Skip to main content

Students’ perceptions of Kahoot!: An exploratory mixed-method study in EFL undergraduate classrooms in the UAE

Education and Information Technologies volume 26, pages 3629–3658 (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

In recent years, game-based student response systems (GSRS) such as Socrative, Quizlet, and Kahoot! has become a popular tool to increase motivation, enhance classroom engagement, and facilitate collaborative learning. Despite the popularity of GSRS, little research has attempted to understand student perceptions using these platforms for language learning across higher education in the Middle East. The purpose of this exploratory mixed methods research was to examine undergraduate student perceptions of Kahoot!, a game-based interactive platform in an English language course at a federal higher education institution in the UAE. The qualitative phase of data collection involved using semi-structured interviews (N=10) to understand Emirati students’ general perception of Kahoot!. In addition, quantitative evidence was collected through an online survey (N=112) to find out which variables identified in the interviews were experienced by the majority of undergraduate students using Kahoot!. Results were found to be consistent with the current literature as there was a positive general response towards Kahoot!, with the highest influence reported on increased motivation, improved classroom engagement, and enhanced learning experience. However, the effect on academic performance was not significant as perceived by Emirati students. The outcome of this study suggests that gamified digital platforms could be incorporated as part of the teaching pedagogy to retain students’ attention, increase participation, and provide students with an enhanced enjoyable learning experience.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

References

  • Ali, S., & Al-Hadithy, T. (2018). Gamification in learning English for academic purposes: Designing assessment for learning using Kahoot with UAE undergraduate law students. International Journal of Management and Applied Science, 4(5), 66–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aljaloud, A., Gromik, N., Billingsley, W., & Kwan, P. (2015). Research trends in student response systems: A literature review. International Journal of Learning Technology, 10(4), 313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Awedh, M., Mueen, A., Zafar, B., & Manzoor, U. (2014). Using Socrative and smartphones for the support of collaborative learning. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education, vol., 3(4), 17–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balta, N., Perera-Rodríguez, V., & Hervás-Gómez, C. (2018). Using Socrative as an online homework platform to increase students’ exam scores. Education and Information Technologies, vol., 23(2), 837–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrio, C. M., Organero, M. M., & Soriano, J. S. (2016). Can Gamification improve the benefits of student response Systems in Learning? An experimental study. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing, vol., 4(3), 429–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benhadj, Y., Elmessaoudi, M., & Nfissi, A. (2019). Investigating the impact of Kahoot! On students’ engagement, motivation, and learning outcomes: Ifrane directorate as a case study. International Journal of Advance Study and Research Work, vol., 2(6), 2581–5997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biçen, H., & Kocakoyun, S. (2018). Perceptions of students for Gamification approach: Kahoot as a case study. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 13(02), 72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breedlove, S. M., & Watson, N. V. (2013). Biological psychology an introduction to Behavioural, cognitive and clinical neuroscience. (7th ed.). Sunderland, MA, US: Sinauer Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruff, D. (2009). Teaching with Classroom Response Systems: Creating Active Learning Environments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, J. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE—Life Sciences Education, vol., 6(1), 9–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, K., & Bizo, L. (2019). Use of the game-based learning platform KAHOOT! To facilitate learner engagement in animal science students. Research in Learning Technology, 27, 1–14.

  • Cerqueiro, F., & Harrison, A. (2019). Socrative in higher education: Game vs. other uses. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 3(3), 49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context, 1, 39–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiang, H. H. (2020). Kahoot! In an EFL reading class. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 11(1), 33–44.

  • Coca, D. M., & Slisko, J. (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, vol., 4(2), 17–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2014). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. 4th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dakka, S. (2015). Using Socrative to enhance in-class student engagement and collaboration. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education, 4(3), 13–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Houwer, J., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Moors, A. (2013). What is learning? On the nature and merits of a functional definition of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(4), 631–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dervan, P. (2014). Increasing in-class student engagement using Socrative (an online student response system). AISHE-J: The All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 6(3), 1801–1813.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, P. (2019). in Kahoots: Learning vocabulary with learner-created quizzes. [online]. [Accessed 19 October 2019]. Available at: https://sites.uclouvain.be/eurocall2019/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/EUROCALL2019_poster-session-1_Dickinson.pdf

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gebbels, M. (2018). Re-engineering challenging and abstract topics using Kahoot!, a student response system. Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 1–2.

  • Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillian.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. (2005). Learning by design: Good video games as learning machines. E-Learning and Digital Media, vol., 2(1), 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grinias, J. (2017). Making a game out of it: Using web-based competitive quizzes for quantitative analysis content review. Journal of Chemical Education, 94(9), 1363–1366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrell, E. (2019). Kahoot! Reached 70 million unique users on its platform. Kahoot! [online]. [Accessed 13 September 2019]. Available at: https://kahoot.com/blog/2018/01/18/70-million-unique-users-kahoot/

  • Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2002). Being (dis)engaged in educationally purposeful activities: The influences of student and institutional characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 43, 555–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung, H. (2017). Clickers in the flipped classroom: Bring your own device (BYOD) to promote student learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(8), 983–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iaremenko, N. V. (2017). Enhancing English language learners’ motivation through online games. Information Technologies and Learning Tools, 59(3), 126–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ipeirotis, P. G., & Gabrilovich, E. (2015 April). Quizz: targeted crowdsourcing with a billion (potential) users. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 143–154).

  • Ismail, M., & Mohammad, J. (2017). Kahoot: A promising tool for formative assessment in medical education. Education in Medicine Journal, 9(2), 19–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ismail, M., Ahmad, A., Mohammad, J., Fakri, N., Nor, M., & Pa, M. (2019). Using Kahoot! As a formative assessment tool in medical education: A phenomenological study. BMC Medical Education, 19(1), 230.

  • Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research, qualitative, quantitative and mixed approach. (5th ed). California: SAGE Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, R., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 53(3), 819–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Licorish, S. A., Owen, H. E., Daniel, B., & George, J. L. (2018). Students’ perception of Kahoot!‘s influence on teaching and learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 13(9), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malone, T. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction*. Cognitive Science, 5(4), 333–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. Aptitude, learning, and instruction, 3, 223–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, T., & Yan, Z. (2017). Diverse delivery methods and strong psychological benefits: A review of online formative assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(6), 562–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medina, E. G. L., & Hurtado, C. P. R. (2017). Kahoot! A digital tool for learning vocabulary in a language classroom. Revista Publicando, 4(12), 441–449.

  • Mork, C. (2014). Benefits of using online student response systems in Japanese EFL classrooms. JALT CALL Journal, 10(2), 127–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicolaidou, L. (2018 October). Turn your classroom into a gameshow with a game-based student response system. In Proceedings 12th European Conference on Game Based Learning (pp. 487–494). Academic Conferences International Limited.

  • Nielsen, K., Hansen, G., & Stav, J. (2013). Teaching with student response systems (SRS): Teacher-centric aspects that can negatively affect students’ experience of using SRS. Research in Learning Technology, 21, 1–13.

  • Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: Impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plump, C., & LaRosa, J. (2017). Using Kahoot! In the classroom to create engagement and active learning: A game-based technology solution for eLearning novices. Management Teaching Review, 2(2), 151–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Punch, K. (2009). Introduction to research methods in education. Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, A., Dunn, P., McDonald, C., & Oprescu, F. (2015). CRiSP: An instrument for assessing student perceptions of classroom response systems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(4), 432–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoonenboom, J., & Johnson, R. (2017). How to construct a mixed methods research design. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 69(S2), 107–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, N. (2016). Kahoot app brings urgency of a quiz show to the classroom. Nytimes.com [online]. [Accessed 19 October 2019]. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/technology/kahoot-app-brings-urgency-of-a-quiz-show-to-the-classroom.html

  • Sprague, A. (2016). Improving the ESL graduate writing classroom using Socrative: (re)considering exit tickets. TESOL Journal, 7(4), 989–998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sprague, A. (2019). Using Kahoot jumble to teach paragraphing in the writing classroom. The Wisconsin English Journal [online]. [Accessed 12 September 2019]. Available at: https://wisconsinenglishjournal.org/2019/05/04/a-sprague/

  • Squire, K., Jenkins, H., & Holland, W. (2003). Design principles of next-generation digital gaming for education. Educational Technology, 43(5), 17–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stott, A., & Neustaedter, C. (2013). Analysis of Gamification in Education (Technical Report 2013-0422-01). Connections Lab. Simon Fraser University, pp 1–8.

  • Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. (2007). Editorial: The new era of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 3–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, B., & Reynolds, E. (2018). Building vocabulary skills and classroom engagement with Kahoot. In 26th Korea TESOL International Conference (pp. 89–91).

  • Tóth, Á., Lógó, P., & Lógó, E. (2019). The the effect of the Kahoot quiz on the Student's results in the exam. Periodica Polytechnica Social and Management Sciences, 27(2), 173–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: MA, Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, A. (2015). The wear out effect of a game-based student response system. Computers & Education, 82, 217–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, A. I., & Lieberoth, A. (2016). The effect of points and audio on concentration, engagement, enjoyment, learning, motivation, and classroom dynamics using Kahoot!. In proceedings from the 10th European conference on games based learning, (p. 738). Reading, UK: Academic conferences international limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, A., & Tahir, R. (2020). The effect of using Kahoot! for learning – A literature review. Computers & Education, 149, 103818.

  • Wang, A. I., Zhu, M., & Sætre, R. (2016). The effect of digitizing and gamifying quizzing in classrooms. In proceedings of the 10th European conference on games based learning. Paisley: University of the West of Scotland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wentao, C., Jinyu, Z., & Zhonggen, Y. (2017). Advantages and disadvantages of clicker use in education. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 13(1), 61–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, G. (2016). Quizlet live: The classroom game now taking the world by storm. The Language Teacher, 40(6), 25–27.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Higher Colleges of Technology, Ras Al Khaimah Womens College, Ras Al-Khaimah, United Arab Emirates

    Azza Alawadhi

  2. The British University in Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

    Emad A. S. Abu-Ayyash

Authors
  1. Azza Alawadhi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emad A. S. Abu-Ayyash
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Azza Alawadhi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Interview guide

Date of interview:

Student number:

Opening questions

How was your day?

What class do you have now?

Guiding questions

  • Did you use Kahoot! to study English?

  • How would you describe your experience using Kahoot! during English class?

  • How do your feel when you play Kahoot!? (Excited, engaged, bored, nervous, enthusiastic..etc).

  • Is there anything you like or dislike about Kahoot!? Explain.

  • Why do you think using Kahoot! is useful for vocabulary learning?

  • What do you like best about Kahoot! for learning? What makes Kahoot! fun?

  • What features do you like in Kahoot!? (Music, graphics, points, competition, leaderboards,

  • anonymity…etc).

  • How did playing Kahoot! affect your learning and knowledge?

  • If you could change one thing about Kahoot! what would it be and why?

Appendix 2

Table 5 Transliteration
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alawadhi, A., Abu-Ayyash, E.A.S. Students’ perceptions of Kahoot!: An exploratory mixed-method study in EFL undergraduate classrooms in the UAE. Educ Inf Technol 26, 3629–3658 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10425-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10425-8

Keywords

  • Kahoot!
  • Game-based learning
  • Game-based student response system
  • Motivation
  • Engagement
  • Mixed-methods