Game-based learning
The use of Kahoot in teacher education
Marisa Correia
Escola Superior de Educação
Instituto Politécnico de Santarém
Santarém, Portugal
marisa.correia@ese.ipsantarem.pt
Abstract—Recently, technologies have been increasingly used
in the educational context, not only because they facilitate
communication and access to information, but also because of
their motivational potential. Game-based learning through
digital tools such as Kahoot! combines game dynamics with the
potential of monitoring student learning. In this sense, this article
reports a study carried out in a teacher program, in order to
analyze future teachers and teacher educators’ perspectives on
the use of the game-based learning platform Kahoot!. The
participants point out students’ greater involvement and
participation and the promotion of learning as main advantages
of this digital tool.
Keywords—digital tools; game-based learning; Kahoot!;
teacher education;
I. INTRODUCTION
The integration of Information and Communication
Technologies (ICT) in our lives is an acquired and indisputable
fact. Several authors point out that this integration is equally
possible and favorable in the school environment and more
concretely for the development of learning. New opportunities,
with and from the use of digital technologies, arise almost
daily. According to the author [1], the introduction of new
dynamics and other models of teaching and learning (e-
learning, b-learning and m-learning) allow "greater space for
student participation, inside and outside the classroom, to
learning based on challenges, problem solving and critical
thinking" (p.128). In this context, digital tools have emerged to
allow students to assess their learning and, simultaneously,
introduce a dynamic game motivator, such as Kahoot! [2]. This
tool, when used in the form of a questionnaire, challenges the
student to respond adequately to the questions posed, with
limited response time, which leads to an active dynamic due to
the strong playful and competitive component and to
teamwork, associating learning to the game [3, 4].
We intend, in this work, to analyze the opinions of students
and teachers about the advantages and disadvantages of
integrating Kahoot! in the classroom. Taking into account that
students interviewed are future teachers, it is also important to
understand what potentialities and difficulties they anticipate in
the use of this tool in the context of the teacher practice and in
the future professional context.
978-1-5386-0648-3/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE
Raquel Santos
Escola Superior de Educação
Instituto Politécnico de Santarém
Santarém, Portugal
raquel.marques@ese.ipsantarem.pt
II. GAME-BASED LEARNING
In the last decade, we have witnessed an exponential
increase of the use of laptops, tablets and smartphones,
especially by young people who use them intensively, using
different functionalities, often in a collaborative way [5]. These
devices facilitate communication and access to information,
and enable learning anytime and anywhere [3]. However, faced
with the increasing level of dissemination of these devices, the
school continues to ignore its potential and resist to its
curricular integration [1, 3, 5]. The study carried out by the
authors [5] is an example of that, demonstrating that, despite
the high technological, pedagogical and motivational potential
of mobile phones and smartphones, the use of internet and the
use of mobile devices to perform school tasks are almost non-
existent in the classroom. These results make it clear that
teachers do not recognize the positive impacts of using such
technologies on students’ motivation and learning problem
solving skills, as indicated by the study developed by [6].
Mobile learning (or m-learning) [1, 3] is defined by the
author [7] as any teaching activity in which the only present or
dominant technologies are laptops or mobile devices. In this
context begins to take form the idea of seizing students’ own
equipment [1, 3]. This financial opportunity allows us to
"achieve the desired level of penetration of technology in
education - one computer per student" (p. 128) [1], however,
this author stresses that not all educational experiences of m-
learning constitute innovative learning situations. Therefore, it
is important to take advantage of all the potential of this type of
education, namely mobility and ubiquity, and to avoid the use
of technology by technology.
The greatest benefit for students to use their own mobile
devices from the author's perspective [8] is the elimination of
costs and effort in the management and maintenance of specific
student response systems (multiple choice questionnaires with
automatic correction). These systems allow real-time
information on the learning process [2], give immediate
feedback to the students and redirect the sequence of the class
[3]. The authors [9] list three strengths that explain the positive
effects of response systems on student learning - interactivity,
active collaborative learning, and engagement. The authors
[10] summarize the advantages of implementing these personal
response systems in the classroom as follows: a) with respect to
the classroom environment, there is an increase in
participation, level of attention and students’ engagement; b) in
relation to learning, there is an obvious improvement, resulted
from the interaction and discussion among colleagues, and
allows the reorganization of teaching strategies in the light of
the difficulties detected; and c) regarding the assessment, the
application of these procedures makes it possible to obtain
regular feedback on both the quality of teaching and the level
of student performance. In terms of the challenges that these
systems bring, these authors point out that they may be at the
level of: a) technology: with the equipment and the internet not
functioning properly; b) the teacher: time management, content
management and lack of experience in reacting to students’
feedback; and c) of the student: adaptation to a new teaching
method, difficulties in assimilating different points of view in
the discussions, displeasure in use as a form of summative
evaluation, dislike in use as a way of monitoring attendance
and difficulty in accepting negative feedback.
