Given that the study was only conducted in one class, it could be argued that it was the teacher that influenced the students.  Maybe the teacher had never used Quizizz before and their enthusiasm impacted student engagement.  The study was also very short term and again maybe this is a novelty for the students that would wear off if often used.  Characteristics of the teacher could also have impacted the study.  Maybe the boys didn’t perform as well because of the gender, age or even personality of the teacher.

I think the results are interesting and believable, but further research should be carried out across different age groups and conducted by a range of teachers to see if the results can be replicated and more general conclusions drawn.

The authors first established a strategic search method based on effective scanning of the most relevant literature. The bibliography was retrieved from the two leading international databases: Web of Science and Scopus; to ensure high quality standards of the research presented in those articles. They applied a search strategy by introducing different combinations of keywords and after cross-referencing the publications provided by the two databases, duplicated results were rejected.

Their first search phase provided 97 papers from which they excluded several duplicates. Then from the remaining articles, they selected the most relevant ones and finally ended up synthesising and reporting 15 papers, which explored the effects of Gamification on L2 learning. They extracted key content from all the papers and classified it systematically by: authors, date, observed variables, methodology, measuring tools, sample, duration, research questions and results.

Answering their questions, What literature has been produced recently on the effect of Gamification on L2 students’ motivation or engagement? And What literature has been produced recently on the effect of Gamification on second language learning achievement? The authors found a substantial amount of studies had been conducted.  Most experiments incorporated a gamified resource especially created for the study (i.e Kahoots, Class Dojo Duolingo).  English stood out among the second languages studied. More than half of the studies were performed with students of English.

Psycho-behavioural variables seem to be the main focus. This is probably due to the fact that Gamification is often used exactly for that purpose: stimulating psycho-behavioural aspects like motivation and engagement. In fact, almost half of the studies focussed only on psycho behavioural evidence such as motivation, engagement or attitudes towards the gamified experience, five papers were focussed on a combination of psycho-behavioural and cognitive effects and four were centred just on cognitive results.

Answering the question “Are there any significant results to support the benefits of Gamification on both motivation or engagement and second language learning achievement?” was a little more difficult.  From a general point of view, most studies show positive results with a balanced attention on both psycho-behavioural and cognitive variables.

After analysing all the papers, the authors found features from each study that would indicate some kind of limitations from an empirical viewpoint. Besides the very limited number of studies, all of them show some kind of research limitations. Almost 70% of the studies included some quantitative research with no control group. Among all the quantitative studies, 54% lasted less than one month, 31% showed an imbalance between students’ gender or between the group allocation (control vs experimental) and 23% involved small groups of participants. Nonetheless, altogether the reviewed literature provides valuable data to guide researchers and educators keen on using Gamification as a potential booster of second language learning. We hope this paper will spark enough interest among research communities so as to keep on exploring educational benefits of Gamification.

The authors themselves point out that Kahoot can have limitations from a foreign language pedagogical perspective. If not used properly or used very frequently, this type of activity can cause a bit of "fatigue" and demotivation. Therefore, it is advisable to apply this type of quizzes moderately, with clear and precise objectives, and always with feedback, in order to enrich the evaluation and improve the teaching-learning process.

Another limitation of the study was the limited time that it was used in class.  This was due to the fact that the instructor was often rushed and preoccupied with covering the current curriculum.

The authors also point out that the results of this study may have been different if there was not wireless connectivity. 

Finally the authors mentioned that the students only learn the language during lesson hours.  I thought one of the advantages of using Kahoot was that you can send the students a link and allow them to play in their own time.  By encouraging them to play and replay, achieving 100%, and getting up the leaderboard, I would assume that this would produce better learning outcomes.  I would have liked to have seen this carried out and maybe compared to a control group to see what impact, if any, that would have had.

All items were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).

The authors mention that this is one of the few studies that investigates the factors influencing female teachers’ behavioural intentions to use gamified applications.  Originally, I didn’t see the importance of examining teachers' use of games based on the teacher's gender, though considering that this research was carried out in Saudi Arabia (which has different attitudes toward gender roles from the west) it was certainly something that should be taken into consideration.

