education
sciences
Article
Enhancing Education in Elementary Schools through Gamified
Learning: Exploring the Impact of Kahoot! on the Learning Process
Baraa Rayan 1,2, * and Abeer Watted 1, *
Citation: Rayan, B.; Watted, A.
Enhancing Education in Elementary
Schools through Gamified Learning:
Exploring the Impact of Kahoot! on
the Learning Process. Educ. Sci. 2024,
14, 277. https://doi.org/10.3390/
educsci14030277
Academic Editors: Maiga Chang and
Zhonggen Yu
Received: 25 August 2023
Revised: 7 February 2024
Accepted: 2 March 2024
Published: 6 March 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 277. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14030277
1 Teaching and Learning Program, Faculty of Advanced Studies, Al-Qasemi Academic College,
Baka EL-Garbiah 3010000, Israel
2 Abdo Salim School, Ibilin (North District) 3001200, Israel
* Correspondence: baraa.rayan.2@gmail.com (B.R.); abeer_w@qsm.ac.il (A.W.)
Abstract: The integration of technology in educational settings has gained popularity, aiming to
enhance student engagement and motivation. Kahoot! digital tool activities have emerged as a
favored choice for creating dynamic and captivating learning environments. This study investigates
the impact of incorporating Kahoot! on students’ learning outcomes and motivation to learn science.
The research utilized a quantitative methodology, collecting data through pre- and post-questionnaires
administered to both experimental (N = 53) and control groups (N = 56). This study identified that
integrating Kahoot! activities led to a significant improvement in students’ grasp of scientific concepts
and principles. Moreover, a noteworthy increase in self-efficacy, interest, and enjoyment levels was
observed among students in the experimental groups. This indicates that Kahoot! activities not only
enhance students’ understanding of scientific concepts but also amplify their motivation to engage
with the subject matter. This study also explored potential demographic variables that could influence
these outcomes. Notably, the findings suggest that grade level plays a role in students’ motivation to
learn science. In conclusion, this study underscores the potential of Kahoot! activities to positively
influence students’ science learning experiences, emphasizing the importance of cultivating dynamic
and captivating learning environments.
Keywords: game-based learning; gamification; Kahoot!; meaningful learning; science education;
elementary school
1. Introduction
In recent years, digital gaming has emerged as a significant educational tool aiming to
enhance learners’ engagement and motivation [1]. Despite the limited availability of digital
educational games, there has been a rising trend in their development and utilization since
around mid-2010, which has attracted the attention of researchers [2].
Within educational contexts, the term “gamification” is employed to describe the
integration of game elements to modify conventional pedagogy. Deterding et al. [3] broadly
defined gamification as “the use of game design elements in non-game contexts”. This
stands in contrast to game-based learning, where the game itself serves as the primary
medium [4], providing the comprehensive context for learning [5]. In contrast, gamification
involves incorporating game mechanics into non-game settings like classrooms, where
instructional goals may be more explicit [6]. Additionally, while a serious game is often
seen as a product, gamified learning entails a design process that employs game elements to
reshape the learning process [3,7]. According to Sailer and Homner [8], the aim of gamified
learning is “to directly impact behaviors and attitudes relevant to learning. These behaviors
and attitudes, in turn, are hypothesized to influence the relationship between instructional
content and learning outcomes through moderation or mediation”.
A primary objective of utilizing digital games in instructional contexts is to foster
engagement, encompassing both subjective experiences (such as enjoyment, immersion,
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 277 2 of 12

presence, and flow) and motives for playing (with fun and challenge being prominent) [9].
Self-determination theory is often utilized to analyze the sense of competence, auton-
omy/freedom, and relatedness to others (including social interaction, collaboration, and
competition) that gaming affords [10,11]. In addition to “playful goals” such as motivation,
Kalogiannakis et al. [6] incorporate learning goals related to course content. Furthermore,
games can provide interactive experiences, a sense of user control, personalized discovery,
and instant feedback as additional incentives for engagement [12]. Notably, the use of
games is particularly well-suited to recent and current generations of students who have
grown up immersed in technology [1].
A mounting body of evidence indicates that gamified learning yields enhanced out-
comes. For example, Sailor and Homner [8] conducted a meta-analysis of 38 studies,
concluding that gamification of learning yields significant positive effects on cognitive,
motivational, and behavioral learning outcomes. Similarly, Kalogiannakis et al. [6] un-
dertook a review of twenty-four studies, revealing a predominantly positive impact of
gamification on students’ learning achievements, with all but two studies showcasing
favorable results. Notably, those studies assessing motivation reported an increase, and
five of them demonstrated heightened intrinsic motivation, which corresponded with in-
creased motivation, enjoyment, and improved learning outcomes. In general, the findings
underscore a robust correlation between enhanced motivational aspects and meaningful
learning achievements [6].
In the realm of science education, games and game design elements primarily serve to
render intricate and abstract subject matter more accessible [13]. The 2019 final report of the
ROSE (Relevance of Science Education) project drew attention to a concern across numerous
countries regarding a generational shift, evidenced by students exhibiting diminished
interest and attitudes toward science. Additionally, a discernible pattern has emerged in
affluent nations, revealing a lack of enthusiasm among young individuals toward school
science [14]. Gamification emerges as a potential remedy for this waning interest. In
a study involving 16 fourth-grade students in Northern Cyprus, Hursen and Bas [15]
discovered that gamification apps cultivated positive behaviors and perceptions regarding
the utilization of digital games, leading to heightened motivation among students to learn
science. Likewise, Khan et al. [16], in a science game-based experiment conducted in
secondary school science classes in Pakistan, observed a significant positive impact on
student engagement and participation through the use of digital game apps compared to
conventional teaching methods. Morris [17] further asserted that “video games can provide
training and practice in deploying cognitive skills vital for scientific thinking and can also
serve as an apprenticeship in thinking—and acting—as a scientist”.
Despite these encouraging findings, when considered holistically, the results of studies
on gamification in educational gaming present a diffuse and equivocal picture, yielding
mixed outcomes [6]. A comprehensive review of 63 studies by Dichev and Dicheva [18] led
them to conclude that the growing body of reported results is supported by inconclusive
and inadequate evidence. Furthermore, the nature of gamification research is marked by
heterogeneity, encompassing variations in study focus, reported outcomes, and method-
ological approaches [18]. This variation includes the implementation of gamified elements
at diverse educational levels, the absence of standardized assessment tools, and the ad hoc
incorporation of gaming elements [6]. A consensus has emerged that further research is
warranted [6,18,19], particularly acknowledging the limited scholarly exploration of gam-
ing in science education [12]. It is noteworthy that existing studies on gamification have
predominantly centered on higher education, where gamification is integrated into com-
puter and information technology courses, with less emphasis on primary and secondary
education [2,16,18]. Taken collectively, these findings strongly advocate for expanded
research into the effects of gamification in science education, especially within primary and
secondary levels.
In consideration of the aforementioned context, the objective of this study was to
investigate the impact of gamified learning within elementary-level science education,
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 277 3 of 12

