Student Views on the Use of Online Student Response Systems: The Kahoot! Case

Abstract

Student response systems effectively collect and collate students' responses, allowing teachers to provide immediate feedback to learners, thereby preventing a decline in students’ attention and motivation. In this study, a student response system instrument called Kahoot! was used. The study was conducted as a 4-week case study in an undergraduate course and a quiz consisting of 10 questions was created each week. Student views and recommendations were collected with an open-ended interview form. The obtained data were analyzed by content analysis, one of the qualitative analysis methods. The study findings were grouped under different codes, and it was determined that the majority of the students were of the view that the Kahoot! application improved course attendance, provided repetition of the learned topics, increased the motivation and attention. Furthermore, they stated as pre-service teachers that the Kahoot! Application should be used at the end of theoretical lectures and courses in the classroom and the number of questions should be increased.

Keywords

• Student response systems
• game-based learning
• Kahoot

References

1. Armbruster, P., Patel, M., Johnson, E., & Weiss, M. (2009). Active learning and student-centered pedagogy improve student attitudes and performance in introductory biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 8(3), 203-213. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-03-0025
2. Bawa, P. (2019). Using kahoot to inspire. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 47(3), 373-390. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0047239518804173
3. Beatty, I. D., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., & Dufresne, R. J. (2006). Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching. American journal of Physics, 74(1), 31-39. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2121753
4. Bicen, 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), 72-93. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v13i02.7467
5. Blood, E., & Neel, R. (2008). Using student response systems in lecture-based instruction: Does it change student engagement and learning? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3), 375. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/24340/.
6. Çağıltay, K., Yıldırım, S., Aslan, İ., Gök, A., Gürel, G., Karakuş, T., & Yıldız, İ. (2007). Öğretim teknolojilerinin üniversitede kullanımına yönelik alışkanlıklar ve beklentiler: Betimleyici bir çalışma. Akademik Bilişim.
7. Cain, J., Black, E. P., & Rohr, J. (2009). An audience response system strategy to improve student motivation, attention, and feedback. American journal of pharmaceutical education, 73(2), 21. https://dx.doi.org/10.5688%2Faj730221
8. Cameron, KE., & Bizo, LA. (2019). Use of the game-based learning platform KAHOOT! to facilitate learner engagement in Animal Science students. Research in Learning Technology, 27, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v27.2225