With respect to limitations, this study focuses on behavioural intentions to use gamified applications among female English teachers in Saudi public schools, therefore the findings cannot be generalised to include private schools.  I’d go further and add that because the study is so specific it is difficult to generalise its findings in relation to the west.

Research should also be undertaken to look into the factors influencing the behavioural intentions of male teachers to use gamification, as well as comparing the willingness of male and female teachers to use gamified applications in their classrooms. 

Another acknowledged limitation is that the study does not discuss or resolve issues related to Western dominance in this new technology: as public schools in Saudi Arabia are gender-specific, male and female teachers work in separate schools, and the results reported here are restricted to female teachers only. 

The frequency with which teachers use such applications is another area deserving further examination and has been addressed in similar studies I have looked at.  Finally, future research should also explore the cultural influences that shape peoples’ habits, values, and interpretations in a particular context. 

The authors certainly explored the subject, scanning nearly 100 papers and focusing on the 15 or so which explored the effects.  They certainly explored what they set out to do in terms of exploring how much literature has been conducted.  However, I found their findings to be too general (i.e Kahoots was used a lot, games were used to teach english, games were used for motivation and engagement).  Hardly groundbreaking stuff.  

I felt that the authors didn’t bring anything new to the table.  Their conclusions were basically that “more research needs to be done”, making their whole paper feel like a waste of time reading.

I’ve read this study 5 times and am still unsure of what exactly their findings were and how they came to them.  The authors say that, there are some statistically significant effects with using interactive technology and video games on developing English as a foreign language, but it's difficult to decipher exactly what their findings were.

Equally, their conclusions offer up very little, other than “video games are played by 95% of study participants’”.   The authors didn’t appear to answer the questions that they set out at the beginning of the study and I’m left scratching my head trying to work out if I missed something or are there some pages missing.

The authors appeared to get their findings from the literature review they carried out at the beginning of the study.  I think the information they gathered here was of much more relevance to answering the questions they had set out.  The questionnaire and the data (or lack thereof) they compiled from it seemed of little value.

In fact looking at the 32 questions that were asked, you can see why.  The questions were pretty much all the same, just worded differently.  Examples include: 

The repetitive nature of the questions would not only lead to limited results, but would probably lead to disengagement and a lack of seriousness by those having to complete it.

This study was a mixed bag.  While I enjoyed the initial sections, once the authors got into their methodology and findings things became quite muddled.

1) To what extent have the students mastered the words that they have read in the text? 

2) What is the students’ level of engagement when playing Kahoot! in class? 

Since the activity of testing students’ vocabulary skill involves the use of a game-based application, it is expected that there will be different patterns of behaviour occurring, thus showing different levels of engagement.

The observation was done through event sampling, where the researchers have already decided on what events or behaviours to look out for and the data is gathered by tallying the students’ actions (McLeod, 2015). In this case, their actions are divided based on visual and auditory cues. This method will determine how often the students engage with the game through observational reception.

Data was collected all in the same day. The quiz was explained, groups were orchestrated, the game was played, then group interviews. Field notes were taken by the observer throughout the process while the teacher was controlling the Kahoot! and an interview session.

Data Analysis Strategy: Firstly, for the Kahoot! quiz result, the scoresheet was obtained on the platform itself to see the overall performance of each group with regards to their synonym skill. Secondly, the recorded interview session was transcribed and all significant responses were listed down according to the three questions asked during the interview session. Finally, the data from the observation rubric was tallied and tabulated. The total tallies for each aspect and the characteristic was totalled in order to see the engagement made by the groups.

There was a uniform act of huddling for all groups while they answered the quiz as they discussed answers without being overheard. This portrays their competitiveness in playing the quiz, hence shows how engaged they are in playing Kahoot!  Overall the students showed more auditory cues than visual ones when expressing their delight or dismay and engagement in the game.

Interaction in groups was very positive.  Students would discuss answers between each other and congratulate each other on good answers.  Interaction between groups only happened at the end of each question whe scores were been compared between the groups

The interview was conducted right after playing Kahoot!. The results indicated that Kahoot! is a good medium for them to enhance their learning as it promoted healthy competition. This coincides with Omar (2017) in her study which found that Kahoot! helps to attract students’ attention and motivate their classroom participation. When students are given the opportunity to compete among each other either individually or in groups, it will give them a sense of gratification if they get the answers correctly. 