specifically focusing on the integration of the free, web-based gaming application Kahoot!
and its influence on students’ learning outcomes and motivation in science. Kahoot!
primarily functions as a platform for administering multiple-choice quizzes and survey
questions. In classroom settings, the questions are typically projected onto a large display
screen, while students participate via their personal devices (such as tablets, mobile phones,
etc.) over an internet connection. They can engage individually or collaboratively in groups
(sharing a device).
This pursuit gave rise to the subsequent research inquiries:
1. Can the utilization of Kahoot! for learning prompt discernible effects on students’
knowledge acquisition in science, and if so, in what manner does it manifest in relation
to (a) their comprehension of science concepts and principles? (b) their motivation to
engage in science learning? (c) their academic performance in science, as evidenced
by their report card scores?
2. How does the motivation of students to learn science correlate with their understand-
ing of science concepts and principles?
3. What variations are observed in students’ motivation to learn science based on demo-
graphic variables such as gender, age, and parents’ occupation?

2. Materials and Methods

The subsequent sections delineate the research participants, setting, methodology,
tools employed, and the approach to data analysis.

2.1. Research Participants and Setting

This study encompassed a total of 109 elementary school students, with the exper-
imental group comprising (N = 53) participants, including (N = 29) from the 5th grade
and (N = 24) from the 6th grade. The control group consisted of (N = 56) participants,
with (N = 31) students from the 5th grade and (N = 25) from the 6th grade. Further details
regarding the distribution of research participants across the study groups can be found in
Table 1.

Table 1. The distribution of research participants among the study groups.

Research Groups Experimental (%) Control (%)

Gender Boys 47.00 55.00
Girls 53.00 45.00
Class 5th grade 55.00 55.00
6th grade 45.00 45.00
Parents’ occupation Science 17.00 15.00
Other 83.00 85.00

The application of the Chi-Square test revealed no statistically significant differences

between the research groups concerning gender, class, and parents’ occupation.
This study was conducted within an elementary school situated in the northern region
of Israel. Four classes, comprising two fifth-grade and two sixth-grade classes, were selected
to participate in this research endeavor. The allocation of classes into experimental and
control groups was determined based on the preferences of the science instructors. To
ensure equitable student representation, science-related questions were administered before
implementing Kahoot!, enabling comparisons across the classes. The experimental groups
were drawn from those students who engaged in science studies with the integration of the
engaging Kahoot! digital tool activities at least once a week. In contrast, the control groups
comprised students who exclusively employed textbooks for their science learning.
Kahoot! (https://create.kahoot.it/ (accessed on 12 June 2023)) stands as an interactive
educational platform, empowering educators to craft and deploy engaging learning games
for their students. Its design revolves around fostering an enjoyable and immersive learning
experience. Through Kahoot!, instructors can formulate quizzes, facilitate discussions,
 contrast, the control groups comprised students who exclusively employed textbooks for
their science learning.
Kahoot! (https://create.kahoot.it/ (accessed on 12 June 2023)) stands as an interactive
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 277 educational platform, empowering educators to craft and deploy engaging learning 4 of 12
games for their students. Its design revolves around fostering an enjoyable and immersive
learning experience. Through Kahoot!, instructors can formulate quizzes, facilitate discus-
sions, and conduct
and conduct surveyssurveys on diverse
on diverse subjectsubject
matters. matters.
StudentsStudents can partake
can partake in these inactivities
these ac-
tivities through their personal devices, such as smartphones, tablets,
through their personal devices, such as smartphones, tablets, or computers. Kahoot! or computers. Ka-
hoot! customizable
offers offers customizable features,
features, enablingenabling
educatorseducators to content
to tailor tailor content and format
and format to suittotheir
suit
their teaching
teaching objectives.
objectives. DuringDuring a Kahoot!
a Kahoot! session,
session, students
students engage
engage in real-time
in real-time competi-
competition,
tion, responding
responding to questions
to questions and amassing
and amassing points. Atpoints. At the conclusion
the conclusion of each teachers
of each activity, activity,
teachersa receive
receive a comprehensive
comprehensive summarysummary
of results,offurnishing
results, furnishing
valuable valuable insights
insights into into
student
student performance. By promoting active learning, collaboration, and the
performance. By promoting active learning, collaboration, and the cultivation of critical- cultivation of
critical-thinking
thinking skills, serves
skills, Kahoot! Kahoot!as serves as a tool
a versatile versatile tool that metamorphoses
that metamorphoses traditional traditional
education
education
into into an and
an interactive interactive and pleasurable
pleasurable encounter.
encounter. Refer Refer
to Figure to aFigure
1 for 1 for ashowcasing
screenshot screenshot
the Kahoot! website.
showcasing the Kahoot! website.

