882048

research-article2019
SAGXXX10.1177/1046878119882048Simulation & GamingJones et al.

Article

Simulation & Gaming

2019, Vol. 50(6) 832­–847
A ‘KAHOOT!’ Approach: The © The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
Effectiveness of Game-Based sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1046878119882048
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878119882048
Learning for an Advanced journals.sagepub.com/home/sag

Placement Biology Class

Serena M. Jones1, Priya Katyal1, Xuan Xie1,

Madeleine P. Nicolas1, Eric M. Leung1,
Damon M. Noland2, and Jin Kim Montclare1,3,4,5

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.

1New York University Tandon School of Engineering, USA

2TheUrban Assembly Institute of Math and Science for Young Women, USA
3New York University College of Arts and Science, USA
4New York University College of Dentistry, USA
5New York University School of Medicine, USA

Corresponding Author:
Jin Kim Montclare, Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, New York University Tandon
School of Engineering, 6 MetroTech Center, Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA.
Email: montclare@nyu.edu
Jones et al. 833

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 stu-
dents 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 indi-
viduals, have been exposed to technology since birth (Bennett, Maton, & Kervin,
2008; Dingli & Seychell, 2015). As a result, teachers are trying to find ways to incor-
porate 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 engage-
ment 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, &
834 Simulation & Gaming 50(6)

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 stu-
dents take notes on the subject matter, and often have minimal participation, ultimately
leading to the students having to superficially memorize the material without under-
standing 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 dif-
ficult 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 motiva-
tion 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 educa-
tion 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 bore-
dom, poor concentration, and high levels of stress in school (Legault, Pelletier, &
Jones et al. 835

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 empha-
size student-led creativity, leading to boredom (Dişlen Dağgöl, 2013; Hudson, 2007;
Roehl, Reddy, & Shannon, 2013).
Gamification in ‘KAHOOT!’ can increase student engagement by incorporating popu-
lar 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, peda-
gogical tools can also increase and maintain engagement, thus increasing students’ enthu-
siasm 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 interac-
tive game for their students (Dellos, 2015). The students can use either their smart-
phone 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 set-
ting 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 informa-
tion, 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-judg-
mental atmosphere.

Participation and Experimental Design

A presentation on transcription, translation, and DNA replication (https://archive.engi-
neering.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
836 Simulation & Gaming 50(6)

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.

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).
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 tradi-
tional 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 stu-
dents 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.
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
Jones et al. 837

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.

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 visualiza-
tion structure videos of the steps involved in Transcription and Translation and snap-
shots 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 visual-
izations 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 struc-
tures 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
838 Simulation & Gaming 50(6)

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 ques-
tions 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.
Jones et al. 839

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

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 discus-
sion-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,
840 Simulation & Gaming 50(6)

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 13 (72%) 5 (28%)
understand the topic?
Q5. Did you enjoy this style of learning more than a 14 (78%) 4 (22%)
traditional lecture class?

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).
In addition to the scaled questions, the students were given two “Yes or No” ques-
tions. 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.
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 understand-
ing 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 relation-
ship. 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 comprehen-
sion, 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 specifi-
cally, 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’ knowl-
edge increased from seven (prior to ‘KAHOOT!’) to nine after ‘KAHOOT!’.
Jones et al. 841

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 quan-
titative evidence to prove if ‘KAHOOT!’ increased motivation leading to an improve-
ment 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 observa-
tions 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 incorporat-
ing 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 stu-
dents 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 learn-
ing 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!’
842 Simulation & Gaming 50(6)

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 con-
sistent 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, smart-
phones, 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 recom-
mend 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 daunt-
ing 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
Jones et al. 843

ways by providing engaging activities and realistic visualizations that are not sup-
ported by their textbooks. Lastly, we will continue our research on the impact of tech-
nology and gamification in STEM classrooms.

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 presen-
tation and edited the manuscript. XX assisted in presentation and developing the Chimera visu-
alizations 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.

Acknowledgments
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.

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.

Note
1. The Student’s Survey contained a seventh question that allowed the students to freely
express any additional comments or concerns regarding the activity. Of the eighteen stu-
dents in this study, only two students decided to answer to question 7.

References
Aboudan, R. (2011). Engage them, don’t enrage them—Student voices and what it takes to
participate. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 128-134.
Bennett, S., Maton, K. A., & Kervin, L. (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
844 Simulation & Gaming 50(6)

Berman, H. M., Westbrook, J., Feng, Z., Gilliland, G., Bhat, T. N., Weissig, H., . . . Bourne,
P. E. (2000). The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Research, 28, 235-242. doi:10.1093/
nar/28.1.235
Berry, C., & 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, H., & Kocakoyun, S. (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, P., Appelbaum, S., Kim, H., Zhao, J., & Montclare, J. K. (2015). Integrating tech-
nology in STEM education. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 5(1), 5-14.
doi:10.3926/jotse.124
Cheong, C., Filippou, J., & Cheong, F. (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.
Çimer, A. (2012). What makes biology learning difficult and effective: Students’ views.
Educational Research and Reviews, 7(3), 61-71. doi:10.5897/ERR11.205
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
Cunningham, C., & Zichermann, G. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game
mechanics in Web and mobile apps. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
Daniels, E. (2011). Creating motivating learning environments: Teachers matter. Middle School
Journal, 43(2), 32-37. doi:10.1080/00940771.2011.11461799
Dellos, R. (2015). Kahoot! A digital game resource for learning. International Journal of
Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 12(4), 49-52.
Dingli, A., & Seychell, D. (2015). The new digital natives: Cutting the chord. Berlin, Germany:
Springer-Verlag.
Dişlen Dağgöl, G. (2013). The reasons of lack of motivation from the students’ and teachers’
voices. The Journal of Academic Social Science, 1(1), 35-45.
Domingo, M. G., & Garganté, A. B. (2016). Exploring the use of educational technology in
primary education: Teachers’ perception of mobile technology learning impacts and appli-
cations’ use in the classroom. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 21-28. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2015.11.023
Favre, L. R. (2009). Kinesthetic instructional strategies: Moving at-risk learners to higher lev-
els. Insights on Learning Disabilities, 6(1), 29-35.
Goehle, G. (2013). Gamification and web-based homework. PRIMUS, 23(3), 234-246. doi:10.
1080/10511970.2012.736451
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
Gros, B. (2007). Digital games in education: The design of games-based learning environments.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 23-38. doi:10.1080/15391523.20
07.10782494
Jones et al. 845

Gryczka, P., Klementowicz, E., Sharrock, C., & Montclare, J. K. (2016). Interactive online
physics labs increase high school students’ interest. Journal of Technology and Science
Education, 6(3), 166-187.
Gurnon, D., Voss-Andreae, J., & Stanley, J. (2013). Integrating art and science in undergraduate
education. PLoS Biology, 11(2), 1-4. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001491
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).
Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longi-
tudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic
performance. Computers & Education, 80, 152-161. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.019
Hoffmann, M. M., & Ramirez, A. Y. F. (2018). Students’ attitudes toward teacher use of tech-
nology in classrooms. 21st Century Learning & Multicultural Education, 25(2), 51-56.
Honigsfeld, A., & Dunn, R. (2009). Learning-style responsive approaches for teaching typically
performing and at-risk adolescents. The Clearing House, 82(5), 220-224.
Hudson, P. (2007). High-impact teaching for science. Teaching Science: The Journal of the
Australian Science Teachers Association, 53(4), 18-22.
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
Iwamoto, D. H., Hargis, J., Taitano, E. J., & Vuong, K. (2017). Analyzing the efficacy of the
testing effect using Kahoot™ on student performance. Turkish Online Journal of Distance
Education, 18(2), 80-93.
Johns, K. (2015). Engaging and assessing students with technology: A review of Kahoot! Delta
Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 81(4), 89-91.
Johnson, D., Deterding, S., Kuhn, K.-A., Staneva, A., Stoyanov, S., & Hides, L. (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
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/
Lacina, J. (2008). Technology in the classroom: Learning English with iPods. Childhood
Education, 84(4), 247-249. doi:10.1080/00094056.2008.10523019
Leaning, M. (2015). A study of the use of games and gamification to enhance student engage-
ment, 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
Legault, L., Pelletier, L., & Green-Demers, I. (2006). Why do high school students lack moti-
vation 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
Lewis, M. S., Zhao, J., & 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
Licorish, S. A., Owen, H. E., Daniel, B., & George, J. L. (2018). Students’ perception of
Kahoot!’s influence on teaching and learning. Research and Practice in Technology
Enhanced Learning, 13(1), Article 9. doi:10.1186/s41039-018-0078-8
Lin, D. T. A., Ganapathy, M., & Kaur, M. (2017). Kahoot! it: Gamification in higher education.
Pertanika Journal: Social Sciences & Humanities, 26(1), 565-582.
846 Simulation & Gaming 50(6)

The living environment core curriculum. (2019). Retrieved from http://www.nysed.gov/

common/nysed/files/programs/curriculum-instruction/livingen.pdf
Mu, H., & Paparas, D. (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
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).
Nah, F. F.-H., Zeng, Q., Telaprolu, V. R., Ayyappa, A. P., & Eschenbrenner, B. (2014).
Gamification of education: A review of literature. Paper presented at the HCI in Business,
22-27 June, Cham, Switzerland.
Nicholson, S. (2015). A RECIPE for meaningful gamification. In T. Reiners & L. C. Wood
(Eds.), Gamification in education and business (pp. 1-20). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Nielsen, K. L., Hansen, G., & 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.
Özer, H. H., Kanbul, S., & Ozdamli, F. (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.
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
Plump, C. M., & LaRosa, J. (2017). Using Kahoot! In the classroom to create engagement and
active learning: A game-based technology solution for eLearning novices. Management
Teaching Review, 2(2), 151-158. doi:10.1177/2379298116689783
Pre-AP® biology course guide. (2018). Retrieved from https://pre-ap.collegeboard.org/pdf/pre-
ap-biology-cg-wr.pdf
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
Richter, G., Raban, D. R., & Rafaeli, S. (2015). Studying gamification: The effect of rewards and
incentives on motivation. In T. Reiners & L. C. Wood (Eds.), Gamification in Education
and Business (pp. 21-46). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Roehl, A., 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.
Rouse, K. E. (2013). Gamification in science education: The relationship of educational games
to motivation and achievement. Dissertations, 622, 1-116.
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.
Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). the motivational pull of video games: A
self-determination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30(4), 344-360.
Su, C.-H. (2015). The effects of students’ motivation, cognitive load and learning anxiety in gam-
ification software engineering education: a structural equation modeling study. Multimedia
Tools and Applications, 75(16), 10013-10036. doi:10.1007/s11042-015-2799-7
Tarbutton, T. (2018). Leveraging 21st century learning & technology to create caring diverse
classroom cultures. Multicultural Education, 25(2), 4-6.
Waghid, F. (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.
Jones et al. 847

Whitton, N. (2007). Motivation and computer game based learning. Proceedings Ascilite, 2-5
December, Singapore.
Whitton, N. (2010). Game engagement theory and adult learning. Simulation & Gaming, 42(5),
596-609. doi:10.1177/1046878110378587
Yapıcı, İ. Ü., & Karakoyun, F. (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

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 pro-
grams 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 special-
ist. 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 fun-
damental 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