On the Horizon

Innovation in the teaching-learning process: the case of Kahoot!

Juan José Guardia, José Luis Del Olmo, Iván Roa, Vanesa Berlanga,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Juan José Guardia, José Luis Del Olmo, Iván Roa, Vanesa Berlanga, (2019) "Innovation in the teaching-learning process:
the case of Kahoot!", On the Horizon , https://doi.org/10.1108/OTH-11-2018-0035
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/OTH-11-2018-0035
Downloaded on: 18 February 2019, At: 07:16 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 35 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW At 07:16 18 February 2019 (PT)

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 5 times since 2019*

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:327772 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Innovation in the teaching-learning
process: the case of Kahoot!
Juan José Guardia, José Luis Del Olmo, Iván Roa and Vanesa Berlanga

Abstract Juan José Guardia,

Purpose – In recent years, a process of reform and innovation in higher education has been witnessed. A José Luis Del Olmo,
change in the evaluation of student learning in universities is necessary for new teaching-learning Iván Roa and
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW At 07:16 18 February 2019 (PT)

proposals to be developed. The authors propose implementing a learning assessment process based on Vanesa Berlanga all are
the idea of participatory evaluation, verifying the benefits of this method in the acquisition of cross- based at Universitat Abat
disciplinary skills.
Oliba CEU de Barcelona,
Design/methodology/approach – The method implemented follows the principles of action research.
Barcelona, Catalunya,
Findings – The Kahoot! app has an effect on the teaching-learning process and on the training skills and
Spain.
academic performance measured through the student’s grades.
Originality/value – This paper presents an innovation proposal that aims to observe how students
acquire more competences.
Keywords Skills, Higher education, Gamification, Learning process, Teaching innovation process
Paper type Case study

1. Introduction
This project is situated within the framework of current higher education, with steps leading
to the creation and development of a teaching climate that considers ways of assessing
students markedly different from traditional methods. According to Prensky (2005), current
classes are plagued with obsolete teaching formats. Nevertheless, in recent years we have
witnessed a process of reform and innovation in higher education. This is why many of the
teachers working in higher education are trying to adapt to this new trend. According to
Lopez (2014), to implement a process of teaching innovation, “a change in educational
proposals that break with the linearity of the classic teaching-learning processes and a
break with the hierarchical model of knowledge transmission” are necessary. In other
words, a more flexible teaching-learning model must be achieved. For this to be possible,
the involvement of the teacher in the classroom is essential. This in turn will require, as
indicated by Molina (2012), “a change of mentality in the way of conceiving education in
general, and the teaching-learning process in particular”.
Lister and College (2015) stress that today’s students are tech-savvy and expect to be
committed. Therefore, changes need to be introduced into teaching methods and new
information and communication technologies (ICTs) should be adopted, as these can
provide new tools to be incorporated into teaching-learning processes.
In an environment in which the use of ICTs is increasing, the role of the teacher must also
evolve, adapting to changes, moving from being “the sage on the stage to guide on the
side” (King, 1993). That is, the teacher must change from being a simple speaker and
transmitter of knowledge in the classroom, as the sole source of all knowledge, to also act
as a guide and accompanist in the learning process of students. To do this, the teacher
needs to pursue new educational methods, often based on new technologies, to create

DOI 10.1108/OTH-11-2018-0035 © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1074-8121 j ON THE HORIZON j

 teaching materials capable of motivating the student while helping them in their learning
process.
The motivating aspect of this project is the desire to create an innovative evaluation model,
different from traditional methods, through the use of ICTs. For Hornby (2000), “evaluate”
means to assess something after careful thought. In other words, quantitatively qualifying
and assessing the results of something. In this regard, in the case of teaching, in which the
aim is to judge the student’s degree of learning, the academic performance of the students
must be evaluated. Often teachers themselves find it difficult to find the right instruments to
conveniently evaluate their students in a reliable and valid way, resulting in them resorting to
the well-known exams.
This study aims to contemplate and ease the consequent drawbacks that this traditional
evaluation system presents from the point of view of the skills and competences acquired
by the students. In agreement with Sana et al. (2013), to change the learning of students,
the ways of evaluating that learning will first need to be changed. To develop an innovative
learning method, firstly, attention must be paid as to how and to what extent such learning
takes place, depending on the mechanisms used by teachers to transmit information to the
students. For this, Dale (1969) developed the famous “Cone of Experience”. This cone
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW At 07:16 18 February 2019 (PT)