According to the authors [2], the first devices created for
this purpose required a terminal to receive through
radiofrequency the signals emitted by commands that were
given to the students. It is now possible to use the same
functionality from the students' own smartphone, tablet, or
computer thanks to the internet. There are many applications
available to perform these polls, for example: Kahoot!,
Socrative, Pinnion, Googleforms, QuestionPress, GoSoapBox,
Active Textbook or Nearpod. Among the educational
applications mentioned, we highlight Kahoot!, because it has
the dual advantage of challenging students in the process of
learning and learning in a more dynamic and fun environment
[2, 11].
The Kahoot! combines the dynamics of play with the
benefits of student response systems, creating a stimulating and
motivating environment conducive to the active involvement of
students in their learning process [2]. This strong playful
component encourages students "to experience and take risks
to find solutions without fear of making mistakes" and "to learn
from mistakes" (pp. 135-136) [1]. The author [12] also stresses
that the competitive nature of digital games in the classroom, in
addition to providing a meaningful learning experience, is
beneficial in enabling students to learn to deal with failure, and
to develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills.
III. THE USE OF KAHOOT IN TEACHER EDUCATION
In this article we present an investigation about the use of
Kahoot! in a teacher education program. The objective is to
analyze students and teachers’ perspectives about the
advantages and disadvantages of integrating this tool in the
classroom. In addition, the potentialities and difficulties that
are anticipated in the use of this tool in the context of teacher
practice and in a future professional context are also analyzed.
A. Methodology
The participants of this study are 44 students who attended
the 2nd year of the Masters' Degree in Pre-School Education
and Teaching of the 1st Cycle of Basic Education (MEPE1)
(N=17), the 3rd of the Bachelors’ Degree (LEB) (N=20) and the
2nd year of the Masters' Degree in Teaching of the 1st Cycle of
Basic Education and Mathematics and Natural Sciences of the
2nd Cycle of Basic Education (ME1MC2) (N=7) at the School
of Education of Santarém (ESES). This research also counted
on the participation of two professors who taught courses in the
study plans of the abovementioned programs. Teachers
between the ages of 37 and 38, male and female respectively,
have the same length of service in higher education (9 years),
but academic training in different areas.
This research follows a methodology that has its roots in
qualitative research, which "involves an interpretative,
naturalist approach" (p. 3) [13]. The data collected are
qualitative, consisting of respondents' written responses to a
questionnaire, mostly open-ended. With the integration of open
questions, it was intended, as the authors [14] refer, to obtain
qualitative, richer, contextualized and detailed information. For
the analysis of the answers, we used content analysis,
extracting units of analysis from the texts of respondents'
responses [15], from which the categories of analysis emerged.
The questionnaires were applied after using Kahoot! in the
classroom, to teachers and students from three different
programs. Most of the students surveyed were involved in
activities play activities and in creating games, thus having a
broader view of the tool's features. However, given the
diversity of the context of using Kahoot!, it was necessary to
produce three separate questionnaires. The first was addressed
to teachers who integrated Kahoot! activities into their lessons.
The second one was applied to MEPE1 and LEB students, after
using the tool in class context. The third questionnaire, adapted
from the first, was answered by students attending ME1MC2.
This last group of students, being future teachers, elaborated a
game in the platform Kahoot! and implemented it with the LEB
class. In addition, this group involved the LEB class in the
construction of games using this digital tool.
The questionnaire, composed of 23 questions, applied to
teachers was organized into three sections: 1) characterization
of the respondent; 2) use of technologies in the classroom; 3)
Kahoot! integration. The aim was to understand the frequency
with which they integrated the technologies in the classroom,
the difficulties they felt when using Kahoot!, the advantages
and disadvantages considered in the integration of this tool in
the classroom and the limitations of the tool. It was applied to
the group of students who implemented an activity with the
LEB class, a simplified version of the previous questionnaire,
with 12 questions, focused on the difficulties experienced in
the preparation and implementation of the activity, on the
advantages and disadvantages attributed to the Kahoot!
integration and the limitations they identify in the tool. The
questionnaire applied to the remaining students presents a total
of 17 questions, including two open questions, and an
organization similar to that of teachers.
B. Results
The professors who participated in this research integrate
frequently technologies in their classes, mainly to present
content, but also to encourage, weekly, their use by students to
access information and to carry out practical activities. Both
professors had used Kahoot! a few times in the classroom,
either by resorting to school computers or through students’
devices. Regarding the difficulties in using this tool, the
professors emphasized access to computer equipment and the
internet, and limitations in the students' mobile device.
The male professor highlighted the following advantages in
integrating Kahoot! in the classroom: from the students' point
of view, it refers to the fact that it allows doing assessment
activities in a more dynamic way and with the possibility of
obtaining immediate feedback; in the perspective of the
teacher, refers to "performing assessment activities with
automatic correction and with the possibility of obtaining
immediate feedback on students’ performance". The female
professor highlighted the possibility of raising the discussion
around students' answers.
These professors also present some disadvantages in the
integration of Kahoot!, which for the female teacher are related
to the mentioned technical difficulties. The male professor
believes that this platform cannot serve only as a motivational
tool for students, but should be at the service of content and the
achievement of curricular learning objectives.
As for the limitations of Kahoot!, the male professor
considered that "the synchronous realization of the answers can
impair the performance of students who need more time to
reflect properly". The female professor listed the following
limitations: limited number of characters in questions and
response options; the impossibility of putting images in the
response options; limited response time; and the fact that it is
not possible to put questions in the same activity using
different Kahoot! features (for example, Jumble and Quiz).
When asked about other possible uses of the Kahoot!
Platform, the male professor mentioned the possibility of its
use for "conducting questionnaires to assess the functioning of
the course by the students". In turn, the female professor
stressed the need to overcome the limitations of the tool, so that
it can be applied in a more versatile way, namely, the inclusion
of multimedia resources in the response options.
After using Kahoot! in the classroom, questionnaires were
applied to 37 MEPE1 and LEB students. The analysis of the
answers did not allow to register significant differences
between these two groups of students. It should be noted that a
greater number of MEPE1 students responded that use the
technologies daily in the elaboration and presentation of tasks,
and in the practical activities in the classroom (to research,
plan, create and/or present). It was found that only about 24%
of the students in these two groups used Kahoot! to create and
not just to play. These groups of participants were unanimous
in the absence of difficulties in the use of Kahoot!. About 62%
of the respondents considered that the activity with recourse to
Kahoot! greatly motivated them for learning. Regarding
learning, 41% indicated that the activity greatly contributed and
57% contributed to their learning. All students responded that
they would like to continue using Kahoot!. These participants
also praise that the use of games through this tool stimulates
interest and contributes positively to learning. Some
participants are even keen to use Kahoot! in a professional
context. For example, a MEPE1 student considered "that it
would work out very well with students in the 1st cycle,
showing once again that one can learn playing". In this regard,
a LEB student mentioned that
whenever possible, as a future teacher, I will try to use some
technologies to make my classes more dynamic, and to make
learning more appealing and dynamic, as more and more
technologies will be used for all, and we cannot continue to resort
to traditional and demotivating teaching for students.
ME1MC2 students have shown that they have had more
difficulties in using Kahoot! than the other participants, which
may be due to the fact that they have built and implemented an
activity with this tool in a LEB class. The requirements
required in the previous preparation of the lesson and the
construction of content issues, which they did not properly
master, seem to contribute to intensify their difficulties. This
small group of seven students listed advantages of Kahoot!
similar to the other participants. For example, everyone pointed
out that it provides more dynamic and motivating lessons. Two
students go further and underline the added value of this tool
for the assessment of learning, like the professors. The
experience of these participants with Kahoot! from a teacher's
point of view, allowed them to see more disadvantages in their
use, namely the management of student behavior (due to the
permission of the use of the mobile phone in the classroom)
and the exchange of ideas between students in moments of
individual assessment. Regarding the limitations of the tool,
reference is made to the reduced number of characters allowed
in the elaboration of the questions and the response options.
Students gave similar responses regarding the factors that
prevent a more frequent use of Kahoot!, mentioning limited
internet access and the scarcity of IT resources in elementary
schools. Two students said they would like to explore other
Kahoot! features in the future, including the functionality of
Discussion. Two participants also considered that the games
elaborated in this platform can be used as a way of reviewing
the contents before performing a test and three even considered
its use as a moment of formal assessment.
IV. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
Despite the limited number of studies regarding the use of
Kahoot! in higher education [8, 16], the results demonstrate
that this tool can be motivating and very useful for the
learning’s assessment. Kahoot!, as a cognitive tool, can lead
students to become more involved and think more deeply about
the subject under study and facilitate the "building of
knowledge and reflection on the part of the students" (p. 33)
[17]. The research described suggests that the adoption of
Kahoot! promotes greater student engagement in learning and
fosters academic success. The results obtained, and above all
the fact that the students consider that they would like to
continue using this tool, demonstrate that this use should be
extended to other scientific fields.
REFERENCES
[1] Moura, A. (2012). Mobile Learning: Tendências tecnológicas
emergentes. In A. Carvalho (2012). Aprender na era digital: Jogos e
Mobile-Learning (pp. 127-147). Santo Tirso: De Facto Editores.
[2] Fuentes, M., Andrino, M., Pascual, M., Martin, A., Garcia, C., & López,
M. (2016). El aprendizaje basado en juegos: experiencias docentes en la
Holguín, E, Madera, P., Ruiz-Valdepeñas, B., & Hierro, M. (2015).
Kahoot en docencia: una alternativa práctica a los clickers. In XI
Jornadas Internacionales de Innovación Universitaria Educar para
transformar. Universidad Europea de Madrid.
[3] Carvalho, A. (2015). Apps para ensinar e para aprender na era mobile
learning. In A. Carvalho (org.) Apps para dispositivos móveis - manual
para professores, formadores e bibliotecários (pp. 9-17). Lisboa: ME e
DGE.
[4] Guimarães, D. (2015). Kahoot: quizzes, debates e sondagens. In A.A.
(coord.). Apps para dispositivos móveis: manual para professores,
formadores e bibliotecários (pp. 203-224). Ministério da Educação,
Direção-Geral da Educação.
[5] Simões, J., Ponte, C., Ferreira, E., Doretto, J., & Azevedo, C. (2014).
Crianças e Meios Digitais Móveis em Portugal: Resultados Nacionais
do Projeto Net Children Go Mobile. Lisboa: FCT e CESNOVA.
[6] Sánchez, J., Salinas, A. & Sáenz, M. (2007). Mobile Game-Based
Methodology for Science Learning. In J. Jacko (Ed.). Human Computer
Interaction, Part IV, HCII 2007, LNCS 4553 (pp. 322-331). Heidelberg,
Berlin: Springer.
[7] Traxler, J. (2005). Defining mobile learning. IADIS International
Conference Mobile Learning.
[8] Wang, A. (2015). The wear out effect of a game-based student response
system. Computers & Education, 82, 217-227.
[9] Blasco-Arcas, L., Buil, I., Hernández-Ortega, B., & Sese, J. (2013).
Using clickers in class. The role of interactivity, active collaborative
learning and engagement in learning performance. Computers &
Education, 62, 102-110.
[10] Kay, R., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of
using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers
& Education, 53, 819-827.
[11] Dellos, R. (2015). Kahoot! A digital game resource for learning.
International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance
Learning, 12(4), 49-52.
[12] Icard, B. (2014). Educational technology best practices. International
Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 11(3), 37-
41.
[13] Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). Introduction: The discipline and
practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
The sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 1–19). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
[14] Hill, M. M., & Hill, A. (2008). Investigação por Questionário (2.ª ed.).
Lisboa: Edições Sílabo.
[15] Bardin, L. (2008). Análise de Conteúdo (4.ª ed.). Lisboa: Edições 70.
[16] Holguín, E, Madera, P., Ruiz-Valdepeñas, B., & Hierro, M. (2015).
Kahoot en docencia: una alternativa práctica a los clickers. In XI
Jornadas Internacionales de Innovación Universitaria Educar para
transformar. Universidad Europea de Madrid.
[17] Jonassen, D. (2007). Computadores, ferramentas cognitivas. Porto: Porto
Editora.