The DOI matches its Crossref record; 140 of the 196 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 15 of the 82 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The effect of using Kahoot! for learning – A literature review
Open accessAbstract
Kahoot! is a game-based learning platform used to review students' knowledge, for formative assessment or as a break from traditional classroom activities. It is among the most popular game-based learning platforms, with 70 million monthly active unique users and used by 50% of US K-12 students. Since the platform was released in 2013, many studies have been published on the effect of using Kahoot! in the classroom, but so far, no systematic analysis of the results. This article presents the results of a literature review on the effect of using Kahoot! for learning and, more specifically, on how Kahoot! affects learning performance, classroom dynamics, students' and teachers' attitudes and perceptions, and students' anxiety. The literature review includes 93 studies, and the main conclusion is that Kahoot! can have a positive effect on learning performance, classroom dynamics, students' and teachers' attitudes, and students’ anxiety. However, there are also studies where Kahoot! has little or no effect. The main challenges mentioned by students include technical problems such as unreliable internet connections, hard to read questions and answers on a projected screen, not being able to change answer after submission, stressful time-pressure for giving answers, not enough time to answer, afraid of losing, and hard to catch up if an incorrect answer had been given. Further, the main challenges mentioned by teachers include getting the difficulty level of questions and answers right, problems related to network connectivity, scoring based on how quickly the students answer reducing student reflection and cause some students to guess without thinking, that some students can have a problem with failing a quiz, and some teachers find it challenging to use the technology.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This literature review synthesizes 93 studies on Kahoot! and concludes it can positively affect learning performance, classroom dynamics, student/teacher attitudes, and student anxiety, though some studies find little or no effect. It also catalogs challenges such as technical problems, time pressure, fear of losing, and difficulty setting question difficulty.
Key findings
- Across 93 accepted studies, 48 investigated learning outcomes; 70% of studies with statistical significance tests on learning effect found Kahoot! significantly improved final grade or test results compared with other approaches, but exceptions found no significant improvement versus paper quiz, Clicker, SurveyMonkey, PowerPoint, traditional teaching, or Quizizz.
- Examples: an English flipped-classroom experimental group averaged 86.18 vs 77.45 for control (p = .007, large effect); a Purdue final exam averaged 79.56 vs 56.83 (p < .0001, large effect); chemistry final grade improved +38.4% with frequent Kahoot! vs +32.0% with less frequent use; a technology-supported group scored 90% on post-test vs 75% for paper.
- Classroom dynamics: 34 articles described effects, but only 4 included significance tests; most reported improved engagement, interaction, and atmosphere, and no studies reported a negative or neutral effect except reduced positive effect after five months of frequent use (Wang, 2015).
- Student anxiety: 14 articles, 10 reported reduced anxiety; two significance tests showed lower anxiety for Kahoot! vs Socrative (1.871 vs 2.238, p = .014) and lower anxiety vs control in Earth Science; one study reported agitation. Students’ perceptions: 82 articles, mostly positive; teachers: 10 articles, mostly positive.
Methods
- Literature review using the Goal, Question, Metrics approach and PRISMA; search string “Kahoot” in Google Scholar, Science Direct, Wiley InterScience, Web of Science, and Scopus; 1232 articles found, 206 qualified, and 93 accepted after critical appraisal.
- Data extraction and synthesis classified studies by type and nine attributes tied to five research questions: learning performance, classroom dynamics, student anxiety, student perceptions, and teacher perceptions; 38% were experiments, 45% included significance testing, 10% included effect sizes, 86% analyzed quantitative data, and 52% analyzed qualitative data.
- Sample sizes ranged from 5 to 1000 participants, average N = 105; 84% of studies were in higher education and 16% in K-12.
Limitations
- Stated: coverage may be incomplete; paywalled articles were excluded; filtering/rejection may have missed relevant studies; biased selection is possible because 97% of accepted articles present mainly positive results and 8% include challenges/problems; generalization is limited to Kahoot! and K-12/higher education, with no studies found on business training or other contexts.
- Evident from the text: many research questions rest on few statistically significant studies—only 4 classroom-dynamics articles, 2 anxiety articles, and 1 teacher-perception article included significance tests, and only 10% of studies included effect sizes—so several conclusions rely largely on non-significance-tested findings.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
39 Own result · 30 No full text of the sources · 22 Sources not found · 22 No basis given · 15 Not checked yet · 12 Own interpretation · 9 Partly supported · 6 Own method · 5 Supported · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The results of the experiment showed that the group using Kahoot!performed significantly better on the post-test (67.39 for Kahoot! and 58.70 for Socrative), which is statistically significant (p ¼ .030).”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.2. RQ1: Learning effect of using kahoot!
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Turan & Meral, 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The achievement-results section reports the stated post-test means (67.39 for Kahoot and 58.70 for Socrative) and significant difference (p = .030). The Study Group and Method sections confirm a quasi-experiment with 46 students in Turkey, but they identify the participants as seventh-graders, not eighth-graders. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“At the same time, student anxiety can be decreased through having the option to be anonymous both to fellow students and the teacher through the use of nicknames”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 4.1. Discussion of the results
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lee et al., 2019 source
- Not matchedcites Susanti, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Turan & Meral, 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section reports lower test-anxiety scores for students using the game-based response system than for those using the non-game-based system. The Discussion suggests engagement and other possible explanations, but our copy does not link the reduction to anonymity from classmates or the teacher, or mention nicknames (searched: anonymous, nicknames, anonymity). (LLM, conf=0.87)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“students using Kahoot!were significantly more engaged than students using Socrative (Turan & Meral, 2018)”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.5. RQ4: Students' perceptions
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Turan & Meral, 2018 source
The Study Group and Implementation Process sections identify Kahoot as the game-based system and Socrative as the comparison system. The engagement results section reports significantly higher post-test engagement scores for the Kahoot group (4.130 versus 3.762; p = .028). Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Only one study, with 15 pre-service teachers in Biology education in Turkey, included a statistical analysis of the results related to teachers' perception of the use of Kahoot! (Yapıcı & Karakoyun, 2017).”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.6. RQ5: Teachers' perceptions
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Yapıcı & Karakoyun, 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Participants section identifies 15 preservice biology teachers, and Data Collection Tools says the study examined their views of Kahoot. But Data Analysis and Findings obtained via the motivation scale show that the Wilcoxon statistical test assessed motivation scores; views were analyzed through qualitative content analysis and reported with frequencies. This paper also cannot establish that it was the only such study. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“In a study comparing the use of the student response system Socrative with Kahoot! among 46 seventh graders in Turkey, it was found that there was a statistically significant difference in the anxiety scores for Kahoot!compared to Socrative (p ¼ .014)(Turan & Meral, 2018).”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.4. RQ3: Student anxiety
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Turan & Meral, 2018 source
The Study Group section identifies 46 seventh-grade students in Turkey, with 23 using Kahoot and 23 using Socrative. Table 6 reports a statistically significant difference in test-anxiety scores between the groups (p = .014), with lower scores in the Kahoot group. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“This stage of the game creates a suspension that can increase enjoyment, motivation, and concentration”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 4.1. Discussion of the results
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chaiyo & Nokham, 2017 source
- Partly supportedcites Cutri et al., 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper’s Final considerations report that students found Kahoot fun and that it increased attention and motivation; Best practices in Kahoot use also says short quizzes kept students motivated. But How Kahoot works describes immediate feedback after each question, not suspense created by withholding correct answers until everyone responds. The paper does not link that specific stage to enjoyment, motivation, or concentration. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Not matchedcites de Sousa, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, there are also studies where Kahoot! has little or no effect.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since the platform was released in 2013, there have been published many studies on the effect of using Kahoot! in the classroom, but so far, there has not been any analysis of the results published by these studies at large.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 1. Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main challenges mentioned by students include technical problems such as unreliable internet connections, hard to read questions and answers on a projected screen, not being able to change answer after submission, stressful time-pressure for giving answers, not enough time to answer, afraid of losing, and hard to catch up if an incorrect answer had been given.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As the figure shows, there has been a noticeable increase in published studies on Kahoot!since the first two published in 2015 (Kahoot! was released to the public in September 2013).”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.1. General results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 64
- Probably not a substantial claim. 23
- The quote only partly states this claim. 6
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The results showed many positive effects for the gamified approach, including improved class attendance, less late arrivals to class, higher downloads of course material, improved classroom dynamics, and higher final grade (61% for gamified vs. 53% for traditional).”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.2. RQ1: Learning effect of using kahoot!
