly, we will elaborate on the integration of the SSBC with digital games in the game design framework described below.

3. Methods

3.1. Game Design

Digital games developed using Unity 3D, with environmental exploration as the theme, are central to this study. Players can assume the role of an environmental detective to investigate the cause of environmental changes. All the game motifs are derived from environmental issues and events in Taiwan. The game is divided into two parts, with the story background being set in an ecological reserve that is affected by gradually loosened regulations due to urbanization. This setting reflects the contradiction between ecological protection and city zoning. The NPC dialogs and interactive objects are designed based on the content of the predecision phase in the SSBC, as proposed by Bamberg [8] and shown in Figure 2. The detailed design of the game is described in the following sections.
(a)
Perceived negative consequences of own behavior: In the initial stage of the game, we intentionally craft an NPC dialog to suggest the adverse effects of pesticides, such as ecological damage and water pollution. The rationale behind this design is to heighten players’ awareness of environmental issues and help them recognize the risks associated with their actions.
(b)
Perceived responsibility: By observing the arguments among different NPCs, players can recognize various social viewpoints and attitudes regarding the use of pesticides. This enables them to reflect on the potential issues caused by pesticide residues and helps them acknowledge their own responsibility regarding environmental protection.
(c)
Negative emotions: In game design, “negative emotions” refer to projecting a reflective attitude toward environmental issues through storylines and characters. For example, different NPCs in the game represent players’ varying responses to environmental crises, which significantly influences the construction of players’ views on taking environmental action.
(d)
Personal norms: In the subsequent stage of the game, the environment around the pond and the potential damage caused by human activities, such as scattered camp equipment (suggesting that human recreational activities might lead to environmental damage), enable players to perceive the direct impact of their behavior on the environment. This evokes a willingness to address these issues and strengthens players’ perceptiveness toward current behavioral changes.
(e)
Emotions anticipated with goal progress: The game’s objective mechanism encourages players to avoid feeling confused or frustrated by providing timely assistance from the game assistant through hints to search for the right clues. This ensures that players’ game objectives are challenging yet not overly difficult.
(f)
Salient social norms: Players in the game make judgments based on questions presented by NPCs and choose the corresponding clues to proceed in the game. The game system will provide feedback. This feedback not only enhances their behavioral satisfaction but also enables the identification and admiration of environmental behaviors within society.
(g)
Perceived goal feasibility: Adding the “feather consumption” mechanism into the game, players are required to provide correct responses when interacting with specific characters in the game. If players fail to explore the environment extensively or interpret clues thoroughly and thus make reckless judgments, the number of feathers that are consumed will increase, leading to false inferences. The purpose of the feather mechanism is to increase players’ possibility of perceiving the objectives, which in turn forces players to think more comprehensively and carefully about information to avoid consumption. Players must thoroughly explore and comprehend the contents of the game to effectively conduct interference.