Kahoot promoted unity. Students felt united with their team members to choose the best answer shown in front of the class.  Another similar study conducted by Plump and LaRosa (2017) found that using Kahoot! in the classroom facilitates engagement, especially when it is played in groups. 

Some students said that Kahoot helped to release the stress and tension, while others argued they felt more stress due to the competitive nature. 

Students reported that it improved thinking and increased their knowledge. One student said that it was the best way to learn vocabulary. Medina and Hurtado (2017) in their study also found that gamification is one of the latest approaches used to enhance language skills and Kahoot! is one example that helps facilitate vocabulary learning. Another student added that it promoted communication. When students are required to get into groups and strategies on how to answer all questions correctly, it will initiate communication among themselves. This was observed during the game session. Moreover, the communication also traversed between different groups since they were competing to get the highest marks on Kahoot! When students feel interested to participate and communicate throughout a class activity, it shows that particular activity helps with the classroom engagement (Budiati, 2017). 

For the data collection procedures, the researchers created a questionnaire that consisted of three sections, sections A, B, and C. There were 25 questions in total. The researchers then distributed the questionnaires to the participants using WhatsApp and Google Forms. By collecting surveys related to Kahoot from TESL undergraduates, the researchers used the percentage to analyse the data. The findings were reported by using the data given by the participants. 

The questions in section  A observed if students are familiar and engaged with Kahoot in ESL Classroom.  Questions were:

In Section B, the questions were related to the second objective which was to measure the effectiveness of using Kahoot in teaching writing in ESL Classroom. Questions included:

Section C identified whether Kahoot can help students in blended learning and whether Kahoot creates engagement and active learning for teaching writing in ESL Classroom. Questions included:

​​47.5 % and 37.5% of students strongly agreed that Kahoot! made them think that learning English was fun and effective at the same time.  Most students agreed that Kahoot! was more interesting compared to written tasks/quizzes.  35.5 % of the respondents agreed that they are more focused on reading the questions when doing Kahoot compared to the questions on the papers.

Since we are living in the 21st century, the interest in understanding students’ motivation and engagement by using technology has been growing as technology is believed to aid the process (Ahmad et al, 2019). Throughout the study, Kahoot! definitely gave students more opportunities to engage with the teachers, peers and the lesson content (Zucker & Fisch, 2019). It also helped in creating a fun learning experience, which contributed to useful classroom engagement. Based on the study, students felt that Kahoot! captured their focus and interest during the lesson, but in a very “relaxing” way. 

The outcomes show that Kahoot! motivated students to be more engaged in the classroom. Kahoot! is undeniably an extremely useful gamification educational technology tool that requires minimum technical expertise for creating quizzes, surveys and discussions. Kahoot! does offer breaks from using the traditional style of learning (Esnaashari et al, 2019; Alqurashi, 2019). Even though most students claimed that using Kahoot! was effective in making them more engaged in the class, the authors believed that using it too often during class was not a good idea due to its competitive nature players were more concerned with winning the game, therefore do not fully absorb the answers to the questions being asked.

In addition, the designers of the games (mostly consisting of teachers), are not able to ask challenging or complex questions that will more accurately assess the students’ knowledge due to the time constraints for questions and answers in Kahoot! Thus, even though Kahoot! has a lot to offer especially in terms of engaging students, there are also a few drawbacks to be considered. 

Two quantitative methods were utilised in the present work: A pretest-posttest measurement and a survey. The pre and post-tests used in this research were achievement tests developed by the researcher. They consisted of three sections which assessed vocabulary, grammar, and writing skills. Students had 60 minutes to take the tests. In order to explore students’ perceptions of and attitudes towards the use of Kahoot in the English language classroom.

The survey consisted of two main sections: (i) a biographic data section to gather information concerning the participants’ age, gender, and previous experience with Kahoot, and (ii) a four-point Likert scale survey section where 1 meant strongly disagree and 4 stood for completely agree.The survey included 30 items broken down into four different dimensions. The four different dimensions addressed are fun, engagement, motivation, and learning utility.

