Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:4507–4535

[Link]

A literature review on the influence of Kahoot! On

learning outcomes, interaction, and collaboration

Qi Zhang 1 & Zhonggen Yu 1

Received: 1 December 2020 / Accepted: 4 February 2021/ Published online: 10 March 2021
# The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
Initially developed in 2012, Kahoot! is a game-based student response system aiming
to transform the class into a game show. However, some people have doubts about
effectiveness of Kahoot! as an educational game. Therefore, based on past studies, this
study explored the influence of Kahoot! on learning outcomes and collaboration
including curricular interaction and extracurricular collaboration. The results of this
study showed that Kahoot, if appropriately used, could improve learning outcomes. At
the same time, Boller’s summaries about educational games could not fully define what
were needed in the games designed for learning to some extent. It was also concluded
that Kahoot! could enhance curricular interaction between students and teachers as well
as extracurricular collaboration between or among students. Kahoot! has a bright
prospect in both regular and flipped classes, while there are still challenges of Kahoot!
use. Lastly, suggestions for future research limitations of this study were discussed as
well.

Keywords Kahoot! . Learning outcomes . Curricular interaction . Extracurricular

collaboration

1 Introduction

The start of the twenty-first century has witnessed significant development of the
Internet, contributing to the prevalence of social software (Azodi & Lotfi, 2020). With
the development of education, almost all learning is blended to some extent. Blended
learning is a group of integrated lessons, activities, assessments, and resources that

* Zhonggen Yu
401373742@[Link]
Qi Zhang
waiked@[Link]

1
Faculty of Foreign Studies, Beijing Language and Culture University, 15 Xueyuan Road, Haidian
District, Beijing 100083, China
4508 Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:4507–4535

support individual learning objectives or goals and create learning experiences

(Hofmann, 2018). Nowadays classroom is not only a place but also an experience for
learning. Facing the trend of blended learning, instructors tend to use game designs in
pedagogical practices. This phenomenon is gamification (Zarzycka-Piskorz, 2016).
Gamification as a very trendy word refers to the use of game design elements in non-
game contexts (Deterding et al., 2011; Holbrey, 2020). It aims to motivate learners’
participation and engagement and in turn, improve their learning outcomes (Okaz,
2015). As education has been requiring the integration of innovative technology, there
has been a tendency towards the integration of game elements in class (Murawski et al.,
2019; Yu, 2019a). There are various gamified applications such as Socrative, Quizizz,
and iSpring Learn LMS, aiming to improve learners’ performance and engagement
(Zainuddin et al., 2020).
Among the various educational games, Kahoot! (The exclamation mark belongs to
the term.) has recently gained much popularity. Kahoot! is a game-based student
response system (GSRS) transforming the classroom into a game show (see Fig. 1).
It was initially developed in 2012, based on Lecture Quiz research project launched at
the Norweigan University of Science and Technology in 2006 (Wang et al., 2007), and
was published in 2013 (Murawski et al., 2019; Plump & LaRosa, 2017; Wang & Tahir,
2020). During the process of developing Kahoot!, it was concluded that Lecture Quiz
with entertaining learning activities managed to increase learners’ motivation, engage-
ment, and perceived learning (Wu et al., 2011).
Overall, Kahoot! aims to enhance learning outcomes by encouraging curricular interac-
tion between learners and instructors in various courses (Wang & Tahir, 2020). However,
researchers have long debated the value and impact of this game-based system. Some people
dismiss game designs for gamification as frivolous because games do not belong to learning
environment and lack seriousness. On the contrary, other people believe the use of game
designs is beneficial for learning. Therefore, it is necessary to explain why and how games
work in learning to prove that Kahoot! is a laudable tool in learning.
The study conducted by Chung, Shen, and Qiu (2019) suggested that performance
expectation was the most important factor influencing learners’ acceptance of

Fig. 1 How learners give their answers in Kahoot!. ([Link]

Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:4507–4535 4509

gamification as an educational tool. In other words, whether the game designs could
improve learners’ learning performance determined learners’ and instructors’ attitude to
gamification.
However, gamified approaches did not show significant improvement in learning
outcomes, although gamified approaches did contribute to significant improvement in
learners’ motivation, engagement, enjoyment, and concentration (Wang et al., 2016).
Furthermore, although Kahoot! have a positive effect on learning performance, there
were still a few studies where Kahoot! did not result in improved learning outcomes
(Wang & Tahir, 2020).
Thus, it was reasonable to discuss whether game designs are associated with
improvement of learning outcomes. Since Kahoot! as a GSRS required collective
learning including submission and feedback of information, this game design did
contain interaction for sustainability of classes (Pertegal-Felices et al., 2020). Therefore,
we discussed whether interactional designs in Kahoot! was positively associated with
learning outcomes.

2 Material and methods

We carried out this literature review and researched information by using the ap-
proaches of identifying inclusion and exclusion criteria, searching for relevant studies,
and extracting data for main citations. The following contents will describe each
approach.

2.1 Identification of inclusion and exclusion criteria

The identification of inclusion and exclusion criteria was beneficial for identification of
a large number of relevant articles. The study carried out by Wang and Tahir (2020)
provided the theoretical supports and valid references for inclusion and exclusion
criteria for our literature review.
Based on the criteria in the study carried out by Wang and Tahir (2020), the
inclusion criteria in our study were: 1) The article is published in an international
peer-reviewed journal or conference. 2) The article refers to Kahoot! or gamification in
the title or abstract. The exclusion criteria in our study were: 1) The article is not
accessible through university services or memberships. 2) The article is only accessible
behind a paywall.

2.2 Search for relevant studies

We researched online databases including Web of Science, SSCI, Central and Eastern
European Online Library, and SAGE Journals for relevant studies. We also checked
references in found studies for additional studies. The following keywords guided the
search: Kahoot!, gamification, interaction, learning, learning outcomes, fun, and enjoyment.
During this stage, we checked titles and abstracts of the articles. If an article fulfilled
the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we paid attention to the contents of the article. We
collected 112 articles in total. It is worth mentioning that the included research
resources are limited to our ability. There may be other publications out of our reach.
4510 Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:4507–4535

2.3 Data extraction for main citations

At this stage, we further exact data from the 112 publications for main citations for our
study. The criteria for selecting previous studies as the main citation of this were as
follows. 1) The paper included had to be published in journals or collections. 2) The
paper had to focus explicitly or implicitly on the correlation between the use of
gamification including Kahoot! and learning or fun in playing games or gamified
designs. 3) The paper had to provide a sufficient description of data and data analysis
from which the results were concluded. Having generalizing and summarizing the 112
publications, we found 26 publications as the main citations (See Table 1).

3 Research questions

Based on past studies, we analyzed value of Kahoot! by discussing the effects of this
game design on learning outcomes. But researchers had long debated the essential
elements in gamified approaches and there were quite a few elements according to
studies. Since Kahoot! as one of the designs in gamification reflected both learners’
response to questions and feedback to learners’ performance, such reciprocal actions
constituted interaction. We hence chose interaction as the central issue and first
discussed whether interaction in gamification had positive effects on learning out-
comes. Therefore, we raised the following research question.

RO1: Is interaction in gamification positively associated with learning outcomes?

Only when interaction in gamification could positively influence learning outcomes

could we further discussed the impacts of Kahoot! on learning outcomes. This response
system aimed to create game shows in which instructors and learners were involved.
Additionally, the system also needed to provide gamified formative assessment and
feedback to evaluate learners’ performance. Thus, there were various forms of interac-
tion in pedagogical practices. For that reason, we discussed whether interaction with
various forms in Kahoot! could improve learners’ learning outcomes. Thus, we raised
the second research question.

RO2: Is interaction in Kahoot! positively associated with learning outcomes?

Apart from the previous research questions, we discussed the effects of designs for
gamification including Kahoot! on different age groups, the use of Kahoot! in flipped
class, and potential challenges in the use of Kahoot! in pedagogical practices.

4 Results

This section describes the results from the review. Having reviewed and analyzed the
previous studies, we first analyzed the effects of interaction in gamification on learning
outcomes. Only when interaction in gamification could positively affect learning
Table 1 Foci and major findings of main citations in this study

No. Authors Foci Major Findings

1 Aktekin et al. (2018). Kahoot used in anatomy. Kahoot! aims to create interaction through quizzes in the
atmosphere of games.
2 Aljezawi and Albashtawy (2015). Contrast between traditional and gamified Gamified approaches can make classes more interesting and
approaches. improve learners’ internal skills of dealing with information.
3 Blume (2020). Performance and attitudes in game-based learning. Positive attitudes toward game-based learning do not
necessarily mean active engagement in educational games.
4 Boller (2012). Necessary elements of educational games. Educational games should contain motivation, relevant
practices, timely feedback, and training for retrieval of
knowledge.
5 Coleman and Money (2020). Student-centred digital game-based learning. Although educational games are student-centred, educational
games still requires learners’ appropriate use.
6 Ding et al. (2017). Motivation and engagement increased by Badges, thumps-ups, progress bars, and avatars are motivational
educational games. enough to increase learners’ engagement in learning.
Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:4507–4535

7 Graham (2015). Quiz designs in Kahoot!. Instructors should take teachability and practicability into
consideration in questions designs in Kahoot!.
8 Hernandez-Ramos and Belmonte (2020). Assessment of the use of Kahoot!. Kahoot! can create a fast and straightforward classroom
response system (CRS) and promote innovative methodologies.
9 Holbrey (2020). The game-based approach with Kahoot! as a kind Kahoot! contains competitive incentives such as points, leader
of blended learning. boards and trophies, to enable learners’ active participation and
interactive learning.
10 Hwang and Chen (2017). Designs of educational games to enhance motivation, Educational games can increase learners’ engagement in field
critical thinking and problem solving. observation, comparison, data sharing, and other learning
activities.
11 Kim, Rothrock, and The influence of gamification on learners’ satisfaction. The gamified and collaborative elements and evaluative
Freivalds (2018). components can increase learners’ satisfaction.
12 Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi (2001). The theory of Flow based on relation between Learners should experience the states of Control, Flow, and
challenges and skills Arousal to achieve enjoyment from learning experience.
4511
Table 1 (continued)
4512

No. Authors Foci Major Findings

Flow is an intermediate state. Learners should initially go through

the states from Control to Arousal and then go back to Control.
13 Pechenkina et al. (2017). The influence of educational games in mobile devices Educational games can improve engagement, retention, and
on engagement, retention, and learning outcomes. academic achievements. Those three elements correlate positively
with each other.
14 Plump and LaRosa (2017). Kahoot! for engagement and active learning. Instructors can use Kahoot! as a supplemental teaching tool, and
learners can improve their short-term memory recall and
meta-cognitive abilities.
15 Susanti (2017). Curricular and extracurricular activities provided by Kahoot! Various activities in Kahoot! Can improve collaborative spirit,
task interdependence, social interaction, and engegement.
16 Vieira and Corrêa da Sliva (2014). Description and analysis of enjoyment and fun General designs for gamification requires the goal of winning and
manipulatable parts. Those elements can facilitate interacting,
monitoring, and controlling.
17 Wang (2015). Effects and challenges of game-based learning. Educational games can inspire instructors to create contents and
encourage learners to participate in class interactions. But
overemphasis on learning results is the challenge of game-based
learning.
18 Wang et al. (2007). Lecture quiz on which educational games are based. Kahoot! was based on Lecture Quiz research. Kahoot! developed
into a game-based student response system (GSRS) transforming
the classroom into a game show.
19 Wang and Tahir (2020). The effect of using Kahoot! for learning. Kahoot! can enhance learning outcomes by increasing curricular
interaction between learners and instructors and extracurricular
encouraging collaboration.
20 Wang et al. (2007). The influence of educational games on learners’ perceptions. Collaborative games for learning can improve learners’ disciplinary
knowledge.
21 Wu et al. (2011). Improvement of lecture quiz to develop educational games. Lecture Quiz with entertaining learning activities can increase
learners’ motivation, engagement, and perceived learning.
22 Woodard and Mabry (2018). Discussion based on immediate feedback of Kahoot!.
Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:4507–4535
Table 1 (continued)

No. Authors Foci Major Findings

Kahoot! with instructors’ guidance offers reviewing materials with

baselines on prior knowledge and encourages further thinking.
23 Yu (2019a). Serious games in education. Serious games are applicable to pedagogical practices. But there
should be adaptation of game designs to meet needs from
different disciplines.
24 Yu et al. (2020). The effect of educational games on learning outcomes, Educational games are beneficial to academic achievements,
motivation, engagement, and satisfaction. problem-solving abilities, critical thinking abilities, learning
efficiency, and performances.
25 Zainuddin et al. (2020). The influence of gamified quizzes on learning and engagement Gamified quizzes can significantly improve learners’ performance
and engagement.
26 Zarzycka-Piskorz (2016). Gamified teaching and learning with use of Kahoot! Kahoot! can motivate learners’ participation and involvement in
class and make the atmosphere of classes more interesting.
Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:4507–4535
4513
4514 Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:4507–4535

outcomes could we further investigate whether interaction in Kahoot! was positively

associated with learning outcomes.

4.1 Is interaction in gamification positively associated with learning outcomes?

Gamification reflects the use of games. Games are systems with rules that offer
possibilities of actions so that players can attempt to control their outcomes
(Fullerton, 2008; Groh, 2012). Considering games, fun might first come to individuals’
mind because games should be naturally fun, otherwise it will be meaningless to play
games (Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005). Therefore, we first analyzed interaction from the
perspective of fun in games.

4.1.1 Attention in interaction from the perspective of games

Games usually require some interface to proceed and also require players’ active
participation in tasks to reach particular goals. Even if an individual might have fun
by watching others playing games, perception of the outcomes obtained by others
account for this individuals’ funny experience (Vieira & Corrêa da Sliva, 2014).
Therefore, interaction with a task, an object, or other people play an important role in
fostering individuals’ funny experience.
Interaction stands for a mutual or reciprocal process allowing no less than two
entities to communicate with or react to each other (Wagner, 1994). Interaction
indicates how individuals experience the world. The world is a dynamic and stochastic
environment with much uncertainty. For that reason, humans emphasize the ability of
perceiving, reasoning, and acting upon changes for an effective subsistence, accounting
for dynamic feature of interaction (Valiant, 1995).
Interaction calls for individuals’ perception and action. Effective perception and
action depend on more appealing properties with novelty. No matter out of biological
needs or internalized social needs, individuals can consciously evaluate and act upon
new information through the nervous system (Csikszentmihalyi, 1991). For that reason,
attention is an important factor influencing the quality of information processing
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1991).
However, humans have limited capacity to process information consciously so they
will not receive all information once for all. They will divide the original information
into several patterns according to their internal sensed data (Csikszentmihalyi, 1991).
They can thereafter autonomously use patterns almost without detailed reasoning
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1991). Therefore, individuals’ nervous system helps individuals to
understand and summarize patterns they encounter.
Due to humans’ limited capacity of information processing, information and
predictability should be in a moderate degree to make fun experience. Because the
world is constantly changing, individuals should constantly seek information and
summarize patterns. Facing environments with much uncertainty, they should
correspondingly trigger more patterns to deal with new information, producing
funny experience (Csikszentmihalyi, 1991; Koster, 2010). Unchanged information
give rise to high predictability. Once individuals have summarized the predictable
patterns, they will have no more interest in the particular area than before.
Individuals need not to pay much attention since there are predictable repetitive
Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:4507–4535 4515

tasks. However, excessive information with totally no predictability probably leads

to incomprehension (Schmidhuber, 2010). For example, noise conveying too much
information will overload individuals’ capacity of information processing. Without
proper conceptual models, individuals fail to pay attention and are confused about
the information. So improper amount of information without predictability ends up
making boring and undesirable experiences.
In short, interaction is an essential element for fun in playing games. With the help
of attention mechanism, individuals can filter which piece of information is worth
exploring, understanding, and summarizing for patterns. Therefore, attention is bene-
ficial for individuals’ information processing and participation in interaction.

4.1.2 Competitiveness and flexibility from the perspective of challenge and skill level

Apart from attention, there are still other factors influencing interaction. Since players
have desire for fun and enjoyment, Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi (2001) carried out
two-dimensional model of the Flow state and analyzed the optimal states of fun and
enjoyment (see Fig. 2). In this model, challenge level stands for competitiveness while
skill level reflects players’ current mastery of knowledge. Flow stands for the optional
situation of competitiveness and feasibility of gamified approaches.
From the perspective of the relation between challenge and skill level, challenge
should neither overmatch nor underutilize players’ skill level. Players’ perceived action
capacities should match the perceived action opportunities (Nakamura &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2001). Excessively high or low levels or challenge or skill give rise
to a series of negative or non-helpful feelings such as anxiety, worry, apathy, boredom,
and relaxation (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2001).
But a player’s ideal state is not static. Enjoyment in interactivity requires both
challenge and skill level above players’ average level. As a player is skilled enough
to deal with the current challenges, this player is in a state of Control with high
challenges and higher skills. Then, the experience can motivate the individual to seek

Fig. 2 Two-dimensional model of the Flow state (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2001)
4516 Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:4507–4535

more challenges, accounting for the state of Arousal. After mastering the skills, the
individual achieve enjoyment and go back to the state of Control (Nakamura &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2001).
In short, the two-dimensional model suggests that challenge level matching players’
average skill level is another essential factor in enjoyment in interaction. Challenge
level guarantee competitiveness in game designs. Besides, optional states include
Control, Flow, and Arousal, indicating flexible setting of challenge level. Therefore,
optimal situation of interaction requires both competitiveness and flexibility.

4.1.3 Immersion from the perspective of interactivity in gamification

Since competitiveness and flexibility account for players’ enjoyment in interaction, we

further analyzed whether interaction in gamification should meet the previous demands.
Vieira and Corrêa da Sliva (2014) classified playful activities according to different
degrees of interactivity (see Fig. 3).
When it comes to unidimensional analysis, needs of challenge make up more
possibilities of interaction such as objective-oriented interactions (gaming) and human
communicative interactions (playing). The former reflects the fixed goals of winning so
that individuals should overcome challenges from activities. The latter indicates the
recreational activities without necessity of winning (Vieira & Corrêa da Sliva, 2014).
The researchers also took the second dimension of Whole-Parts into consideration.
If one activity or object is an inseparable whole, this activity or object is close to Whole.
By contrast, separable activities consisting of many parts or playful designs belong to
the category of Part.

Fig. 3 Two-dimensional model of interactivity in different playful activities

Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:4507–4535 4517

The results reveal that gamification requires fixed goal of winning and flexible
elements of designs. Thus, in the aspect of interactivity, interaction in gamification
requires both competitiveness and flexibility.
Competitiveness and flexibility contribute to immersion, another important element
in interaction (Brown & Cairns, 2004). Immersion refers to the feeling of total
involvement in the environment of an interactive system with reduction of self-
awareness or even the distortion in time perception (Jennett et al., 2008). Researchers
described immersion as the result of the use of schemata (Douglas & Hargadon, 2000).
Schemata stand for conceptual models based on individuals’ previous interactions.
Completely absorbed in a particular environment, an individual tries to fit the fantasy
and achieve enjoyment from the recognition of novel patterns full of unpredictable
elements (Douglas & Hargadon, 2000).
In the context with gamified approaches, researchers defined immersion as a sense
of involvement along with individuals’ interactions with the games without barriers,
difficulties to immersion (Vieira & Corrêa da Sliva, 2014). To facilitate enjoyment in
interaction, holders of games should remove or resolve those difficulties to immersion
as many as possible. But removal of all barriers does not necessarily guarantee
enjoyment (Vieira & Corrêa da Sliva, 2014).
Furthermore, immersion is a mutidimensional phenomenon (Vieira & Corrêa da
Sliva, 2014). Individuals’ distinctive preferences and moods affect their manners of
experience games. Different characteristics of games account for various perceptions.
Different external factors such as peer influence, game reviews, and sociocultural
references influence the outcomes more or less (Mäyrä & Ermi, 2011).
In short, interaction in gamification claims competitive and flexible contents ac-
counting for players’ immersion. In educational contexts, game designs can hence
inspire learners to reach goals and hence facilitate instructors’ control of classes.

4.1.4 Feedback from the perspective of person-to-person interaction and HCI

With the development of technology, interaction has extended the range from person-
to-person interaction to Human-Computer Interaction (HCI). HCI means interaction
between humans and man-made products based on a feedback cyclic system. A
participant first act with particular goals which the platform will recognize. Then the
platform evaluates the individuals’ actions and offers the feedback for the individual.
After that the platform compares the results with the initial goals and judge whether it is
necessary to restart the cycle (Dubberly et al., 2009). So HCI allows participants to
interact with objects.
HCI requires participants’ physical or cognitive signals of possibilities of actions and
uses of objects, named affordance (Norman, 2002). Influenced by the previous signals,
participants can establish conceptual models according to previous similar experiences
about interactions, physical or logical constrains, and social or cultural conventions
(Norman, 1999; Norman, 2002).
However, person-to-person interaction is still an important constituent in interaction.
It still requires participants to share a common communicative response or feedback so
that they can work for particular goals. Different degrees to which one affects others’
results lead to different group behaviors in interactions such as competition, coopera-
tion, and coordination (Dubberly et al., 2009; Garcia & Sichman, 2003).
4518 Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:4507–4535

In short, no matter how greatly technology in interaction develops, interaction still

calls for feedback from participants or computer systems. For that reason, feedback is
one of the influential factors in interaction in gamification. Thus far, we have reviewed
interaction in gamification from the perspective of fun in playing games. We have also
taken development of technology into consideration. In summary, the influential factors
in interaction in gamification include attention, competitiveness, flexibility, immersion,
and feedback.

4.1.5 Association between influential factors in interaction in gamification

and element required for learning

As education has been requiring the integration of innovative technology, there has
been a tendency towards the integration of game elements in class (Murawski et al.,
2019). To prove game designs as laudable tools in learning, Boller (2012) summarized
four-dimensional criteria for games designed for learning (See Table 2). In other words,
such elements in game designs are positively associated with learning. Since interaction

Table 2 Elements in game designs positively associated with learning (Boller, 2012)

Elements in game designs positively associated with learning Influential factors in interaction in
gamification congruent with such
elements

Motivation Fun as the primary feature of game Attention

Clear and well-defined goals for better per- Competitiveness
formance
Competitive elements such as points, badges,
and leaderboards (PBLs) for recognition
of achievement
Escalating difficulty levels when learners Flexibility
keep going
Flow for immersion in problem-solving, Immersion
strategizing, or collaborating
Specific, timely, and Continual and immediate feedback ensuring Feedback
continuous feedback learners to adjust and recalibrate to refine
performance
Rewards for good performance or diligence
and punishment for poor performance or
idleness
Relevant practice Designs of quiz-style practices in a simula- Immersion
tion of real-world contexts or real-world
challenges
Game rules and game resources with which Flexibility
the entire “play” is the practice
Ability to retrieve skill or Repetitive contents with escalating difficulty
knowledge when level for mastery of skill or knowledge
learners need it Replication of real-world contexts without Immersion
real-world risks for quicker retrieval of
information
Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:4507–4535 4519

in gamification contains some influential factors, we could match the factors with
elements summarized by Boller to see whether interaction in gamification is positively
associated with learning.
As for attention, game designs for gamification aim to creates funny experience for
players. If a game design is fun enough to stimulate potential participants’ interest, they
are likely to spare time for play so that they are eager to join in interaction. In other
words, attention is the prerequisite for interaction and association between interaction
and learning.
Regarding competitiveness, interaction in gamification claims well-defined goals
which is the required element associated with learning. Inspiring items such as points,
badges, and leaderboards (PBLs) can further motivate participants to make good
performance. Those items aiming to keep competitiveness in interactivity in
gamification are usually widely accepted elements on the gamified online discussion
platforms to increase learners’ engagement in learning (Ding et al., 2017).
Considering flexibility associated with learning, gamified approaches should contain
adjustable designs to meet participants’ need and match participants’ skill level.
Platforms can adapt level of difficulty according to participants’ performance, which
can contribute to participants’ further improvement in mastery knowledge or skill.
Additionally, rules can guarantee feasibility of designs so that hosts can control the
proceeding of games. For instance, as participants make progress, hosts can create
repetitive tasks for participants’ retrieval of knowledge or skills.
Based on interactivity of competitiveness and flexibility, immersion in interaction is
consistent with the problem-solving collaborative tasks or quiz-style practices. Besides,
simulation of real-world contexts can further consolidate participants’ timely recogni-
tion and use of particular knowledge or skills. Thus, immersion is also positive
associated with learning.
Last but not least, feedback is an important indicator of improved learning through
games. Feedbacks include praising and alerting contents. If participants manage to
make progress, systems of games can provide participants with badges, thumps-ups,
progress bars, and avatars as rewards motivating them to further improve skills. By
contrast, systems can show reasons of failure encouraging them to try again (Prensky,
2001). Thus, feedback as an accurate evaluation can provide participants with oppor-
tunities to adjust and refine their performance.
In summary, by matching factors in interaction with elements for learning, interac-
tion in gamification is positively associated with learning, because all the five influen-
tial factors have positive association with learning. In other words, interaction in game
designs for gamification is beneficial for learning outcomes. Thus far, this thesis has
analyzed the positive association between interaction in gamification and learning
outcomes. The following sections will address whether interaction in Kahoot! can
improve learning outcomes.

4.2 Is interaction in Kahoot! Positively associated with learning outcomes?

Having discussed the positive correlation between interaction in gamification and

learning outcomes, we analyzed interaction in Kahoot! according to the previous
influential factors and judged whether interaction in this GSRS could positively affect
learning outcomes.
4520 Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:4507–4535

4.2.1 Attention: Energetic music and vivid colors

Nowadays traditional lectures have presented significant challenges, so the use of

synchronous online learning in traditional enables learners’ active participation and
interactive learning (Holbrey, 2020). Compared with traditional teaching, getting
knowledge from playing Kahoot! can significantly improve learners’ attendance,
participation, motivation, attention, and satisfaction (Hung, 2017b). Even compared
with other game designs such as Quizizz, Socrative, and Google forms, playing
Kahoot! can contribute to learners’ higher concentration, engagement, enjoyment,
perceived learning, motivation, and satisfaction (Chaiyo & Nokham, 2017; Dolezal
et al., 2018). Therefore, Kahoot! manages to attract users to finish learning tasks.
Plump and LaRosa (2017) summarized the advantages of using Kahoot! in the
classroom (see Table 3). Kahoot! has various colorful, vivid, and appealing items so
that learners are eager to pay attention to learning to win the competition. Among the
advantages, music and colors are so attractive that they can contribute to learners’
excitement and energy. Questions in this system are flashcards. While answering
questions, learners will hear count-down tick and background music adjusted to how
much time they have to answer (Wang & Tahir, 2020). As for colors, Kahoot! shows
each question along with four or less alternatives in different colors with associated
graphical symbols (Wang & Tahir, 2020). Learners should give their answers by
choosing the color and symbol they believe corresponds to the correct answer (Wang
et al., 2016). Thus, with interest in learning stimulated, learners need not face the
tedious contents.
The previous studies revealed that Kahoot! contained various appealing features
beneficial for both learners and instructors. From the standpoint of learners, a majority
of learners believed Kahoot! positively affected their motivation, enjoyment, excite-
ment, engagement, learning experiences, and learning efficiency (Alario-Hoyos et al.,
2017; Aleksić-Maslać et al., 2018; Antoniou et al., 2016; Asa’d & Gunn, 2018; Bicen
& Kocakoyun, 2018; Iruela & Neira, 2018; Ismail & Mohammad, 2017; Leung &
Pluskwik, 2018; Licorish et al., 2018; M. A.-A. Ismail & Fakri, 2017; M. Ismail et al.,
2018; R. Ismail & Ibrahim, 2018; Youhasan & Sanooz, 2018; Zarzycka-Piskorz, 2016).
Since playing Kahoot! allowed learners to answer questions anonymously and

Table 3 Advantages of using Kahoot! in the classroom (Plump & LaRosa, 2017)

• Free
• Easy for instructors to learn
• Simple process for learners (no account registration or downloading of application)
• Compatible with smartphones, tablets, or computers
• Real-time results help instructors provide clarification when needed
• Music and colors add to student excitement and energy
• Increase student engagement
• Instructors can download, review, and save student results
• Learners can take quizzes multiple times
• Instructors can create quizzes, discussion questions, or surveys
• Instructors can adjust the response time
Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:4507–4535 4521

increased learners’ motivation and confidence, learners felt more secure, safe, and
comfortable in the classroom-friendly atmosphere created by this GSRS (Cutri et al.,
2016; Tsymbal, 2018; Youhasan & Raheem, 2019). Additionally, playing Kahoot!
could stimulate learners’ interest in learning with the attractive inviting user interface
and music (Bryant et al., 2018; Çetin, 2018; Plump & LaRosa, 2017). Apart from
learners, the use of Kahoot! could also enhance instructors’ attention and concentration,
contributing to better teaching (Yapıcı & Karakoyun, 2017).
In short, there are quite a few appealing elements including energetic music and
vivid colors in Kahoot! aiming to create a user-friendly environment. Such elements
can enhance both learners and instructors’ participation in curricular interaction. There-
fore, interaction in Kahoot! is consistent with the factor of attention positively associ-
ated with learning outcomes.

4.2.2 Competitiveness and flexibility: Curricular game competition and various modes

Kahoot! allows instructors to freely edit contents and forms of questions, which
requires instructors to design questions concerning the corresponding classes in ad-
vance. Thus, challenge level of questions mostly depends on instructors’ designs. This
part hence concentrates on the motivational and competitive items throughout the
process of playing this system. Besides, variety of modes and functions account for
high flexibility and feasibility.
Kahoot! aims to transmit a series of quizzes into a curricular game competition.
Facing tasks transmitted in Kahoot!, learners will answer questions or vote anony-
mously. Each question has three sections. The first section includes two pages. The first
page just presents questions to let students think or judge for some seconds. Then the
second page reveals both questions and choices of answers. While answering questions,
students will hear count-down tick and background music adjusted to how much time
the students have to answer. After learners’ submission, the page will present the
distribution of answers and the correct answer(s). Learners will get the corresponding
points depending on accuracy and speed (Wang & Tahir, 2020). The points can provide
goals or challenges for intrinsic motivation (Malone, 1980). The third section is the
scoreboard showing the top five players. Thus, learners will know how far they are
behind the players ahead (Wang & Tahir, 2020).
The count-down tick and background music are not distractions from the main
contents of questions but the invisible reminders of competition. Both presentation of
answer distribution and the scoreboard presenting the top players reflect that learners
are contenders in competitive games (Wang, 2015). At the same time, the processes of
game competition are not unchangeable. If hosts find some questions unnecessary to
answer, they can skip those questions and spare time for the key points in classes. Thus,
Kahoot! can guarantee competitiveness in the curricular interaction with some flexible
choices for instructors.
However, excessively competitive atmosphere is not beneficial for interaction and
learning outcomes. To strike the balance between competitiveness and learners’ state in
interaction, modes in Kahoot! are flexible enough to present contents in various ways
supporting different types of pedagogical practices.
From the standpoint of instructors, there are quite a few choices for question designs.
Instructors can design questions in various forms including Quiz questions, True or
4522 Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:4507–4535

False questions, Open-ended questions, Puzzles, Polls, Word clouds, and Slides.
Instructors can also set a time limit ranging from 5 to 120 s for each question (Wang
& Tahir, 2020).
Regarding learners, apart from the ordinary curricular gaming mode, learners can
participate in other extracurricular modes such as “Host Live”, “Challenge”, and
“League Game”. Each mode can offer learners the opportunities to cooperate with
others with competitiveness in a moderate degree (Wang & Tahir, 2020).
“Host Live” allows learners to become hosts to collaborate with other learners as
contenders. The learner host can control games, while other learners can see and answer
questions on their devices. Additionally, to simulate the game show better, leaners can
also become audiences to mirror or observe other players’ performances with AirPlay
or Chromecast.
“Challenge” offers learners possibilities to see and answer questions and answers at
their own pace and on their device. This mode is similar to self-paced learning and
suitable for homework or station work. Only when many learners have submitted
answers to the questions can they see presentation of answer distribution.
“League Game” creates a competition between different groups of learners and
requires joint efforts made by the learners in particular groups. Learners will unite each
other into leagues and receive self-paced challenges for the achievement of their
leagues. After playing at their own pace, they can see where their leagues place on
the league leaderboard. This mode can motivate leaners to make joint efforts to reach
the common goal in a competitive atmosphere.
Since Kahoot! concentrates more on learners’ engagement through a competitive
gaming experience (Wang & Tahir, 2020), gamified approach with the use of Kahoot!
is generally consistent with the demand of competitiveness for better learning out-
comes. According to the previous studies, competitive game element was especially
effective in vocabulary acquisition with learners’ higher motivation and increased
engagement (Klimova & Kacetl, 2018). Thus, competitive interactivity in Kahoot!
seems to contribute to much efficiency in vocabulary courses.
Even if competitiveness is an indicator of motivation and engagement, the gaming
experience should strike a balance between competitiveness and flexibility. Previous
studies still revealed doubts about competitive elements in Kahoot! and even adverse
effects caused by excessive competitiveness. Too competitive gaming elements would
give rise to much anxiety for the learners that will ruin their motivation to learn
(Zarzycka-Piskorz, 2016). If instructor had set too limited response time for learners,
learners would tend to simply guess the answer just for high score (Bicen &
Kocakoyun, 2018; Moutinho & Sá, 2018; Muhridza et al., 2018; Plump & LaRosa,
2017). Besides, stressful atmosphere would lead to learners’ fear of losing (Głowacki
et al., 2018; Yapıcı & Karakoyun, 2017). In short, poorly designed questions would
lead to adverse effects on learning (Smith & Brauer, 2018).
Facing these problems, instructors and learners can select different modes according
to pedagogical needs, which indicates designs in Kahoot! are flexible enough to keep
competitiveness in a suitable degree. For instance, to avoid learners’ unnecessary
guessing, instructors can emphasize learners’ accuracy of answering questions although
learners will get points mainly based on how quickly they give a correct answer (Wang
& Tahir, 2020). To reduce learners’ fear of losing, learners can play Kahoot! as
members in teams rather than as individuals (Abidin & Zaman, 2017; Atherton,
Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:4507–4535 4523

2018; Muhridza et al., 2018). Therefore, generally speaking, interactivity in Kahoot! is

competitive and flexible and so positively associated with learning outcomes.

4.2.3 Immersion: Virtual game show

Challenge level is essential for learners to achieve high engagement or immersion for
better learning outcomes (Malone, 1980; Pechenkina et al., 2017; Sweetser & Wyeth,
2005). Kahoot! aims to simulate game show with a series of questions. To imitate
relatively game shows or competitions in a virtual online platform, this system has the
corresponding rules for instructors and learners to follow.
Instructors first choose playing modes, such as player vs. player or team vs. player,
to meet the corresponding demands of classes. Then they will get and display PIN, ID
for the particular game, to let learners join. During the game, instructors can also enable
or disable a name generator, randomize the order of questions or answers, skip
questions, and show PIN. Therefore, instructors can control over the experiences in
classes, and learners can stay in the mood for the games. Once instructors click on the
“Start” button, the segment of answering questions begins so that learners should be
prepared for the sequence of questions (Wang & Tahir, 2020).
Having started to play, instructors and learners can participate in the digital game
competitions in different ways. Instructors can use Kahoot! in different stages of
pedagogical practices to reach distinctive goals. At the beginning of classes, instructors
can use it to initially stimulate students’ interest, to assess students roughly, and to
prepare students for the classes. This system contains “Blind kahoots” mode introduc-
ing new topics the students do not know much before (Castle, 2015). This mode uses
questions to stimulate students’ curiosity about new knowledge and interest in interac-
tion in lectures (Wang & Tahir, 2020).
During the class, instructors can use Kahoot! at regular intervals to interrupt the
lectures and summarize the previous knowledge, which reflects the most common way
of using this system (Wang & Tahir, 2020). Regular retrospection guided by teachers
can gradually develop students’ habits of reviewing knowledge. The anonymity may
disperse students’ worry about mistakes they may make (Yu et al., 2014).
At the end of classes, Kahoot! displays podium to correlate rewards with active
participation in curricular interaction. Even after class, learners can even replay the
games, called “Ghost mode”. The name of “Ghost” originates from a contrast with live
classes joined by students in the flesh (Susanti, 2017). This mode provides learners
with opportunities to retrospect classes and correct previous mistakes or potential
mistakes (Wang & Tahir, 2020).
In short, no matter in class or out of class, gaming elements with question-based
tasks and clear goals can bring learners high participation and immersion in game
competitions in a virtual platform. In this case, immersion requires instructors to guide
learners and learners to make reactions, accounting for better interactions and better
learning performances (Su & Cheng, 2015).
As Kahoot! is one of the GSRSs, it is necessary to mention uses of GSRS. There are
various ways of using GSRS in class and out of class (Wang & Tahir, 2020).
Instructors can use it at the beginning of a session as a starter or doing a survey
(Iona, 2017). Alternatively, with the use of this system, instructors can recapitulate the
contents halfway in the session to break up the lecture (Iona, 2017). Moreover, the most
4524 Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:4507–4535

useful usages of this system are for reviewing old and new contents and obtaining
baselines on prior knowledge (Woodard & Mabry, 2018). As for evaluation, instructors
can also utilize GSRS for formative assessment to practice skills, increase retention,
and review knowledge before tests (King, 2017). Thus, results of the previous studies
prove that GSRS can keep users’ immersion in playing and learning with the compre-
hensive designs in pedagogical practices. With availability in different stages of
pedagogical practices, Kahoot! can hence meet the demand of immersion for interac-
tion positively associated with learning outcomes.
Notably, Kahoot! creates gamified competitions in a virtual online circumstance but
not very similar to competitions in real-world contexts. That seems to contradict
Boller’s arguments, because game designs should simulate real-world challenges (see
Table 2). However, virtual elements in Kahoot! can still contribute to curricular and
extracurricular interaction based on the atmosphere of games (Aktekin et al., 2018).
Thus, generally speaking, Boller’s summaries are acceptable and comprehensive, but it
seems that simulation of real-world challenges are not the necessary and indispensable
requirement.

4.2.4 Feedback: Rewards from person-to-person interaction and HCI

As GSRS, Kahoot! features mutual and interactive activities (Woodard & Mabry,
2018). There are timely feedbacks realized in rewards including points or the verbal
signals such as “good” or “excellent”. As mentioned previously, interaction includes
person-to-person interaction and HCI based on the technological development. Thus,
this part focuses on analyses of feedback in interaction in Kahoot! in the aspects of
person-to-person interaction and HCI.
The interaction of Kahoot! include both interaction between instructors and learners
and HCI (Wang & Tahir, 2020). As for person-to-person interaction, Kahoot! provides
instructors with opportunities to create their own questions supporting classes and
encourage learners to participate in class interactions, consistent with the communica-
tive needs for learning (Plump & LaRosa, 2017; Wang, 2015). Apart from the regular
multiple-choice questions, instructors can use Kahoot! to motivate learners to partici-
pate in open-ended discussion or surveys where there are no right or wrong answers.
Learners can express their opinions freely and anonymously without peer pressure
(Plump & LaRosa, 2017).
As for feedbacks in HCI, Kahoot! provides learners with motivational and gamified
elements such as emotes, points, leaderboard, trophies, and verbal signals such as
“good” and “excellent” as rewards. Besides, energetic music and adaptive response
time also belongs to the feedbacks. Moreover, if learners keep going, there will be
limitations of response time in answering questions, indicating another form of feed-
back for increase in challenge. So Kahoot! is motivational enough to encourage
learners to finish question tasks and reach further learning goals.
According to previous studies, Kahoot! can wake up learners from slumber in class
and stimulate them to speak out their points of view in class (Susanti, 2017). This game
design with timely feedback can help to enhance class participation (Parra-Santos et al.,
2018), check learners’ understanding, and improve their reading skills (Çetin, 2018).
Feedbacks can also reduce instructors’ workload (de Sousa, 2018) for their better
engagement with a large number of learners (Nkhoma et al., 2018).
Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:4507–4535 4525

In short, Kahoot! is congruent with the demand of feedback for interaction positively
associated with learning outcomes. Thus far, interaction in Kahoot! has been consistent
with all of the five influential factors including attention, competitive, flexibility,
immersion, and feedback. Since those five factors contribute to positive association
between interaction in gamification and learning outcomes, interaction in Kahoot! can
positively affect learning outcomes. Application of Kahoot! can promote innovative
methodologies for the improvement of quality in higher education (Hernandez-Ramos
& Belmonte, 2020).

4.2.5 Overall impacts of interaction in Kahoot! On learning outcomes

Overall, Kahoot! can increase learners’ interest in lessons, increase their motivation,
enhance their understanding of the lessons, and encourage them to achieve more
learning goals (Bicen & Kocakoyun, 2018). Social interaction plays an indispensable
role in Kahoot! so that this system can turn classrooms into digital games (Sweetser &
Wyeth, 2005). For that reason, this system can enhance the interaction among learners
(Antoniou et al., 2016; Cutri et al., 2016; Esteves et al., 2017; Hou, 2018; Mustaţă et al.,
2018; Wang et al., 2016). Game show elements such as graphics, points, and music are
beneficial for interactive learning environments, contributing to learners’ enjoyment,
motivation, and concentration (Abidin & Zaman, 2017; Aktekin et al., 2018; Baydas &
Cicek, 2019; Bicen & Kocakoyun, 2018; Bryant et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2019; Chaiyo &
Nokham, 2017; Cutri et al., 2016; de Sousa, 2018; Głowacki et al., 2018; M. A.-A.
Ismail & Fakri, 2017; R. Ismail & Ibrahim, 2018; Jamil et al., 2018; Licorish et al., 2018;
Moutinho & Sá, 2018; Susanti, 2017; Tan Ai Lin et al., 2018; Tan & Saucerman, 2017;
Taylor & Reynolds, 2018; Turan & Meral, 2018; Wang, 2015; Wang & Lieberoth,
2016; Wang et al., 2016; Wichadee & Pattanapichet, 2018).
Even if there are inevitably adverse effects caused by poorly designed questions,
Kahoot! still contains some designs to reduce the negative effects. For example, anonym-
ity in answering questions can reduce learners’ stress and make a safer environment to fail
(Cutri et al., 2016; Jamil et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2018; Licorish et al., 2018; Mahon et al.,
2018). Variety of modes of playing avoid boring learning experiences.
Aiming to create an engaging fun and motivating learning platform, Kahoot! can
positively affect learning outcomes, classroom dynamics and reduce student anxiety
(Wang & Tahir, 2020). Game designs for gamification can function as devices
producing interactions and facilitating cultivation of learners’ attitudes, skills, and
knowledge in a competitive but friendly atmosphere (Clark et al., 2016). As a system
for gamification, Kahoot! can improve learners’ engagement, motivation, and learning
outcomes (Alonso-Fernández et al., 2020).
Classes highlighting interactive activities can increase instructors’ and learners’
participation and involvement, improving learners’ mastery and the use of knowledge
(Yu et al., 2020). Increased interaction is conducive to learning strategies such as
collaborative learning and context-aware learning strategies (Liu & Chu, 2010), both
instructors’ and learners’ confidence and self-esteem (Dellos, 2015; Johns, 2015),
recognition of learners’ knowledge gaps, learners’ short-term memory, and long-term
retrieval of knowledge (Aljezawi & Albashtawy, 2015).
In traditional lectures without the use of Kahoot!, learners are usually reluctant to
interact with instructors because they often feel threatened and uncomfortable (Okaz,
4526 Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:4507–4535

2015). Learners are usually worried about making mistakes in public. Furthermore,
traditional lectures are usually teacher-centred (Yu et al., 2014). These phenomena
harm interaction and learners’ mastery of knowledge.
However, it is unreasonable to discard traditional instruments. We should integrate
traditional instruments with other innovative technologies (Mustaţă et al., 2018).
Instructors can make implementation of online instruments be accompanied with the
traditional instruments to maximize the efficiency of learning. This combined imple-
mentation can consolidate the vast amount of knowledge, improve learners’ abilities to
apply the knowledge to the practical contexts, and motivate them to undertake the
challenging tasks (Mustaţă et al., 2018). Therefore, instructors can use Kahoot! as a
supplement to a traditional teacher-centred lecture setting, increasing engagement by
allowing and inspiring learners to demonstrate their knowledge in a fun and exciting
way (Jones et al., 2019).
In summary, interaction in Kahoot! positively affects learning outcomes because this
system fulfills all the demands from the influential factors for interaction in
gamification positively associated with learning outcomes. With appealing elements,
designs for balance between competitiveness and flexibility, immersion in digital game
shows, and timely feedbacks, Kahoot! is conducive to improvement in interactive
learning.

5 Discussion

As previously stated, interactive learning created by Kahoot! can enhance learners’

performance. But facing great popularity of game designs in educational contexts, we
should notice different effects of such designs on different age groups. Besides,
Kahoot! can also function as a supplemental tool in flipped classes, indicating the
potential uses of this game design. Furthermore, there are still some challenges related
to the uses of Kahoot!.

5.1 Effects of game designs for gamification on different age groups

Aiming to create better learning experience, Kahoot! increases instructors and learners’
participation in exciting digital game shows. Notably, as such gamified technologies
have attracted an increasing number of users’ attention, users in different age groups
tend to have different recognitions of the game designs in educational contexts.
Therefore, it is necessary to discuss how differently such game designs will affect
different age groups and which indicators will lead to such different effects.
Facing gamification, young users tend to have higher intensions to accept gamified
products and perceive more enjoyment than the older users (Bittner & Shipper, 2014).
With prior gaming experience, younger users can utilize products of gamification more
efficiently (Bittner & Shipper, 2014). Generally speaking, young people can accept
designs in gamification and enjoy them more easily. Therefore, it seems that developers
can pay more attention to gamification targeted toward a specific age group (Bittner &
Shipper, 2014).
As for indicators of users’ intentions, attitudes, subjective norm, and perceived
control influence users’ intentions of conventional products, while attitudes and
Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:4507–4535 4527

perceived usefulness affect users’ intentions of gamified products (Bittner & Shipper,
2014). Additionally, enjoyment and flow are essential factors in mediating between
users’ motivational incentives and intentions (Bittner & Shipper, 2014). Thus, devel-
opers of gamification should concentrate on enjoyment, flow, and the perceived
usefulness to especially improve young users’ extrinsic and intrinsic intentions for
gamified products (Bittner & Shipper, 2014).
When it comes to the effects of Kahoot! on different ages, both learners and
instructors generally show positive attitude to this system (Wang & Tahir, 2020).
Instructors tend to pay more attention to the details probably negatively associated
with pedagogical practices. For example, instructors find it difficult to apply Kahoot! to
all courses (Yilmaz & Karaoglan Yilmaz, 2019). Besides, this system might give rise to
unnecessary competition or cheating in learning (Yilmaz & Karaoglan Yilmaz, 2019).
The previous phenomena adversely affect instructors’ management of classes (Yilmaz
& Karaoglan Yilmaz, 2019). Instructors’ advice can provide valid reference for further
upgrading of designs for gamification.
In short, even if younger people are more likely to use games designs for
gamification efficiently than elder people, elder people can pay more attention to
current disadvantages of the uses of such designs. Especially in pedagogical practices,
instructors focuses more on flaws and restrictions in uses although they are generally
positive about the application of such designs including Kahoot!. In addition, users’
perception of enjoyment, flow, and usefulness determine their choices of gamification.
Developers should focus on those factors for more recognitions for game designs.

5.2 The use of Kahoot! In flipped class

With the development of technologies and education, the use of Kahoot is not limited
to regular face-to-face classes. Flipped classes can provide so much freedom for
learners that they can conveniently acquire knowledge assisted with instructors and
peers on an online technology-enhanced platform (Yu, 2019b; Yu et al., 2020).
However, the distractions, such as lower engagement rates or weak extracurricular
supervision, will give rise to the limited use of flipped pedagogical approaches (Huang
et al., 2019).
Since flipped class requires learners’ participation in exercises with timely feedback
(Hung, 2017a), instructors can use Kahoot! in flipped classrooms to increase learning
(Hung, 2017b). Kahoot! is conducive to the personalized designs and methodologies
with the immediate feedback beneficial for cultivation of learners’ engagement (Plump
& LaRosa, 2017). The immediacy of feedback of Kahoot! provides learners with
opportunities to consolidate and extend their knowledge through further discussion.
Learners can also improve their short-term memory recall and meta-cognitive abilities
(Plump & LaRosa, 2017).
As for extracurricular supervision, various extracurricular activities in Kahoot! can
provide learners with the opportunities to supervise each other. Funny game elements
in learning can trigger learners’ effective engagement, persistence, and motivation to
learn (Zarzycka-Piskorz, 2016). Therefore, Kahoot! is conducive to significant changes
in the atmosphere of extracurricular supervision motivating learners’ participation in
learning in flipped class (Zarzycka-Piskorz, 2016). Learners can enjoy such activities
on computers or iOS or Android mobile devices, reflecting various resources, strong
4528 Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:4507–4535

capabilities, rich interactions, power support for effective learning, and assessments
(Pastore et al., 2005).
In the technological aspect, Kahoot! requires the availability of Wi-Fi, access to
mobile devices, instructors’ ability to use online technologies, and learners’ affinity for
online games (Plump & LaRosa, 2017). Sound equipment and facilities account for the
increased quality in teaching and efficiency in learning (Zenouzagh, 2020). Nowadays,
most universities can meet previous technological demands. Therefore, Kahoot! is
suitable for flipped class from the perspectives of curricular participation, extracurric-
ular supervision, and technological requirements.
As for advantages of the use of Kahoot! in flipped class, less monotonous lectures
provided by this system can improve students’ mood, creativity, and morale (Aljezawi
& Albashtawy, 2015). Learners are hence eager to engage themselves in field obser-
vation, comparison, data sharing, and other learning activities actively (Hwang & Chen,
2017).
Additionally, as a game design for gamification, Kahoot! can provide high-quality,
flexible, portable, and relaxing educational services, increasing interactivity between
learners and instructors (Gentry et al., 2019). The improved interactivity can contribute
to the motivational learning strategies such as collaborative learning and context-aware
learning strategies (Liu & Chu, 2010). Such strategies are beneficial for problem-
solving and communicative ability with peers and instructors (Hava et al., 2020).
In short, the elaborate use of Kahoot! in flipped class can significantly improve
learners’ interactivity with instructors and peers, attendance, participation, speaking
skills (Hung, 2017b), and grades (Dolezal et al., 2018).

5.3 Challenges related to the use of Kahoot! In pedagogical practices

Even if Kahoot! has a bright prospect in education, there are still challenges of the uses
in pedagogical practices from various perspectives.
Regarding online learning, changeability of online education will give rise to some
instructors’ and learners’ confusion about the use of technologies including Kahoot!.
Facing the combined implements of traditional and digital education, instructors are
confronted with challenging tasks to balance the validation of learners and the quality
of teaching. Facing various learning mode, learners will spend much time on adapting
to online learning (Volungeviciene et al., 2018).
Considering technical problems, unreliable internet connections will lead to adverse
effects on teaching and learning. Interaction in Kahoot! needs projectors to show
questions and answers on the screen and requires learners to choose the graphs
matching the answer on the screen on mobile devices, but some learners have difficulty
in reading questions and answers on projected screen. Moreover, designs of this system
does not allow learners to change answer after submission (Wang & Tahir, 2020).
From the perspective of learners, learners’ general positive attitude toward educa-
tional game-based learning does not necessarily mean their active engagement in
educational games (Blume, 2020). Learners’ indulgence in playing games cannot
guarantee their engagement or learning outcomes. Besides, learners may pay little
attention to multiplayer engagement and social interactions, such as peer respect and
superior obedience, in game-based learning (Coleman & Money, 2020). Furthermore,
under stressful time-pressure for give answers, learners are afraid of failing quizzes.
Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:4507–4535 4529

(Wang & Tahir, 2020). Once they have given an incorrect answer, they can hardly to
catch up (Wang & Tahir, 2020).
In the aspect of instructors, some instructors hold the view that Kahoot! can offer
little scholarly merit (Holbrey, 2020; Plump & LaRosa, 2017). Therefore, concentrating
on learning results, they refuse to use Kahoot! in case that non-serious atmosphere
would lead to learners’ slackness (Holbrey, 2020; Plump & LaRosa, 2017). Addition-
ally, some instructors find it challenging to use this system because it is difficult for
them to make the ideal situation where all learners can have enough time to answer
questions. Otherwise, poor designs of questions will reduce learners’ reflection, cause
some learners to guess without thinking (Wang & Tahir, 2020) and even result in
cheating in competition, unfavorably affecting management of classes (Yilmaz &
Karaoglan Yilmaz, 2019).
Kahoot! still has wear out effects on classroom dynamics (Wang, 2015). The
positive effects on classroom dynamics will fade when this system becomes familiar
to instructors and learners (Wang, 2015). If instructors have used this system for several
months, there will be less positive effect on classroom dynamic (Wang & Tahir, 2020).
To relieve the previous problems, programming and ongoing collaboration between
users and technologies should regularly improve (Pellegrino & Quellmalz, 2010).
Users’ feedbacks to developers of such a technology play an important role in
improvement of the game design (Sun et al., 2020). Users and developers should also
notice that educational games are designed to promote learners’ desire or willingness to
learn (Volungeviciene et al., 2018).
Despite the previous challenges, Kahoot! is a successful bridge in pedagogical
practices. Kahoot! improves the pedagogical experience, enables learning in fun and
innovate manner, reinforces personalized learning, and guides learners to achieve
deeper levels of thinking (Holbrey, 2020). Interactive environments can inspire learners
to actively participate in the classes and make better academic performance (Plump &
LaRosa, 2017).

6 Conclusion

This thesis has presented a literature review on whether interaction in Kahoot! is

positively associated with learning outcomes. The purpose of this study was to find
answers to the following two research questions.

6.1 Major findings

RQ1 concentrated on the effects of interaction in gamification on learning outcomes.

Since fun is the essential factor in games, we first analyzed which factors can contribute
to enjoyment in interaction in gamification. Based on the theories and models in past
studies, we found the five influential factors such as attention, competitiveness, flex-
ibility, immersion, and feedback. Having compared those factors with Boller’s sum-
maries about gaming elements positively associated with learning outcomes (See
Table 2), we found that all the five factors could match the elements congruent with
demands of learning. Therefore, the main conclusion of this question is that interaction
in gamification is positively associated with learning outcomes.
4530 Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:4507–4535

RQ2 concentrated on the effects of interaction in Kahoot! on learning outcomes.

Since interaction in gamification could positively affect learning outcomes, we could
further analyze the effects of interaction in Kahoot! as one of the game designs for
gamification. We investigated whether interaction in this game design fulfill the
demands from the influential factors summarized in RQ1. The results revealed that
interaction in Kahoot! could match all the factors. Energetic music and vivid music
were attractive enough to fulfill the demand of attention. Competitive gaming elements
and various playing modes helped instructors to strike a balance between competitive-
ness and flexibility in class. Learners could enjoy immersion in exciting virtual game
show. With timely feedbacks such as gamified rewards and verbal signals, this system
could evaluate learners’ performance and motivate them to reach further learning goals.
We found that interaction created by Kahoot! had all the necessary elements positively
affecting learning outcomes. Thus, the main conclusion of this question was that
interaction in Kahoot! was positively associated with learning outcomes.
Apart from the research questions, we discussed effects of gamification on age
groups. We found that younger people could use such designs more efficiently than
elder people. But elder people paid more attention to details about flaws in uses.
Developers should also emphasize enjoyment, flow, and usefulness of gamification
products. Besides, Kahoot! was also applicable to flipped class in the aspects of
curricular participation, extracurricular supervision, and technical accessibility. Further-
more, there were still challenges in uses from the perspectives of changeability in
online learning, learners’ anxiety, instructors’ management, and technical problems.
The main conclusion of our literature review is that Kahoot! can positively affect
learning outcomes from the perspective of interaction. Interactive tasks can consolidate
knowledge, develop good learning habits for learners, and enhance instructors’ man-
agement of classes.

6.2 Limitations of this study

The major limitation of this study is the coverage of the literature. There were
inevitably some studies out of our reach. We would also inevitably miss some studies
due to the paywall. Admittedly, studies cited in this review may be insufficient due to
the limitation of availability of the resources.
Another limitation of this study lies in a biased selection of articles. We mainly
focused on the positive effects of Kahoot! or gamification on learning outcomes. We
also paid much attention to the influences of Kahoot! on learning at a general level. The
generalization of the results in this study concentrates on pedagogical practices in
classrooms or flipped class rather than occupational trainings or other contexts.
It would be greatly appreciated if readers could provide more related studies to
extend and diversify the results. Future research could be conducted to determine the
effectiveness of Kahoot! in different contexts such as primary education, higher
education, and occupational training requiring different learning goals skills.

Authors’ contributions Qi Zhang had the idea for the article, performed the literature research and data
analysis, and drafted the work. Zhonggen Yu supervised, guided, and critically revised the work.

Funding We did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.
Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:4507–4535 4531

Data availability We make sure that all data and materials support our published claims and comply with
field standards.

Declarations

Conflict of interest/competing interests We have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the
content of this article.

References

Abidin, H. Z., & Zaman, F. K. (2017). Students' perceptions on game-based classroom response system in a
computer programming course. In: International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEED) (pp.
254-259): IEEE.
Aktekin, N. Ç., Çelebi, H., & Aktekin, M. (2018). Let’s Kahoot! Anatomy. International Journal of
Morphology, 36(2), 716–721.
Alario-Hoyos, C., Estévez-Ayres, I., Kloos, C. D., & Villena-Román, J. (2017). From MOOCs to SPOCs...
and from SPOCs to flipped classroom. In: European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (pp.
347–354): Springer.
Aleksić-Maslać, K., Rašić, M., & Vranešić, P. (2018). Influence of gamification on student motivation in the
educational process in courses of different fields. In: 2018 41st International Convention on Information
and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO) (pp. 0783-0787): IEEE.
Aljezawi, M., & Albashtawy, M. (2015). Quiz game teaching format versus didactic lecture. British Journal of
Nursing, 24, 86–92.
Alonso-Fernández, C., Martínez-Ortiz, I., Caballero, R., Freire, M., & Fernández-Manjón, B. (2020).
Predicating students’ knowledge after playing a serious game based on learning analytic data: A case
study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(3), 350–358.
Antoniou, K., Mbah, E., & Parmaxi, A. (2016). Teaching Turkish in low tech contexts: Opportunities and
challenges. EUROCALL, 2016, 32.
Asa’d, R., & Gunn, C. (2018). Improving problem solving skills in introductory physics using Kahoot!
Physics Education, 53(5), 053001.
Atherton, P. (2018). More than just a quiz: How Kahoot! Can help trainee teachers understand the learning
process. Teacher Education Advancement Network Journal, 10(2), 29–39.
Azodi, N., & Lotfi, A. (2020). E-collaborative tasks and the enhancement of writing performance among
Iranian University-level EFL learners. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 21, 165–180.
Baydas, O., & Cicek, M. (2019). The examination of the gamification process in undergraduate education: a
scale development study. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 28(3), 1–17.
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.
Bittner, J. V., & Shipper, J. (2014). Motivational effects and age differences of gamification in products
advertising. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 31(5), 391–400.
Blume, C. (2020). Games people (don’t) play: An analysis of pre-service EFL teachers’ behaviors and beliefs
regarding digital game-based learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(2), 109–132.
Boller, S. (2012). Game based learning: Why does it work? In: BLP News - Lessons on Learning Blog.
Retrieved November 11, 2020, from [Link]
Brown, E., & Cairns P. (2004). A grounded investigation of game immersion. In: CHI ‘04 extended abstracts
on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1297–1300). New York: ACM Press.
Bryant, S. G., Correll, J. M., & Clarke, B. M. (2018). Fun with pharmacology: Winning students over with
Kahoot! Game-based learning. Journal of Nursing Education, 57(5), 320–320.
Castle, S. (2015). The art of Blind Kahoot!ing. In: Kahoot! Blog. Retrieved January 10, 2021, from https://
[Link]/blog/2015/10/28/art-blind-kahooting.
Çetin, H. S. (2018). Implementation of the digital assessment tool Kahoot in elementary school. International
Technology and Education Journal, 2(1), 9–20.
Chaiyo, Y., & Nokham, R. (2017). The effect of Kahoot, Quizizz and Google forms on the student's
perception in the classrooms response system. In International Conference on Digital Arts, Media and
Technology (ICDAMT) (pp. 178-182): IEEE.
4532 Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:4507–4535

Chung, C-H., Shen C., & Qiu Y-Z. (2019). Students’ acceptance of gamification in higher education.
International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 9(2), 1–19.
Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learning: A
systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 79–122.
Coleman, T. E., & Money, A. G. (2020). Student-centred digital game-based learning: A conceptual
framework and survey of the state of the art. Higher Education, 79(3), 415–457.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper Perennial.
Cutri, R., Marim, L. R., Cordeiro, J. R., Gil, H. A. C., & Guerald, C. C. T. (2016). Kahoot, a new and cheap
way to get classroom-response instead of using clickers. In: Proceedings of American Society for
Engineering Education conference (pp. 26–29). New Orleans, USA.
de Sousa, B. F. P. (2018). Engaging students in the evaluation process using co-creation and technology
enhanced learning (CC-TEL). In: CC-TEL. Leeds, UK.
Dellos, R. (2015). Kahoot! A digital game resource for learning. International Journal of Instructional
Technology and Distance Learning, 12(4), 49–52.
Deterding, S., Khaled, R., Nacke, L.E., & Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification: Toward a definition. In: CHI 2011
Gamification workshop proceedings (pp. 12–15). New York: ACM Press.
Ding, L., Kim, C., & Orey, M. (2017). Studies of student engagement in gamified online discussions.
Computers & Education, 115, 126–142.
Dolezal, D., Posekany, A., Motschnig, R., Kirchweger, T., & Pucher, R. (2018). Impact of game-based student
response systems on factors of learning in a person- centered flipped classroom on C programming. In:
EdMedia+Innovate Learning (pp. 1143-1153): Association for the Advancement of computing in
education (AACE).
Douglas, Y., & Hargadon, A. (2000). The pleasure principle: Immersion, engagement, flow. In: Proceedings of the
eleventh ACM on Hypertext and hypermedia - HYPERTEXT ‘00 (pp. 153–160). New York: ACM Press.
Dubberly, H., Pangaro, P., & Haque, U. (2009). What is interaction? Are there different types? Interactions,
16(1), 69–75.
Esteves, M., Pereira, A., Veiga, N., Vasco, R., & Veiga, A. (2017). The use of new learning technologies in
higher education classroom: A case study. In: Internatoinal Conference on Interactive Collaborative
Learning (pp. 499-506). Cham: Springer.
Fullerton, T. (2008). Game design workshop: A Playcentric approach to creating innovative games (2nd ed.).
Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Garcia, A. C. B., & Sichman, J. S. A. (2003). Agentes e Sistemas Multiagentes. In S. O. Rezende (Ed.),
Sistemas Inteligentes: Fundamentos e Aplicacções (pp. 269–306). Barueri: Manole Ltda.
Gentry, S. V., Gauthier, A., Ehrstrom, B. L., Wortley, D., Lilienthal, A., Car, L. T., Dauwels-Okutsu, S.,
Nikolaou, C. K., Zary, N., & Campbell, J. (2019). Serious gaming and gamification education in health
profession: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(3), e12994.
Głowacki, J., Kriukova, Y., & Avshenyuk, N. (2018). Gamification in higher education: Experience of Poland
and Ukraine. Advanced Education, 5(10), 105–110.
Graham, K. (2015). TechMatters: Getting into Kahoot! (s): Exploring a game-based learning experience via
Kahhot and Quizizz. Computers & Education, 135, 15–29.
Groh, F. (2012). Gamification: State of the art definition and utilization. In N. Asaj, K. Bastian, M. Poguntke,
F. Schaub, B. Wiederschiem, & M. Weber (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Seminar on Research Trends in
Media Informatics (pp. 39–45). Institute of Media Informatics Ulm University.
Hava, K., Guyer, T., & Cakir, H. (2020). Gifted students’ learning experiences in systematic game develop-
ment process in after-school activities. ETR&D-Educational Technology Research and Development,
68(5), 1-21. [Link]
Hernandez-Ramos, J.P., & Belmonte, M.L. (2020). Assessment of the use of Kahoot! In face-to-face and
virtual higher education. Education in the Knowledge Society, 21.
Hofmann, J. (2018). Blended learning. Alexandria: Association for talent development.
Holbrey, E. C. (2020). Kahoot! Using a game-based approach to blended learning to support effective learning
environments and student engagement in traditional lecture theatres. Technology, Pedagogy and
Education, 3, 1–12.
Hou, Y-J. (2018). Integration of Kahoot into EFL classroom. In: International Conference on Human-
Computer Interaction (pp. 31-37). Cham: Springer.
Huang, B. Y., Hew, K. F., & Lo, C. K. (2019). Investigating the effects of gamification-enhanced flipped
learning on undergraduate students’ behavioral and tendency towards critical thinking and problem
solving. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(4), 950–971.
Hung, H.-T. (2017a). Clickers in the flipped classroom: Bring your own device (BYOD) to prompt student
learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(8), 983–995.
Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:4507–4535 4533

Hung, H.-T. (2017b). The integration of a student response system in flipped classrooms. Language, Learning
and Technology, 21(1), 16–27.
Hwang, G. J., & Chen, C. H. (2017). Influences of an inquiry-based ubiquitous gaming design on students’
learning achievements, motivation, behavioral patterns, and tendency towards critical thinking and
problem solving. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(4), 950–971.
Iona, J. (2017). Kahoot! The School Librarian, 65(2), 84.
Iruela, M. G., & Neira, R. H. (2018). How Gamification impacts on vocational training students. In:
International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 99-103): Springer.
Ismail, M. A.-A., & Fakri, N. M. R. M. (2017). Transforming stressful to joyful classroom through web 2.0
applications. In: CARNIVAL ON e-LEARNING (IUCEL) (pp. 199–201). Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia.
Ismail, M. A-A., & Mohammad, J. A-M. (2017). Kahoot: A promising tool for formative assessment in
medical education. Education in Medicine Journal, 9(2), 19–26.
Ismail, R., & Ibrahim, R. (2018). Fun Elements in Educational Game Design to Boost Students Learning
Experience. In: Proceedings of New Academia Learning Innovation (NALI) Symposium 2018 (pp. 19-21).
Symposium Nali.
Ismail, M., Sa’adan, N., Samsudin, M., Hamzah, N., Razali, N., & Mahazir, I. (2018). Implementation of The
Gamification Concept Using KAHOOT! Among TVET Students: An Observation. Journal of Physics:
Conference Series, 1140(1), 1–8. [Link]
Jamil, Z., Fatima, S. S., & Saeed, A. A. (2018). Preclinical medical students' perspective on technology
enhanced assessment for learning. JPMA, 68(898).
Jennett, C., Cox, A. L., Cairns, P., Dhoparee, S., Epps, A., Tijis, T., & Walton, A. (2008). Measuring and defining the
experience of immersion in games. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(9), 641–661.
Johns, K. (2015). Engaging and assessing students with technology. A Review of Kahoot! Delta Kappa
Gamma Bulletin, 81(4), 89.
Jones, E. M., Harden, S., Rassias, M., & Abourashchi, N. (2018). Use of quizzes in large statistical lectures:
Student perception. In: Tenth International Conference on Teaching Statistics. Kyoto, Japan.
Jones, S. M., Katyal, P., Xie, X., Nicolas, M. P., Leung, E. M., Noland, D. M., & Montclare, J. K. (2019). A
“KAHOOT!” approach: The effectiveness of game-based learning for an advanced placement biology
class. Stimulation & Gaming, 50(6), 832–847.
Kim, E., Rothrock, L., & Freivalds, A. (2018). An empirical study on the impact of lab gamification on engieering
students’ satisfaction and learning. International Journal of Engineering Education, 34(1), 201–216.
King, A. (2017). Using Kahoot! Australian Mathematics Teacher, 73(4), 35–37.
Klimova, B., & Kacetl, J. (2018). Computer game-based foreign language learning: Its benefits and limita-
tions. In: International Conference on Technology in Education (pp. 26-34): Springer.
Koster, R. (2010). Theory of fun for game design. Sebastopol: O’Reilly Media Inc..
Lee, C.-C., Hao, Y., Lee, K. S., Sim, S. C., & Huang, C.-C. (2019). Investigation of the effects of an online instant
response system on students in a middle school of a rural area. Computers in Human Behavior, 95, 217–223.
Leung, E., & Pluskwik, E. (2018). Effectiveness of Gamification activities in a project- based learning
classroom. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(41).
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.
Liu, T. Y., & Chu, Y. L. (2010). Using ubiquitous games in an English listening and speaking course: Impact
on learning outcomes and motivation. Computers & Education, 55(2), 630–643.
Mahon, P., Lyng, C., Crotty, Y., & Farren, M. (2018). Transforming classroom questioning using emerging
technology. British Journal of Nursing, 27(7), 389–394.
Malone, T. W. (1980). What makes things fun to learn? Heuristics for designing instructional computer
games. In: The 3rd ACM SIGSMALL symposium and the first SIGPC symposium on Small systems. Palo
Alto, California, United States: ACM Press.
Mäyrä, F., & Ermi, L. (2011). Fundamental components of the gameplay experience: Analysing immersion. In
S. Günzel, M. Libe, & D. Mersch (Eds.), DIGAREC keynote-lectures (pp. 88–115). Potsdam: Potsdam
University Press.
Moutinho, A., & Sá, S. (2018). Implementing active learning through pedagogical coaching in control systems
lectures. In: 2018 3rd International Conference of the Portuguese Society for Engineering Education
(CISPEE) (pp. 1-6): IEEE.
Muhridza, N. H. M., Rosli, N. A. M., Sirri, A., & Samad, A. A. (2018). Using Game-based Technology, KAHOOT!
for Classroom Engagement. LSP International Journal, 5(2), 37-48. [Link]
Murawski, M., Hasan, M. T., & Bick M. (2019). Five years of Kahoot! In the classrooms - what does research
tell us? European Distance and E-Learning Network (EDEN) Conference Proceedings, 1: 509–517.
4534 Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:4507–4535

Mustaţă, I. C., Loeffler-Enescu, P., Pantu, I., Ghenghea, V. A., & Soare I. L. (2018). Case study: E-learning
instruments to improve German language competence. Conference proceedings of eLearning and
Software for Education (eLSE), 14: 233-238.
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2001). In C. Synder & S. Lopez (Eds.), The Concept of Flow. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Nkhoma, C., Nkhoma, M., Thomas, S., Tu, L. K., & Le, N. Q. (2018). Gamifying a flipped first year accounting
classroom using Kahoot! International Journal of Information System and Engineering, 6(1), 93–115.
Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38–43.
Norman, D. A. (2002). The Design of Everyday Things (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.
Okaz, A. A. (2015). Integrating blended learning in higher education. Procedia - Social and Bebahvioural
Science, 186, 600–603.
Parra-Santos, T., Molina-Jordá, J.-M., Casanova-Pastor, G., & Maiorano-Lauria, L.-P. (2018). Gamification for
formative assessment in the framework of engineering learning. In Proceedings of the Sixth International
Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (pp. 61-65): ACM.
Pastore, S., Boccato, C., Nobili, L., Lazzareto, E., & Benacchio, L. (2005). Experiences of mobile learning in
scienceL technological solutions for wireless network and content delivery. INAF (National Institute of
Astrophysics), Padova. Retrieved November 12, 2020, from [Link]
papers/abs/h1_pastore_abs.pdf.
Pechenkina, E., Laurence, D., Oates, G., Eldridge, D., & Hunter, D. (2017). Using a gamified mobile app to
increase student engagement, retention and academic achievement. International Journal of Educational
Technology in Higher Education, 14(31).
Pellegrino, J. W., & Quellmalz, E. S. (2010). Perspectives on the integration of technology and assessment.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(2), 119–134.
Pertegal-Felices, M. L., Jimeno-Morenilla, A., Sánchez-Romero, J. L., & Mora-Mora, H. (2020). Comparison
of the effects of the Kahoot tool on teacher training and computer engineering students for sustainable
education. Sustainability, 12(11), 1–12.
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, 1–8.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: Paragon House.
Schmidhuber, J. (2010). Formal theory of creativity, fun, and intrinsic motivation (1990-2010). IEEE
Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development, 2(3), 230–247.
Smith, A., & Brauer, S. (2018). T1-a: Use of Kahoot games for increased motivation and understanding in a
thermodynamics course. In: 2018 ASEE Southeastern Section Conference.
Su, C. H., & Cheng, C. H. (2015). A mobile gamification learning system for improving the learning
motivation and achievements. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(3), 268–286. [Link]
10.1111/jcal.12088.
Sun, Y. Q., Guo, Y. P., & Zhao, Y. M. (2020). Understanding the determinants of learner engagement in
MOOCs: An adaptive structuration perspective. Computers & Education, 157, 103963.
Susanti, S. (2017). Fun activities in teaching English by using Kahoot!. In :2nd international seminar on
eductaion. Batusangkar, Indonesia.
Sweetser, P., & Wyeth, P. (2005). GameFlow: a model for evaluating player enjoyment in games. Computers
in Entertainment, 3(3), 3.
Tan Ai Lin, D., Ganapathy, M., & Kaur, M. (2018). Kahoot! it: Gamification in Higher Education. Pertanika
Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 26(1), 565–582.
Tan, P., & Saucerman, J. (2017). Enhancing learning and engagement through Gamification of student
response systems. In: ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.
Taylor, B., & Reynolds, E. (2018). Building vocabulary skills and classroom engagement with Kahoot! In:
26th Korea TESOL International Conference (pp. 89). Seoul, Korea.
Tsymbal, S. (2018). Gamified training sessions as means of enhancing students’ motivation in learning
English. Psychological Journal, 17(7), 151–161.
Turan, Z., & Meral, E. (2018). Game-based versus to non-game-based: The impact of student response systems
on students’ achievements, engagements and test anxieties. Informatics in Education, 17(1), 105–116.
Valiant, L. G. (1995). Rationality. In: Proceedings of the eighth annual conference on Computational learning
theory - COLT’95 (pp. 3–14). New York: ACM Press.
Vieira L. C., & Corrêa da Sliva, F.S. (2014, November). Understanding Fun. Paper presented at Videojogos
2014, Barcelos, Portugal.
Volungeviciene, A., Šadauskas M., Pranckute, D., Softic, S. K., Tatrai, F., Murawski, M., Bick, M., &
Busche, J. (2018). Recognition of Valid Open and Online Learning. In European Distance and E-
Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:4507–4535 4535

Learning Network (EDEN) Conference Proceedings (pp. 276-283). European Distance and E-Learning
Network.
Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. American Journal of Distance
Education, 8(2), 6–29.
Wang, A. I. (2015). The wear out effect of a game-based student response system. Computers & Education,
82, 217–227.
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 of Games Based Learning: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited.
Wang, A. I., & Tahir, R. (2020). The effect of using Kahoot! For learning - a literature review. Computers &
Education, 149, 1–22.
Wang, A. I., Øfsdal, T., & Mørch-Storstein, O. K. (2007). Lecture quiz - a mobile game concept for lectures.
In: IASTED international conference on software engineering and application (SEA 2007) (p. 6).
Cambridge, MA, USA: Acta press.
Wang, A. I., Zhu, M., & Sætre, R. (2016). The effect of digitizing and Gamifying quizzing in classrooms. In:
European Conference on Games Based Learning. Paisley, Scotland: Academic Conferences and
Publishing International.
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.
Woodard, R., & Mabry, J. (2018). Give and receive immediate feedback and kickstart discussions with
Kahoot! A successful classroom teaching tactic that can be replicated by other instructors. Teaching
Theology and Religion, 21(4), 303.
Wu, B., Wang, A. I., Børresen, E. A., & Tidemann, K. A. (2011). Improvement of a lecture game concept -
implementing lecture quiz 2.0. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on computer sup-
ported education (pp. 26-35).
Yapıcı, İ. Ü., & Karakoyun, F. (2017). Gamification in biology teaching: A sample of Kahoot application.
Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 8(4), 396–414.
Yilmaz, R., & Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G. (2019). Investigating the views of teacher candidates for using Kahoot
as a gamification and formative assessment tool. In: II. International Symposium of Academic Studies on
Education and Culture, I-SASEC (pp. 12-14), Mersin, Turkey.
Youhasan, P., & Raheem, S. (2019). Technology enabled formative assessment in medical education: a pilot
study through Kahoot. Education in Medicine Journal, 11(3), 23–29.
Youhasan, P., & Sanooz, A. (2018). Technology enabled formative assessment in medical education. In: 3rd
International Conference on Advances in Computing and Technology (ICACT).
Yu, Z. (2019a). A meta-analysis of use of serious games in education over a decade. International Journal of
Computer Games Technology, 1, 1–8.
Yu, Z. (2019b). Schema theory-based flipped classroom model assisted with technologies. International
Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 15(2), 31–48.
Yu, Z., Chen, W., Kong, Y., Sun, X. L., & Zheng, J. (2014). The impact of clickers instruction on cognitive
loads and listening and speaking skills in college English class. PLoS One, 9(9), e106626.
Yu, Z., Gao, M. L., & Wang, L. F. (2020). The Effect of Educational Games on Learning Outcomes, Students
Motivation, Engagement and Satisfaction. Journal of Educational Computing, 0(0), 1–23. [Link]
10.1177/2F0735633120969214.
Zainuddin, Z., Shujahat, M., Haruna, H., & Chu, S. K. W. (2020). The role of gamified e-quizzes on student
learning and engagement: An interactive gamification solution for a formative assessment system.
Computers & Education, 145, 103729.
Zarzycka-Piskorz, E. (2016). Kahoot it or not? Can games be motivating in learning grammar? Teaching
English with Technology, 16(3), 17–36.
Zenouzagh, Z. M. (2020). Syntactic complexity in individual, collaborative and E-collaborative EFL writing:
mediating role of writing modality, L1 and sustained development in focus. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 68, 2939–2970.

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