Figure1.1.Screenshot
Figure Screenshotof
ofthe
theKahoot!
Kahoot!website.
website.

In
Inthis
thisstudy,
study,within
withinthetheexperimental
experimentalgroup groupclasses,
classes,instructors
instructorsintroduced
introducedKahoot!
Kahoot!
activities
activities to
to their
their students
students at at aa frequency
frequency ofof at
atleast
leastonce
onceaaweek,
week,typically
typically towards
towards the the
conclusion
conclusionof ofthe
thelesson.
lesson. These
These educators
educators designed
designed quizzes
quizzes oror surveys
surveys using
using thetheKahoot!
Kahoot!
platform,
platform,centered
centeredaround
aroundscientific
scientificconcepts
conceptsor orprinciples
principlesspanning
spanningvarious
varioustopics
topicsclosely
closely
aligned
aligned with
with the
the class curriculum. The TheKahoot!
Kahoot!activities
activitieswere
werestrategically
strategically employed
employed to
to stimulate class discussions or to encapsulate and recapitulate specific
stimulate class discussions or to encapsulate and recapitulate specific subjects. Within thesubjects. Within
the context
context of computer
of computer clusters,
clusters, students
students werewere encouraged
encouraged to actively
to actively participate
participate in the
in the Ka-
Kahoot!
hoot! activities, either independently or in pairs. The instructors supplemented the the
activities, either independently or in pairs. The instructors supplemented Ka-
Kahoot! experience
hoot! experience byby providingverbal
providing verbalexplanations
explanationsduring
duringthethe presentation
presentation of of the
the quizzes
quizzes
or
or surveys.
surveys. In Incontrast,
contrast,the
thecontrol
controlgroup
groupclasses
classes adhered
adhered to to conventional
conventional pedagogical
pedagogical ap-
approaches.
proaches. The teachers followed the sequential order of the textbook and conducted in-
The teachers followed the sequential order of the textbook and conducted in-
struction
structionchapter
chapterby bychapter.
chapter. TheTheteaching and
teaching andlearning methodologies
learning methodologies adopted
adoptedby both the
by both
experimental
the experimental and and
control groups
control groupsexhibited notable
exhibited similarities,
notable barring
similarities, the incorporation
barring the incorpora-
of the Kahoot! program.
tion of the Kahoot! program.
2.2. Methodology, Tools, and Data Analysis
2.2. Methodology, Tools, and Data Analysis
This study employed a quantitative methodology, utilizing a pre- and post-experimental
This study employed a quantitative methodology, utilizing a pre- and post-experi-
design [20]. The independent variable under investigation was the instructional approach,
mental design [20]. The independent variable under investigation was the instructional
specifically the integration of the engaging Kahoot! digital tool, while the dependent
approach, specifically the integration of the engaging Kahoot! digital tool, while the de-
variables encompassed the following:
pendent variables encompassed the following:
• Students’ comprehension of science concepts and principles.
• Students’
Students’motivation
comprehension of science
to engage concepts
in science and principles.
learning.
• Students’ motivation to engage in science learning.
Students’ accomplishments in the field of science. This study also explored potential
 influencing
Students’ accomplishments
factors, includingingender,
the field of science.
class, This study
and parents’ also explored potential
occupation.
influencing factors, including gender, class, and parents’ occupation.
Quantitative data collection was executed through the utilization of three research
instruments:
1. Science Knowledge (SK) Questionnaire: Administered to assess students’ grasp of
scientific concepts and principles. The questionnaire comprised two versions—one
tailored to 5th-grade students and the other to 6th-grade students—aligned with
national standards and pertinent topics. Each version comprised eight questions: five
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 277 5 of 12

multiple-choice items and three open-ended queries. The questionnaire underwent

validation through an inter-rater process, yielding a content validity ratio (CVR) of
1.00, indicative of unanimous agreement among the five assessors. The SK question-
naire was administered twice: prior to and after engaging with Kahoot!, both at the
commencement and culmination of the semester.
2. Science Motivation (SM) Questionnaire: Administered to gauge students’ motivation
to learn science. The questionnaire encompassed two sections: demographic data and
a closed-ended scale. Demographic data included gender, class, and parents’ occu-
pation status. The closed-ended scale was adapted from the SM Questionnaire [21]
and featured four categories: self-efficacy, interest and enjoyment, connection to daily
life, and importance to the student. Each category comprised five items, rated on a
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The SM
questionnaire was tailored to suit elementary school students, given that the original
version was designed for college-level students [22]. The reliability of the closed-
ended scale, assessed via Cronbach’s alpha, yielded values of 0.75 for the overall
scale, 0.76 for self-efficacy, 0.67 for interest and enjoyment, 0.63 for connection to daily
life, and 0.69 for importance to the student. Similar to the SK questionnaire, the SM
questionnaire was administered twice: before and after engagement with Kahoot!, at
the outset and culmination of the semester.
3. Student Grades in Report Cards: Student grades in report cards were collected and
analyzed to evaluate their achievements in the domain of science. These grades were
obtained both before and after engaging with Kahoot!, corresponding to the start and
conclusion of the semester.
Quantitative data underwent statistical analysis using the IBM SPSS, version 22.0
(IBM, 2013), involving the application of parametric models. These models were evalu-
ated based on four fundamental assumptions: normal data distribution, homogeneity of
variance, interval-level data, and independence. Consequently, descriptive statistics and
the general linear model (GLM) were employed [23]. Parametric statistical tests employed
encompassed the Chi-Square test, t-tests for independent samples, analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA) tests, and the Pearson correlation test.

3. Results
The findings illuminate the impact of engaging with Kahoot! on students’ learn-
ing outcomes and their motivation toward science education. The subsequent section is
organized into five segments, each addressing a distinct research question. The initial
segment expounds upon students’ comprehension of scientific concepts and principles, as
discerned from the science knowledge questionnaire. The subsequent segment divulges
students’ motivation to embrace science learning, derived from the motivation to learn
science questionnaire. The third segment delineates students’ science grades, extracted
from their report cards, both prior to and subsequent to the research intervention. Moving
forward, the fourth segment examines the correlation between students’ motivation to
engage in science learning and their grasp of scientific concepts and principles. Lastly, the
fifth segment elucidates the disparities in students’ motivation to pursue science education,
contingent upon demographic variables such as gender, age, and parental occupation.

3.1. Students’ Understanding of Scientific Concepts and Principles

Students’ comprehension of scientific concepts and principles was assessed by con-
trasting the research groups based on their pre-science knowledge questionnaire and
post-science knowledge questionnaire. Table 2 provides an overview of students’ means,
standard deviations, and t-test outcomes concerning the pre-science knowledge question-
naire, categorized by the respective research groups.
Table 2 presents the outcomes derived from the analysis of t-tests for independent
samples. The t-test analyses revealed no statistically significant distinctions between the
research groups in relation to their pre-science knowledge questionnaire responses. This
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 277 6 of 12

signifies that prior to their involvement in Kahoot! digital tool activities, all research
groups exhibited comparable levels of comprehension pertaining to scientific concepts
and principles.

Table 2. Students’ means, standard deviations, and t-test results for the pre-science knowledge
questionnaire, categorized by research group.

Mean
Research Group N SD t p
(0–100)
Program Experiment 53 18.87 14.84 −1.25 NS
Control 56 22.10 12.15
Gender Boys 56 20.31 13.60 −1.69 NS
Girls 53 20.76 13.63
Parents’ occupation Science 31 18.55 12.45 −0.96 NS
Other 78 21.31 13.97
NS = non-significant.

Table 3 outlines the mean values, standard deviations, and t-test outcomes associated
with the post-science knowledge questionnaire, categorized by research group.

Table 3. Mean scores, standard deviations, and t-test results for the post-science knowledge question-
naire, categorized by research group.

Mean
Research Group N SD t p
(0–100)
Program Experiment 53 86.79 15.78 9.78 0.00
Control 56 56.70 16.34
Gender Boys 56 70.54 23.16 −0.39 NS
Girls 53 72.17 20.90
Parents’ occupation Science 31 67.34 18.73 −1.20 NS
Other 78 72.92 23.10
NS = non-significant.

Table 3 provides a comprehensive representation of the outcomes derived from the t-

test analyses for independent samples. The sole statistically significant distinction disclosed
in Table 3 was observed between the experimental group and the control group. Notably,
students within the experimental group exhibited elevated mean scores on the science
knowledge questionnaire (M = 86.79, SD = 15.78) at the culmination of the semester in
comparison to their counterparts in the control group (M = 56.70, SD = 16.34). The statistical
disparity was calculated as t (109) = 9.78, p = 0.00.
Consequently, this indicates that the solitary discrepancy in the enhancement in “Stu-
dents’ understanding of scientific concepts and principles” cannot be attributed to gender
or parental occupation; rather, it can be directly attributed to their active engagement with
Kahoot! digital tool activities. Put differently, the improvement in students’ comprehension
of scientific concepts and phenomena can be attributed to their exposure to the Kahoot!
program as an integral facet of their scientific education.
A more in-depth analysis offers insights into the proportion of students with accurate
responses for each question within the pre-knowledge questionnaire while concurrently
contrasting the scores of the experimental and control groups.

3.2. Students’ Motivation to Learn Science

Motivational disparities were assessed through a comparison between the experimen-
tal and control groups based on their pre-motivation questionnaire and post-motivation
questionnaire. Table 4 provides an overview of students’ motivation to engage in science
learning, juxtaposing the experimental and control groups in relation to their pre-motivation
questionnaire responses.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 277 7 of 12

Table 4. Students’ motivation to engage in science learning, as evaluated by contrasting the experi-
mental and control groups using their pre-motivation questionnaire.

Category Experimental Control t p

Mean (1 to 5) SD Mean (1 to 5) SD
Self-efficacy 3.69 0.65 3.93 0.64 −1.92 NS
Interest and enjoyment 3.83 0.68 4.09 0.75 −1.88 NS
Connection to daily life 3.38 0.67 3.30 0.57 0.59 NS
Importance to the student 3.42 0.49 3.39 0.44 0.25 NS
General motivation 3.58 0.45 3.68 0.41 −1.23
NS = non-significant.

The t-test results outlined in Table 4 offer a comprehensive comparison between the
experimental and control groups concerning their motivation to engage in science learning,
as reflected in the pre-questionnaire responses across the following four categories: self-
efficacy, interest and enjoyment, connection to daily life, and importance to the student.
Notably, the analysis revealed no statistically significant disparities between the two groups
in terms of their motivation towards science education.
Table 5 proceeds to present an analogous comparison of students’ motivation to learn
science, juxtaposing the experimental and control groups based on their post-motivation
questionnaire responses.

Table 5. Students’ motivation to engage in science learning: a comparison of the experimental and
control groups based on their post-motivation questionnaire responses.

Category Experimental Control t p

Mean (1 to 5) SD Mean (1 to 5) SD
Self-efficacy 4.06 0.70 3.61 0.59 3.65 0.00
Interest and enjoyment 4.37 0.35 3.58 0.62 8.32 0.00
Connection to daily life 3.55 0.72 3.37 0.80 1.25 Ns
Importance to the student 3.90 0.73 3.86 0.79 0.26 Ns
General motivation 4.00 0.48 3.60 0.54 3.76 0.00
NS = non-significant.

Table 5 portrays the juxtaposition between the experimental and control groups with re-
gard to their motivation to engage in science learning, as gauged by the post-questionnaire
outcomes across the designated categories. The analysis revealed compelling insights:
within the experimental group, students exhibited notably elevated motivation in the gen-
eral motivation domain (t = 3.76, p < 0.00), as well as in the domains of self-efficacy (t = 3.65,
p < 0.00) and interest and enjoyment (t = 8.32, p < 0.00). However, no statistically significant
disparities were observed in the categories of connection to daily life and importance to the
student. This outcome underscores the notion that the integration of Kahoot! digital tool
activities within the classroom setting serves to amplify students’ motivation to partake
in science education, augmenting their self-efficacy and fostering heightened interest and
enjoyment. This enhancement is particularly notable when juxtaposed with the utilization
of traditional textbooks alone.

3.3. Students’ Scores in Science as Reported in Their Report Cards

Statistical analysis of the students’ overall achievements in science as reported in their
report cards was conducted at the end of the research period. The findings illuminated
a noteworthy distinction: the experimental group’s mean scores surpassed those of the
control group (mean = 94.15, SD = 5.39; mean = 88.62, SD = 6.23, respectively). Utilizing
analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) tests, a statistically significant variance between the
research groups emerged (F (1,109) = 8.46, p = 0.01, η²p = 0.08. This outcome underscores
the potential potency of integrating Kahoot! digital tool activities within science curricula,
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 277 8 of 12

signifying a potential enhancement in students’ scholastic accomplishments in the field

of science.

3.4. The Correlation between Students’ Motivation and Their Comprehension of Scientific Concepts
and Principles
To delve deeper into the exploration of students’ motivation to learn science, we
delved into the interconnectedness between their motivation and their grasp of scientific
concepts and principles, as evident in their post-science knowledge questionnaire scores.
The findings unveiled a positive correlation, underscoring the harmonious relationship
between students’ motivation and their adeptness with scientific concepts and principles.
Notably, Pearson correlation analyses unveiled statistically significant positive correlations
in several dimensions: general motivation (r (109) = 0.23, p = 0.02), as well as in the self-
efficacy and interest and enjoyment categories (r (109) = 0.34, p < 0.01; r (109) = 0.35, p < 0.01,
respectively). This underscores the notion that heightened motivation corresponds to a
heightened ability to comprehend and engage with scientific concepts and principles,
affirming a positive symbiosis between the two.

3.5. The Variations in Students’ Motivation to Engage in Science Learning, Based on Demographic
Variables Such as Gender, Class, and Parents’ Occupation
Motivational disparities were investigated through a comparative analysis between
the research groups, considering their demographic variables such as gender, class, and
parents’ occupation. The ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) test was employed to ensure
pre-questionnaire equivalence when examining statistically significant variations in the
post-questionnaire outcomes.
The findings brought to light that students in the fifth grade exhibited higher adjusted
post-means for ‘general motivation’ in contrast to their peers in the sixth grade (M = 3.93,
SD = 0.49; M = 3.60, SD = 0.54). Similar patterns emerged for the categories of interest
and enjoyment (M = 4.16, SD = 0.52; M = 3.73, SD = 0.70) as well as connection to daily
life (M = 3.68, SD = 0.77; M = 3.19, SD = 0.68). Refer to Table 6 for a presentation of
students’ motivation to learn science, depicting a comparison between the fifth and sixth-
grade classes.

Table 6. Students’ motivation to engage in science learning, comparing between the fifth-grade and
sixth-grade classes.

Category Class Pre-Questionnaire Post-Questionnaire F p

Mean SD Mean SD
Self-efficacy Five 3.80 0.68 3.86 0.64 0.07 NS
Six 3.82 0.63 3.80 0.75
Interest and enjoyment Five 4.17 0.72 4.16 0.52 10.76 0.00
Six 3.72 0.67 3.73 0.70
Connection to daily life Five 3.48 0.66 3.68 0.77 8.04 0.00
Six 3.18 0.53 3.19 0.68
Importance to the student Five 3.43 0.45 4.04 0.71 2.98 NS
Six 3.37 0.48 3.69 0.77
General motivation Five 3.71 0.43 3.93 0.49 6.64 0.01
Six 3.52 0.41 3.60 0.54
NS = non-significant.

The ANCOVA test revealed statistically significant differences between the fifth-grade
and sixth-grade classes for general motivation (F (1,109) = 1.57, p = 0.01, η2 p = 0.06), interest
and enjoyment (F (1,109) = 4.00, p = 0.00, η2 p = 0.09), and connection to daily life categories
(F (1,109) = 3.86, p = 0.00, η2 p = 0.07). In other words, students in the fifth-grade class
exhibited higher motivation to learn science compared to their peers in the sixth-grade
class. Additionally, they demonstrated greater interest in science and a stronger belief that
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 277 9 of 12

science studies contribute to understanding everyday phenomena compared to their peers

in the sixth-grade class.

4. Discussion
This study employed a quantitative research methodology, drawing on the classical
experimental design theory [24], to explore the impact of integrating Kahoot! digital tool
activities on students’ learning outcomes and motivation to learn science. The research
design encompassed pre- and post-questionnaires administered to both experimental
and control groups. The independent variable centered on the instructional approach—
integration of Kahoot! digital tool activities—while the dependent variables included
students’ understanding of science concepts and principles, motivation to engage in science
learning, and achievements in science. Additionally, this study investigated potential
influencing factors such as gender, class, and parents’ occupation.
This study’s findings revealed a significant improvement in students’ comprehension
of scientific concepts and principles resulting from the incorporation of Kahoot! digital tool
activities for learning. These results align with previous research suggesting that interactive
and engaging educational platforms can effectively enhance students’ understanding of
complex subjects [25,26].
Furthermore, an exploration of students’ motivation to learn science provided insight-
ful observations. While no significant differences were observed between the experimental
and control groups in the pre-questionnaire, the post-questionnaire results indicated a
substantial increase in self-efficacy and levels of interest and enjoyment among students in
the experimental group. This underscores the notion that Kahoot! digital tool activities not
only enhance students’ grasp of scientific concepts but also reinforce their motivation to
actively engage with the subject matter.
The questionnaire, designed to assess students’ understanding of science concepts and
principles, consisted of two versions—one for fifth-grade and one for sixth-grade students—
aligned with national standards and topics. Each version included eight questions, en-
compassing five multiple-choice and three open-ended questions. Rigorous validation
through an inter-rater process yielded a content validity ratio (CVR) of 1.00, indicating
unanimous agreement among the five assessors. The Science Knowledge (SK) question-
naire was administered twice—prior to and following engagement with Kahoot!—marking
the beginning and end of the semester. The observed correlation between motivation and
students’ understanding of scientific concepts and principles (as reflected in their means
on the post-science knowledge questionnaire) reinforces the proposition that motivated
students generally achieve better outcomes.
Building upon the insights unearthed in this study, Kahoot! emerges as a robust tool
that not only enhances students’ grasp of scientific concepts but also ignites their motivation
to engage with the subject matter. These findings align with a collective body of research
that underscores the transformative potential of gamified learning experiences [6,8,27–30].
In alignment with the aforementioned studies, Sailer and Homner’s meta-analysis of
38 studies revealed significant positive effects of gamification on cognitive, motivational,
and behavioral learning outcomes [8]. Likewise, Kalogiannakis et al.’s review of 24 stud-
ies demonstrated predominantly positive impacts of gamification on students’ learning
achievement [6]. Furthermore, consistent findings in motivation studies indicated height-
ened intrinsic motivation, enjoyment, and improved learning outcomes. Collectively, these
findings underscore that such tools transcend the role of mere information conveyors,
becoming catalysts for enhancing student motivation and support, nurturing a genuine
eagerness to learn and actively engage with the realm of science.
These converging findings, both from prior research and this study, accentuate the
symbiotic relationship between cognitive and motivational aspects within the context of
gamified tools like Kahoot! in science education. This contemporary educational paradigm
not only aims to disseminate knowledge but also strives to kindle and cultivate students’
curiosity, propelling them to explore scientific concepts through captivating and immersive
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 277 10 of 12

approaches. Ultimately, these endeavors are poised to contribute not only to enhanced
comprehension but also to an overarching elevation of students’ performance and mastery
of scientific subjects.
Moreover, this study’s investigation into demographic variables yielded intriguing
results. While gender and parents’ occupation did not exert a notable influence on students’
motivation to learn science, grade level emerged as a factor shaping students’ motivation.
The finding that students in class five demonstrated higher motivation scores compared to
their peers in class six for general motivation, interest and enjoyment, and connection to
daily life categories, as measured by the ANCOVA test, aligns with prior research on moti-
vation in science education. Existing literature suggests that demographic variables such
as gender, class type, class level, and parental support may impact students’ motivation
to learn science [31–34]. For instance, Simpkins et al. [34] discovered that students harbor
distinct motivational beliefs for biology, chemistry, and physics as early as the commence-
ment of high school, implying that class level might influence students’ motivation to learn
science.
The integration of digital tools in education, particularly through gamified learning,
has been the focus of numerous studies, revealing a spectrum of outcomes on student
engagement and learning achievements [35–37]. Our study on the impact of Kahoot!
in enhancing science education among fifth- and sixth-grade students adds a valuable
dimension to this ongoing discourse. While our findings are in agreement with the positive
outcomes highlighted by many studies, such as Garza et al. [36], who documented enhanced
motivation and academic performance through game-based learning experiences, they also
provide new perspectives on the influence of demographic factors, such as grade level, in
mediating learning outcomes. This aspect of our research offers a distinctive contribution
by underscoring how younger learners might uniquely benefit from gamified learning
environments, an area less explored in existing literature.
This study aligns with Balaskas et al. [35] in finding that Kahoot! enhances student
engagement and motivation. However, we explore further by analyzing how motivational
factors correlate with academic performance in a gamified context, revealing the complex re-
lationship between motivation, demographics, and educational outcomes. Unlike Balaskas
et al., who focused on sixth graders without exploring learning outcomes or demographic
impacts, our research provides a broader view of gamified learning’s efficacy in primary
education, filling existing gaps and guiding future pedagogical strategies and studies.
However, it is essential to acknowledge the limitations of this study. Despite its
positive impact, the applicability of Kahoot! digital tool activities may fluctuate across
different topics and educational contexts. Additionally, this study’s focus on a specific age
group and subject matter might constrain the generalizability of the findings.
In summary, this research enriches the discourse on gamified learning with its focused
examination of Kahoot!’s deployment in elementary science education, a sector less tra-
versed by existing research. Distinguishing itself by concentrating on younger learners, this
study illuminates the nuanced benefits and challenges of integrating gamified approaches
in early educational stages. Employing a robust quantitative analysis, our research metic-
ulously evaluates the dual impact of Kahoot! on both the cognitive comprehension of
scientific concepts and the motivational dynamics within the classroom. The outcomes indi-
cate a notable enhancement in scientific understanding and a surge in student engagement
and motivation, offering concrete evidence of Kahoot!’s efficacy in elementary settings. By
navigating beyond the generic application of digital tools, this study delineates specific
pedagogical gains from gamified learning, providing educators with empirical insights to
tailor more effective and motivational learning experiences.
Future research could delve into the long-term effects of such interventions and explore
how diverse interactive tools cater to distinct learning needs. By highlighting the signifi-
cance of instructional methods and intrinsic motivation in science education, this study
underscores the importance of nurturing dynamic and captivating learning environments
that cultivate curiosity, critical thinking, and a profound grasp of scientific concepts.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 277 11 of 12

Furthermore, this study holds both practical and theoretical significance. From a
practical standpoint, the integration of Kahoot! digital tool activities into primary school
science curricula emerges as a valuable implication. These activities not only facilitate
the exploration of novel concepts and potential solutions but also invigorate classroom
discourse. On a theoretical level, this study contributes to the growing body of knowledge
on the efficacy of Kahoot! digital tool activities for teaching and learning. It underscores
their importance in elementary school education and offers a validated framework for
their integration. Additionally, it enhances our understanding of primary school students’
conceptual comprehension and their motivation to learn science.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, B.R. and A.W.; methodology, B.R. and A.W.; software,
B.R.; formal analysis, B.R. and A.W.; data curation, B.R. and A.W.; writing—original draft preparation,
B.R. and A.W.; supervision, A.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declara-
tion of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Al-Qasemi Academic College
of Education.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study can be made available upon request
from the corresponding authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Orhan Göksün, D.; Gürsoy, G. Comparing success and engagement in gamified learning experiences via Kahoot and Quizizz.
Comput. Educ. 2019, 135, 15–29. [CrossRef]
2. Dicheva, D.; Dichev, C.; Agre, G.; Angelova, G. Gamification in Education: A Systematic Mapping Study. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2015,
18, 75–88.
3. Deterding, S.; Dixon, D.; Khaled, R.; Nacke, L. From Game Design Elements to Gamefulness: Defining Gamification. In
Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, Tampere,
Finland, 28–30 September 2011; Volume 11, pp. 9–15.
4. Fleming, T.M.; Bavin, L.; Stasiak, K.; Hermansson-Webb, E.; Merry, S.N.; Cheek, C.; Lucassen, M.; Lau, H.M.; Pollmuller, B.;
Hetrick, S. Serious Games and Gamification for Mental Health: Current Status and Promising Directions. Front. Psychiatry 2016, 7,
215. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Landers, R. Developing a Theory of Gamified Learning. Simul. Gaming 2015, 45, 752–768. [CrossRef]
6. Kalogiannakis, M.; Papadakis, S.; Zourmpakis, A.-I. Gamification in Science Education. A Systematic Review of the Literature.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 22. [CrossRef]
7. Landers, R.; Auer, E.; Collmus, A.; Armstrong, M. Gamification Science, Its History and Future: Definitions and a Research
Agenda. Simul. Gaming 2018, 49, 315–337. [CrossRef]
8. Sailer, M.; Homner, L. The Gamification of Learning: A Meta-analysis. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2020, 32, 77–112. [CrossRef]
9. Boyle, E.A.; Connolly, T.M.; Hainey, T.; Boyle, J.M. Engagement in digital entertainment games: A systematic review. Comput.
Hum. Behav. 2012, 28, 771–780. [CrossRef]
10. Shi, L.; Cristea, A. Motivational Gamification Strategies Rooted in Self-Determination Theory for Social Adaptive E-Learning.
In Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 13th International Conference, ITS 2016, Zagreb, Croatia, 7–10 June 2016; Micarelli, A., Stamper, J.,
Panourgia, K., Eds.; Proceedings 294–300; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016. [CrossRef]
11. van Roy, R.; Zaman, B. Why Gamification Fails in Education and How to Make It Successful: Introducing Nine Gamification
Heuristics Based on Self-Determination Theory. In Serious Games and Edutainment Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2017; pp. 485–509.
12. Brown, C.L.; Comunale, M.A.; Wigdahl, B.; Urdaneta-Hartmann, S. Current climate for digital game-based learning of science in
further and higher education. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2018, 365, fny237. [CrossRef]
13. Erdoğdu, F.; Karatas, F.O. Examining the Effects of Gamification on Differentvariables in Science Education. 2016 Hoca
Ahmet Yesevi Yılı Anısına Uluslararası TürkDünyası Eğitim Bilimleri ve Sosyal Bilimler Kongresi. 2016. Available on-
line: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312164266_Examining_the_Effects_of_Gamification_on_Different_Variables_
in_Science_Education (accessed on 1 March 2024).
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 277 12 of 12

14. Sjøberg, S.; Schreiner, C. ROSE (The Relevance of Science Education). The Development, Key Findings and Impacts of an International
Low Cost Comparative Project; Final Report, Part 1 (of 2); University of Oslo: Oslo, Norway, 2019.
15. Hursen, C.; Bas, C. Use of Gamification Applications in Science Education. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 2019, 14, 4–23. [CrossRef]
16. Khan, A.; Ahmad, F.; Malik, M. Use of digital game based learning and gamification in secondary school science: The effect on
student engagement, learning and gender difference. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2017, 22, 2767–2804. [CrossRef]
17. Morris, B.; Croker, S.; Zimmerman, C.; Gill, D.; Romig, C. Gaming Science: The Gamification of Scientific Thinking. Front. Psychol.
2013, 4, 607. [CrossRef]
18. Dichev, C.; Dicheva, D. Gamifying education: What is known, what is believed and what remains uncertain: A critical review. Int.
J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2017, 14, 9. [CrossRef]
19. Rapp, A.; Hopfgartner, F.; Hamari, J.; Linehan, C.; Cena, F. Strengthening gamification studies: Current trends and future
opportunities of gamification research. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 2019, 127, 1–6. [CrossRef]
20. Campbell, D.T.; Stanley, J.C. Experimental and Quasi–Experimental Designs for Research; Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston, MA,
USA, 1963.
21. Glynn, S.M.; Koballa, T.R. Motivation to Learn College Science; National Science Teachers Association Press: Arlington, VA, USA,
2006.
22. Barak, M.; Ashkar, T.; Dori, Y.J. Learning science via animated movies: Its effect on students’ thinking and motivation. Comput.
Educ. 2011, 56, 839–846. [CrossRef]
23. Field, A.P. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: And Sex and Drugs and Rock ‘n’ Roll, 3rd ed.; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2009.
24. Creswell, J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, Kindle ed.; Sage Publications: London, UK,
2014.
25. Elbourhamy, D.M.; Najmi, A.H.; Elfeky, A.I.M. Students’ performance in interactive environments: An intelligent model. PeerJ
Comput. Sci. 2023, 9, e1348. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Li, X.; Odhiambo, F.A.; Ocansey, D.K.W. The effect of students’ online learning experience on their satisfaction during the
COVID-19 pandemic: The mediating role of preference. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1095073. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Fuster-Guilló, A.; Pertegal-Felices, M.L.; Jimeno-Morenilla, A.; Azorín-López, J.; Rico-Soliveres, M.L.; Restrepo-Calle, F. Evaluating
Impact on Motivation and Academic Performance of a Game-Based Learning Experience Using Kahoot. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10,
2843. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Jones, S.M.; Katyal, P.; Xie, X.; Nicolas, M.P.; Leung, E.M.; Noland, D.M.; Montclare, J.K. A ‘KAHOOT!’ Approach: The
Effectiveness of Game-Based Learning for an Advanced Placement Biology Class. Simul. Gaming 2019, 50, 832–847. [CrossRef]
29. Licorish, S.A.; Owen, H.E.; Daniel, B.; George, J.L. Students’ perception of Kahoot!’s influence on teaching and learning. Res.
Pract. Technol. Enhanc. Learn. 2018, 13, 9. [CrossRef]
30. Martín-Sómer, M.; Moreira, J.; Casado, C. Use of Kahoot! to keep students’ motivation during online classes in the lockdown
period caused by Covid 19. Educ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 36, 154–159. [CrossRef]
31. Barak, M.; Watted, A.; Haick, H. Motivation to learn in massive open online courses: Examining aspects of language and social
engagement. Comput. Educ. 2016, 94, 49–60. [CrossRef]
32. Cavas, P. Factors affecting the motivation of Turkish primary students for science learning. Sci. Educ. Int. 2011, 22, 31–42.
33. DeBacker, T.K.; Nelson, R.M. Motivation to Learn Science: Differences Related to Gender, Class Type, and Ability. J. Educ. Res.
2000, 93, 245–254. [CrossRef]
34. Simpkins, S.D.; Price, C.D.; Garcia, K. Parental support and high school students’ motivation in biology, chemistry, and physics:
Understanding differences among latino and caucasian boys and girls. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2015, 52, 1386–1407. [CrossRef]
35. Balaskas, S.; Zotos, C.; Koutroumani, M.; Rigou, M. Effectiveness of GBL in the Engagement, Motivation, and Satisfaction of 6th
Grade Pupils: A Kahoot! Approach. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1214. [CrossRef]
36. Garza, M.C.; Olivan, S.; Monleon, E.; Cisneros, A.I.; Garcia-Barrios, A.; Ochoa, I.; Whyte, J.; Lamiquiz-Moneo, I. Performance in
Kahoot! activities as predictive of exam performance. BMC Med. Educ. 2023, 23, 413. [CrossRef]
37. Wang, A.I.; Tahir, R. The effect of using Kahoot! for learning—A literature review. Comput. Educ. 2020, 149, 103818. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.