The survey was developed in the participants’ mother tongue, Spanish, so as to avoid a bias that language misunderstanding may have produced. Besides, the survey was piloted with a group of twenty eight students from a different program at the same institution. The students participating in the pilot survey were already users of the Kahoot app and were chosen because they shared similar biographical characteristics with the experimental group, such as age and gender distribution. Piloting the instrument allowed for reliability in terms of the clarity of the instructions and the language of the items.

The learning gains found in this study which mainly entail domains such as grammar, structure, and vocabulary, can be attributed to the fact that game dynamics mediated by technological devices allow for higher levels of engagement and student-centred learning in the classroom, which contribute to improving language learners thinking skills and confidence, and to helping students understand course content better (Hashmi, 2016). According to Woo (2014), using digital games promotes more effective learning as it yields a positive correlation between students’ learning motivation and cognitive load. Jackson et al. (2012), in turn, suggested that entertainment, one of the main features of digital games, supports learning “by stimulating engagement or by rewarding performance” (p. 116).

Fun was the best perceived from the four dimensions measured. This is a very interesting finding as fun plays a key role in game-based learning, which corroborates Iaremenko’s (2017) findings, which suggest that by creating a fun class environment, Kahoot can improve academic students’ performance. In a similar vein, the results of this dimension further support previous research findings (Mork, 2014; Ismail & Mohammad, 2017; Licorish et al., 2017) which indicated that, compared to a traditional approach, game-based learning promotes more effective learning by means of a more enjoyable environment. Equally high mean scores were obtained for the second dimension of the survey, Engagement, which lies at the core of the learning process as engaged students “exhibit curiosity in the learning content and maintain focus during class sessions” (Licorish et al., 2018) These results indicate high levels of self-reported engagement mediated by the use of Kahoot in the English class.

The mean for the third dimension, Motivation, follows the tendency of the previous two dimensions and suggests that the use of Kahoot fosters students’ motivation in the experimental group. 

The last dimension measured in the survey, Utility for Learning, obtained the lowest mean of all four dimensions in relative terms as it still scored high on the 1-4 scale. They agreed that Kahoot facilitated learning; helped them retain new knowledge; and increased their understanding of the class content. They also perceived Kahoot as an effective tool to receive instant feedback and reflect on their learning, both of which are crucial aspects of the learning process. These results are consistent with those of previous research (Papastergiou, 2009; Ismail & Mohammad, 2017; Liu, Gettig, & Fjortoft, 2010) and suggest that GSRSs - and Kahoot, in particular - are highly appreciated as a learning tool by higher-education vocational students and those technological devices are not only valued as useful tools by young students.

Further research aimed to investigate whether language learning gains behave similarly depending on learners’ proficiency level or across sociolinguistic variables such as gender, age group, or socioeconomic status. In future research, a delayed posttest could be used to determine the learning efficacy and impact of Kahoot over a longer period. Additionally, the collection of qualitative data may contribute to gain a deeper understanding of the students’ perceptions and attitudes and to uncover other possible intervening variables that were not considered in this research.

The research goal of our literature review was to investigate research studies on the effects of using Kahoot! for learning. Specifically, we wanted to investigate how Kahoot! affects learning performance, classroom dynamics, student anxiety, and the perceptions of students and teachers.

The following research questions were defined:

RQ1: How does Kahoot! affect learning performance?

RQ2: How does Kahoot! affect classroom dynamics?

RQ3: How does Kahoot! affect students’ anxiety?

RQ4: What are the students’ perceptions of Kahoot!? 

RQ5: What are the teachers’ perceptions of Kahoot!? 

1) Development of review protocol.  This protocol specified the research questions, search strategy, inclusion, exclusion and quality criteria, data extraction, and methods of synthesis. 

2) Identification of inclusion and exclusion criteria.  

The authors concentrated on articles not reports, books, chapters, letters, or abstracts. 

The article was published in an international peer-reviewed journal or conference. 

The article is written in English.  

The article refers to Kahoot! in the title or abstract. 

The exclusion criteria were:  

The article is not accessible through university services or memberships. 

The article is only accessible behind a paywall. 

Kahoot! is only mentioned as an example and is not the focus of the paper.

3) Search for relevant studies.  The search for relevant studies was carried out in two steps:

4) Critical appraisal.  The focus of the critical appraisal was on relevance (only articles classified as an experiment, survey case study or similar with focus on Kahoot!), rigor (appropriate research approach described including research context, number of subjects, scope, design, methods, and execution), and credibility (conclusions based on sound analysis and reasoning). The critical appraisal was carried out by two researchers who independently evaluated which studies to be accepted and rejected. The two lists of rejected candidates were compared and merged into one list. There was only a disagreement regarding two articles, whom both researchers agree to reject but for slightly different reasons. Studies with few subjects (N) were accepted only if they included qualitative data and analysis with sufficient depth.

5) Data extraction.  During this stage, data were extracted from the 93 accepted articles by reading through the whole articles in detail.

6) Synthesis. For the synthesis step, all articles in the review were classified according to the type of study and by nine attributes. The purpose of the attributes was to classify the articles according to the five research questions and to what kind of results they provided.

Some studies in our review reported improved and increased the interaction among students (Antoniou et al., 2016). The game creates a suspension that can increase enjoyment, motivation, and concentration (Chaiyo & Nokham, 2017).  Student anxiety can be decreased through having the option to be anonymous both to fellow students and the teacher through the use of nicknames (Lee et al., 2019).  Several studies reported the importance for students to be anonymous, which can result in reduced stress and a safer environment to fail (Cutri et al., 2016).  Studies mentioned positive effects from the use of graphics, audio and music in Kahoot! (Baydas & Cicek, 2019).  The results of this literature review may suggest that there is a relationship between engagement, motivation, and having fun and learning outcomes and classroom dynamics.

The review also revealed that the strong focus on competition and being a game might have some adverse effects. One challenge mentioned by four articles was stressful time-pressure for giving answers and the tendency that some students simply guessed the answer in order to try to get a high score (Bicen & Kocakoyun, 2018). Another challenge mentioned by two articles was the fear of losing (Głowacki et al., 2018; Yapıcı & Karakoyun, 2017). One remedy to reduce the fear of losing recommended by three articles is to play Kahoot! as teams and not as individuals (Abidin & Zaman, 2017; Atherton, 2018; Muhridza et al., 2018). 

The literature review included four studies that reported statistically significant results related to classroom dynamics, where one showed that the effect on classroom dynamics was reduced from first-time use to after frequent use over five months. However, the thirty-three other papers all reported on improved classroom dynamics from using Kahoot! in the classroom, including the improved teacher-student interaction and student-student interaction, more favourable to actively participate in class, improved classroom atmosphere, and easier to answer questions in class.

Ten articles reported that Kahoot! reduces student anxiety related to asking questions, reduces stress and tension, encourages participation without being judged, adds humour to class, and enables shy students to get involved. Two studies showed a statistically significant reduction of student anxiety, and one study reported that Kahoot! could produce agitation.

With regard to student perceptions, the main conclusion is that students have a very positive perception of the use of Kahoot! in learning, and these results include a positive effect on motivation, engagement, concentration, perceived learning, attention, enjoyment, satisfaction, and confidence. The main challenges reported include technical challenges, hard to read questions and answers on a projected screen, time pressure, afraid of losing, and hard to catch up if an incorrect answer had been given. 

Teachers’ perceptions were positive about using Kahoot! for teaching. Positive findings include higher motivation of teachers, ease of use, a motivating tool, support teachers’ instructive work in class, can assess students’ knowledge in real-time, increases student motivation, stimulate students to speak their point of view in class, can wake up students, increase class participation, and reduce teacher’s workload. The main challenges were found to be technical issues and challenges, get the questions and answers right and scoring based on timing. 

The main conclusion of their literature review was that Kahoot! has a positive effect on learning, but there are challenges and room for improvement. Our literature review shows that there have been several experiments on the learning effect of using Kahoot! but there is still room for empirical studies, especially on classroom dynamics, student anxiety, and perceptions of students and teachers. Further, so far, we did not find any studies on the use of Kahoot! in corporate training or similar. 