9. Carnaghan, C., Edmonds, T. P., Lechner, T. A., & Olds, P. R. (2011). Using student response systems in the accounting classroom: Strengths, strategies and limitations. Journal of Accounting Education, 29(4), 265-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccedu.2012.05.002
10. Carnaghan, C., & Webb, A. (2007). Investigating the effects of group response systems on student satisfaction, learning, and engagement in accounting education. Issues in Accounting Education, 22(3), 391-409. https://doi.org/10.2308/iace.2007.22.3.391
11. Chaiyo, Y., & Nokham, R. (2017). The effect of Kahoot, Quizizz and Google Forms on the student's perception in the classrooms response system. Paper presented at the Digital Arts, Media and Technology (ICDAMT), International Conference on.
12. Chui, L., Martin, K., & Pike, B. (2013). A quasi-experimental assessment of interactive student response systems on student confidence, effort, and course performance. Journal of Accounting Education, 31(1), 17-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccedu.2013.01.002
13. Ciaramella, K. E. (2017). The effects of Kahoot! on vocabulary acquisition and retention of students with learning disabilities and other health impairments. (Doctoral dissertation, Rowan University).
14. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. John Wiley & Sons.
15. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative enquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications.
16. Çubukçu, Z. (2012). Teachers' evaluation of student-centered learning environments. Education, 133(1), 49-66.
17. Dellos, R. (2015). Kahoot! A digital game resource for learning. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 12(4), 49-52. https://doi.org/10.1.1.694.5955
18. Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332(6031), 862-864. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201783
19. Driscoll, M. P. (2002). How People Learn (and What Technology Might Have To Do with It). Syracuse, ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 470032), 2002.
20. Egelandsdal, K., & Krumsvik, R. J. (2017). Clickers and formative feedback at university lectures. Education and Information Technologies, 22(1), 55-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9437-x
21. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required by Jonassen's vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers & Education, 64, 175-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.008
22. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative inquiry, 12(2), 219-245. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1077800405284363
23. Galal, S. M., Mayberry, J. K., Chan, E., Hargis, J., & Halilovic, J. (2015). Technology vs. pedagogy: Instructional effectiveness and student perceptions of a student response system. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 7(5), 590-598. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cptl.2015.06.004
24. Gauci, S. A., Dantas, A. M., Williams, D. A., & Kemm, R. E. (2009). Promoting student-centered active learning in lectures with a personal response system. Advances in Physiology Education, 33(1), 60-71. doi: 10.1152/advan.00109.2007.
25. Gok, T. (2011). An evaluation of student response systems from the viewpoint of instructors and students. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(4), 67-83.
26. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74. https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.18809
27. Hall, R. H., Collier, H. L., Thomas, M. L., & Hilgers, M. G. (2005). A student response system for increasing engagement, motivation, and learning in high enrollment lectures. AMCIS 2005 Proceedings, 255.
28. Heaslip, G., Donovan, P., & Cullen, J. G. (2014). Student response systems and learner engagement in large classes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(1), 11-24. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1469787413514648
29. Hwang, I., Wong, K., Lam, S. L., & Lam, P. (2015). Student Response (Clicker) Systems: Preferences of Biomedical Physiology Students in Asian Classes. Electronic Journal of e-learning, 13(5), 319-330. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1084217.pdf
30. Icard, B. (2014). Educational technology best practices. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 11(3), 37-41.
31. Kaiser, C. M., & Wisniewski, M. A. (2012). Enhancing Student Learning and Engagement Using Student Response Systems. Social Studies Research & Practice, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787413514648
32. Keser, Ö. F. (2005). Recommendations towards developing educational standards to improve science education in Turkey. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(1).
33. Kibble, J. (2007). Use of unsupervised online quizzes as formative assessment in a medical physiology course: effects of incentives on student participation and performance. Advances in Physiology Education, 31(3), 253-260. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00027.2007
34. Korkut, E., & Akkoyunlu, B. (2008). Yabancı dil öğretmen adaylarının bilgi ve bilgisayar okuryazarlık özyeterlikleri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(34). https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/hunefd/issue/7802/102256
35. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 112-129. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230010320064
36. 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(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-018-0078-8
37. Lusk, A. B., & Weinberg, A. S. (1994). Discussing controversial topics in the classroom: Creating a context for learning. Teaching Sociology, 301-308. https://doi.org/10.2307/1318922
38. Martyn, M. (2007). Clickers in the classroom: An active learning approach. Educause quarterly, 30(2), 71.
39. Medina, E. G. L., & Hurtado, C. P. R. (2017). Kahoot! A Digital Tool for Learning Vocabulary in a language classroom. Revista Publicando, 4(12 (1)), 441-449.
40. Meyers, C., & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promoting Active Learning. Strategies for the College Classroom: ERIC.
41. Nguyen, T. T. T., & Yukawa, T. (2019). Kahoot with smartphones in testing and assessment of language teaching and learning, the need of training on mobile devices for Vietnamese teachers and students. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 9(4), 286-296. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2019.9.4.1214
42. O’Donoghue, M., & O’Steen, B. (2007). Clicking on or off? Lecturers’ rationale for using student response systems. Proceedings ascilite Singapore.
43. Penuel, W. R., Boscardin, C. K., Masyn, K., & Crawford, V. M. (2007). Teaching with student response systems in elementary and secondary education settings: A survey study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(4), 315-346.
44. Plump, C. M., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2379298116689783
45. Seferoğlu, S. S. (2006). Öğretim teknolojileri ve materyal tasarımı. Pegem A Yayıncılık.
46. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
47. Siegle, D. (2015). Technology: Learning can be fun and games. Gifted Child Today, 38(3), 192-197. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1076217515583744
48. Stav, J., Nielsen, K., Hansen-Nygard, G., & Thorseth, T. (2010). Experiences obtained with integration of student response systems for iPod Touch and iPhone into e-learning environments. Electronic Journal of e-learning, 8(2), 179-190.
49. Sun, J. C.-Y. (2014). Influence of polling technologies on student engagement: An analysis of student motivation, academic performance, and brainwave data. Computers & Education, 72, 80-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.010
50. Tan Ai Lin, D., Ganapathy, M., & Kaur, M. (2018). Kahoot! It: Gamification in Higher Education. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 26(1).
51. Tóth, Á., Lógó, P., & Lógó, E. (2019). The Effect of the Kahoot Quiz on the Student's Results in the Exam. Periodica Polytechnica Social and Management Sciences, 27(2), 173-179. https://doi.org/10.3311/PPso.12464
52. Trees, A. R., & Jackson, M. H. (2007). The learning environment in clicker classrooms: student processes of learning and involvement in large university‐level courses using student response systems. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(1), 21-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880601141179
53. Uçar, H., & Kumtepe, A. T. (2017). Using the Game-based Student Response Tool Kahoot! in an Online Class: Perspectives of Online Learners. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference.
54. Wang, A. I. (2015). The wear out effect of a game-based student response system. Computers & Education, 82, 217-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.004
55. Wang, A. I., & Lieberoth, A. (2016). The effect of points and audio on concentration, engagement, enjoyment, learning, motivation, and classroom dynamics using Kahoot! Paper presented at the European Conference on Games Based Learning.
56. Wang, A. I., & Tahir, R. (2020). The effect of using Kahoot! for learning–A literature review. Computers & Education, 149, 103818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103818 Wang, A. I., Zhu, M., & Sætre, R. (2016). The effect of digitizing and gamifying quizzing in classrooms. Academic Conferences and Publishing International.
57. Wei, L., & Hindman, D. B. (2011). Does the digital divide matter more? Comparing the effects of new media and old media use on the education-based knowledge gap. Mass Communication and Society, 14(2), 216-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205431003642707
58. Wichadee, S., & Pattanapichet, F. (2018). Enhancement of performance and motivation through application of digital games in an English language class. Teaching English with Technology, 18(1), 77-92.
59. Wieman, C. (2007). Why not try a scientific approach to science education? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 39(5), 9-15. https://doi.org/10.3200/CHNG.39.5.9-15
60. Yapıcı, İ. Ü., & Karakoyun, F. (2017). Biyoloji Öğretiminde Oyunlaştırma: Kahoot Uygulaması Örneği. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 8(4), 396-414.
61. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences] (9. Genişletilmiş Baskı). Seçkin Yayınevi.