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Fotaris, Mastoras, Leinfellner, & Rosunally, 2016
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“In one study where Kahoot! was used for teaching Chinese, using Kahoot!had a significant improvement in the competences of reading and speaking, but not for listening nor vocabulary (X.Liu & Wang, 2017).”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.2. RQ1: Learning effect of using kahoot!
What the sources say
- Supportedcites X.Liu & Wang, 2017
The Procedures section says Kahoot was used daily in the Chinese class. The Results section reports significant pre–post improvements in reading and speaking, but no significant difference in listening or vocabulary. The Discussion clarifies that listening improved numerically, though not significantly. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Similarly, a study among 65 Preschool teacher students in Turkey evaluated Kahoot!very positively, including its ability to increase students' interest in the lesson, increase students' motivation, helping students' to understand the lesson better, and that it encourages learners (Bicen & Kocakoyun, 2018).”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.6. RQ5: Teachers' perceptions
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Bicen & Kocakoyun, 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The study showed that teachers' motivation increased significantly after starting to use Kahoot!(p ¼ .001)and that Kahoot!enhanced their teaching, was entertaining, resulted in better teaching, and increased attention and concentration.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.6. RQ5: Teachers' perceptions
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Yapıcı & Karakoyun, 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The motivation-scale findings report a significant increase for 15 preservice biology teachers, and Table 3 gives p = .001. The positive-aspects table reports entertainment, attention and concentration. But the section on future use presents more effective teaching as the preservice teachers’ expectation, not a measured improvement in their teaching. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Negative comments were related to persons failing the quiz and lack of technical infrastructure.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.6. RQ5: Teachers' perceptions
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Yapıcı & Karakoyun, 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Table 4 (Suggestions; page unavailable) lists failing the quiz and technological insufficiency as the two negative views. The accompanying text and Conclusion and Discussion specify that the latter meant students’ lack of technological skills, not a lack of technical infrastructure. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The articles on Kahoot and student anxiety that did not include any statistical analysis include findings such as 56% of students following traditional teaching were afraid to ask questions in class compared to 37% for those who played Kahoot! in class (Budiati, 2017); students rated the statements”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.4. RQ3: Student anxiety
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Budiati, 2017
- Partly supportedcites Bicen & Kocakoyun, 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Table 3 (section 6) reports a positive rating for the statement that Kahoot builds students’ courage to participate (mean 4.46, SD 0.63). The paper’s Data analysis section (3.5) describes means, standard deviations, frequencies and percentages, rather than inferential tests. I found no result on low stress; the 56% versus 37% comparison is attributed to Budiati (2017) in the citing sentence, not to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Partly supportedcites M.Ismail et al., 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3.1 reports a rating for the statement that gamification makes learning less stressful. The cited paper does not report reduced fear of asking questions or positive ratings of courage. Moreover, sections 2.2 and 3 explicitly describe descriptive statistical analysis, so it is inaccurate to characterize this paper as having no statistical analysis. The 56% and 37% figures are attributed to Budiati, not this source. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The anxiety score for Socrative was 2.238, and for Kahoot! it was 1.871, where a lower value represents less anxiety.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.4. RQ3: Student anxiety
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Turan & Meral, 2018 source
The study-group passage identifies Kahoot! as the game-based system and Socrative as the non-game-based system. Table 6 reports mean test-anxiety scores of 1.871 and 2.238, respectively, and the test-anxiety results section explicitly describes the lower Kahoot! group score as lower anxiety. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Further studies report that students found Kahoot! to be helpful to prepare for the exam (Iwamoto et al., 2017), that Kahoot!increased their interest in learning more about what they had learned and that they told others about it (Budiati, 2017), that the students motivation and confidence increased, and they felt more secure and safe in class (Tsymbal, 2018), and that students felt comfortable”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.5. RQ4: Students' perceptions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Iwamoto et al., 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Budiati, 2017
- Partly supportedcites Tsymbal, 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 3 atoms — 0 confirmed, 3 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the search for literature, four literature reviews where Kahoot! was mentioned were found.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 2.2. Related work
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The results showed that the use of Kahoot! had a significant improvement from pre-to post-test for all topics (p ¼ .001,effect size large), but compared to the traditional approach, the Kahoot!group, performed only significantly better on theoretical topics (p ¼ .0001,effect size small) and not on the more practical topics.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.2. RQ1: Learning effect of using kahoot!
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ranieri, Raffaghelli, & Bruni, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thirty-four of the articles in our literature review explicitly describe how Kahoot!affects the classroom dynamics, but only four of these contain any analysis for statistical significance.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.3. RQ2: Classroom dynamics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Both groups performed the same on the pre-test, but the technology-supported learning group performed significantly better on the post-test (scored 90%) compared to those who used paper (scored 75%).”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.2. RQ1: Learning effect of using kahoot!
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Filologiczna, 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“A quasi-experiment in the USA with 49 undergrad students investigated the impact on the final grade of learning of lectures with group discussions vs. lectures with Kahoot!where it was found that Kahoot! made a significant impact on the exam score (p ¼ .008)(Iwamoto et al., 2017).”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.2. RQ1: Learning effect of using kahoot!
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Iwamoto et al., 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The results showed that the control group got an average score of 46.05, and the experimental group an average score of 63.15 (p ¼ .035).”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.2. RQ1: Learning effect of using kahoot!
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Asmalı, 2018
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Further, 20% more students passed the exam with less frequent use of Kahoot! than traditional teaching and 29% with frequent use.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.2. RQ1: Learning effect of using kahoot!
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ares, Bernal, Nozal, S anchez, & Bernal, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, there are also a few studies where Kahoot! did not result in improved learning.”
- Also stated in: § 5. Conclusions · plain
“However, there are also few studies where Kahoot! did not have a significant positive effect on learning performance.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.2. RQ1: Learning effect of using kahoot!
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 5. Conclusions · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of the thirty-six studies investigating the learning outcome of only using Kahoot!for teaching, six are in the K-12 context (Primary, Secondary, and High School), while the rest are with university students.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.2. RQ1: Learning effect of using kahoot!
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, there are some exceptions.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.2. RQ1: Learning effect of using kahoot!
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“A case study from Portugal with 324 university students showed that with Kahoot! the average grade was improved 6.4% compared to traditional teaching, that weaker students improved their grades with 12%, and fewer failed the course (Esteves, Pereira, Veiga, Vasco, & Veiga, 2017).”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.2. RQ1: Learning effect of using kahoot!
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Esteves, Pereira, Veiga, Vasco, & Veiga, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The results showed a significant improvement in the final grade from traditional teaching to the use of Kahoot! (both groups), and that the group using Kahoot!frequently improved more (þ38.4%)than the other (þ32.0%).”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.2. RQ1: Learning effect of using kahoot!
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ares, Bernal, Nozal, S anchez, & Bernal, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The results showed that including these Kahoot!sessions had a significant impact on the final examination scores (p ¼ .005).”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.2. RQ1: Learning effect of using kahoot!
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kinder & Kurz, 2018 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Studies also found that Kahoot!positively affected the excitement, engagement, learning experience and efficiency of the students”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.5. RQ4: Students' perceptions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are only four articles that include statistical significance tests and two that report effect sizes, so more experiments are necessary for a solid conclusion.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.3. RQ2: Classroom dynamics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Seventy percent of the articles focusing on student anxiety describe studies that report a reduction of student anxiety from playing Kahoot! in class, but there were only two studies with tests for statistical significance.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.4. RQ3: Student anxiety
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The challenges or negative issues related to Kahoot! mentioned by teachers in these studies included the challenge of getting the difficulty of questions and answer time right, problems related to network connectivity, scoring based on how quickly the students answer can reduce student reflection and cause some students to guess without thinking, some students can have”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.6. RQ5: Teachers' perceptions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most of the articles found in our literature review investigate how students perceive the use of Kahoot! in the classroom, and eightytwo articles reported findings from the students' point of view.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.5. RQ4: Students' perceptions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main challenges reported by students included technical problems such as unreliable internet connections, hard to read questions and answers on projected screen, not being able to change answer after submission, stressful time-pressure for giving answers, not enough time to answer, afraid of losing, and hard to catch up if an incorrect answer had been given.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.5. RQ4: Students' perceptions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our literature review found fourteen studies where student anxiety is mentioned, where two tested for statistical significance.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.4. RQ3: Student anxiety
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The challenges mentioned by most articles were unreliable and slow internet connections.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.5. RQ4: Students' perceptions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, several articles were left out because they were behind a paywall where most of them were published in the proceedings for the International Conference on Technology, Education and Development (INTED).”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 4.2. Threats to validity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main challenges reported include technical challenges, hard to read questions and answers on a projected screen, time pressure, afraid of losing, and hard to catch up if an incorrect answer had been given.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 5. Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fourteen articles were found that contain results related to student anxiety, and ten articles reported that Kahoot!reduced student anxiety related to asking questions, reduce stress and tension, encourages participation without being judged, add humor to class, and enables shy students to get involved.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 5. Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two studies showed a statistically significant reduction of student anxiety, and one study reported that Kahoot! could produce agitation.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 5. Conclusions
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reviews | 22 (11%) | Reviews or comparisons from a single person”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > Appendix D. Uses of a Game-based Student Response System
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our literature review shows that there have been conducted several experiments on the learning effect of using Kahoot!but there is still room for empirical studies, especially on classroom dynamics, student anxiety, and perceptions of students and teachers.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 5. Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This article has presented a literature review on the effect of using Kahoot!for learning, where 93 studies were included.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 5. Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of the accepted articles, 97% present mainly positive results related to Kahoot! and 8% include challenges and problems.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 4.2. Threats to validity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rejected studies | 44 (21%) | Lack of description, analysis, no explicit presentation of results, too limited scope, invalid results due to research design or”
- Also stated in: § Appendix D. Uses of a Game-based Student Response System · plain
“execution, conclusions not based on data or analysis”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > Appendix D. Uses of a Game-based Student Response System
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § Appendix D. Uses of a Game-based Student Response System · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Positive findings include higher motivation of teachers, ease of use, a motivating tool, support teachers' instructive work in class, can assess students' knowledge in real-time, increases student motivation, stimulate students to speak their point of view in class, can wake up students, increase class participation, and reduce teacher's workload.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 5. Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Several studies reported the importance for students to be anonymous, which can result in reduced stress and a safer environment to fail”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 4.1. Discussion of the results
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main challenges were found to be technical issues and challenges, get the questions and answers right and scoring based on timing.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 5. Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Presentations | 14 (7%) | Only presentation and not a study”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > Appendix D. Uses of a Game-based Student Response System
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The literature review included four studies that reported statistically significant results related to classroom dynamics, where one showed that the effect on classroom dynamics was reduced from first-time use to after frequent use over five months.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 5. Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Total | 1232 | 206”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > Appendix D. Uses of a Game-based Student Response System
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“One challenge mentioned by four articles was stressful time-pressure for giving answers and the tendency that some students simply guessed the answer in order to try to get a high score”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 4.1. Discussion of the results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main difference between all the systems mentioned above is that Kahoot!focuses more on engagement through a competitive gaming experience.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 2.2. Related work
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Boredom in a computer learning environment can cause inferior learning and problem behavior (Baker, D'Mello, Rodrigo, & Graesser, 2010).”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Baker, D'Mello, Rodrigo, & Graesser, 2010 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Experiments with the early prototypes showed that Lecture Quiz increased student motivation, engagement, and perceived learning through entertaining social learning activities (Wang, Øfsdal, & Mørch-Storstein, 2008;Wu, Wang, Børresen, & Tidemann, 2011).”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 2.1. Kahoot! -A game-based student response system
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Further, there is extensive evidence that student engagement in lectures improves understanding and academic results (Prince, 2004).”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Prince, 2004 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Games can be beneficial for academic achievement, motivation, and classroom dynamics (Sharples, 2000).”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sharples, 2000 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Some teachers are afraid that the competitive gaming elements in Kahoot! will create anxiety for the students that will ruin their motivation to learn (Zarzycka-Piskorz, 2016).”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 2.3. Research goal, questions and approach
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Zarzycka-Piskorz, 2016
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
In the paper
“Lack of motivation can result in a reduction of learning outcomes and a negative atmosphere in the classroom (O.L. Liu, Bridgeman, & Adler, 2012).”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites O.L. Liu, Bridgeman, & Adler, 2012 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The identified feedback practices not fully supported in Kahoot! were 1) Ability to assist in clarifying what good performance is; 2) Ability to deliver high-quality information to students about their learning; and 3) Ability to encourage teacher and peer dialogue around learning.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.2. RQ1: Learning effect of using kahoot!
