CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 96Educational Games and GamificationEducational Methods and OutcomesEducational Technology and E-Learning

Gamification in biology teaching: A sample of kahoot application

Open access
Yapıcı, İ.Ümit, Karakoyun, Ferit·2017·Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry
DOI 10.17569/tojqi.335956
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The aim of the study is to examine the views of preservice biology teachers about the use of Kahoot in biology teaching and the effect of Kahoot use on preservice biology teachers’ motivation levels. In the study, the mixed model was used. The study group included 15 sophomore pre-service teachers attending the Department of Biology Education in the Spring Term of 2015-2016. As the data collection tools, an interview form and the motivation scale were used in the study. According to the findings in the study, it could be stated that the preservice biology teachers’ motivation levels increased after the application process and that they mostly reported positive opinion about the Kahoot applications. In addition, the preservice teachers said they wanted to use Kahoot in future because it resulted in more enjoyable lessons, active participation and more permanence. On the other hand, some preservice teachers stated that their failure in scoreboard during the application process was demoralizing and that the students’ insufficient technological skills might have affected the process negatively.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.17569/tojqi.335956

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • That study showed that teachers' motivation increased significantly after starting to use Kahoot! (p = .001) and that Kahoot! enhanced their teaching, was entertaining, resulted in better teaching, and increased attention and concentration.

    “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.”

    From The effect of using Kahoot! for learning – A literature review (2020) · cites this paper as Yapıcı & Karakoyun, 2017

    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)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Negative comments in that study were related to persons failing the quiz and lack of technical infrastructure.

    “Negative comments were related to persons failing the quiz and lack of technical infrastructure.”

    From The effect of using Kahoot! for learning – A literature review (2020) · cites this paper as Yapıcı & Karakoyun, 2017

    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)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Only one study, with 15 pre-service teachers in Biology education in Turkey, included a statistical analysis of results related to teachers' perception of the use of Kahoot! (Yapıcı & Karakoyun, 2017).

    “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).”

    From The effect of using Kahoot! for learning – A literature review (2020) · cites this paper as Yapıcı & Karakoyun, 2017

    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)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Ar, N.A. (2016). Oyunlaştırmayla öğrenmenin meslek lisesi öğrencilerinin akademik başarı ve öğrenme stratejileri kullanımı üzerine etkisi (Unpublished Master's Thesis). Sakarya University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Sakarya.
  2. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  3. Creswell, J., & Clark, V. L. (2007). Understanding mixed methods research. In J. Creswell (Ed.), Designing and conducting mixed methods research (pp. 1-19).
  4. Dellos, R. (2015). Kahoot! A digital game resource for learning. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 12 (4), 49-52.
  5. Glover, I. (2013). Play As You Learn: Gamification as a Technique for Motivating Learners. Paper presented at World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications. Chesapeake: AACE.
  6. Güler, C., & Güler, E. (2015). Çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamlarında oyunlaştırma: Rozet kullanımı. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4 (3), 125-130.
  7. Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004). MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI .4 (1), 1722.
  8. Karataş, E. (2014). Eğitimde Oyunlaştırma: Araştırma Eğilimleri. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD), 15 (2), 315-333.
  9. Nicholson, S. (2012). A User Centered Theroretical Framework for Meaningful Gamification. In Proceedings Games Learning Society 8.0. Madison.
  10. Özerbaş, M. A. (2003). Bilgisayar destekli bağlaşık öğretimin öğrenci başarısı, motivasyon ve transfer becerilerine etkisi (Unpublished Doctorate Thesis). Ankara University, Ankara.
  11. Rouse, K. E. (2013). Gamification in science education: The relationship of educational games to motivation and achievement (Unpublished PhD Thesis). The University of Southern Mississippi, Ann Arbor. Retrieved from
  12. Ünsal, H. 2007. Harmanlanmış öğrenme etkinliğinin çoklu düzeyde değerlendirilmesi (Unpublished Doctorate Thesis). Gazi University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara.
  13. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. (8th Edition). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  14. Yıldırım, İ. (2016). Oyunlaştırma temelli "öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri" dersi öğretim programının geliştirilmesi, uygulanması ve değerlendirilmesi (Unpublished Doctorate Thesis). Gaziantep University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Gaziantep.
  15. Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by Design. Canada: O'Reilly.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Yapıcı, İ. Ü., & Karakoyun, F.
Affiliations
Dicle University (TR)
ORCID
Venue
Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry
Publisher
Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry
Published
2017-10-31
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
396-414
ISSN
1309-6591 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.17569/tojqi.335956
OpenAlex
W2766956387
Cited by
96
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 3
FWCI
16.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry (publishedVersion)
  • DergiPark (Istanbul University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Methods and Outcomes
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and E-Learning
Keywords
gamification, Kahoot, biology education, pre-service biology teachers, teacher motivation, game-based learning, student perceptions, active learning, educational technology

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