A ‘KAHOOT!’ Approach: The Effectiveness of Game-Based Learning for an Advanced Placement Biology Class

Abstract

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!’.

Keywords

Advanced placement biology (AP Biology)educational technology game-based learning gamification ‘KAHOOT!’student engagement

Introduction and Background

Since the start of the 21st century, educational technology has played a major role in students’ academic progress, especially in the area of the sciences in the United States high school education system (Chacko, Appelbaum, Kim, Zhao, & Montclare, 2015; Tarbutton, 2018). The United States government made it a priority that American students have access to adequate resources and programs to motivate more high school students to enter the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields as a career option (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012; Kuenzi, 2008). High schools are trying new ways of incorporating technology into the classrooms to support the new environment: The Digital Era (Gros, 2007; Özer, Kanbul, & Ozdamli, 2018). Bennett et al. describe the Digital Era as the time when “Digital Natives”, a generation of individuals, have been exposed to technology since birth (Bennett, Maton, & Kervin, 2008; Dingli & Seychell, 2015). As a result, teachers are trying to find ways to incorporate technology into their classrooms to make their lectures more interesting and relatable to this new generation of learners, so that they are more autonomous about their education (Domingo & Garganté, 2016; Lacina, 2008; Waghid, 2015). With more schools opting out of using traditional teacher-centered methods and electing for student-centered learning, technology has become a forefront in today’s education system in anticipation that it will increase student motivation and engagement (Hoffmann & Ramirez, 2018; Özer et al., 2018). One such example is gamification—the act of increasing student motivation and enthusiasm to learn by using game-thinking and game mechanics to solve problems and to engage an audience (Cunningham & Zichermann, 2011; Nicholson, 2015; Su, 2015; Whitton, 2007, 2010; Yapıcı & Karakoyun, 2017).

‘KAHOOT!’ is an online gamified pedagogical tool that centers on student engagement and motivation. It is a fast paced assessment tool that resonates like a “game-show”, which allows teachers to monitor the progress of their students while they participate in a “game” (Licorish, Owen, Daniel, & George, 2018). In the past, student response systems (known as “clickers”), such as “iClicker” or “ResponseCard”, have commonly been used at higher education institutions (Hall, Collier, Thomas, & Hilgers, 2005; Mu & Paparas, 2015). The goal of these student response systems is to incorporate and promote student engagement in large lecture halls at the collegiate level, ultimately stimulating active learning rather than passive learning in a teacher-centric environment (Hall et al., 2005; Nielsen, Hansen, & Stav, 2013). However, clickers are a less common assessment tool used at the K-12 level, which is partly the reason why ‘KAHOOT!’ is a popular assessment tool among teachers in the United States (Bicen & Kocakoyun, 2018; Plump & LaRosa, 2017). Due to its accessibility, affordability, and its user-friendly capabilities, teachers can feature a fun and unique student response system that is more enticing to the students compared to conventional student response systems (Licorish et al., 2018). Unlike traditional student response systems, ‘KAHOOT!’ gamified elements integrate vibrancy, lightsome music, and competition that keeps the students on their toes throughout the game (Lin, Ganapathy, & Kaur, 2017; Mu & Paparas, 2015). As a result, the students are completely engrossed in the game while they best demonstrate their knowledge on the subject matter their teacher is assessing them on. Although ‘KAHOOT!’ promotes competition, the game is rarely vicious. Instead, the competition develops “metacognitive abilities, promotes empathy, and builds teamwork skills” (Licorish et al., 2018; Lin et al., 2017). Due to its design, ‘KAHOOT!’ gamification accentuates student motivation and engagement, actively helping students learn even the most difficult subjects such as biology.

In New York State, biology, sometimes referred to as Living Environment, is a required STEM course in the public-school system. Students who choose to further analyze the complexities of biology may decide to take the more advanced course: Advanced Placement (AP) Biology (“The Living Environment Core Curriculum,” 2019).

Traditionally, biology is taught in a teacher-centered style, where the students listen to their teachers as they flip through the PowerPoint presentation that is frequently provided by the textbook company (Connell, Donovan, & Chambers, 2016). The students take notes on the subject matter, and often have minimal participation, ultimately leading to the students having to superficially memorize the material without understanding or being able to apply the information (Connell et al., 2016). Biology is a very conceptual course that requires an immense amount of time and effort to learn the material. In addition, biology courses cover an extensive amount of material from molecular biology to the human body system, that can average over 50 chapters in a textbook, compiled into a short nine months of school (Chiappetta & Fillman, 1998; Çimer, 2012). Students need to be motivated to learn the material to gain the plethora of knowledge biology has to offer. However, many students find this subject to be difficult due to the conceptual nature of the content (Çimer, 2012; Waghid, 2015). As a result of these difficulties, biology has gained a reputation of being an overly complex and mundane subject that can cause some high school students to quickly lose motivation and interest in the subject (Bennett et al., 2008; Gros, 2007; Rouse, 2013).

Lack of motivation among students can be detrimental to a student’s overall education as they are more likely to be labeled as “amotivated” (Richter, Raban, & Rafaeli, 2015; Rouse, 2013). These students are more likely to show characteristics of boredom, poor concentration, and high levels of stress in school (Legault, Pelletier, & Green-Demers, 2006; Rouse, 2013). Besides these consequences of “amotivation,” students may feel frustrated that they are not performing at the appropriate level of their peers, which further diminishes satisfaction in education. As a result, teachers must find ways to increase student motivation and interest, especially in a complicated subject like biology (Hanus & Fox, 2015). Traditional educational methods, such as “frontal teaching,” or “chalk-and-talk,” can lead to disinterest as they do not emphasize student-led creativity, leading to boredom (Dişlen Dağgöl, 2013; Hudson, 2007; Roehl, Reddy, & Shannon, 2013).

Gamification in ‘KAHOOT!’ can increase student engagement by incorporating popular video game tactics (e.g., points, leaderboards, and badges), which have been shown to allure and captivate millions of video game users (Cameron & Bizo, 2019; Ismail & Mohammad, 2017; Nicholson, 2015; Przybylski, Rigby, & Ryan, 2010; Su, 2015; Whitton, 2007, 2010). By using these same elements that game developers incorporate into their games to increase and maintain player engagement, gamifying academic, pedagogical tools can also increase and maintain engagement, thus increasing students’ enthusiasm allowing them to reach their academic achievements and goals (Goehle, 2013; Muntean, 2011; Nah, Zeng, Telaprolu, Ayyappa, & Eschenbrenner, 2014).

Overview of ‘KAHOOT!’

‘KAHOOT!’ (https://kahoot.com/) is a free online game-based platform that allows users to curate their educational multiple-choice assessments that turn into an interactive game for their students (Dellos, 2015). The students can use either their smartphone or laptop to participate in the game. The user can make their multiple-choice questions, or they can use other users’ quizzes, that they can access from the overall ‘KAHOOT!’ platform, for their classroom needs. When the user creates multiple-choice questions, they can customize how long they want to give the students to answer the questions and the number of answers they want to have.

Hypothesis

The use of ‘KAHOOT!’ as a supplement to a traditional teacher-centered lecture setting increases engagement by allowing the students to demonstrate their knowledge in a fun and exciting way. It increases the students’ interest to learn and retain information, therefore helping them remember the topic of Transcription and Translation as they input their answer on the mobile device. The gamification elements in ‘KAHOOT!’ can help students measure their understanding of the material in a fun and non-judgmental atmosphere.

Participation and Experimental Design

A presentation on transcription, translation, and DNA replication (https://archive.engineering.nyu.edu/soar/transcriptiontranslation) was given to a small group of AP Biology students at The Urban Assembly Institute of Math and Science for Young Women before the ‘KAHOOT!’ game. The students consisted of a mixture of 18 junior and senior students (n = 18), ranging from 16 to 18 years. In the presentation, the processes of transcription, translation, and DNA replication were covered with the students (Figure 1a).

Figure 1.

(a) One of the slides from the presentation on transcription, translation, and DNA replication. (b) Snapshot of the simulation video of the 3D structure of tRNA. The presentation and simulation prepared the students for the ‘KAHOOT!’ Game.

The topic of transcription and translation were presented to the entire class using Microsoft PowerPoint and ‘KAHOOT!’. In comparison to the lectures the students were used to, the technology-based presentation was more interactive than their traditional presentation; the students were presented two videos, which were created using Chimera visualization software (Figure 1b) (Pettersen et al., 2004). Instead of using cartoon representation, the videos were compiled using 3-Dimensional structural data obtained from Protein Data Bank (Berman et al., 2000). The 3D structures have been solved by various biologists and biochemists using X-ray crystallography and NMR spectroscopy and depict the actual conformational states of proteins/nucleic acids. The presentation contained all the necessary information that the students needed to answer the questions in the ‘KAHOOT!’ game and was made by researchers comprised of an upper-level undergraduate student, a master student, and a postdoctoral fellow.

The students use the students’ portal, https://kahoot.it/, to access the game. The students would enter the access code into the portal and create an informal name that would be used throughout the game to have an anonymous identity to the user. The anonymous identification allows the students to play the game at their best potential when their actual identities are unknown throughout the game. Once the students enter the game, the ‘KAHOOT!’ software displays the question-answer page for the students so that they can answer the questions on their smartphone or laptop (Figure 2). Once the 20 seconds elapsed, the ‘KAHOOT! Podium’ displays the results of the game. In addition, ‘KAHOOT!’ list the names of students leading in the leaderboard, as well as the correct answer to the question.

Figure 2.

The quiz-answer portal in the ‘KAHOOT!’ Game. The questions appear on the question-answer screen and the students input their answer on their mobile device (or laptop) shown on the right.

After the interactive lesson and game, the students and teacher answered a short post-activity questionnaire. The student’s survey was used to assess the students understanding of Transcription and Translation after using ‘KAHOOT!, to see if they liked using ‘KAHOOT!’ and if they found it to be more engaging compared to their typical lectures. The teacher’s survey was used to evaluate the students’ understanding of Transcription and Translation (from the teacher’s perspective) and if they would incorporate ‘KAHOOT!’ into more lessons plans as an interactive assessment tool.

Experimental Procedure

The students were first given a PowerPoint presentation that covered introductory material called Transcription and Translation. The presentation covered the general concepts of Transcription and Translation and tried to reframe the intricate nuances that tend to bog down students leading to frustration, and in the long run, demotivates them. At the end of the presentation, the students were shown two short 3D visualization structure videos of the steps involved in Transcription and Translation and snapshots of tRNA and nucleosome. These two videos were presented to emphasize the importance of Transcription and Translation, but more importantly, show the students how precise the Transcription and Translation pathway is. In addition, the two visualizations videos were also used to emphasize precision and how mutations can cause structural and cellular disorder—integrating their next unit on Genetics. The videos, which were part of the instructional materials, were prepared by compiling PDB structures in UCSF Chimera software (Berry & Baker, 2010; Gurnon, Voss-Andreae, & Stanley, 2013) (https://archive.engineering.nyu.edu/soar/transcriptiontranslation).

After the researchers presented the instructional material, the students were allowed to use their smartphone device (or computer) to log on to the custom made ‘KAHOOT!’ game (kahoot.biology.lablesson.com). Using their mobile device (or laptop), the students would log in to the ‘KAHOOT!’ portal by entering the Game PIN, which granted them access to the game. Once all the students had entered the portal, the game was started. The students were given 15 multiple-choice questions and were allotted twenty seconds to answer each question in the game. Twenty seconds per question was determined because the teacher had mentioned that the students should be able to answer the multiple choice questions of the AP Exam at an average of twenty seconds.Each question had four answer choices except for question 11, which had three choices. After the 20-second timer expired, the game would present the correct answer and the number of people who selected each option. Once the students finished each round of the game, ‘KAHOOT!’ would present the leader of that particular round. If it was apparent that more than half (≥50%) of the students struggled on a particular question, the researchers would not move on to the next question; instead, they would reinforce why the answer was correct. The students continued to participate in the game until they answered all 15 questions.

After the students played the ‘KAHOOT!’ game, a post-activity survey was given to the students and the teacher. The teacher and students’ responses allowed the researchers to ascertain how well the students comprehended the Transcription and Translation after ‘KAHOOT!’ and their overall interest and motivation to learn while using ‘KAHOOT!’ versus a traditional day in class. The students’ survey consisted of seven questions (Q3 comprised of two distinct parts); five were Likert-like Scale questions using a 1-10 scale where 10 was the greatest and the 1 lowest, the other two questions were “Yes or No” questions, and the seventh question was a free response question (Figure S1). The teacher’s survey consisted of nine questions where six were Likert-like Scale questions using a 1-10 scale where 10 was the greatest and the 1 lowest. Questions 5, 8 and 9 were free response questions that allowed the teacher to verbally express their opinions about the activity and the ‘KAHOOT!’ game (Figure S2).

Data Analysis

The students’ survey data were exported to Microsoft Excel, where data analysis was performed. Descriptive statistics were computed to analyse the demographics of the sample pool. Moreover, maxima, minima, and medians of each Likert-like scale questions were computed. A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient test was performed to test the relationship between the students’ engagement during the ‘KAHOOT!’ game (Figure S1, Q1) and their understanding of Transcription and Translation after the interactive lesson and ‘KAHOOT!’ (Figure S1, Q4). The Correlation and Regression Data Tools in Microsoft Excel were used to compute the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient test and the p-value, respectively. A p-value of less than α=0.05 is considered as significant at 95% confidence interval.

Review: Results

A total of 18 students and a teacher participated in this study. The students consisted of 100% female students with 66.66% African-American, 5.55% Asian, 27.77% Caucasian.

In the Likert-like scale questions for the student’s survey, the students’ responses were evaluated (Table 1). When the students were asked if they enjoyed the lesson and ‘KAHOOT!’ game in Q1 (Figure S1), the students’ response ranged from 3.00 to 10.00 and indicated that a majority of the students enjoyed the PowerPoint on Transcription and Translation and the ‘KAHOOT!’ game (Mdn=8.00). In Q2 (Figure S1), the students were then asked how well they knew Transcription and Translation before the lesson and ‘KAHOOT!’ game (Figure S1). The results from this question ranged from 2.00 to 9.00 (Mdn=7.00). Q3a (Figure S1) was based off a previous “Yes or No” question where it asked the students if the presentation and the ‘KAHOOT!’ game help them better understand Transcription and Translation (Q3). In response to Q3a, five students answered ‘No’ while thirteen of eighteen students answered this question in affirmative, and those students were then directed to answer how well they understood Transcription and Translation after the presentation and ‘KAHOOT!’ game. Using the pool of thirteen students, their comprehension of Transcription and Translation after using ‘KAHOOT!’ ranged from 3.00 to 9.00 (Mdn=7.00). When asked how much the ‘KAHOOT!’ game helped them understand Transcription and Translation in Q4 (Figure S1), the results ranged from 2.00 to 10.00 (Mdn=8.00). This result indicates that ‘KAHOOT!’ help students better understand the material. Q6 (Figure S1) asked about the students’ daily engagement in the class. The students were asked how much they normally enjoy their class; the response ranged from 1.00 to 9.00. As indicated by the teacher, the class is conducted in a teacher-centered discussion-based lecture. Of the eighteen students in this study, five of the students rated their satisfaction with the (traditional) style of the class as less than or equal to five (M=3.40, Mdn=4.00). However, of the five students that were completely dissatisfied with the (traditional) style of the class, their engagement ratings for our lesson and activity were high (based on the comparison of their response to Q1) (M=8.00, Mdn=8.00). The remaining twelve students’ satisfaction with the (traditional) style of the class was greater than five when analyzing the students’ responses to Q6 (M=7.23, Mdn=7.00). In comparison to Q6, the twelve students’ satisfaction, in response to Q1, increased (M=8.23, Mdn=9.00).

Table 1.

The Median From the Students Based on the Respective Questions Asked on the Survey.

Questions	Median
Q1. On a scale of 1-10 (1 being not enjoying it and 10 being thoroughly enjoying it), how much did you enjoy today’s lesson and activity?	8.00
Q2. On a scale of 1-10 (1 being knew nothing about the topic and 10 being complete mastery), how well did you understand the topic before today?	7.00
Q3a. If YES, on a scale of 1-10 (1 being not at all and 10 being very well) how well do you feel you know the topic at hand (Transcription and Translation) now?	7.00
Q4. On a scale of 1-10 (1 being not at all and 10 being a lot), how much did the Kahoot game help you understand the material?	8.00
Q6. On a scale of 1-10 (1 being not at all and 10 being I love it!), how much do you normally enjoy a traditional lecture class?	6.50

In addition to the scaled questions, the students were given two “Yes or No” questions. After the activity, 78% of the students stated that they enjoyed the interactive technology-based lessons more than the traditional lecture class (Q5, Table 2). 72% of the students found that our lesson and activity (‘KAHOOT!’) helped them better learn and understand the lecture on Transcription and Translation when they were asked Q3 (Table 2). Our results in Table 1 indicate that gamification can serve as an effective tool in increasing student engagement in the classroom.

Table 2.

The Number of Student’s Responses and the Percentages Based on the Respective “Yes or No” Questions Asked on the Survey.

Questions	Yes (%)	No (%)
Q3. Did this lesson and activity help you to better understand the topic?	13 (72%)	5 (28%)
Q5. Did you enjoy this style of learning more than a traditional lecture class?	14 (78%)	4 (22%)

A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient test was computed to further assess the relationship of the student’s responses to Q1 and Q4 to compare and contrast enjoyment with content comprehension while using ‘KAHOOT!’. Since Q1 and Q4 asked the students about their enjoyment with ‘KAHOOT!’ and their understanding of Transcription and Translation, respectively, a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient test was the best option to analyze whether or not there was any linear strength between these two questions. Therefore, it allowed for a better analysis of the hypothesis proposed in the experiment. Based on the results, there is a strong positive correlation between the students’ engagement during the ‘KAHOOT!’ game and their understanding of Transcription and Translation after the interactive lesson and ‘KAHOOT!’, r(17) = 0.76, p = 0.0002 on a 95% confidence interval where p < 0.05 is a significant relationship. There appears as though there is a positive correlation between the students’ increased engagement during the lesson and ‘KAHOOT!’ game and their reporting that ‘KAHOOT!’ helped them better understand Transcription and Translation. However, since there were no pre- and post- assessments that quantify an increase in comprehension, the limitation in this study is the students’ surveys themselves.

The teacher involved with the study was given the teacher’s survey (Figure S2). The overall experience of the lesson and the ‘KAHOOT!’ game was rated as highly favorable. The overall experience was rated as a ten on a scale of 1-10. More specifically, when asked how well the students knew Transcription and Translation before the lesson and ‘KAHOOT!’, the students’ knowledge was rated as a seven. When asked to rate the students’ knowledge the day after the activity, the students’ knowledge increased from seven (prior to ‘KAHOOT!’) to nine after ‘KAHOOT!’.

Discussion of the Results

Based on the analysis of the results, ‘KAHOOT!’ can increase engagement in high school students learning biology considering that the 14 out of 18 students stated that they enjoyed the interactive activity more than a traditional lecture class with ‘KAHOOT!’ making learning more pleasurable (Ismail & Mohammad, 2017; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Ryan, Rigby, & Przybylski, 2006; Whitton, 2007, 2010). However, due to the relatively small size of the class and the lack of a control group, there is little quantitative evidence to prove if ‘KAHOOT!’ increased motivation leading to an improvement in the learning outcome and understanding of Transcription and Translation. Further tests with a larger sample pool and more precise questions that specifically identify the change in motivation would be needed to see if ‘KAHOOT!’ truly has an impact on students’ motivation.

According to Iwamoto et al., ‘KAHOOT!’ has “the potential to enhance and improve high-stakes examination scores at the college and university level” and “the experimental group felt positive about their experience.” (Iwamoto, Hargis, Taitano, & Vuong, 2017). However, there is still very little research that supports the usage of ‘KAHOOT!’ in high school STEM classrooms. Needless to say, based on our observations in this study, it was found that by using ‘KAHOOT!’ at The Urban Assembly Institute of Math and Science for Young Women’s, the biology topic of Transcription and Translation was taught in a more engaging and rewarding way; yet increased learning outcomes were not statistically proven (Cheong, Filippou, & Cheong, 2014; Leaning, 2015).

The results from this study support other research on gamification that incorporating gamified elements into a learning platform makes learning abstract, and complex topics such as Transcription and Translation more desirable/manageable (Cameron & Bizo, 2019; Özer et al., 2018). In addition, since the game allows the students to create anonymous usernames, the students that were more reserved and originally reluctant to answer questions proposed by the presenters in the beginning of the experiment were observed working with their classmates even when a majority of them would get a question wrong. Student engagement and enthusiasm with the game support the ideology proposed by other groups that students learn the best when what they are learning excites them (Aboudan, 2011; Daniels, 2011; Iwamoto et al., 2017). Hence, education technology can be used, in moderation, in the classroom to help bring students together and challenge each other in a positive and welcoming environment (Bicen & Kocakoyun, 2018). As observed in the class, the students created their own positive environment through playing and laughter throughout the ‘KAHOOT!’ game, which ultimately amplifies their own learning experience.

In response to Q7,¹ one of the students stated, “I think games make the class [more] lively than lectures.” This supports previous research that game-based learning can be used in the classroom as a supplementary method to encourage student-centered learning and inspire students to be motivated about the material even when there is a sense of heightened anxiety regarding the material and the class (Su, 2015). Although ‘KAHOOT!’ is an assessment tool, the teacher in this study noted that the ‘KAHOOT!’ was especially effective for the students that struggle with reading comprehension as they were able to learn the material through kinesthetic learning, ultimately allowing students that are not linguistic learners to process and comprehend the material through movement as they engage with the music and visual objects (Favre, 2009; Honigsfeld & Dunn, 2009; Johns, 2015). In addition, we believe that the 3D videos allowed the students to remember the visual details of the process of Transcription and Translation.

However, gamification is not for every student. In response to Q7, one student expressed her preference that she “honestly enjoy a discussion-based lecture.” This highlights an important fact that not every student will enjoy gamification and is consistent with previous reports (Whitton, 2010). Some students may find the game to be juvenile since they already mastered the importance of engagement and motivation for better comprehension and overall academic grit (Whitton, 2007). As a result, it is important that teachers recognize their students learning styles and integrate a number of learning styles instead of just one. Due to easy accessibility and affordability of ‘KAHOOT!’, it can be easily paired with other teaching methods. It is likely that over time, more educational technology like ‘KAHOOT!’ will be incorporated into science curriculums as it is accessible to all students and teachers due to the internet, smartphones, and the affordability of online programs (Gryczka, Klementowicz, Sharrock, & Montclare, 2016; Johnson et al., 2016; Lewis, Zhao, & Montclare, 2012).

Conclusion & Future Research

From the enthusiasm in the classroom, it is clear that the overall activity had a positive impact on the students and teacher as the students learned Transcription and Translation in a fun and exciting manner through the use of ‘KAHOOT!’. As a result, we recommend the incorporation of ‘KAHOOT!’ in high school biology classes as it can help engage the students better learn difficult biological topics. Although Transcription and Translation is an extremely complex and abstract concept in biology, ‘KAHOOT!’ incorporates fun into the lesson plan—transforming a lesson that once seemed daunting and mundane to enhancing the student’s personal achievement through academic reinforcement (Cameron & Bizo, 2019). The young women at The Urban Assembly Institute of Math and Science for Young Women greatly appreciated the activity as it helped them better understand Transcription and Translation. The teacher was delighted about students’ participation in the activity and highly recommends using ‘KAHOOT!’ to reinforce the lecture material to other science teachers and well as implementing it into his own curriculum. Due to the limitations in the data collection and the small sample size, we propose that we conduct and collect data over a longer period of time with a larger sample size (e.g. the entirety of Unit 4: Genes to Proteins outlined by The College Board—Makers of the Advanced Placement Examination (“Pre-AP® Biology Course Guide,” 2018)) versus solely Transcription and Translation to further test student engagement and to see how ‘KAHOOT!’ truly affects the self-determination theory and quantify improvements in academic achievements . We will continue to collaborate with the teachers at The Urban Assembly Institute of Math and Science for Young Women to encourage the STEM field in exciting and interesting ways by providing engaging activities and realistic visualizations that are not supported by their textbooks. Lastly, we will continue our research on the impact of technology and gamification in STEM classrooms.

Supplemental Material

Jones_et_al_Supplementary_info_2019_06_7 – Supplemental material for A ‘KAHOOT!’ Approach: The Effectiveness of Game-Based Learning for an Advanced Placement Biology Class

Supplemental material, Jones_et_al_Supplementary_info_2019_06_7 for A ‘KAHOOT!’ Approach: The Effectiveness of Game-Based Learning for an Advanced Placement Biology Class by Serena M. Jones, Priya Katyal, Xuan Xie, Madeleine P. Nicolas, Eric M. Leung, Damon M. Noland and Jin Kim Montclare in Simulation & Gaming

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank UAI for allowing us to conduct this research activity with their students as well as the NSF for funding this research activity.

Authors’ Contributions

SMJ created the presentation, questions for the ‘KAHOOT!’ Game, the survey questions, and drafted the manuscript. PK developed the Chimera visualizations and videos, assisted in presentation and edited the manuscript. XX assisted in presentation and developing the Chimera visualizations and videos. MPN and EML transferred our content accessible URLs. JKM and DNM conceived this study. All the authors’ read and approved the final manuscript.

Availability of Data and Materials

All materials that were used to develop a conclusion can be found in the links embedded in the manuscript and in the supporting information section.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the NSF-DMREF under Award Number DMR 1728858 and NSF-MRSEC Program under Award Number DMR 1420073.

IRB Statement

This research was approved by both New York University’s Institutional Review Board and New York City Department of Education Institutional Review Board.

Notes

Author Biographies

Serena M. Jones is a senior studying BioMolecular Science at NYU Tandon School of Engineering. For the last two years, she has been working on chemistry and biology simulations and prelab activities for high school student. After graduation, she will be applying to medical school to pursue a career in medicine.

Contact: smj431@nyu.edu

Priya Katyal completed her PhD in Pharmaceutical Sciences from the University of Connecticut. She is a postdoctoral associate in professor Montclare’s lab at the New York University. Her research is focused on developing protein-based biomaterials. She contributes to outreach programs for students with a particular focus on STEM education.

Contact: priya.katyal@nyu.edu

Xuan Xie received a Master of Science degree in chemistry from New York University in 2018. After graduation, she joined Bayer Healthcare as a business intelligence and automation specialist. Currently, she works at AstraZeneca as a China Operations trainee.

Contact: xx620@nyu.edu

Madeleine P. Nicolas is a recent ‘19 graduate from New York University Tandon School of Engineering, where she studied Computer Science, Digital Media, and Studio Art. Her work includes various interactive artistic and educational media, and she is currently working as a software engineer at Curriculum Associates, developing learning games to teach students fundamental math concepts.

Contact: mpn272@nyu.edu

Eric M. Leung is a junior studying computer science at NYU Tandon School of Engineering. During the school year, he develops chemistry simulations for high school students. This upcoming summer he will work at Facebook as an engineer.

Contact: ericleung@nyu.edu

Damon M. Noland is an 8th and 9th grade teacher of Living Environment at the Urban Assembly Institute of Math and Science for Young Women. This is his 9th year teaching Science in a school which focuses on providing young women equitable opportunity and access to STEM education and careers.

Contact: damonn@uainstitute.org

Jin Kim Montclare is a professor of Chemical and Bimolecular Engineering at the NYU Tandon School of Engineering. She runs a research group that specializes in synthetic biology with a focus on protein design as well as an outreach program to engage K-12 students in STEM.

Contact: montclare@nyu.edu

References

Aboudan

(2011). Engage them, don’t enrage them—Student voices and what it takes to participate. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 128-134.

Bennett

Maton

K. A.

Kervin

(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

Berman

H. M.

Westbrook

Feng

Gilliland

Bhat

T. N.

Weissig

. . . Bourne

P. E.

(2000). The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Research, 28, 235-242. doi:10.1093/nar/28.1.235

Berry

Baker

M. D.

(2010). Inside protein structures: Teaching in three dimensions. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 38(6), 425-429. doi:10.1002/bmb.20434

Bicen

Kocakoyun

(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

Cameron

K. E.

Bizo

L. 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

Chacko

Appelbaum

Kim

Zhao

Montclare

J. K.

(2015). Integrating technology in STEM education. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 5(1), 5-14. doi:10.3926/jotse.124

Cheong

Filippou

Cheong

(2014). Towards the gamification of learning: Investigating student perceptions of game elements. Journal of Information Systems Education, 25(3), 233-244.

Chiappetta

E. L.

Fillman

D. A.

(1998). Clarifying the place of essential topics and unifying principles in high school biology. School Science and Mathematics, 98(1), 12-18.

10.

Çimer

(2012). What makes biology learning difficult and effective: Students’ views. Educational Research and Reviews, 7(3), 61-71. doi:10.5897/ERR11.205

11.

Connell

G. L.

Donovan

D. A.

Chambers

T. 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.

Cunningham

Zichermann

(2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics in Web and mobile apps. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.

13.

Daniels

(2011). Creating motivating learning environments: Teachers matter. Middle School Journal, 43(2), 32-37. doi:10.1080/00940771.2011.11461799

14.

Dellos

(2015). Kahoot! A digital game resource for learning. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 12(4), 49-52.

15.

Dingli

Seychell

(2015). The new digital natives: Cutting the chord. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

16.

Dişlen Dağgöl

. (2013). The reasons of lack of motivation from the students’ and teachers’ voices. The Journal of Academic Social Science, 1(1), 35-45.

17.

Domingo

M. G.

Garganté

A. 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.

Favre

L. R.

(2009). Kinesthetic instructional strategies: Moving at-risk learners to higher levels. Insights on Learning Disabilities, 6(1), 29-35.

19.

Goehle

(2013). Gamification and web-based homework. PRIMUS, 23(3), 234-246. doi:10.1080/10511970.2012.736451

20.

Gonzalez

H. B.

Kuenzi

J. J.

(2012). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: A primer. Washington, D. C.: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from http://www.stemedcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/STEM-Education-Primer.pdf

21.

Gros

(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.

Gryczka

Klementowicz

Sharrock

Montclare

J. K.

(2016). Interactive online physics labs increase high school students’ interest. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 6(3), 166-187.

23.

Gurnon

Voss-Andreae

Stanley

(2013). Integrating art and science in undergraduate education. PLoS Biology, 11(2), 1-4. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001491

24.

Hall

R. H.

Collier

H. L.

Thomas

M. L.

Hilgers

M. G.

(2005). A student response system for increasing engagement, motivation, and learning in high enrollment lectures. In AMCIS 2005 Proceedings, Omaha, NE, USA, 11-15 August 2005 (pp. 621-626).

25.

Hanus

M. D.

Fox

(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.

Hoffmann

M. M.

Ramirez

A. Y. F.

(2018). Students’ attitudes toward teacher use of technology in classrooms. 21st Century Learning & Multicultural Education, 25(2), 51-56.

27.

Honigsfeld

Dunn

(2009). Learning-style responsive approaches for teaching typically performing and at-risk adolescents. The Clearing House, 82(5), 220-224.

28.

Hudson

(2007). High-impact teaching for science. Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 53(4), 18-22.

29.

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. doi:10.21315/eimj2017.9.2.2

30.

Iwamoto

D. H.

Hargis

Taitano

E. J.

Vuong

(2017). Analyzing the efficacy of the testing effect using Kahoot™ on student performance. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18(2), 80-93.

31.

Johns

(2015). Engaging and assessing students with technology: A review of Kahoot! Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 81(4), 89-91.

32.

Johnson

Deterding

Kuhn

K.-A.

Staneva

Stoyanov

Hides

(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.

Kuenzi

J. 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.

Lacina

(2008). Technology in the classroom: Learning English with iPods. Childhood Education, 84(4), 247-249. doi:10.1080/00094056.2008.10523019

35.

Leaning

(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.

Legault

Pelletier

Green-Demers

(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.

Lewis

M. S.

Zhao

Montclare

J. 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.

Licorish

S. A.

Owen

H. E.

Daniel

George

J. 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.

Lin

D. T. A.

Ganapathy

Kaur

(2017). Kahoot! it: Gamification in higher education. Pertanika Journal: Social Sciences & Humanities, 26(1), 565-582.

40.

The living environment core curriculum. (2019). Retrieved from http://www.nysed.gov/common/nysed/files/programs/curriculum-instruction/livingen.pdf

41.

Paparas

(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.

Muntean

C. I.

(2011). Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification. In The 6th International Conference on Virtual Learning ICVL Romania, 28-28 October 2011 (pp. 323-329).

43.

Nah

F. F.-H.

Zeng

Telaprolu

V. R.

Ayyappa

A. P.

Eschenbrenner

(2014). Gamification of education: A review of literature. Paper presented at the HCI in Business, 22-27 June, Cham, Switzerland.

44.

Nicholson

(2015). A RECIPE for meaningful gamification. In Reiners

Wood

L. C.

(Eds.), Gamification in education and business (pp. 1-20). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

45.

Nielsen

K. L.

Hansen

Stav

J. 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.

Özer

H. H.

Kanbul

Ozdamli

(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.

Pettersen

E. F.

Goddard

T. D.

Huang

C. C.

Couch

G. S.

Greenblatt

D. M.

Meng

E. C.

Ferrin

T. 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.

Plump

C. M.

LaRosa

(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

49.

Pre-AP® biology course guide. (2018). Retrieved from https://pre-ap.collegeboard.org/pdf/pre-ap-biology-cg-wr.pdf

50.

Przybylski

A. K.

Rigby

C. S.

Ryan

R. M.

(2010). A motivational model of video game engagement. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 154-166. doi:10.1037/a0019440

51.

Richter

Raban

D. R.

Rafaeli

(2015). Studying gamification: The effect of rewards and incentives on motivation. In Reiners

Wood

L. C.

(Eds.), Gamification in Education and Business (pp. 21-46). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

52.

Roehl

Reddy

S. L.

Shannon

G. 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.

Rouse

K. E.

(2013). Gamification in science education: The relationship of educational games to motivation and achievement. Dissertations, 622, 1-116.

54.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.

55.

Ryan

R. M.

Rigby

C. S.

Przybylski

(2006). the motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30(4), 344-360.

56.

C.-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.

Tarbutton

(2018). Leveraging 21st century learning & technology to create caring diverse classroom cultures. Multicultural Education, 25(2), 4-6.

58.

Waghid

(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.

Whitton

(2007). Motivation and computer game based learning. Proceedings Ascilite, 2-5 December, Singapore.

60.

Whitton

(2010). Game engagement theory and adult learning. Simulation & Gaming, 42(5), 596-609. doi:10.1177/1046878110378587

61.

Yapıcı

İ. Ü.

Karakoyun

. (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.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB