Background.Keeping high school students engaged and motivated to learn complex scientific concepts can be difficult and challenging; this is especially true if the task feels daunting and unfamiliar to the students. Incorporating educational technology, such as KAHOOT, into the classroom can help students learn scientific material even when it is difficult.
Aim. Our objective is to determine the effectiveness of gamification in an Advanced Placement Biology (AP biology) classroom by using the online game ‘KAHOOT!’ as a supplement to traditional teacher-centered learning. In addition, we determine the use of ‘KAHOOT!’ in enhancing student engagement and the learning experience for biology.
Methods. A presentation on Transcription and Translation was given to a small group of high school AP Biology students (n = 18, 18 women). After the presentation, the students were given 15 questions and twenty seconds to answer each question in the ‘KAHOOT!’ game. Both the students and the teacher were given a post-activity survey to assess their interest in the activity.
Results. Based on the responses in the Students’ Survey, ‘KAHOOT!’ can be used as a gamified assessment tool to help students learn the topic of ‘Transcription and Translation’ by actively engaging them in a fun and exciting manner.
Conclusion. The overall activity had a positive impact on the students and teacher as the students enjoyed learning Transcription and Translation through the use of ‘KAHOOT!’.
AboudanR. (2011). Engage them, don’t enrage them—Student voices and what it takes to participate. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 128-134.
2.
BennettS.MatonK. A.KervinL. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775-786. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x
3.
BermanH. M.WestbrookJ.FengZ.GillilandG.BhatT. N.WeissigH.. . . BourneP. E. (2000). The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Research, 28, 235-242. doi:10.1093/nar/28.1.235
4.
BerryC.BakerM. D. (2010). Inside protein structures: Teaching in three dimensions. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 38(6), 425-429. doi:10.1002/bmb.20434
5.
BicenH.KocakoyunS. (2018). Perceptions of students for gamification approach: Kahoot as a Case Study. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 13(2), 72-93. doi:10.3991/ijet.v13i02.7467
6.
CameronK. E.BizoL. A. (2019). Use of the game-based learning platform KAHOOT! to facilitate learner engagement in Animal Science students. Research in Learning Technology, 27, 1-14. doi:10.25304/rlt.v27.2225
7.
ChackoP.AppelbaumS.KimH.ZhaoJ.MontclareJ. K. (2015). Integrating technology in STEM education. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 5(1), 5-14. doi:10.3926/jotse.124
8.
CheongC.FilippouJ.CheongF. (2014). Towards the gamification of learning: Investigating student perceptions of game elements. Journal of Information Systems Education, 25(3), 233-244.
9.
ChiappettaE. L.FillmanD. A. (1998). Clarifying the place of essential topics and unifying principles in high school biology. School Science and Mathematics, 98(1), 12-18.
10.
ÇimerA. (2012). What makes biology learning difficult and effective: Students’ views. Educational Research and Reviews, 7(3), 61-71. doi:10.5897/ERR11.205
11.
ConnellG. L.DonovanD. A.ChambersT. G. (2016). Increasing the use of student-centered pedagogies from moderate to high improves student learning and attitudes about biology. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(1), 1-15. doi:10.1187/cbe.15-03-0062
12.
CunninghamC.ZichermannG. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics in Web and mobile apps. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
DellosR. (2015). Kahoot! A digital game resource for learning. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 12(4), 49-52.
15.
DingliA.SeychellD. (2015). The new digital natives: Cutting the chord. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
16.
Dişlen DağgölG. (2013). The reasons of lack of motivation from the students’ and teachers’ voices. The Journal of Academic Social Science, 1(1), 35-45.
17.
DomingoM. G.GargantéA. B. (2016). Exploring the use of educational technology in primary education: Teachers’ perception of mobile technology learning impacts and applications’ use in the classroom. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 21-28. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.023
18.
FavreL. R. (2009). Kinesthetic instructional strategies: Moving at-risk learners to higher levels. Insights on Learning Disabilities, 6(1), 29-35.
19.
GoehleG. (2013). Gamification and web-based homework. PRIMUS, 23(3), 234-246. doi:10.1080/10511970.2012.736451
GrosB. (2007). Digital games in education: The design of games-based learning environments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 23-38. doi:10.1080/15391523.2007.10782494
22.
GryczkaP.KlementowiczE.SharrockC.MontclareJ. K. (2016). Interactive online physics labs increase high school students’ interest. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 6(3), 166-187.
23.
GurnonD.Voss-AndreaeJ.StanleyJ. (2013). Integrating art and science in undergraduate education. PLoS Biology, 11(2), 1-4. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001491
24.
HallR. H.CollierH. L.ThomasM. L.HilgersM. G. (2005). A student response system for increasing engagement, motivation, and learning in high enrollment lectures. In AMCIS 2005 Proceedings, Omaha, NE, USA, 11-15 August 2005 (pp. 621-626).
25.
HanusM. D.FoxJ. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Computers & Education, 80, 152-161. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.019
26.
HoffmannM. M.RamirezA. Y. F. (2018). Students’ attitudes toward teacher use of technology in classrooms. 21st Century Learning & Multicultural Education, 25(2), 51-56.
27.
HonigsfeldA.DunnR. (2009). Learning-style responsive approaches for teaching typically performing and at-risk adolescents. The Clearing House, 82(5), 220-224.
28.
HudsonP. (2007). High-impact teaching for science. Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 53(4), 18-22.
29.
IsmailM. A.-A.MohammadJ. A.-M. (2017). Kahoot: A promising tool for formative assessment in medical education. Education in Medicine Journal, 9(2), 19-26. doi:10.21315/eimj2017.9.2.2
30.
IwamotoD. H.HargisJ.TaitanoE. J.VuongK. (2017). Analyzing the efficacy of the testing effect using Kahoot™ on student performance. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18(2), 80-93.
31.
JohnsK. (2015). Engaging and assessing students with technology: A review of Kahoot!Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 81(4), 89-91.
32.
JohnsonD.DeterdingS.KuhnK.-A.StanevaA.StoyanovS.HidesL. (2016). Gamification for health and wellbeing: A systematic review of the literature. Internet Interventions, 6, 89-106. doi:10.1016/j.invent.2016.10.002
33.
KuenziJ. J. (2008). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: Background, federal policy, and legislative action. Washington, D. C.: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/crsdocs/35/
34.
LacinaJ. (2008). Technology in the classroom: Learning English with iPods. Childhood Education, 84(4), 247-249. doi:10.1080/00094056.2008.10523019
35.
LeaningM. (2015). A study of the use of games and gamification to enhance student engagement, experience and achievement on a theory-based course of an undergraduate media degree. Journal of Media Practice, 16(2), 155-170. doi:10.1080/14682753.2015.1041807
36.
LegaultL.PelletierL.Green-DemersI. (2006). Why do high school students lack motivation in the classroom? Toward an understanding of academic amotivation and the role of social support. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 567-582. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.567
37.
LewisM. S.ZhaoJ.MontclareJ. K. (2012). Development and implementation of high school chemistry modules using touch-screen technologies. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(8), 1012-1018. doi:10.1021/ed200484n
38.
LicorishS. A.OwenH. E.DanielB.GeorgeJ. L. (2018). Students’ perception of Kahoot!’s influence on teaching and learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 13(1), Article 9. doi:10.1186/s41039-018-0078-8
39.
LinD. T. A.GanapathyM.KaurM. (2017). Kahoot! it: Gamification in higher education. Pertanika Journal: Social Sciences & Humanities, 26(1), 565-582.
MuH.PaparasD. (2015). Incorporating the advantages of clickers and mobile devices to teach Economics to non-economists. Cogent Economics & Finance, 3(1), 1099802. doi:10.1080/23322039.2015.1099802
42.
MunteanC. I. (2011). Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification. In The 6th International Conference on Virtual Learning ICVLRomania, 28-28 October 2011 (pp. 323-329).
43.
NahF. F.-H.ZengQ.TelaproluV. R.AyyappaA. P.EschenbrennerB. (2014). Gamification of education: A review of literature. Paper presented at the HCI in Business, 22-27 June, Cham, Switzerland.
44.
NicholsonS. (2015). A RECIPE for meaningful gamification. In ReinersT.WoodL. C. (Eds.), Gamification in education and business (pp. 1-20). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
45.
NielsenK. L.HansenG.StavJ. B. (2013). Teaching with student response systems (SRS): Teacher-centric aspects that can negatively affect students’ experience of using SRS. Research in Learning Technology, 21, 1-13.
46.
ÖzerH. H.KanbulS.OzdamliF. (2018). Effects of the gamification supported flipped classroom model on the attitudes and opinions regarding game-coding education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 13(1), 109-123.
47.
PettersenE. F.GoddardT. D.HuangC. C.CouchG. S.GreenblattD. M.MengE. C.FerrinT. E. (2004 ). UCSF Chimera – A Visualization System for Exploratory Research and Analysis. Journal of Computational Chemistry, 25(13), 1605-1612. doi:10.1002/jcc.20084
48.
PlumpC. M.LaRosaJ. (2017). Using Kahoot! In the classroom to create engagement and active learning: A game-based technology solution for eLearning novices. Management Teaching Review, 2(2), 151-158. doi:10.1177/2379298116689783
PrzybylskiA. K.RigbyC. S.RyanR. M. (2010). A motivational model of video game engagement. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 154-166. doi:10.1037/a0019440
51.
RichterG.RabanD. R.RafaeliS. (2015). Studying gamification: The effect of rewards and incentives on motivation. In ReinersT.WoodL. C. (Eds.), Gamification in Education and Business (pp. 21-46). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
52.
RoehlA.ReddyS. L.ShannonG. J. (2013). The flipped classroom: An opportunity to engage millennial students through active learning. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 105(2), 44-49.
53.
RouseK. E. (2013). Gamification in science education: The relationship of educational games to motivation and achievement. Dissertations, 622, 1-116.
54.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
55.
RyanR. M.RigbyC. S.PrzybylskiA. (2006). the motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30(4), 344-360.
56.
SuC.-H. (2015). The effects of students’ motivation, cognitive load and learning anxiety in gamification software engineering education: a structural equation modeling study. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 75(16), 10013-10036. doi:10.1007/s11042-015-2799-7
57.
TarbuttonT. (2018). Leveraging 21st century learning & technology to create caring diverse classroom cultures. Multicultural Education, 25(2), 4-6.
58.
WaghidF. (2015). On the democratisation of science education through Facebook: Implications for autonomy, equality and teacher education at universities. South African Journal of Higher Education, 29(2), 298-314.
59.
WhittonN. (2007). Motivation and computer game based learning. Proceedings Ascilite, 2-5 December, Singapore.
60.
WhittonN. (2010). Game engagement theory and adult learning. Simulation & Gaming, 42(5), 596-609. doi:10.1177/1046878110378587
61.
Yapıcıİ. Ü.KarakoyunF. (2017). Gamification in biology teaching: A sample of Kahoot application. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry (TOJQI), 8(4), 395-414. doi:10.17569/tojqi.335956
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