The researcher firstly selected 30 targeted verbs. They were then transferred into Kahoot!. An appropriate image was inserted for each question to assist learning.  At the initial stage, the pupils were administered with the pre-test, consisting of 10 multiple-choice questions.  The duration of the pre-test session was 30 min.  After the pre-test, the pupils had the first lesson about the rules of present tense verbs and the introduction of all the targeted verbs.  The pupils were then familiarised with Kahoot!.  The quiz on present tense verbs was launched, and the pupils were instructed to answer it in pairs and individually.

The same questions were distributed in the post-test for the participants to answer on the final day of the experiment. The duration of the post-test session was 30 min.  Before the test, the researcher gave the pupils a short briefing by instructing them to read each question carefully, underline the correct answer and write the answer in the blank.

The researcher marked all scripts. The marks scored by the respondents in the pre-test and the post-test were tabulated.  A statistical analysis was executed by recording the scores of the participants’ in both tests on the statistical software. The paired sample t-test was used to describe the difference in the mean before and after the use of Kahoot!. The result from the data was crucial in verifying the effectiveness of Kahoot! in reinforcing the respondents’ learning and understanding of English present tense verbs.

This question is answered by conducting a structured literature review. For structuring the selected papers, they suggested a socio-technical perspective. This approach, which covers the dimensions: human, technology, and organisation, is often used in the field of information systems (Laudon & Laudon, 2014) but is also suitable for the topic of this paper. Using Kahoot! in the context of education contains humans such as teachers and learners, but also technology such as devices and other technical requirements. Finally, educational institutions provide the organisational context. We structure our paper as follows: In section “Theoretical background”, we present a brief overview of gamification in the learning context and some more details on Kahoot!. Subsequently, we explain the suggested socio-technical system. Section“Methodology” contains the main aspects of our research design. The core of the paper is section “Research findings and discussion” in which we answer our RQ. Finally, the paper ends with the section “Conclusion and outlook” in which future research opportunities are presented.

Future research could expand to a wider scope of literature and examine studies in more countries or areas. More components such as cognitive loads, satisfaction, or anxiety in Kahoot!-based serious games could also be meta-analytically reviewed in the future.

The authors included 24 results for the meta-analysis after removing duplicated results, screening the irrelevant results, excluding those ineligible, and deleting those without full texts or enough data information. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are established based on researchers’ rich experiences.

Data extracting and literature coding Two professors solicited and coded data from the included studies and Data analyses was then performed.

The research instrument that was utilized was a survey questionnaire consisting of fifteen items. The questionnaire items were adapted from Gardner‟s Attitude and Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) according to the need of this study. Some items were also adapted from Rajendran et al. (2019) who had also adapted them from Gardner‟s AMTB. The items in the questionnaire were ranged using a four-point Likert scale which participants had to tick based on what their responses were to each item. The survey questionnaire was given to students to answer on the last day of the research period which was the fourteenth day. The items in the questionnaire were also thoroughly explained orally through translation by the researcher for the participants who found it very hard to understand. Then, the results collected from the instrument were analyzed to answer RQ1 and RQ2 with the utilisation of frequency counts and percentages were described descriptively.

Pupils had good and positive perceptions of learning English with the integration of online quiz games. It was shown that most of them perceived the use of gamification in ESL learning as helping to improve their English skills. A lot of them believed that learning English through online quiz games like Kahoot! and Quizizz was able to increase their interest and communication skills in English. Most of them believed that using games to learn English made them less nervous in their learning process, which made them to be more willing to pay more attention in the classroom; and to be more ready to improve themselves in English lessons. Therefore, it was concluded that ESL learners are more prone towards learning English via online quiz-games like Kahoot! and Quizizz. This also showed that they prefer to learn more by assimilating ICT in their ESL learning process instead of the traditional „chalk-and-talk‟ method of learning (Rajendran et al., 2019). 