3.2. Participants, Treatments, and Measuring Tools

This study recruited 50 sixth-grade students from an elementary school in southern Taiwan as subjects, who were divided into two groups with equal numbers, i.e., 25 participants in each group. The experimental group adopted DGBL to conduct environmental education, and their learning performance in the game was recorded through monitors and on-site observations. The control group, however, used self-learning websites with the same content as the experimental group to ensure comparability in the experiment. Both groups were tested during regular classes, which lasted four days, with each period being 40 min long (see Figure 3 and Figure 4).
The experiment, which had a quasi-experimental design, began with an environmental literacy assessment as a pre-test, which was conducted based on Hsu and Huang [40] and Hungerford and Volk [41]. The assessment comprised 15 questions about environmental knowledge (maximum score: 15 points), 8 questions about environmental sensitivity, and 15 questions about environmental attitudes, totaling 38 questions. Based on the Likert scale, the two question sets mentioned above were categorized into “highly agree,” “agree,” “no comment,” “disagree,” and “highly disagree”, with scores of 5 to 1, respectively. Higher scores signify more positive environmental sensitivity, attitude, and values and vice versa. The Cronbach’s α values for the three assessments were as follows: environmental knowledge, 0.74; environmental sensitivity, 0.76; and environmental attitude, 0.78 [40,41].
In addition, the study collected data on environmental awareness and game feedback from the experimental group’s 25 students participating in DGBL through semi-structured interviews. The interview questions were designed to explore the students’ environmental cognition pathways. Examples include “What environmental issues did you notice in the game?” and “Did the game influence you to take action?”. The qualitative coding framework in this study was developed from the “predecision phase” of the Stage Model of Self-Regulated Behavioral Change (SSBC). Interview data were categorized into seven theory-driven dimensions: (a) perceived negative consequences of one’s own behavior; (b) perceived responsibility; (c) negative emotions; (d) personal norms; (e) emotions anticipated with goal progress; (f) salient social norms; and (g) perceived goal feasibility. These dimensions correspond to the core elements of environmental literacy, thereby ensuring alignment between the qualitative analysis and the theoretical framework and enhancing both the validity and explanatory power of the findings. To improve objectivity and consistency, two teachers independently coded the verbatim transcripts using this scheme. Methodological triangulation was also applied by cross-validating three data sources—quantitative survey results (questionnaire scores for environmental knowledge, environmental sensitivity, and attitudes), qualitative data from the semi-structured interviews, and observational records of students’ gameplay during the instructional activities—thereby strengthening the robustness of the qualitative evidence.
The purpose of this was to verify how well the application of the SSBC to DGBL correlates with enhancing EL. The data analysis was based on a cross-examination of quantitative data and qualitative interviews. Interview materials are coded with alphabets and numbers. For example, “S” represents students, while “A” and “B” refer to male and female, respectively. Therefore, “SA01” means the male student with the codenamed 01.

4. Experimental Results and Discussion

To discuss the influence of DGBL integrated with the SSBC on environmental literacy, this study employed cross-examination, along with quantitative and qualitative analyses. In this section, we will present an in-depth discussion of the research results. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to examine the effect of instructional mode on students’ environmental literacy. In the model, posttest environmental literacy scores served as the dependent variable, instructional mode (DGBL vs. Web) as the independent variable, and pretest scores as the covariate. Prior to the main analysis, the assumption of homogeneity of regression slopes was tested; the interaction between pretest scores and instructional mode was not significant for environmental knowledge (F = 0.86, p > 0.05), environmental sensitivity (F = 0.71, p > 0.05), or environmental attitudes (F = 0.18, p > 0.05), confirming that the assumption was met.
As shown in Table 1, after controlling for pretest scores, the effect of instructional mode was not significant for either environmental knowledge (F = 1.77, p = 0.18) or environmental sensitivity (F = 0.59, p = 0.44). Nevertheless, the adjusted means for both environmental knowledge (Adj. M = 13.22 vs. 12.61) and environmental sensitivity (Adj. M = 4.30 vs. 4.20) were higher in the DGBL group, though this trend did not reach statistical significance. In contrast, a significant main effect of instructional mode was found on environmental attitudes (F = 14.11, p < 0.01). The DGBL group attained a higher adjusted mean (Adj. M = 4.24) than the Web group (Adj. M = 3.81), suggesting that DGBL was more effective in fostering students’ environmental attitudes. Paired-samples t-tests were subsequently conducted to examine within-group changes from pretest to posttest.

4.1. Environmental Knowledge

Before attending the learning activities, students took a pre-test to evaluate their environmental knowledge. In the pre-test, the DGBL group had a mean score of 12.48 (SD = 1.32), while the web group had a mean score of 12.44 (SD = 1.91). According to the t-test results from the pre-test, the groups showed no significant difference in environmental knowledge, with t = 0.09, and p > 0.05. This indicates that students in both groups had a similar level of environmental knowledge before attending the learning activities.
According to Table 2, the experimental group’s environmental knowledge increased from a pre-test mean of 12.48 (SD = 1.32) to a post-test mean of 13.24 (SD = 1.90), while the control group rose from 12.44 (SD = 1.91) to 12.60 (SD = 1.92). Although the DGBL group’s improvement approached statistical significance (t = 2.01; p = 0.05), the web group showed no significant change (t = 0.52; p = 0.60). Interview data help explain this pattern. Some students emphasized the motivational affordances of DGBL—SA01 found 3D games more interesting than conventional teaching and enabling autonomous exploration, and SA03 similarly preferred self-directed exploration—points we treat as engagement mechanisms rather than direct evidence for environmental knowledge, sensitivity and attitudes. Other students, however, indicated that much of the content was already familiar because of media exposure. SA11 remarked that “because of the high media exposure of these events, you’ll understand if you see more,” SB15 noted that “these things have been implicitly mentioned and learned before,” and SA07 stated that this was “because the media has talked about them.” In SSBC terms, these statements reflect strong consequence awareness, producing a ceiling effect that limits measurable environmental knowledge gains. This also suggests that while the games reflected real environmental issues in Taiwan that students already recognized, the knowledge component may not have been sufficiently extended in the gameplay to surpass that prior familiarity.

4.2. Environmental Sensitivity

As shown in Table 3, students undertaking DGBL showed more statistically significant improvement in environmental sensitivity in both their pre-test and post-test scores (pre-test: M = 4.00, SD = 0.54; post-test: M = 4.30, SD = 0.51; t = −2.48, p < 0.05), indicating DGBL’s efficacy in enhancing students’ environmental sensitivity. Meanwhile, the students in the web group achieved higher average scores in the post-test (pre-test: M = 4.00, SD = 0.83; post-test: M = 4.20, SD = 0.66), but this change did not reach statistical significance (t = −1.96; p > 0.05), indicating that web-based learning is not as effective as DGBL in enhancing environmental sensitivity.
To further verify DGBL’s influence beyond environmental knowledge, interviews show how students connected in-game scenarios with real-life problems, mobilizing environmental sensitivity and attitudes. SA02 observed that what happens in the game is similar to everyday life and prompts players to consider how to avoid problems and get along with others—an articulation consistent with responsibility, internalized personal norms, and positive emotions anticipated with goal progress. SA07’s recollection of witnessing water pollution—“black fluid was released directly into clean water”—illustrates how concrete environmental cues can evoke perceived negative consequences of one’s own behavior (interview coding dimension: a) and trigger negative emotions (interview coding dimension: c), thereby bridging environmental knowledge to environmental sensitivity. SB15’s comment that “the games are so realistically designed that I see the real society from them” reflects the salience of social expectations (interview coding dimension: f), which in turn supports attitude formation and evaluation.
These associations deepen students’ understanding of environmental problems and encourage reflection on real-world actions. This is consistent with Bamberg [8], indicating that when individuals realize their behavior may have environmental consequences, they develop negative emotions and feel responsible for their actions. Such inner moral and social norms can instigate reflection on environmental responsibility and potentially change behavior. Therefore, by experiencing digital games closely related to real life, students’ emotions and sense of responsibility are effectively evoked, fostering deeper understanding and greater attention to environmental issues [22].

4.3. Environmental Attitude

As shown in Table 4, the DGBL and web groups exhibited similar levels of environmental attitudes in the pre-test (DGBL: M = 3.80, SD = 0.45; web: M = 3.78, SD = 0.44), indicating initial consistency across the groups. Following the intervention, the DGBL group demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in their post-test scores (M = 4.25, SD = 0.40; t = 3.12, p < 0.01), suggesting that the DGBL environment effectively enhanced students’ environmental attitudes. In contrast, the web group did not show a significant change (post-test M = 3.81, SD = 0.42; t = 0.36, p > 0.05), reflecting the limited impact of the conventional web-based instruction.
In light of the results concerning environmental attitudes, following participation in the DGBL, the participants exhibited a statistically significant improvement in their post-test scores. This positive change indicates that DGBL may serve as an effective approach for enhancing elementary school students’ environmental perspectives. Nonetheless, to better understand how these improvements occurred, semi-structured interviews were conducted with students who underwent DGBL. The interview data revealed sophisticated and meaningful changes in students’ thinking, particularly through narrative immersion.
The students shared stories about how their opinions on certain environmental issues shifted due to their in-game experiences. The shifts are especially clear in the “old farmer” storyline. SA03 moved from curiosity to understanding after viewing the animation, and SB20 explained that the farmer “is forced to take such action” because insect damage hurts sales. Repeated exposure to the narrative invited empathy for economic constraints and a more nuanced grasp of the tension between environmental protection and livelihood. Mapped to SSBC, this trajectory follows a coherent chain—perceived negative consequences of one’s own behavior, negative emotion, responsibility, personal norms, positive emotions with goal progress (interview coding dimension: a, b, c, d, e), supported by salient social norms (interview coding dimension: f). This mechanism aligns with Bamberg [8], in which awareness of consequences elicits negative emotions and responsibility that activate personal norms, and with Pan and Hsu [22], who show that role-taking and narrative immersion heighten emotional involvement. Taken together, the interviews explain the quantitative pattern: modest environmental knowledge change due to prior knowledge, but meaningful gains in environmental sensitivity and attitudes driven by realism and narrative immersion that evoke emotion, responsibility, and internalized norms—demonstrating DGBL’s potential to support both cognitive understanding and emotional engagement in environmental education.

5. Conclusions, Limitations, and Suggestions for Future Work

This study employed the SSBC integrated with DGBL to enhance elementary-school students’ environmental literacy. The experimental results demonstrate that while DGBL did not yield statistically significant improvements in environmental knowledge, it significantly improved students’ environmental attitudes [42,43]. This finding highlights the strength of DGBL in shaping affective components of environmental literacy through immersive and interactive experiences, rather than through knowledge-intensive instruction alone.
Notably, the study affirms the practical applicability and theoretical necessity of the SSBC, especially in the design of educational games. By aligning the game scenarios with the predecision stage of the SSBC—including moral conflict, emotional activation, and social norm awareness—the digital game successfully fostered students’ awareness of environmental dilemmas. Our semi-structured interview data further support this framework. The students reflected on complex issues such as pesticide use and land development, often expressing initial confusion that evolved into empathy and nuanced understanding. These transformations were triggered not only by the game’s narrative but also by the visualization of behavioral consequences—core elements emphasized in the SSBC.
The findings suggest that negative emotional responses and perceived moral tension are essential triggers at the predecision stage of the SSBC, echoing the propositions of Keller, Köhler, Eisen, Kleihauer and Hanss [10], and Bamberg and Möser [44]. When students recognized the environmental outcomes of their decisions within the game, their internalized social norms and sense of responsibility were activated, increasing their motivation to adopt pro-environmental behaviors. Based on this, we propose a revised sequence of the SSBC’s predecision stage in game-based contexts: (1) the evocation of moral awareness, (2) the triggering of negative emotions through narrative conflict, (3) the recognition of behavioral responsibility shaped by social norms, and (4) the eventual internalization of positive affect from goal achievement (see Figure 5). This refined sequence provides clearer guidance for future DGBL development.
Despite its promising results, the study encountered limitations due to the brief implementation period. As highlighted by Hungerford and Volk [41] and Parekh et al. [45], environmental literacy necessitates sustained, long-term engagement. While the current system only includes two thematic game sections, future iterations should expand to address additional critical topics such as climate change and biodiversity. This will facilitate deeper learning cycles and better alignment with the curriculum.
Future research could broaden the sample to encompass schools from both urban and rural settings across various grade levels, thereby examining the applicability and impact of DGBL and SSBC-oriented teaching within diverse learning contexts and populations. Furthermore, it is advisable to implement a long-term follow-up design, incorporating direct behavioral observations of students (e.g., participation in resource recycling or the execution of action commitments), as well as feedback from parents and teachers. Such an approach would provide a more comprehensive evaluation of DGBL’s sustained impact on environmental behaviors, thereby further validating the proposed teaching framework and its theoretical contributions.
Additionally, a more thorough analysis of the game’s node design is warranted, alongside mediational analysis or structural equation modeling, to examine whether the psychological processes that are posited by the SSBC act as mediators for changes in students’ attitudes. This would clarify the relationship between emotional shifts and behavioral intentions, strengthening the empirical foundation of the SSBC in digital learning environments.
Furthermore, in the post-COVID-19 educational landscape, where digital learning has become increasingly central, the integration of the SSBC within DGBL offers a timely solution to foster environmental literacy in constrained learning environments. This study thus contributes to the field by demonstrating how theoretically grounded game-based design can promote both emotional engagement and behavioral awareness—underscoring the necessity of the SSBC as a foundational framework for designing impactful digital environmental education tools. It is becoming increasingly important to design DGBL, which can compensate for the lack of outdoor learning and field trips. Research based on the SSBC deepens our understanding of how to apply digital games to environmental education and develop digital learning tools that integrate theories and implementations, aiming to achieve the goal of effective teaching. This method is of critical importance for students in limited learning environments to positively develop the necessary environmental literacy.

Author Contributions

Investigation, S.-K.T.; Methodology, T.-Y.C. and Z.-J.L.; Resources, T.-Y.C.; Visualization, S.-K.T.; Writing—original draft, S.-K.T.; Writing—review and editing, T.-Y.C. and Z.-J.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research reported in this paper has been supported in part by the National Science Council in Taiwan under the research project number MOST 110-2511-H-024 -005 -MY3, MOST 109-2511-H-024-002, and MOST 108-2511-H-024-009.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the National Cheng Kung University of Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval Code: NCKU HREC-108-511-2 and 31 Decemver 2023 of approval).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Goldman, D.; Assaraf, O.B.Z.; Shaharabani, D. Influence of a Non-Formal Environmental Education Programme on Junior High-School Students’ Environmental Literacy. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2013, 35, 515–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Roth, C.E. Environmental Literacy: Its Roots, Evolution and Directions in the 1990s; ERIC/CSMEE Publications: Columbus, OH, USA, 1992; 51p. [Google Scholar]
  3. Wheaton, M.; Kannan, A.; Ardoin, N. Environmental Literacy: Setting the Stage (Environmental Literacy Brief, Volume 1); Social Ecology Lab., Stanford University: Stanford, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  4. UNESCO. Reading the Past, Writing the Future: Fifty Years of Promoting Literacy; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  5. Maurer, M.; Bogner, F.X. Modelling Environmental Literacy with Environmental Knowledge, Values and (Reported) Behaviour. Stud. Educ. Eval. 2020, 65, 100863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kurokawa, H.; Igei, K.; Kitsuki, A.; Kurita, K.; Managi, S.; Nakamuro, M.; Sakano, A. Improvement Impact of Nudges Incorporated in Environmental Education on Students’ Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviors. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 325, 116612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bamberg, S. Applying the Stage Model of Self-Regulated Behavioral Change in a Car Use Reduction Intervention. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 33, 68–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bamberg, S. Changing Environmentally Harmful Behaviors: A Stage Model of Self-Regulated Behavioral Change. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 34, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Nachreiner, M.; Mack, B.; Matthies, E.; Tampe-Mai, K. An Analysis of Smart Metering Information Systems: A Psychological Model of Self-Regulated Behavioural Change. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2015, 9, 85–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Keller, E.; Köhler, J.K.; Eisen, C.; Kleihauer, S.; Hanss, D. Why Consumers Shift from Single-Use to Reusable Drink Cups: An Empirical Application of the Stage Model of Self-Regulated Behavioural Change. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 1672–1687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Stevenson, K.; Carrier, S. Evaluating Strategies for Inclusion of Environmental Literacy in the Elementary School Classroom. Electron. J. Sci. Educ. 2014, 18, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  12. Saltan, F.; Divarci, O.F. Using Blogs to Improve Elementary School Students’ Environmental Literacy in Science Class. Eur. J. Educ. Res. 2017, 6, 347–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ardoin, N.M.; Bowers, A.W.; Wyman, R.N.; Holthuis, N. Environmental Education and K-12 Student Outcomes: A Review and Analysis of Research. J. Environ. Educ. 2018, 49, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mercer, T.G.; Kythreotis, A.P.; Robinson, Z.P.; Stolte, T.; George, S.M.; Haywood, S.K. The Use of Educational Game Design and Play in Higher Education to Influence Sustainable Behaviour. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2017, 18, 359–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Leitão, R.; Maguire, M.; Turner, S.; Arenas, F.; Guimarães, L. Ocean Literacy Gamified: A Systematic Evaluation of the Effect of Game Elements on Students’ Learning Experience. Environ. Educ. Res. 2022, 28, 276–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. David, O.A.; Predatu, R.; Cardoș, R.A.I. Effectiveness of the Rethink Therapeutic Online Video Game in Promoting Mental Health in Children and Adolescents. Internet Interv. 2021, 25, 100391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Tsai, M.-H.; Chang, Y.-L.; Shiau, J.-S.; Wang, S.-M. Exploring the Effects of a Serious Game-Based Learning Package for Disaster Prevention Education: The Case of Battle of Flooding Protection. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 43, 101393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sun, L.; Ruokamo, H.; Siklander, P.; Li, B.; Devlin, K. Primary School Students’ Perceptions of Scaffolding in Digital Game-Based Learning in Mathematics. Learn. Cult. Soc. Interact. 2021, 28, 100457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cheng, Y.-M.; Lou, S.-J.; Kuo, S.-H.; Shih, R.-C. Investigating Elementary School Students’ Technology Acceptance by Applying Digital Game-Based Learning to Environmental Education. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2013, 29, 96–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Curtis, D.J.; Howden, M.; Curtis, F.; McColm, I.; Scrine, J.; Blomfield, T.; Reeve, I.; Ryan, T. Drama and Environment: Joining Forces to Engage Children and Young People in Environmental Education. Aust. J. Environ. Educ. 2013, 29, 182–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Monroe, M.C.; Plate, R.R.; Oxarart, A.; Bowers, A.; Chaves, W.A. Identifying Effective Climate Change Education Strategies: A Systematic Review of the Research. Environ. Educ. Res. 2019, 25, 791–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pan, C.-T.; Hsu, S.-J. Effects of a One-day Environmental Education Program on Sixth-Graders’ Environmental Literacy at a Nature Center in Eastern Taiwan. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Prensky, M. Fun, Play and Games: What Makes Games Engaging. Digit. Game-Based Learn. 2001, 5, 5–31. [Google Scholar]
  24. Law, J.-W.; Lye, C.-T.; Ng, T.-H. Can Environmental Literacy and Integrated Behavioral Factors Encourage Green Practices at Home? Evidence from Malaysia. Clean. Responsible Consum. 2023, 10, 100134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Fielding, K.S.; Head, B.W. Determinants of Young Australians’ Environmental Actions: The Role of Responsibility Attributions, Locus of Control, Knowledge and Attitudes. Environ. Educ. Res. 2012, 18, 171–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zheng, Y.; Zhang, J.; Li, Y.; Wu, X.; Ding, R.; Luo, X.; Liu, P.; Huang, J. Effects of Digital Game-Based Learning on Students’ Digital Etiquette Literacy, Learning Motivations, and Engagement. Heliyon 2024, 10, e23490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Janakiraman, S.; Watson, S.L.; Watson, W.R.; Newby, T. Effectiveness of Digital Games in Producing Environmentally Friendly Attitudes and Behaviors: A Mixed Methods Study. Comput. Educ. 2021, 160, 104043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Garcia, X.; Domene, E.; Goenaga, X.; Rodriguez-Benitez, A.; Satorras, M.; Acuña, V.; Martínez-Ruiz, A.; Boada, I.; Corominas, L. Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Serious Game to Educate Children About the Urban Water Cycle. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2025, 00, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kawaguchi, S.; Sugimoto, M.; Mizoguchi, H.; Egusa, R.; Takeda, Y.; Yamaguchi, E.; Inagaki, S.; Nakanishi, F.; Kusunoki, F.; Funaoi, H. Let’s Build Forests for 300 Years: Game-Based Learning in Environmental Education. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Games Based Learning, Sophia Antipolis, France, 4–5 October 2018; Academic Conferences International Limited: Manchester, UK, 2018; pp. 881–XXI. [Google Scholar]
  30. Arslan, H.O.; Moseley, C.; Cigdemoglu, C. Taking Attention on Environmental Issues by an Attractive Educational Game: Enviropoly. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2011, 28, 801–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lester, J.C.; Spires, H.A.; Nietfeld, J.L.; Minogue, J.; Mott, B.W.; Lobene, E.V. Designing Game-Based Learning Environments for Elementary Science Education: A Narrative-Centered Learning Perspective. Inf. Sci. 2014, 264, 4–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Taub, M.; Sawyer, R.; Smith, A.; Rowe, J.; Azevedo, R.; Lester, J. The Agency Effect: The Impact of Student Agency on Learning, Emotions, and Problem-Solving Behaviors in a Game-Based Learning Environment. Comput. Educ. 2020, 147, 103781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Harker-Schuch, I.E.P.; Mills, F.P.; Lade, S.J.; Colvin, R.M. Co2peration—Structuring a 3d Interactive Digital Game to Improve Climate Literacy in the 12-13-Year-Old Age Group. Comput. Educ. 2020, 144, 103705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wu, J.S.; Lee, J.J. Climate Change Games as Tools for Education and Engagement. Nat. Clim. Change 2015, 5, 413–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. O’Donoghue, R.; Russo, V. Emerging Patterns of Abstraction in Environmental Education: A Review of Materials, Methods and Professional Development Perspectives. Environ. Educ. Res. 2004, 10, 331–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lee, K. The Green Purchase Behavior of Hong Kong Young Consumers: The Role of Peer Influence, Local Environmental Involvement, and Concrete Environmental Knowledge. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 2010, 23, 21–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Tsai, Y.-L.; Tsai, C.-C. A Meta-Analysis of Research on Digital Game-Based Science Learning. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2020, 36, 280–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hines, J.M.; Hungerford, H.R.; Tomera, A.N. Analysis and Synthesis of Research on Responsible Environmental Behavior: A Meta-Analysis. J. Environ. Educ. 1987, 18, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Markowitz, D.M.; Laha, R.; Perone, B.P.; Pea, R.D.; Bailenson, J.N. Immersive Virtual Reality Field Trips Facilitate Learning About Climate Change. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 2364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hsu, S.-J.; Huang, Y.-H. The Effects of an Environmental Education Game on Sixth Graders’ Environmental Literacy at Chih-Nan Nature Center of Forestry Bureau. Chin. J. Sci. Educ. 2017, 25, 169–196. [Google Scholar]
  41. Hungerford, H.R.; Volk, T.L. Changing Learner Behavior through Environmental Education. J. Environ. Educ. 1990, 21, 8–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Barbas, T.A.; Paraskevopoulos, S.; Stamou, A.G. The Effect of Nature Documentaries on Students’ Environmental Sensitivity: A Case Study. Learn. Media Technol. 2009, 34, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Elmas, R.; Geban, Ö. Web 2.0 Tools for 21st Century Teachers. Int. Online J. Educ. Sci. 2012, 4, 243–254. [Google Scholar]
  44. Bamberg, S.; Möser, G. Twenty Years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A New Meta-Analysis of Psycho-Social Determinants of Pro-Environmental Behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Parekh, P.; Gee, E.; Tran, K.; Aguilera, E.; Pérez Cortés, L.E.; Kessner, T.; Siyahhan, S. Board Game Design: An Educational Tool for Understanding Environmental Issues. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2021, 43, 2148–2168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 07416 g001
Figure 1. Stage Model of Self-Regulated Behavioral Change, adopted from [8].
Figure 1. Stage Model of Self-Regulated Behavioral Change, adopted from [8].
Sustainability 17 07416 g001
Sustainability 17 07416 g002
Figure 2. SSBC and DGBL game design framework.
Figure 2. SSBC and DGBL game design framework.
Sustainability 17 07416 g002
Sustainability 17 07416 g003
Figure 3. DGBL activity.
Figure 3. DGBL activity.
Sustainability 17 07416 g003
Sustainability 17 07416 g004
Figure 4. Web activity.
Figure 4. Web activity.
Sustainability 17 07416 g004
Sustainability 17 07416 g005
Figure 5. Revised SSBC based on DGBL.
Figure 5. Revised SSBC based on DGBL.
Sustainability 17 07416 g005
Table 1. ANCOVA results for environmental literacy.
Table 1. ANCOVA results for environmental literacy.
Environmental LiteracyGroupNAdj. MS. Err.Fp
environmental knowledgeDGBL2513.220.321.770.18
Web2512.610.32
environmental sensitivityDGBL254.300.090.590.44
Web254.200.09
environmental
attitude		DGBL254.240.0814.110.00 **
Web253.810.08
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and t-test results for environmental knowledge.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and t-test results for environmental knowledge.
GroupPre-Test Post-Test
MSDMSDtp (2-Tailed)
DGBL (n = 25)12.481.3213.241.902.010.05
Web (n = 25)12.441.9112.601.920.520.60
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and t-test results for environmental sensitivity.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and t-test results for environmental sensitivity.
GroupPre-Test Post-Test
MSDMSDtp (2-Tailed)
DGBL (n = 25)4.000.544.300.51−2.480.01 *
Web (n = 25)4.000.834.200.66−1.960.69
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics and t-test results for environmental attitude.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics and t-test results for environmental attitude.
GroupPre-Test Post-Test
MSDMSDtp (2-Tailed)
DGBL (n = 25)3.800.454.250.403.120.00 **
Web (n = 25)3.780.443.810.420.360.72
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tsai, S.-K.; Chuang, T.-Y.; Lin, Z.-J. Enhancing Environmental Literacy Through Digital Game-Based Learning: A Technology-Integrated Attitude Change Approach. Sustainability 2025, 17, 7416. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167416

AMA Style

Tsai S-K, Chuang T-Y, Lin Z-J. Enhancing Environmental Literacy Through Digital Game-Based Learning: A Technology-Integrated Attitude Change Approach. Sustainability. 2025; 17(16):7416. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167416

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tsai, Szu-Kai, Tsung-Yen Chuang, and Zih-Jiun Lin. 2025. "Enhancing Environmental Literacy Through Digital Game-Based Learning: A Technology-Integrated Attitude Change Approach" Sustainability 17, no. 16: 7416. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167416

APA Style

Tsai, S.-K., Chuang, T.-Y., & Lin, Z.-J. (2025). Enhancing Environmental Literacy Through Digital Game-Based Learning: A Technology-Integrated Attitude Change Approach. Sustainability, 17(16), 7416. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167416

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop