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