Future Research As Nacke, Drachen, and Göbel (2010) suggested, qualitative survey-based methods are more suitable than quantitative methods when seeking to solicit learners’ experiences with game-based technology. Thus, in addition to the survey method, interviews could be conducted to elicit learners’ deeper thoughts on the use of Kahoot! in the language classroom.  Further  studies  considering  learners’  learning  styles  that  account  for  mobile -assisted  language  learning variables  need  to  be  undertaken,  as  several  researchers  have  mentioned  that  technology-related  learning  tends  to  be beneficial  for  kinesthetic learners  (Johns,  2015;  Valiente,  2008).  Finally,  taking English  proficiency  into  consideration may  provide  EFL  educators  who  are  interested  in  applying  Kahoot!  in  their  language  classes  a  more  comprehensive reference.  Specifically,  studying  the  attitudes  of  EFL  learners  with  different  levels  of  English  proficiency  towards learning and testing through Kahoot! and determining the differences among them could be informative. Further studies about applying Kahoot! in EFL learning are needed.

1. Does gamification affect students’ learning performance? 

2. How does the learning motivation of students in the experimental group differ from that of students in the control group? 

3. What are students’ attitudes towards application of digital games in language learning?

The population included 2,645 students at a university in Thailand.  Ten vocabulary quizzes and five grammar quizzes were prepared to engage the students in both groups in reviewing the lessons taught each time. However, while the control group was given a revision by means of doing paper quizzes, only the experimental group was treated with Kahoot. Students could see how many points they earned at the end. Meanwhile, the control group did the same quizzes, but on paper, and were told about their earned scores in the following week. For both groups, the purpose of doing quizzes was to investigate how well students understood grammar and vocabulary. The post-test was done on paper after the course had finished. 

This study employed three tools to evaluate how Kahoot affected learners. The first tool was English proficiency tests which were used to find out the effect of the digital game, Kahoot on learners’ language performance.  The second tool was a questionnaire modified from Keller’s Course Interest Survey (Keller, 1987). It comprised ten items and examined learners’ motivation after 12 lessons were completed.  The last tool was a questionnaire investigating students’ points of view on gamification. Only students in the experimental group were required to complete this questionnaire after the intervention.

Fourteen students (10 male, 4 female) agreed to participate in the study (of 48 students altogether). The sample size is deemed adequate for the chosen (purposive) sampling method as the possible pool of participants is already restricted (Marshall 1996). Students agreeing to participate were asked to spare 20 min of their time for the semi-structured interview where they were asked questions relating to the use of “Kahoot!” during the course (interviews took between 15 and 20 min). The questions were focused on understanding students’ experiences using Kahoot! and the tool’s influence on classroom dynamics, their engagement, motivation and learning. Students were also asked to give suggestions for alternative uses of “Kahoot!” and describe their general experience with the tool.

— A 45 minutes motivational lecture on game-based learning where Kahoot! was played at the  end  of the  lecture  to  summarize the  key points in  the  lecture. A total  of  206 subjects answered the survey, all female students. 

— A  semester  of  the  Software  Architecture  course,  where  Kahoot!  was  used in  every lecture to  summarize key points in  the  lectures. A total of  46 subjects answered the survey where 85% were male students and 15% were female students

which seems to translate into increased comprehension and motivation. Perhaps most significantly, the “gamification” of learning increases student engagement by appealing to all 

students, even the most introverted, combining both a cooperative fast-paced learning environment and friendly competition (Kapp, 2012). Bergin & Reilly (2005) conclude that to some academics, the entire games industry is considered to contain little scholarly merit. Games, 

especially eLearning games, are sometimes not believed to be the result of serious work or worthy of attention. Our experience with Kahoot! reinforces that with some effort and a desire to engage students, this eLearning platform can provide an engaging environment that supports learning and adds active participation in the classroom.

To facilitate retention and integration of knowledge from the Pathophysiology and Comprehensive Health Assessment (CHA) modules, a web-based classroom gaming called Kahoot! was utilized (Plump and LaRosa, 2017). This educational platform aims to engage students and make the learning of scientific information fun and learner-centered (Strickland and Kaylor, 2016). It is similar to the clicker technology, however, it is more engaging due to its modern graphics and sound, as well as the scoring system it employs that stimulates friendly competition in class. The immediate feedback it provides has been noted to promote metacognition such that conceptual knowledge is not just evaluated, but an understanding of new knowledge is emphasized (Plump and LaRosa, 2017).