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Omar, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Finally, there is a pilot study from South Korea with 51 university students that found that Kahoot!improves vocabulary retention while fostering a positive learning environment and a meaningful learning experience (Taylor & Reynolds, 2018).”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.2. RQ1: Learning effect of using kahoot!
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Taylor & Reynolds, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The results showed that the use of audio and music in Kahoot! had a significant positive impact on classroom dynamics, which resulted in an improved atmosphere for oral questions and discussions in class.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.3. RQ2: Classroom dynamics
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wang & Lieberoth, 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The main finding was that the learner as leader strategy contributed to enhancing discussions in groups, especially for the leading group, and benefited those who acted as leaders.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.2. RQ1: Learning effect of using kahoot!
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Y.-H.Wang, 2017a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Y.-H.Wang, 2017b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“One study comparing using a paper quiz, a Clicker student response system and Kahoot! for reviewing knowledge, revealed significant improvement in motivation (small effect size), engagement (medium effect size), enjoyment (small effect size), and concentration (medium effect size) for the gamified approach, but not significant learning improvement (Wang et al., 2016).”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.5. RQ4: Students' perceptions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wang et al., 2016
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“in a comparison of Clicker and Kahoot!-the engagement was significantly better with Kahoot! and answering carefully was significantly better with Clicker (Jones, Harden, Rassias, & Abourashchi, 2018)”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.5. RQ4: Students' perceptions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Jones et al., 2018
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“One result from these articles shows that playing Kahoot!frequently over five months did not affect the students' engagement, motivation, concentration, and perceived learning negatively compared to the first time it was played, but the classroom dynamics were affected (Wang, 2015).”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.5. RQ4: Students' perceptions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wang, 2015 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In a survey, using Likert's scale among 149 secondary education teachers in Greece who were introduced to Kahoot! the most positive findings were that Kahoot! was easy to use (4.81 of 5), it was a motivating tool for learning (4.63 of 5), support teachers' instructive work in class (4.01 of 5), assess students' knowledge (4.64 of 5), and is an exciting tool for teaching (4.45 of 5).”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.6. RQ5: Teachers' perceptions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The studies above show that for the majority of studies, Kahoot! had a significant positive effect on motivation, concentration, perceived learningbut not for all studies.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.5. RQ4: Students' perceptions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Another study found that the use of audio and points in Kahoot!significantly affects (large effect size) the students' concentration, engagement, enjoyment, motivation, perceived learning, and classroom dynamics and that using Kahoot!without points and audio gave the worst result (Wang & Lieberoth, 2016).”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.5. RQ4: Students' perceptions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wang & Lieberoth, 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“and Kahoot! had a more positive impact on students' engagement than Quizizzbut not significant (G€ oksün & Gürsoy, 2019).”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.5. RQ4: Students' perceptions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Göksün & Gürsoy, 2019 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both involved in the critical appraisal process agreed on what articles to reject, although the reasoning for rejecting the two articles was different.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 4.2. Threats to validity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the thirty-three other papers all reported on improved classroom dynamics from using Kahoot! in the classroom, including the improved teacher-student interaction and student-student interaction, more favorable to actively participate in class, improved classroom atmosphere, and easier to answer questions in class.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 5. Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To our knowledge, all of the rejected articles failed to meet these requirements, and lacked a description of the research context, lacked a description of results, analysis of data, having conclusions not based on data, or had significant flaws in set-up or execution of the study.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 4.2. Threats to validity
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The literature review presented in this article was carried out according to the review method presented in (Dybå & Dingsøyr, 2008) to ensure maximum literature coverage, include all relevant studies and collect and synthesize the data from these studies in a meaningful way.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 4.2. Threats to validity
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Dybå & Dingsøyr, 2008 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main conclusion is that students have a very positive perception of the use of Kahoot! in learning, and these results include a positive effect on motivation, engagement, concentration, perceived learning, attention, enjoyment, satisfaction, and confidence.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 5. Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It was found that Kahoot! had a positive effect on learning both for K-12 and higher education, as well as for language learning, technical and engineering fields, science, math, business, and nursing.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 5. Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In our case, the search string was simple, and should not be a source for leaving out articles.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 4.2. Threats to validity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, the generalization of the results of this review is limited to Kahoot! and not to game-based learning or any GSRS in general, and for the context of K-12 and higher education.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 4.2. Threats to validity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This process requires students to think critically (Bryant et al., 2018).”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > Appendix D. Uses of a Game-based Student Response System
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bryant et al., 2018 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The filter used was to check if the articles described a study, and then articles with studies were checked for relevance (scope), rigor, and credibility.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 4.2. Threats to validity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main conclusion of our literature review is that Kahoot! has a positive effect on learning, but there are challenges and room for improvement.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 5. Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This process was carried out independently by the two authors of this article.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 4.2. Threats to validity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There might be some studies we did not find in our literature search, but we believe the by searching Google Scholar, Science Direct, Wiley InterScience, Web of Science, and Scopus, the coverage should be satisfactory.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 4.2. Threats to validity
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper relies on this without support.
Most teachers acknowledge that it is a challenge to keep students' motivation, engagement, and concentration over time in a lecture.
“Most teachers acknowledge that it is a challenge to keep the students' motivation, engagement, and concentration over time in a lecture.”
The paper relies on this without support.
This challenge is usually even a bigger problem in higher education with big classes with little interaction.
“This challenge is usually even a bigger problem in higher education with big classes with little interaction.”
The paper relies on this without support.
This issue has been identified by Kahoot! staff as one of the main barriers for many to start using the tool.
“This issue has been identified by Kahoot! staff as one of the main barriers for many to start using the tool.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
“Of the 133 rejected articles, four reported mainly negative results and the remaining neutral or positive results.”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 2.4.4. Critical appraisal
Reported 133 · recomputed 113
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.2. RQ1: Learning effect of using kahoot!
“A quasi-experiment in Turkey with 46 eight-graders tested the learning effect of using two different student response systems (Turan & Meral, 2018).”
§ The effect of using Kahoot! for learning -A literature review > 3.4. RQ3: Student anxiety
“In a study comparing the use of the student response system Socrative with Kahoot! among 46 seventh graders in Turkey, it was found that there was a statistically significant difference in the anxiety scores for Kahoot!compared to Socrative (p ¼ .014)(Turan & Meral, 2018).”
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009) · Health Information & Libraries Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x · Cited by 10,817
Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research
Prince, M. (2004) · Journal of Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x · Cited by 7,334 · cited 1×
“Further, there is extensive evidence that student engagement in lectures improves understanding and academic results (Prince, 2004).”
BackgroundWhat Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy
(2004) · Education + Training · doi:10.1108/et.2004.00446dae.002 · Cited by 6,674
What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy
Gee, J. P. (2003) · Computers in Entertainment · doi:10.1145/950566.950595 · Cited by 5,735
Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review
Dybå, T., & Dingsøyr, T. (2008) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2008.01.006 · Cited by 2,668
Toward a Theory of Intrinsically Motivating Instruction*
Malone, T. W. (1981) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0504_2 · Cited by 2,197
Sweetser (2005) · doi:10.1145/1077246.1077253 · Cited by 2,124 · cited 3×
“A crucial part of Kahoot! is the social interaction (Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005) that both take place in a digital game as well as in a classroom.”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Chotimah, 2018, Kahoot as the alternative media in teaching reading, Proceeding Icon-ELite, 1, 167
- Coca, 2013, Software socrative and smartphones as tools for implementation of basic processes of active physics learning in classroom: An initial feasibility study with prospective teachers, European Journal of Physics Education, 4
- Dellos, 2015, Kahoot! A digital game resource for learning, International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 12, 49
- Filologiczna, 2016, Effects of modern technologies on teaching English vocabulary to primary school learners, CER Comparative European Research, 155
- Iona, 2017, Kahoot! The School Librarian, 65, 84
- Johns, 2015, Engaging and assessing students with technology, A Review of Kahoot! Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 81, 89
- King, 2017, Using Kahoot! Australian Mathematics Teacher, 73, 35
- Licorish, S. A., George, J. L., Owen, H. E., & Daniel, B. “Go kahoot!” enriching classroom engagement, motivation and learning experience with games. In International conference on computers in education.
- Lunden, 2018, Vol. 2019
- Murray, 1991, Effective teaching behaviors in the college classroom, Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 7, 135
- Omar, 2017, The effectiveness of kahoot application towards students' good feedback practice, PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 3
- Tan Ai Lin, 2018, Kahoot! It: Gamification in higher education, Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 26
- Vick, 2019, Vol. 2019
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 701–800 of 877
uso das novas tecnologias anos iniciais:
Neri, B. V., Chafin, C. D. L., & de Souza, L. J. (2023) · Cadernos do GPOSSHE On-line · doi:10.33241/cadernosdogposshe.v7i2.11794
Factors from Academics that Affect Student Learning in an Online Educational Setting
Fauzi, N. A. A. M., Shah, N. Z., & Hamid, N. S. (2024) · Asian Journal of Research in Education and Social Sciences · doi:10.55057/ajress.2024.6.1.9
The Impact of Gamified Learning With Kahoot! on Student Motivation and Engagement
Ye, B., Yahaya, W. A. J. W., & Luo, X. F. (2024) · Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-3124-8.ch014 · Cited by 3
Integration of ICT to Support Critical Reading in Bogotá
Celis, F. M. (2024) · Queensland University of Technology · doi:10.5204/thesis.eprints.248137
Bibliometric Analysis of Oral Presentations with Mobile Technology in Tertiary Education
Rachman, D., Khatimah, K., Kusuma, I. P. I., et al. (2024) · Script Journal Journal of Linguistic and English Teaching · doi:10.24903/sj.v9i1.1578
Onlu, O. B., Serçemeli, M., & Abdüsselam, M. S. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4811516
Sunar, A., & Brown, S. A. (2015) · Aydın Dental · doi:10.17932/iau.dental.2015.009/dental_v010i10011
Rowiyah, S. (2024) · Voices of English Language Education Society · doi:10.29408/veles.v8i1.24692
“According to Wang and Tahir (2020), Kahoot!”
RELEP. Educación y Pedagogía en Latinoamérica. 2023.
Ahumada, N. B. P., & Rascón, O. C. A. (2024) · doi:10.46990/iquatro.2024.07.5.0
Panohaya, C. G. A., Domínguez, A. V., Fernández, V. G. L., et al. (2024) · doi:10.46990/iquatro.2024.07.5.27
Shang, Y., Sajjapanroj, S., Laosinchai, P., & Wongkia, W. (2024) · IEEE Eurasian Conference on Educational Innovation (ECEI) · doi:10.1109/ecei60433.2024.10510820
“[15].”
Leveraging Online Games and Apps in Geotechnical Engineering Pedagogy
Ahmed, A., & Gubbala, R. M. (2024) · doi:10.18260/1-2--45773
НОВІ ІГРОВІ СТРАТЕГІЇ У ОСВІТНЬОМУ ПРОЦЕСІ ВИЩОЇ ШКОЛИ
Severyn, N. (2024) · New Collegium · doi:10.34142/nc.2024.1.55
Chatinyan, A. (2024) · Գիտությունը սպորտում արդի հիմնախնդիրներ · doi:10.53068/25792997-2024.1.11-144
ВИКЛАДАННЯ ДИСЦИПЛІН ГОСПОДАРСЬКО-ПРАВОВОГО ЦИКЛУ В УМОВАХ ДИСТАНЦІЙНОГО ТА ЗМІШАНОГО НАВЧАННЯ
Bobkova, A., Серебрякова, Ю. О., Lypnytska, Y. O., Novoshytska, V., & Lekhkodukh, I. (2024) · Law Journal of Donbass · doi:10.32782/2523-4269-2024-86-91-101
Nizhenkovska, I., & Проворова, В. О. (2024) · Medicina ta farmacìâ: osvìtnì diskursi. · doi:10.32782/eddiscourses/2024-1-5
Early Use of Augmented Cognition for Online Learning Games in Hawai‘i
Crosby, M. E., Iding, M. K., & Nguyen, T. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-61572-6_9
Koçak, Ö. (2024) · International Journal of Technology in Education · doi:10.46328/ijte.710
“This allows instructors to check students' understanding even in large classrooms (Wang & Tahir, 2020).”
BackgroundBienvenido-Huertas, D., Suárez, E., Esquivias, P. M., de la Hoz-Torres, M. L., Aguilar, A. J., Álvarez, J. M. D., & Martínez-Aires, M. D. (2024) · International Journal of Construction Education and Research · doi:10.1080/15578771.2024.2359392
“The design followed the question format in scientific literature (Wang & Tahir, 2020).”
Digital Library for the Implementation of Formative Assessment into Teaching
Сотакова, І., Ganajová, M., Maceková, D., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of The International Conference on Future of Teaching and Education · doi:10.33422/icfte.v3i1.309
“Moreover, their efficiency in the improvement of teaching methods and forms has been confirmed (OECD, 2015; Wang & Tahir, 2020).”
BackgroundMethodEnhancing Literary Comprehension Through Interactive Reading Assignment via Kahoot!
Gonzales, L. A. (2024) · Journal of interdisciplinary perspectives · doi:10.69569/jip.2024.0027 · Cited by 2
Lights and shadows of teaching and studying biochemistry.
Jamioł, M. A., Kosztowny, E., ARLETTA, B., et al. (2024) · Medycyna Weterynaryjna · doi:10.21521/mw.6917
“Other tools based on SRS (Student Response Systems) also include Socrative, as well as Quizlet (49) or Mentimeter.”
MethodMakharashvili, M. (2024) · Journal of Education in Black Sea Region · doi:10.31578/jebs.v9i2.320
“Wang and Tahir (2020), as cited by Kıyançiçek & Uzun (2022), highlight in their seminal work that Kahoot is students’ favourite gamification application compared to other platforms such as Socrative or Plickers.”
BackgroundCan Interactive PowerPoint Media Revolutionize Simple Sentence Learning in Elementary Schools?
Khoirunnisa, R., & Widagdo, A. (2024) · Voices of English Language Education Society · doi:10.29408/veles.v8i2.26409
The Importance and Advantages of Thinking-Based Learning
Rustamovna, D. L. (2024) · American Journal of Science and Learning for Development · doi:10.51699/ajsld.v3i7.64 · Cited by 1
Meishar‐Tal, H., Amzalag, M., Persi, J., & Sapir, L. (2024) · Active Learning in Higher Education · doi:10.1177/14697874241286076
“Using quiz games as an assessment tool by educators reduces test anxiety and makes the assessment process enjoyable and engaging (Mavridis & Tsiatsos, 2017; Wang & Tahir, 2020).”
Kahooting Attendance Quiz in the History Classroom
Wan, S. (2024) · The National Teaching & Learning Forum · doi:10.1002/ntlf.30420
Are you smarter than ChatGPT? Challenging our understanding of media literacy through generative AI
Peebles, A. L., & Snyder, M. N. (2024) · Communication Teacher · doi:10.1080/17404622.2024.2414032 · Cited by 2
“We suggest that the instructor program the questions into Kahoot!, which is a web-based software that gamifies quizzes so that the students can compete in class for the highest score (Wang & Tahir, 2020).”
Gakera Educational Game Media on Nusantara Kingdom Material
Pramihapsari, M. P., & Bektiningsih, K. (2024) · Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pengajaran · doi:10.23887/jpp.v57i2.76757
García, E. D. P., Pernas, J. B., del Pozo, R. G., & Segura, M. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-72549-4_20
واقعُ تطبيقِ طالباتِ كليَّة التربيةِ بجامعة قَطر للتكنولوجيا في مقرَّر التدريبِ الميداني
الكعبي, ع. ف. (2024) · Journal of Educational Sciences – Qatar University · doi:10.29117/jes.2024.0174
Gamifying the Learning Experience in the Language Classroom
Alshumaimeri, Y. A. (2023) · Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research & Review · doi:10.55662/ajmrr.2023.4604 · Cited by 2
Gamifying the Learning Experience in the Language Classroom
Alshumaimeri, Y. A. (2024) · Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research & Review · doi:10.55662/ajmrr.2024.5504
App Lab para Jovens: desenvolvimento, aplicação e avaliação de um curso de aplicativo
de Azevedo, L., Gomide, J., Taqueuti, A. J., et al. (2024) · doi:10.5753/wie.2024.241603
Engenharia para Crianças e Jovens: Uma abordagem STEAM para ensino de programação na educação básica
dos Santos, M. F., Santana, L. E. A. D. S., Gomide, J., et al. (2024) · doi:10.5753/wie.2024.242258
Medina, J., Estriégana, R., Barchino, R., Ramírez, R. R., Otón, S., & Teixeira, A. M. (2024) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics13224500 · Cited by 8
Kouveli, P., Gazis, A., & Vavouras, T. (2024) · WSEAS TRANSACTIONS ON ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION · doi:10.37394/232010.2024.21.17
A chat about sedentarism in adolescence
Silva, R. M. F., Felício, C. M., Ferreira, J. C., & Noll, M. A. (2024) · Revista Brasileira da Educação Profissional e Tecnológica · doi:10.15628/rbept.2024.13603
Transdisciplinary approach for the development of exploratory research with adults and children
Larrosa, M., Wives, L. K., Rodés, V., et al. (2024) · doi:10.5753/sbie.2024.242380
“Wang & Tahir (2020) highlight the fact that Kahoot temporarily turns the classroom into a quiz show, where the teacher is the host and the students are the competitors.”
Makowska, A. B. (2023) · Recherche et pratiques pédagogiques en langues de spécialité · doi:10.4000/apliut.11204
Pengembangan Instrumen Tes Literasi Numerasi Berbasis Hots Berbantuan Aplikasi Kahoot Bagi Guru SD
Yusnia, Y., Stiadi, E., & Agusdianita, N. (2024) · Jurnal Pembelajaran Bimbingan dan Pengelolaan Pendidikan · doi:10.17977/um065v4i12024p45-50
Online Tools unter fachsprachlich-didaktischen Aspekten
Rusch, M. (2024) · Forum für Fachsprachen-Forschung · doi:10.57088/978-3-7329-8836-5_9
Use of Game Design and Game Elements in Serious Project Management Games
Wang, A. I. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-78269-5_21 · Cited by 2
Self-citationEvaluation of Escapade: An Engaging, Collaborative Multi-role Learning Game on History
Wang, A. I., Kielland, J. E., & Zhao, W. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-78269-5_42
Self-citationZuhriyah, F., Susilowati, L., & Munawaroh, M. (2024) · IRA Jurnal Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat (IRAJPKM) · doi:10.56862/irajpkm.v2i3.165
Güneş, M. İ., BALKIŞLI, B. Ç., & Özçınar, H. (2024) · Journal of Higher Education and Science · doi:10.5961/higheredusci.1445089
Empowering EFL Students’ Reading Comprehension Abilities with Quizwhizzer
Universitas Negeri Surabaya, S., Maharani, G. D., Susanti, A., & Universitas Negeri Surabaya, S. (2024) · INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS · doi:10.47191/ijmra/v7-i12-54
Purnaningsih, P. (2025) · EDUTECH Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan Berbantuan Teknologi · doi:10.51878/edutech.v4i4.4265
Enhancing Grammar Learning for ESL Primary School Students through a Game-Based Response System
Moorthy, B., Kew, S. N., & Tasir, Z. (2024) · International Conference on Educational Technology (ICET) · doi:10.1109/icet62460.2024.10868919
Online Quiz in English Assessment at Islamic University
Pratama, A. (2024) · E-Link Journal · doi:10.30736/ej.v11i2.1100
“This is supported by findings from (Mahbub, 2020; Singh et al., 2021; Wang & Tahir, 2020), which state that online quizzes can help improve language skills through repeated practice and consistent feedback.”
Classroom Practices in EMI: Reflections from the Field
Hartle, S. (2025) · English language education · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-86243-4_7
Kahoot as a data collection tool to work with school age children
Larrosa, M., Wives, L. K., & Rodés, V. (2025) · Journal on Interactive Systems · doi:10.5753/jis.2025.4705
ХИМИЯ КУРСЫНАН ПӘН МАЗМҰНЫН ЖӘНЕ ТӘЖІРИБЕ ЖҰМЫСТАРЫН ЦИФРЛАНДЫРА ОҚЫТУДЫҢ ДИДАКТИКАЛЫҚ ШАРТТАРЫ
Мыңжасар, А. К., Жаксибаева, Ж. М., & Бакибаев, А. А. (2025) · Habaršy. Pedagogika ġylymdary seriâsy · doi:10.51889/2959-5762.2025.85.1.011
Chulerk, P., Sathianpan, S. D., & Khlaisan, J. (2025) · rEFLections · doi:10.61508/refl.v32i1.280328 · Cited by 3
“While Kahoot offers competitive real-time quizzes that increase motivation, some studies noted drawbacks such as time pressure and connectivity issues (Wang & Tahir, 2020).”
Kahoot-Based Teams Games Tournament in Developing Students' Mathematical Critical Thinking
Mustofiyah, L., Sutama, S., Hidayati, Y. M., & Wulandari, M. D. (2024) · Profesi Pendidikan Dasar · doi:10.23917/ppd.v11i2.7583 · Cited by 4
Peran Teknologi sebagai Media dalam Praktik Layanan Bimbingan Konseling
Sarasvati, H. L., & Rukiyati, R. (2024) · Jurnal Ilmiah Bimbingan Konseling Undiksha · doi:10.23887/jibk.v15i3.87784
Suci, I. D. P. (2025) · Journal of English Teaching and Learning · doi:10.62734/jetling.v4i2.587
“The purpose and function of Kahoot! game in learning (Wang & Tahir, 2020) is to increase engagement, motivation, enjoyment and concentration in order to improve learning and the dynamics of classroom.”
Baque, C. J. S., Reyes, A. R. T., Torres, E., et al. (2025) · REVISTA INNOVA ITFIP · doi:10.54198/innova13.05
Vera, M. D. P. G., Cortez, R. R. Z., Tomalá, G. H. T., et al. (2025) · REVISTA INNOVA ITFIP · doi:10.54198/innova13.06
Educator Professional Subjectivities in Gamification: Knowing, Being and Doing
Howard, N.-J., & Cook, E. J. (2025) · Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning (J-HyTEL) · doi:10.58536/j-hytel.171
“Technical disruptions can impact teaching flow, suggesting that effective implementation relies heavily on appropriate timing and clear student feedback [4].”
InfluentialAhmed, S. Z., Deraney, P. M., Sadaf, S., et al. (2025) · European Journal of Dentistry · doi:10.1055/s-0045-1808256
“39,40 Our post-lecture survey ’ s high satisfaction rates (84”
Managing Students' Anxiety in English Language Learning: An Analysis of Teachers' Strategies
Hikmah, P. C., & Kholis, A. (2025) · Edunesia Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan · doi:10.51276/edu.v6i2.1190 · Cited by 1
“Therefore, data triangulation shows that the game-based method is quite effective in reducing student anxiety, it is supported by previous research showing that game-based learning increases student engagement and lowers anxiety by creating a relaxed learning environment (Wang & Tahir, 2020).”
Mangilay, O. J., Rollo, C. R., Libdan, I., & Disca, B. Y. (2025) · Psychology and Education A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.70838/pemj.380609
Özçiftçi, S., Savaşan, D., Çelik, F. N., et al. (2025) · Mersin Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Lokman Hekim Tıp Tarihi ve Folklorik Tıp Dergisi · doi:10.31020/mutftd.1608493
Yang, T., Yang, P., Lu, R., Tan, X., Tang, X., Chen, Y., & Chen, G. (2025) · International Conference on Software Engineering and Computer Science (CSECS) · doi:10.1109/csecs64665.2025.11009323
“In recent years, numerous intelligent classroom technologies have emerged [4], including automated attendance systems, innovative evaluation tools [5]–[7], and AI-based systems for analyzing students’ overall performance [8], [9].”
El Juego como recurso didáctico para las matemáticas en la universidad.
Manzanas, R., & Frías, M. D. (2022) · HUMAN REVIEW International Humanities Review / Revista Internacional de Humanidades · doi:10.37819/humanrev.v12i3.1049
“…ya que son numerosas las experiencias que muestran como este tipo de interfaces interactivas fomentan la participación y concentración de los alumnos en clase, facilitando el proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje (Grávalos-Gastaminza et al., 2022, Hernández-Ramos et al. , 2020, Wang et al. , 2020).”
Kahoot!: gamificación eficaz, sencilla y fácil en la educación superior
Alcántara, Ó. J. G., González, I. F., & López, M. Á. C. (2022) · HUMAN REVIEW International Humanities Review / Revista Internacional de Humanidades · doi:10.37819/humanrev.v12i3.1048
Sulistyanto, I., & Prayoga, K. A. (2025) · Tell Teaching of English Language and Literature Journal · doi:10.30651/tell.v13i1.25618
“More recent research by (Wang & Tahir, 2020) highlights that interactive digital assessments enhance student retention and comprehension, supporting the idea that positive engagement with technology improves language proficiency.”
Google and Kahoot teaching resources for learning English in times of pandemic
de Peru, U. T., Enriquez, E. L. J., Barrios, S. T., et al. (2025) · Mextesol journal. · doi:10.61871/mj.v49n2-10
Hsieh, J.-C. J., Bagha, Z. M., Weintraub, S. F., Jnani, J., & Block, L. (2025) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.87718
Novkovic, D., Petchamé, J., Iriondo, I., Amo, D., Ribó, E., Donate-Beby, B., & Solanellas, F. (2025) · Lecture notes in educational technology · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-5658-5_110
Game‐Based Learning: A Pilot Educational Strategy to Foster the Learning of Endodontic Terminology
Fernandez‐Garcia, I., Riaza, P., & Arias, A. (2025) · International Endodontic Journal · doi:10.1111/iej.70001 · Cited by 1
“In these sessions, students become active participants, while the instructor takes on the role of a facilitator, motivating students' interaction (Wang and Tahir 2020).”
Capture It: Exploring Cybersecurity Assessment Using a Multiplayer Repurposable Game
Jayakrishnan, G. C., Banahatti, V., & Lodha, S. (2025) · IFIP advances in information and communication technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-00777-3_7
Villanueva, E. R. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5367507
Tan, A. H., Loo, C. L., Ong, Y. M., et al. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-7625-5_9
Yoon, J., Lee, H., & Mun, J. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15081084
Florese, C. A. (2025) · Psychology and Education A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.70838/pemj.450809
TIC como estrategia para avanzar en los ODS en la Universidad Veracruzana
Veracruzana, U., Beltrán, V. M. C., Loyo, E. L., et al. (2025) · doi:10.61728/ae20251024
Rizakhojayeva, G. (2025) · National Center for Higher Education Development · doi:10.59787/2413-5488-2025-51-3-131-142 · Cited by 2
Fen Eğitiminin Günümüzdeki Yeri ve Dijital Dönüşümün Kaçınılmazlığı
Kolay, O. C., Yüzüak, B. N., & Yılmaz, Y. (2025) · Özgür Yayınları eBooks · doi:10.58830/ozgur.pub894.c3693
Promoting Intercultural Understanding and Motivation in Language Learning Through Kahoot!
Okumura, S. (2025) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-3673-2.ch006 · Cited by 1
Murtafiah, W., Fitria, R. N., Lusiana, R., Zayyadi, M., & Yahya, F. H. (2025) · AIP conference proceedings · doi:10.1063/5.0290419
Laronze, F., Reynolds, A., & N’Kaoua, B. (2025) · TechTrends · doi:10.1007/s11528-025-01143-4
“For example, the Kahoot platform counts 70 million monthly active unique users and is used by 50% of US K-12 students and millions of university students (Wang & Tahir, 2020).”
InfluentialZia, T., Khan, M., & Hossain, M. B. (2025) · Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1155/hbe2/9026903
Enhancing Grammatical Awareness with a Game-based Response System during Emergency Remote Teaching
Espinoza, A. Q., Ferreira-Gómez, L., & Vera, R. (2025) · Revista Docentes 2 0 · doi:10.37843/rted.v18i2.709
“These results align with prior research highlighting the benefits of gamification for student motivation and learning outcomes (Wang & Tahir, 2020; Zarzycka-Piscorz, 2021, Moreira et al., 2025).”
Exploring the Role of Errors in Programming Learning
Sha, A. S., Nunes, B. P., & Shen, J. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Computing Education · doi:10.1145/3778857
“Nevertheless, studies on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) suggest that limiting the number of attempts and time allotted for each exercise can improve student performance [12, 68], 18:2 A. Sha et al. potentially leading to students developing negative biased attitudes toward making errors [6, 69].”
Macedo, P. M. C., Soares, L. M., Silva, C. A., & Conrado, D. B. F. (2025) · Anais do ... Simpósio Brasileiro de Informática na Educação/Anais do Simpósio Brasileiro de Informática na Educação · doi:10.5753/sbie.2025.12685
Luqueta, M. M. M., Bonacin, R., & Ramos, J. J. G. (2025) · doi:10.5753/sbie.2025.12484
“Esses achados dialogam com estudos anteriores [Deterding et al. 2011] e [Wang and Tahir 2020] e [Gadelha Júnior 2021], reforçando que a gamificação pode tornar o aprendizado de conteúdos abstratos mais acessível e descontraído.”
Additional file 1 of Performance in Kahoot! activities as predictive of exam performance
Garza, M., Olivan, S., Monleón, E., Cisneros, A. I., Barrios, A. G., Ochoa, I., Whyte, J., & Lamiquiz-Moneo, I. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26594516
Esquivel, N. G. L., León-Castelao, E., & Aveiro-Róbalo, T. R. (2025) · Educación Médica · doi:10.1016/j.edumed.2025.101104 · Cited by 1
Engaging minds in motion: The role of interactive animation sites in health education
Benammi, D., Jaouhar, S., Rharib, O., Harrafa, N., Filali, S. E., Mramel, M., Saadi, R., Chriqui, M., Tabich, A., & Oumokhtar, B. (2025) · Multidisciplinary Science Journal · doi:10.31893/multiscience.2026335
“However, its limited impact on cognitive engagement echoes the conclusions of Wang and Tahir (2020), who noted that interactive platforms primarily stimulate attention and enthusiasm rather than deep learning.”
Use of the Kahoot! application for undergraduate medical students in community medicine
Sabale, R., Ramalakshmi, C. S., & Vignesh, K. (2025) · International Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health · doi:10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20254442
Main Areas of Interest in the Problem of Information Overload in Online Teaching
Moro, A. I., Infante-Moro, J. C., Gallardo-Pérez, J., et al. (2025) · Lecture notes in educational technology · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-4689-3_10
Wei, C. H., Chong, M. M., Subramanian, P., Ting, M., & Abdollah, A. B. (2026) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-0375-9_38
Fauzi, I. N., Kumboyono, K., & Fevriasanty, F. I. (2025) · Journal of Applied Nursing and Health · doi:10.55018/janh.v7i3.448 · Cited by 4
“…structured educational materials on anemia, quiz-based gamification, and teamwork to create an active, collaborative, and enjoyable learning experience (Adiati et al., 2023; Adipat et al., 2021; Aggrawal & Boowuo, 2023; Febrianti et al., 2023; Shofiyyah et al., 2024; A. I. Wang & Tahir, 2020).”
Understanding digital technology adoption in Javanese language teaching: A UTAUT-TPACK approach
Insani, N., Sukoyo, J., Pratiwinindya, R. A., Husnaini, A. N., Sholihah, L. A.-M., & Kholiq, Y. N. (2025) · Multidisciplinary Science Journal · doi:10.31893/multiscience.2026379
“Teaching English as a Foreign Language from a Communicative and Inclusive Approach.”
Ruales, K. L. R., & Anaguano, S. (2026) · ASCE MAGAZINE · doi:10.70577/asce.v5i1.587
Teknoloji Ekosisteminde Öğretmenlik: Evrilen Roller, Genişleyen Sorumluluklar
BASKIN, S. (2025) · Özgür Yayınları eBooks · doi:10.58830/ozgur.pub1038
Nascimento, M. S., & Marques, J. D. D. O. (2025) · Educação (UFSM) · doi:10.5902/1984644491918 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, A. I., & Tahir, R.
- Affiliations
- Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
- Corresponding author
- Wang, Alf Inge
- Venue
- Computers & Education
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-05
- Volume
- 149
- Pages
- 103818
- ISSN
- 0360-1315 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3003825427
- Semantic Scholar
- acf384e74a18b1f907a4654c933fa527bf472be8
- Cited by
- 883
- References
- 196
- Citations by year
- 2026: 84 · 2025: 107 · 2024: 158 · 2023: 196 · 2022: 160 · 2021: 149 · 2020: 27
- FWCI
- 197.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Computers & Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Goldsmiths (University of London) (acceptedVersion)
- NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
- Social Sciences › Education › Technology-Enhanced Education Studies
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
- Keywords
- Kahoot, game-based learning, formative assessment, learning performance, classroom dynamics, student attitudes, teacher attitudes, student anxiety, quiz-based learning, technical challenges, time pressure, K-12 education
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-13, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-13 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