shows the degree of learning obtained according to the educational method used. In
the upper part of the cone, which shows the lowest degree of learning, is “oral expression”.
The bottom part of the cone refers to “direct experience”; in other words, the student him/
herself carries out the activity. Through this method, a greater degree of learning is
achieved. Subsequently, the study of Dale (1969) was adapted by Glasser (1998), who,
applying “Choice Theory in Education”, developed the “Learning Pyramid”. In his pyramid,
Glasser (1998) relates the degree of retention by the student depending on the educational
method implemented by the teacher. Glasser’s idea is that the teaching-learning process
should not focus on memorization, as the student will end up forgetting the concepts once
they have been assessed. From the Learning Pyramid, it is clear that the assimilation of
knowledge of a person will be greater as the level at which they are involved in the teaching
activity increases.
As highlighted by Esteve (2009), teaching practices often remain one-way, involving little
participation from the students. Thanks to the contributions of Dale (1969) and Glasser
(1998), today we know how we learn. From these studies, it is clear that the best teaching
method is that of learning-by-doing (Regueras et al., 2009). The teacher goes from acting
under the role of the only transmitter of knowledge to playing the role of guide in the
construction of this knowledge (Wang, 2015). It is only in this way that students will be able
to develop good thinking practices.
With the use of an evaluation system different from traditional methods and through
participative evaluation and collaborative work, a more personalized attention is provided
by the teacher to the student, both of whom become jointly responsible for the student’s
evaluation. This in turn allows not only the learning process to be enhanced, but also that
students acquire and/or improve various cross-disciplinary skills such as teamwork,
interdependence, independence, oral expression, critical competence, as well as the
specific skills required for each subject. Participative evaluation is understood as that
teaching method that results in a greater depth and range of student participation, in which
students become empowered and in which an improvement in educational development
projects is achieved. Collaborative learning is understood as the method in which students
work in small groups. Regueras et al. (2009) showed that students immersed in a
collaborative learning method achieved higher levels of thinking and retained information for
longer than those who used an individual method. As shown by Tsihouridis et al. (2018), this
is because students who used a collaborative learning method had the opportunity to
discuss and take responsibility for their own learning.

j ON THE HORIZON j
 However, it is also important to point out the nature of students: digital natives extremely
interested in new technologies, which they use widely (Prensky, 2001). This is why a high
technological content is included in the innovative teaching method proposed. A fun and
motivating way for the student to make learning activities more active and participatory
through the use of ICTs in the classroom (Glover, 2013) is the use of gamification
mechanisms. This term was coined in 2008 but was not widely used until 2010 (McGonigal,
2011). Gamification involves the incorporation of gaming elements in a context different
from the usual recreational environment (Deterding et al., 2011) to stimulate both
competition and cooperation between players (Kapp, 2012). In education, it can be
identified with the design of learning scenarios involving ingenious and attractive activities
that promote task solving in an innovative and collaborative way (Lee and Hammer, 2011),
encouraging students to overcome challenges and to improve their skill levels. Gamification
is seen as a tool to improve students’ commitment, motivation, attendance and academic
performance (Hung, 2017). In short, the purpose of gamification is to ensure that users
(students) learn and consolidate their knowledge using game elements.
Another factor to take into account is that the group of students at the receiving end of this
teaching experience all belong to what has come to be called “Generation Z” (Fernández
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW At 07:16 18 February 2019 (PT)

Cruz and Fernández Dı́az, 2016). This category includes those born between 1995 and
2012, differentiating them from the so-called “Generation Y” (also known as “Millennial
Generation” or “millennials”), which includes those born between 1977 and 1994. This
taxonomy certainly lends itself to controversy, since it presents many rigorous limits that
may not explain the real situation in each country, or human community. In this regard,
Masco  (2012) proposed a different classification, namely subdividing Generation Z into two
groups: the first, designated Z1, which includes those born between 1990 and 2000, and
the second, Z2, which includes those born since 2005.
However, we can affirm that the students who have participated in this teaching innovation
project belong, according to their age, to Generation Z. Having established this premise, it
remains to be determined whether the traits of this generation contribute or not to the
application of gamification as a teaching technique (Harel and Papert, 1991; Krathwohl,
2002). Without being exhaustive, (Fernández Cruz and Fernández Dı́az, 2016), it could be
said that the defining features are experts in the understanding of technology; able to
multitask; socially open through new technologies; quick; and impatient, interactive and
resilient.
The behavioral characteristics of members of Generation Z described above suggest that
gamification, even before its empirical verification, might be a very effective method.
Indeed, it must be recognized that they are students who have grown up surrounded by
video games and therefore very dependent on quick feedback and immediate rewards. In
addition, as is known, they are always connected to social networks where there is great
interaction, even with simultaneous participation in various telematics platforms. It is
necessary to stress that a large part of these characteristics were already present in the
previous generation (the “millennials”), but that some of their tendencies are accentuated. If
scientific literature has already confirmed (Teixes, 2014) the “suitability of gamification to
influence the behaviours” of the Millennium Generation a fortiori, the same should be
concluded with Generation Z.
It is necessary to point out that the aim of this work is to analyze the potential of gamification
in the so-called Alpha Generation, or “Google Kids” (Grail Research, 2011), i.e. the first
generation of the twenty-firs century, which has not yet reached university age. These
students are characterized by adopting technology even more quickly than previous
generations and by staying longer in formal education when schooling is generalized (not
compulsory) in the early years of primary education, namely, from 0 to 6 years old
(Fernández Cruz and Fernández Dı́az, 2016).

j ON THE HORIZON j
 On the other hand, it should also be noted that in recent years the digital platform “Kahoot!”
has become a digital gamification tool for student response that has been used to involve
students through questionnaires (Dellos, 2015). Kahoot! is a free gamification tool that
“constitutes an online platform for conducting multiple-choice tests” (Guardia, 2017). This
tool can be found both in web (getkahoot.com) and mobile app format, both for Android
and for iPhone. Therefore, the contribution of Glasser (1998) in regard to the level of
learning achieved by the student, together with ICTs and their relationship with students as
digital natives (Prensky, 2001), as well as the use of gamification elements, specifically of
the digital tool Kahoot!, led to the teaching method set out in this paper.
Undoubtedly, the current debate around the evaluation mechanisms that guarantee
learning objectives requires the development of longitudinal and contextualized studies that
help explain the different realities. The aim of this article is to present the results of a more
extensive investigation directed to:

1.1 Objectives linked to the monitoring and evaluation of the project

䊏 Fostering cross-disciplinary skills: the capacity for self-learning and independence, the
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW At 07:16 18 February 2019 (PT)

capacity for decision-making and communicative capacity linked to the assessment

evidence.
䊏 Increasing the motivation of the students by giving them the independence to
appropriate their learning process. The lack of motivation of university students is a
worrying fact that threatens their learning; hence, we consider it important to propose
tools and strategies that can help increase their motivation and involvement.
䊏 Building curricular globality in the students, giving them the opportunity to achieve a
holistic view of the subjects involved. The segmentation of the curriculum often
prevents this holistic view necessary for the comprehensive skill development and
future professional practice of students.
䊏 The evaluation of the impact of the application of the project on student learning.

2. Materials and methods

2.1 Procedure
Our working hypothesis is that the proposed innovative method better results in learning
and basic skills than traditional educational methods. To verify this proposition in the
classroom, both teaching methods (traditional and innovative) were implemented, and the
skills acquired or developed by the students through the use of each were evaluated.
On the one hand, a multiple-choice test (Test) was carried out as a reflection of the
traditional evaluation method, which consisted of ten questions with four possible answers
each. This test, which required completely individualized preparation (Study) and
completion, was based on the material previously explained in the classroom.
On the other hand, the proposed teaching method was developed using ICTs. Our
contribution to the educational method is a variant of preparation of teaching materials by
the students and their implementation in the classroom through gamification. First, students
created work groups of between 3-6 individuals. Each group was assigned a topic from the
teaching guide of the subject. Each of these groups prepared several questions with
possible answers, of which only one was implemented in a classroom session using
Kahoot! as a multiple choice test game to ask review questions to students. It is a free
platform that allows the creation of evaluation questionnaires (available in app or web
version). Students choose their username and answer a series of questions via a mobile
device. Possible answers can be modified and photos or videos can be added. Finally,

