Cited by 378Educational Games and GamificationInnovative Teaching MethodsTechnology-Enhanced Education Studies

Using Kahoot! in the Classroom to Create Engagement and Active Learning: A Game-Based Technology Solution for eLearning Novices

Plump, Carolyn M., LaRosa, Julia·2017·Management Teaching Review

Abstract

Instructional games are gaining acceptance in the classroom as the eLearning merits of student engagement and immediate feedback are recognized. Within higher education, the use of these tools is often limited due to lack of time, insufficient experience, or doubts regarding the scholarly merits of such activities. Kahoot! is a popular eLearning tool that can easily be used to add vitality, student engagement, and meta-cognitive supports to higher education classrooms with limited instructor or student training required. The free online learning platform has gained wide acceptance globally with more than 30 million users worldwide, and it is based on current user-centered and behavioral design methodologies. Student responses and our experiences using Kahoot! in graduate and undergraduate classrooms indicate that students welcome the use of this game. The real-time feedback provides opportunities for professors in various disciplines to tailor their instruction based on student understanding on quizzes while the surveys allow for anonymous classroom participation, which further engages all students.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/2379298116689783

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • It remains unclear whether Kahoot! leads to greater learning outcomes than traditional methods and SRSs.

    “However, despite strong evidence that Kahoot! and other GSRSs increase student attention, motivation and engagement, it remains unclear whether Kahoot!leads to greater learning outcomes than traditional methods and SRSs (e.g.Méndez and Slisko 2013;Plump and LaRosa 2017).”

    From Students’ perception of Kahoot!’s influence on teaching and learning (2018) · cites this paper as Plump and LaRosa 2017

  • Kahoot!, like other GSRSs, fosters motivation and engagement and improves classroom dynamics as the system provides students with real-time feedback of their performance, and to some extent adapt teaching activities based on students' responses to quizzes.

    “Kahoot!, like other GSRSs, fosters motivation and engagement (Barrio et al. 2016;Wang and Lieberoth 2016) and improves classroom dynamics as the system provides students with real-time feedback of their performance, and to some extent adapt teaching activities based on students' responses to quizzes (Plump and LaRosa 2017).”

    From Students’ perception of Kahoot!’s influence on teaching and learning (2018) · cites this paper as Plump and LaRosa 2017

  • The study's findings support previously documented positive effects of GSRS use on learning and are consistent with Novak's (1998) model of meaningful learning.

    “This supports previously documented positive effects of GSRS use on learning (Ismail and Mohammad 2017;Méndez and Slisko 2013;Plump and LaRosa 2017) and is consistent with Novak's (1998) model of meaningful learning.”

    From Students’ perception of Kahoot!’s influence on teaching and learning (2018) · cites this paper as Plump and LaRosa 2017

  • The themes identified support previous studies that found a positive effect of GSRSs on classroom dynamics, motivation, social interaction, attention, willingness to prepare for class, and learning.

    “The themes identified support the previous studies that have found a positive effect of GSRSs on, for instance, classroom dynamics, motivation, social interaction, attention, (Méndez and Slisko 2013), willingness to prepare for class and learning (Plump and LaRosa 2017;Wang 2015;Wang and Lieberoth 2016).”

    From Students’ perception of Kahoot!’s influence on teaching and learning (2018) · cites this paper as Plump and LaRosa 2017

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Becker K., 2001, Journal of Computing in Small Colleges, 17, 23
  2. Kumar D., 1999, ACM Intelligence Magazine, 10

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Plump, C. M., & LaRosa, J.
Affiliations
  • La Salle University (US)
  • Drexel University (US)
Corresponding author
Plump, Carolyn M.
Venue
Management Teaching Review
Published
2017-02-06
Volume
2
Issue
2
Pages
151-158
ISSN
2379-2981 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2586278820
Cited by
378
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 82 · 2020: 56 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 6
FWCI
62.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Management Teaching Review (publishedVersion)
Funders
De La Salle University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Technology-Enhanced Education Studies
Keywords
Kahoot, game-based learning, student engagement, active learning, online learning, higher education, real-time feedback, metacognition, behavioral design, user-centered design, classroom quizzes, anonymous survey, undergraduate and graduate students

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.

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