CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 402Educational Games and GamificationOnline Learning and AnalyticsDigital Games and Media

Perceptions of students for gamification approach: Kahoot as a case study

Open access
Bicen, Huseyin, Kocakoyun, Senay·2018·International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET)
DOI 10.3991/ijet.v13i02.7467
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

A novel learning experience that increases student motivation can be created in a learning environment that includes a gamification approach to assess competence. Student views on gamification were surveyed to determine the best application of this method, the environment necessary for its use, and the manner by which the application should proceed. The effect of a gamification approach on student achievement through intra-class competition was assessed using quantitative and qualitative methods. In this study, the Kahoot application was the preferred gamification method used. Participating students included 65 undergraduate students studying at the Department of Preschool Teaching. The findings showed that inclusion of a gamification method increased the interest of students in the class, and increased student ambitions for success. This method was also found to have a positive impact on student motivation. Furthermore, the results of this study indicate that the Kahoot application can be used effectively for gamification of lessons. In conclusion, the gamification method has an impact on students that renders them more ambitious and motivated to study.

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 · 10.3991/ijet.v13i02.7467

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • Articles on Kahoot! and student anxiety without statistical analysis reported findings such as lower fear of asking questions and positive ratings of courage and low stress.

    “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”

    From The effect of using Kahoot! for learning – A literature review (2020) · cites this paper as Bicen & Kocakoyun, 2018

    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)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • 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, help students understand the lesson better, and encourage learners (Bicen & Kocakoyun, 2018).

    “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).”

    From The effect of using Kahoot! for learning – A literature review (2020) · cites this paper as Bicen & Kocakoyun, 2018

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    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: 32

  1. Guler, C. & Guler, E. (2015). Çevrimiçi Ö!renme Ortamlarında Oyunla"tırma: Rozet Kul- lanımı. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching. 4(3). 125-130.
  2. Simões, J., Redondo, R. D., & Vilas, A. F. (2013). A social gamification framework for a K-6 learning platform. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(2), 345-353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.007 · DOI
  3. Domínguez, A., Saenz-De-Navarrete, J., De-Marcos, L., Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés, C., & Martínez-Herráiz, J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes. Computers & Education, 63, 380-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012. 12.020 · DOI
  4. Coller, B., & Scott, M. (2009). Effectiveness of using a video game to teach a course in mechanical engineering. Computers & Education, 53(3), 900-912. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.compedu.2009.05.012 · DOI
  5. Bosworth, A. (2012). Keas: Developing a Successful Game-Based Employee Wellness Program. Games for Health Journal, 1(3), 189-191. https://doi.org/10.1089/g4h.2012.0020 · DOI
  6. Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics in web and mobile apps. O'Reilly Media, Inc.
  7. Muntean, C. I. (2011). Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification. In Paper presented at the 6th annual international conference on virtual learning, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada. Retrieved January 17, 2016, from www.icvl.eu/2011/disc/ icvl/documente /pdf/met/ICVL_ModelsAndMethodologies_paper42.pdf
  8. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Pakkanen, T. (2014). Do Persuasive Technologies Persuade? - A Review of Empirical Studies. Persuasive Technology Lecture Notes in Computer Sci- ence, 118-136.
  9. Icard, S. B. (2014). Educational technology best practices. International Journal of Instruc- tional Technology and Distance Learning. 11(3), 37-41. Retrieved March 11, 2016, from http://itdl.org/Journal/Mar_14/Mar14.pdf#page=41
  10. Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business. Wharton Digital Press.
  11. González, C. S., Toledo, P., & Muñoz, V. (2016). Enhancing the engagement of intelligent tutorial systems through personalization of gamification. International Journal of Engineer- ing Education (IJEE), 32(1), 532-541.
  12. Barata, G., Gama, S., Jorge, J., & Gonçalves, D. (2017). Studying student differentiation in gamified education: A long-term study. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 550-585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.049 · DOI
  13. Pede, J. (2017). The effects of the online game Kahoot on science vocabulary acquisition (Doctoral dissertation, Rowan University).
  14. Deterding, S. (2015). The lens of intrinsic skill atoms: A method for gameful design. Hu- man-Computer Interaction, 30(3-4), 294-335. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024. 2014.993471 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Sera, L., & Wheeler, E. (2017). Game on: The gamification of the pharmacy classroom. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 9(1), 155-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl. 2016.08.046 · DOI
  16. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness. Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference on Envisioning Future Media Environments -MindTrek '11. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037 .2181040 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Hamari, J. (2013). Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: A field experiment on gamification in a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service. Electronic Commerce Re- search and Applications, 12(4), 236-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2013.01.004 · DOI
  18. Hamari, J., Huotari, K., & Tolvanen, J. (2014). Gamification and economics. In S. P. Walz & S. Deterding (Eds.), The Gameful World: Approaches, issues, applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  19. Hamari, J., & Lehdonvirta, V. (2010). Game design as marketing: How game mechanics create demand for virtual goods. International Journal of Business Science & Applied Management, 5(1), 14-29.
  20. McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: why games make us better and how they can change the world. (2011). Choice Reviews Online, 49(02). https://doi.org/10.5860/CHOI CE.49-0680 · DOI
  21. Zicherman, G., & Linder, J. (2010). Game-based marketing: Inspire customer loyalty through rewards, challenges, and contests. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
  22. Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: game-based methods and strategies for training and education. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
  23. Dellos, R (2015). Kahoot! A digital game resource for learning. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. 12(4), 48-52.
  24. Turan, Z., & Goktas, Y. (2015). A new approach in higher education: the students' views on flipped classroom method. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 5(2), 156. https://doi.org/10.5961/jhes.2015.118 · DOI
  25. Johns, K. (2015). Engaging and Assessing Students with Technology: A Review of Ka- hoot!. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 81(4), 89.
  26. Dervan, P. (2014). Increasing in-class student engagement using Socrative (an online Stu- dent Response System). The All Ireland Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher, 6, 1801-18013.
  27. McLaughlin, T., & Yan, Z. (2017). Diverse delivery methods and strong psychological benefits: A review of online formative assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learn- ing. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12200 · DOI
  28. Sprague, A. (2016). Improving the ESL graduate writing classroom using Socrative: (Re) considering exit tickets. TESOL Journal, 7, 989 998 https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.295 · DOI
  29. Graham, K. (2015). TechMatters: Getting into Kahoot! (s): Exploring a game-based learn- ing system to enhance student learning. LOEX Quarterly, 42(3), 6-7. Retrieved from http://commons.emich.edu/loexquarterly/vol42/iss3/4.
  30. Siegle, D. (2015). Technology: Learning can be fun and games. Gifted Child Today, 38(3), 192-197 https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217515583744 · DOI
  31. Clement, R., Dornyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1994). Motivation, Self-confidence, and Group Cohesion in the Foreign Language Classroom. Language Learning, 44(3), 417-448. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01113.x · DOI
  32. Alexander, C. (2017, March). Student Perceptions of Gamification in Higher Education. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1428-1433). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bicen, H., & Kocakoyun, S.
Affiliations
Near East University (CY)
ORCID
Kocakoyun, Senay
Venue
International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET)
Publisher
International Association of Online Engineering (IAOE)
Published
2018-02-27
Volume
13
Issue
02
Pages
72
ISSN
1863-0383 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3991/ijet.v13i02.7467
OpenAlex
W2789073291
Cited by
402
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 79 · 2022: 76 · 2021: 75 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1
FWCI
78.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Games and Media
Keywords
gamification, Kahoot, student perceptions, student motivation, academic performance, early childhood teacher education, undergraduate students, online quizzes

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