j ON THE HORIZON j
 whoever gets the highest score wins. Prior to the presentation of the activity in the
classroom, the teacher monitored the work carried out by each group. On the day of the
implementation of the activity in the classroom, each group presented their Kahoot! to
the rest of the classmates, who responded through their mobile devices or laptops to the
questions asked by the presenting group. Each member of the working group undertook
the role of teacher in the classroom during that time, at which time the teacher was
relegated to simple observer, mediator and participant of the activity. The members of the
group performing the teaching tasks had to be able to justify each of the questions/
answers, as well as the questions raised by other students and/or the teacher him/herself.
The aims of gamification (Teixes, 2014; Guardia and Pesqueira, 2017) could be
defined as “the result that the players want to achieve by their participation in the
game”. In our case, with the method described above, the application of Kahoot!
generated two types of goals. For students who undertook the role of teacher and who
proposed to the rest of the classroom a series of questions through Kahoot!, the
teacher evaluated the performance of that group through a rubric that had been
provided previously to the students. This rubric evaluated five items: writing,
audiovisual resources, quality of the answers, relation to the contents of the subject,
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW At 07:16 18 February 2019 (PT)

creativity and presentation. Thus, the aim of these students is to obtain a good grade
from the teacher.
In contrast, for students who had to answer multiple-choice questions, their aim was not
to obtain a good grade, but to obtain points in competition with classmates. The
competition constituted an innovative element that moved the student away from the
classic learning experience (Teixes, 2014; Guardia and Pesqueira, 2017), which was
the aim of the teachers involved in this project. In this regard, in this modality without
proper academic repercussions, the points were inversely proportional to the time
taken to correctly answer the question, such that the less time spent choosing the
appropriate answer, the more points are obtained. As allowed by Kahoot!, the results of
each question, disaggregated by the possible answers, were displayed in the
classroom; in other words, the students saw how many classmates chose each answer.
Following this, and question by question, a ranking of the students was shown in the
classroom based on the points obtained. We think that the immediacy of this is very
close to the character of the members of Generation Z (Fernández Cruz and Fernández
Dı́az, 2016), which dynamizes the teaching activity in an extraordinary way. We
understand that this may go beyond the limits of privacy in education, which aims to
hide results in such a way that students cannot compare their performance with that of
their classmates. We must, however, avoid the danger of a potential overprotection of
students in the public assessment of their work, which is not beneficial for their training
itinerary (Cierco Seira and Salamero Teixido , 2016), which is subject to continuous
assessment and tests and which will not correspond to their real life in the world of
work. To conclude this section, we can confirm that in the execution of this project we
did not encounter objections by participating students in terms of displaying the
students’ results openly in the classroom.

2.2 Participants
This project was applied in the Abat Oliba CEU University, Barcelona, in particular to the
students of the degrees of Business Management, Economics and Management, Marketing
and Commercial Management and Law and Journalism students who were studying one of
the following subjects: Cost Control, Urbanism and Environment, Information Law,
Treatment of Commercial Information and Commercial Distribution. A total 104 students
participated in this study.

j ON THE HORIZON j
 2.3 Project evaluation system
As described previously, some of the aims of this project were to improve the learning
outcomes of the students, as well as to foster cross-disciplinary skills of collaborative and
cooperative work, and summarizing and communicative skills. To evaluate the project and
ensure that its implementation would facilitate the achievement of these aims, the indicators
implemented to evaluate the project’s usefulness are described below.
First, an a priori survey was carried out on the students in which they were asked which
basic skills, according to their criteria, they would acquire through the realization of each
activity (traditional activity and innovative activity).
Once the two activities had been carried out, students were encouraged to complete an a
posteriori survey in which they were asked which basic skills, according to their criteria,
they acquired through the realization of each of the previously described activities: the test
and Kahoot!. Similarly, they were also asked to express their preference for the activities.
The IBM SPSS Statistics software, version 24.0, was used to process and analyze the data.
The following analyses were carried out: univariate descriptive analyses of all the variables
involved, descriptive bivariate analyses aimed at exploring the relationship between the
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW At 07:16 18 February 2019 (PT)

variables, normality tests, and parametric and nonparametric contrast tests to determine the
significance of the differences found.

3. Results
According to the distribution of the students, 54.7 per cent of the respondents were men,
compared to 45.3 per cent of females. The average age was 20 and therefore, as we
indicated previously, belonged to the so-called Generation Z. In all, 80.9 per cent of
students reported knowing the Kahoot.it program before taking the subject in which the
survey was conducted while 74.5 per cent confirmed having used this tool at some time
throughout their studies (Table I).
To verify the existence of significant differences between the scores of the two activities of
the skills measured in both the Test and Kahoot!, Wilcoxon’s non-parametric contrast
statistic was used for related samples. The results indicated the existence of significant
differences (p = 0.000) when comparing students’ scores in almost all skills. In other words,
the results indicated that the activities influenced the acquisition of more or fewer skills.
The students seemed to indicate that the Kahoot! activity allowed them to develop more
skills than the multiple-choice written test. Indeed, students were of the opinion that Kahoot!
resulted in them developing fewer skills in only 4 of the 14 skills analyzed. These skills were
written communication, personal study, theoretical training and autonomous work. These
are skills traditionally related to students’ personal work. It can be seen that for all the other
skills, students considered the development Kahoot! allowed was greater than what could
be obtained with the traditional Test. Thus, teamwork, the ability to learn and act in new
situations, generate ideas and solutions together with the use of ICTs are the skills that
potentially can be developed most during the use of Kahoot! as a gamification technique.
In this regard, the students mostly stated that they expected greater development of
leadership skills, oral communication, negotiation skills and practical training when using
Kahoot! in comparison with the Test.
Regarding the second phase of the study, to verify the existence of significant differences
between the post-test scores of the measured variables, Wilcoxon’s non-parametric
contrast statistic was used again for related samples. The results of the analysis indicate the
existence of significant differences (p = 0.000) when comparing students’ scores in all skills
except in 4 of the 14 analyzed skills. The students were of the opinion that in these skills,
Kahoot! resulted in them developing less. These skills were written communication,

j ON THE HORIZON j
 Table I Distribution of the skills the student believed s/he would develop
Skill Test Kahoot! Significance

Teamwork (Interdependence) 17 (17.9%) 82 (86.3%) <0.001

Leadership 20 (21.1%) 69 (72.6%) <0.001
Oral communication 24 (25.3%) 65 (68.4%) <0.001
ICTs 26 (27.4%) 74 (77.9%) <0.001
Business skills 28 (29.5%) 62 (65.3%) <0.001
Capacity to learn and act in new situations 29 (30.5%) 79 (83.2%) <0.001
Capacity to produce new ideas and solutions 34 (35.8%) 74 (77.9%) <0.001
Practical training 41 (43.2%) 67 (70.5%) <0.001
Analysis and solving of problems 57 (60.0%) 66 (69.5%) 0.171
Written communication 57 (60.0%) 39 (41.1%) <0.001
Capacity to take decisions 62 (65.3%) 74 (77.9%) 0.083
Personal study 63 (66.3%) 48 (50.5%) <0.001
Theoretical training 67 (70.5%) 58 (61.1%) 0.209
Independent work 68 (71.6%) 47 (49.5%) <0.001
Source: Authors
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW At 07:16 18 February 2019 (PT)

theoretical training, analysis and problem-solving, and the ability to make decisions (see
Table II).
It can be seen that in all the other skills, the students were of the opinion that the
development they experienced with Kahoot! was greater than what could have been
obtained with the traditional Test. Thus, teamwork, practical training, leadership, oral
communication, ICTs, the ability to make decisions and the ability to generate new ideas
and solutions were the skills that were potentially developed the most using Kahoot! as a
gamification technique. Finally, 93.5 per cent felt more motivated using Kahoot! and 74.2
per cent stated that they learned much more than with the traditional Test.
When comparing the results obtained between the test scores of the Test and Kahoot!
using the non-parametric Wilcoxon test, significant differences were found for related
samples (sig. 0.001 < 0.05). The statistical differences show the tendency to obtain better
results in terms of the average score in the performance of the Kahoot!, yielding 7.02
compared to an average of 5 in the traditional Test. The estimated results show that the
realization of these types of activities seems to encourage greater dedication to studying,
the explanation or justification of which could be related to the need to change the classic
evaluation tests for more motivating learning activities.

Table II Distribution of the skills shown to be developed by students

Skill Test Kahoot! Significance

Teamwork (Interdependence) 5 (8.1%) 56 (90.3%) <0.001

Practical training 18 (29.0%) 49 (79.0%) <0.001
Leadership 8 (12.9%) 45 (72.6%) <0.001
Oral communication 10 (16.1%) 45 (72.6%) <0.001
ICTs 14 (22.6%) 45 (72.6%) <0.001
Capacity to take decisions 40 (64.5%) 45 (72.6%) 0.427
Capacity to produce new ideas and solutions 22 (35.5%) 44 (71.0%) <0.001
Capacity to learn and act in new situations 22 (35.5%) 42 (67.7%) <0.001
Business skills 11 (17.7%) 41 (66.1%) <0.001
Analysis and solving of problems 34 (54.8%) 36 (58.1%) 0.760
Theoretical training 39 (62.9%) 35 (56.5%) 0.550
Personal study 43 (69.4%) 27 (43.5%) <0.001
Written communication 35 (56.5%) 24 (38.7%) 0.093
Independent work 42 (67.7%) 21 (33.9%) <0.001
Source: Authors

j ON THE HORIZON j
 4. Conclusions
The different innovative experiences implemented in higher education centers coincide in
incorporating the ingredients of recreational scenarios, proposing to the students the
solving of problems, the elaboration of projects, and the completion of various missions or
activities following certain milestones (Fitz-Walter et al., 2011). In other words, adopting the
mechanisms of conventional games and establishing levels that must be achieved together
with the assignment of scores to each challenge successfully met (O’Donovan et al., 2013).
These experiences guarantee an increase in both the extrinsic and intrinsic motivation of
students and encourage immersion in the proposed tasks (Papastergiou, 2009; Hamari
et al., 2014). Ultimately, it is hoped that these experiences will help individuals develop work
skills and address the psychological needs of skills, independence and relationships and,
therefore, increase the motivation of students in work or learning contexts (Sailer et al.,
2017; Tsihouridis et al., 2018).
The results presented here confirm that the data obtained in the survey seems to indicate
that the students generally positively valued the use of Kahoot! As this tool is a clear
example of gamification, it could be inferred with a certain potential error that these types of
new study techniques improve students’ perceptions of the subject matter, as these
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW At 07:16 18 February 2019 (PT)

techniques enhance student participation in class while improving their experience by

providing them with new tools whose use can be replicated in the future.
As already described, both Dale (1969) and Glasser (1998) stated in their studies that the
level of learning achieved by the student will depend on the teaching methodology applied.
In fact, as can be deduced from the above, the student’s capacity for retention increases as
the student becomes involved in the learning process, reaching the highest level of
retention when he or she is involved in the explanation process. In the words of Glasser
(1998), the maximum degree of retention by the student occurs when the student acquires
the role of teacher. It is only in these cases that the level of learning becomes 90 per cent,
as to explain something, the student must have first understood and assimilated the subject
to be explained.
According to the opinion of the students, Kahoot! allowed them to learn in a different way
and they were of the opinion that it was important to apply this tool in university life as an
effective complement to their training. They saw Kahoot! as a new, dynamic and didactic
method of evaluation in which students could explain their answers. As a motivating
educational system with more incentives, camouflaged as a form of play, the students felt
less pressure and the fear of making mistakes was also less frequent.
On the other hand, the results confirm that it is a useful tool for memorizing, competing and
learning, opening students to new experiences and making the evaluations a much more
practical and innovative method that provides them with more knowledge, as well as
greater assimilation and internalization with respect to materials or knowledge provided by
teachers.
The Kahoot! app influences the teaching-learning process and the training skills and
academic performance measured through the student’s grades. Moreover, it can be
suggested that pedagogical tools such as Kahoot! have the potential to increase and
improve performance in university-level exams.
The students who used Kahoot! considered it a positive experience. The results of this
study also suggest that the creation of a fun and attractive environment is also compatible
with better academic performance by encouraging motivation and interest in university
students to achieve greater active participation and involvement in their own learning
process, thus promoting their academic performance. Through this new pedagogical
approach, with Kahoot! as an alternative teaching and evaluation method, performance
improvements were observed compared to other traditional methods.

j ON THE HORIZON j
 References
Cierco Seira, C. and Salamero Teixido, L. (2016), “Team quiz law”, in Delgado Garcı́a, A.M. and Beltrán
de Heredia Ruiz, I. (Eds), Docencia Del Derecho y TIC: innovacion  y Experiencias Metodologicas,

Huygens Editorial, Barcelona, pp. 273-278.
Dale, E. (1969), Audiovisual Methods in Teaching, 3rd ed., The Dryden Press, New York, NY.
Dellos, R. (2015), “Kahoot! A digital game resource for learning”, International Journal of Instructional
Technology and Distance Learning, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 49-52.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R. and Nacke, L. (2011), “From game design elements to gamefulness:
defining gamification”, Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTreck Conference:
Envisioning Future Media Environments, New York, NY, pp. 9-15.
 Universitaria,
Esteve, F. (2009), “Bolonia y las TIC: de la docencia 1.0 al aprendizaje 2.0”, La Cuestion
Vol. 5, pp. 58-67.
 n Z y sus competencias
Fernández Cruz, F.J. and Fernández Dı́az, M.J. (2016), “Los docentes de la generacio
 y Educacion,
digitales”, Comunicar: Revista Cientı´fica Iberoamericana de Comunicacion  Vol. 46, pp. 97-105.

Fitz-Walter, Z., Tjondronegoro, D. and Wyeth, P. (2011), “Orientation passport: using gamification to
engage university students”, Proceedings of the 23rd Australian Computer-Human Interaction
Conference, pp. 122-125.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW At 07:16 18 February 2019 (PT)

Glasser, W. (1998), Choice Theory, Happer Collins, New York, NY.

Glover, I. (2013), “Play as you learn: gamification as a technique for motivating learners”, Proceedings of
World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Chesapeake,
pp. 1999-2008.
Grail Research (2011), “Consumers of tomorrow insights and observations about generation Z”, available
at: http://goo.gl/7qYuWt (accessed 12 January 2018).
Guardia, J. and Pesqueira, M.J. (2017), “Las pruebas electro  nicas de opcio n múltiple como
herramientas Para el desarrollo del pensamiento jurı́dico”, in Delgado, A. and Beltrán, I. (coord.), UOC,
Barcelona, pp. 159-169.
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J. and Sarsa, H. (2014), “Does gamification work? A literature review of empirical
studies on gamification”, 7th HI International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pp. 3025-3034.
doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2014.377.
Harel, I.E. and Papert, S.E. (1991), Constructionism, Ablex Publishing.
Hornby, A.S. (2000), Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, in Wehmeier, S. (Ed.),
Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Hung, A.C.Y. (2017), “A critique and defense of gamification”, Journal of Interactive Online Learning,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 57-72.

Kapp, K.M. (2012), The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-Based Methods and Strategies
for Training and Education, John Wiley and Sons, NJ.
Krathwohl, D.R. (2002), “A revision of bloom’s taxonomy: an overview”, Theory into Practice, Vol. 41 No. 4,
pp. 212-218.
Lee, J.J. and Hammer, J. (2011), “Gamification in education: what, how, why bother?”, Academic
Exchange Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 2, p. 146.
Lister, M. and College, M. (2015), “Gamification: the effect on student motivation and performance at the
post-secondary level”, Issues and Trends in Educational Technology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 1-22.
 pez, C. (2014), “Educacio
Lo n superior y TIC: conceptos y tendencias de cambio”, Historia y
 Social, Vol. 19, pp. 227-239.
Comunicacion
, A. (2012), Entre Generaciones. No te Quedes Fuera Del Futuro, Temas, Buenos Aires.
Masco

McGonigal, J. (2011), Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the
World, Penguin Press, New York, NY.
 n superior como vı́a de formacio
Molina, A.M. (2012), “Las TIC en la educacio  n y desarrollo competencial

en la sociedad del conocimiento”, Revista Electronica de Investigacion Docencia Creativa, Vol. 1,
pp. 106-114.

j ON THE HORIZON j
 O’Donovan, S., Gain, J. and Marais, P. (2013), “A case study in the gamification of a university-level
games development course”, Proceedings of the South African Institute for Computer Scientists and
Information Technologists Conference, pp. 242-251.
Papastergiou, M. (2009), “Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: impact
on educational effectiveness and student motivation”, Computers and Education, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Prensky, M. (2001), “Digital natives, digital immigrants. Part 1”, On the Horizon, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 1-6.
Prensky, M. (2005), “Engage me or enrage me: what today’s learners demand”, EDUCASE Review,
Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 60-64.

Regueras, L.M., Verdu, E., Munoz, M.F., Perez, M.A., de Castro, J.P. and Verdu, M.J. (2009), “Effects of
competitive e-learning tools on higher education students: a case study”, IEEE Transactions on
Education, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 279-285.

Sailer, M., Hense, J., Mandl, H. and Klevers, M. (2017), “Fostering development of work competencies and
motivation via gamification”, in Mulder M. (Ed.), Competence-Based Vocational and Professional Education.
Technical and Vocational Education and Training: Issues, Concerns and Prospects, Springer, Cham.

Sana, F., Weston, T. and Cepeda, N.J. (2013), “Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both
users and nearby peers”, Computers and Education, Vol. 62, pp. 24-31.
 fundamentos y Aplicaciones, Editorial UOC, Madrid.
Teixes, F. (2014), Gamificacion:
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW At 07:16 18 February 2019 (PT)

Tsihouridis, C., Vavougios, D. and Ioannidis, G.S. (2018), “Assessing the learning process playing with
Kahoot – A study with upper secondary school pupils learning electrical circuits”, in Auer, M., Guralnick,
D. and Simonics, I. (Eds), Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing Teaching and Learning in a
Digital World. ICL, Springer, Cham, p. 715.
Wang, A.I. (2015), “The wear out effect of a game-based student response system”, Computers and
Education, Vol. 82, pp. 217-227.

Further reading
Brown, G., Bull, J. and Pendlebury, M. (1997), Assessing Student Learnings in Higher Education,
Routledge, London.
gico del repositorio común de
Fernández, A., Olmos, J. and Alegre, J. (2016), “Valor pedago
n de empresas”, Revista D’innovacio Educativa, Vol. 16,
conocimientos Para cursos de direccio
pp. 39-47.

About the authors

Juan José Guardia is a Doctor in Law by the University of Barcelona. He is a Professor of the
Department of Law and Political Sciences of the University Abat Oliba CEU. He is a Member
of the Spanish Society of Administrative Law. His lines of research have to do with the crisis
of Welfare State and the impact of news technologies in the universities students.

José Luis Del Olmo is a Doctor in Marketing and Market Research by the Universitat Abat
Oliba CEU. He has a degree in Advertising and Public Relations from the Universitat
Autònoma de Barcelona. He is an Adjunct Professor at the Department of Business and
Economy of the Universitat Abat Oliba CEU. He is the author, among others, of the books
Marketing of Fashion and Digital Marketing in Fashion. He is a member of the
Entrepreneurship, Strategy and Business Competitiveness (GREECE) research group. His
lines of research have to do with the supply and demand in the sector of retail marketing in
fashion and with the living conditions of university students. José Luis Del Olmo is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: jlolmo@uao.es
Iván Roa is a Doctor in Project and Systems Engineering from the Polytechnic University of
Catalonia. He is an Engineer in Industrial Organization and Industrial Technical Engineer
from the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. He obtained master’s degree in Logistics and
International Trade from the Abat Oliba CEU and in Design and Advanced Structural
Analysis from the Polytechnic University of Catalonia. He is a part of the research group
“Entrepreneurship, Strategy and Business Competitiveness (GREECE)” of the University

j ON THE HORIZON j
 Abat Oliba CEU. He directs the service of relationship with company and postgraduate
practices at the University Abat Oliba CEU.
Vanesa Berlanga is a Doctor in Education and Society in the line of Psychopedagogy by
the University of Barcelona. He has a degree in Statistics and is an Adjunct Professor in the
Department of Economics and Business of the University Abat Oliba CEU. Member of the
Entrepreneurship, Strategy and Business Competitiveness (GREECE) research group,
of the Interuniversity Association of Research in Pedagogy (AIDIPE), of the Association of
Economics of Education (AEDE) and of the Catalan Society of Statistics (SCE). His lines of
research have to do with the living conditions of university students and studies of university
funding.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW At 07:16 18 February 2019 (PT)

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

j ON THE HORIZON j