Game On for Chemistry: How Kahoot Transforms Learning Outcomes and Student Interest
Abstract
Purpose of the study: This study aims to determine the effect of Kahoot game media on students' interest and learning outcomes in chemistry lessons.
Methodology: The method used is an experimental method with a quantitative approach to determine the level of interest and learning outcomes of students and to compare the level of interest and learning outcomes of students in the control class and the experimental class.
Main Findings: The results of the t-test show a significance value of 0.000, then Sig. ˂ 0.05 so that there is an influence between the Kahoot game media and students' interest in learning. These results are supported by observation data with a significance value of 0.015, then Sig. ˂ 0.05. So it can be concluded that there is an influence between the Kahoot game media and students' interest in learning. The results of the Mann-Whitney test show a significance value of 0.749, then Sig. ˃ 0.05 so that it can be concluded that there is no significant influence between the use of Kahoot game media and students' learning outcomes.
Novelty/Originality of this study: The novelty of this study lies in the use of Kahoot game media as an interactive approach to improve students' interest and learning outcomes in abstract and complex Chemistry lessons. This study is also relevant in the context of post-pandemic digital learning that demands technology-based innovation.
References
M. A. Jarilkapovich, “Program Technology for Choosing an Effective Educational Methodology Based on Modern Pedagogical Research in The Educational System,” Curr. Res. J. Pedagog., vol. 06, no. 02, pp. 30–33, 2025.
A. Marougkas, C. Troussas, A. Krouska, and C. Sgouropoulou, “Virtual Reality in Education: A Review of Learning Theories, Approaches and Methodologies for the Last Decade,” Electron., vol. 12, no. 13, pp. 1–21, 2023, doi: 10.3390/electronics12132832.
M. Alenezi, “Digital Learning and Digital Institution in Higher Education,” Educ. Sci., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2023, doi: 10.3390/educsci13010088.
T. Gomez, Y. B. Anaya, K. J. Shih, and D. M. Tarn, “A Qualitative Study of Primary Care Physicians’ Experiences with Telemedicine during COVID-19,” J. Am. Board Fam. Med., vol. 34, pp. S61–S70, 2021, doi: 10.3122/JABFM.2021.S1.200517.
P. D. McGorry, C. Mei, A. Chanen, C. Hodges, M. Alvarez-Jimenez, and E. Killackey, “Designing and scaling up integrated youth mental health care,” World Psychiatry, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 61–76, 2022, doi: 10.1002/wps.20938.
Herpratiwi and A. Tohir, “Learning Interest and Discipline on Learning Motivation,” Int. J. Educ. Math. Sci. Technol., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 424–435, 2022, doi: 10.46328/ijemst.2290.
Z. Fajri, H. Baharun, C. Muali, Shofiatun, L. Farida, and Y. Wahyuningtiyas, “Student’s Learning Motivation and Interest; the Effectiveness of Online Learning during COVID-19 Pandemic,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2021, pp. 1–11. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1899/1/012178.
G. Nanda, K. A. Douglas, D. R. Waller, H. E. Merzdorf, and D. Goldwasser, “Analyzing Large Collections of Open-Ended Feedback from MOOC Learners Using LDA Topic Modeling and Qualitative Analysis,” IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 146–160, 2021, doi: 10.1109/TLT.2021.3064798.
R. Nofrialdi, “the Effect of Student’S Creativity and Learning Interest on Learning Achievement in Economic Students Class Xi Ips Sma Ekasakti Padang,” J. Int. Glob. Educ., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 37–46, 2022, doi: 10.31933/jige.v1i1.536.
X. Wei, N. Saab, and W. Admiraal, “Do learners share the same perceived learning outcomes in MOOCs? Identifying the role of motivation, perceived learning support, learning engagement, and self-regulated learning strategies,” Internet High. Educ., vol. 56, no. July 2021, p. 100880, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2022.100880.
R. Pishghadam, A. Derakhshan, H. Jajarmi, S. Tabatabaee Farani, and S. Shayesteh, “Examining the Role of Teachers’ Stroking Behaviors in EFL Learners’ Active/Passive Motivation and Teacher Success,” Front. Psychol., vol. 12, no. July, pp. 1–17, 2021, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.707314.
A. S. Al-Adwan, N. A. Albelbisi, O. Hujran, W. M. Al-Rahmi, and A. Alkhalifah, “Developing a holistic success model for sustainable e-learning: A structural equation modeling approach,” Sustain., vol. 13, no. 16, pp. 1–25, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13169453.
J. Gardner, M. O’Leary, and L. Yuan, “Artificial intelligence in educational assessment: ‘Breakthrough? Or buncombe and ballyhoo?,’” J. Comput. Assist. Learn., vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 1207–1216, 2021, doi: 10.1111/jcal.12577.
R. Kurniawan, A. W. Kurniawan, and D. Wijaya, “Students’ interest in physical education learning: Analysis of internal and external factors,” J. Sport Area, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 385–393, 2021, doi: 10.25299/sportarea.2021.vol6(3).7402.
Q. Liu, X. Du, and H. Lu, “Teacher support and learning engagement of EFL learners: The mediating role of self-efficacy and achievement goal orientation,” Curr. Psychol., vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 2619–2635, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s12144-022-04043-5.
E. Meşe, Ç. Sevilen, and A. Info, “Factors influencing EFL students’ motivation in online learning: A qualitative case study,” J. Educ. Technol. Online Learn., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 11–22, 2019, [Online]. Available: http://dergipark.org.tr/jetolDoi:http://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.817680
S. Bukit, E. D. Marcela, and E. Ernawati, “Teacher’s Strategy to Create Fun Learning in Elementary School,” J. Corner Educ. Linguist. Lit., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 244–249, 2023, doi: 10.54012/jcell.v2i3.129.
C. Umam, N. Aini, and G. G. H. Herdina, “How Professional English Teachers Motivate Their Students: A Multiple Case Study,” Proceeding Int. Conf. Relig. Sci. Educ., vol. 2, pp. 295–307, 2023.
E. Jääskä, J. Lehtinen, J. Kujala, and O. Kauppila, “Game-based learning and students’ motivation in project management education,” Proj. Leadersh. Soc., vol. 3, no. July, pp. 1–13, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.plas.2022.100055.
M. T. Kariadi, M. Riyanton, and D. Anggraheni, “Planning and Developing Creativity Through Media-Based Learning in English Language Teaching,” English Rev. J. English Educ., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 427–436, 2021, doi: 10.25134/erjee.v9i2.4519.
R. Mesra, M. F. Hidayat, V. E. T. Salem, and T. Tanase, “Lecturer Creativity in the Use of Online Learning Media at Manado State University,” IJECA (International J. Educ. Curric. Appl., vol. 5, no. 3, p. 250, 2022, doi: 10.31764/ijeca.v5i3.11045.
W. Wahyudi, D. Kusuma, E. Prihatnani, T. Nova Hasti Yunianta, and N. F. Amin, “Development of Blended Learning Activities Based on 3CM (Cool-Critical-Creative-Meaningful) to Support Creativity and Good Character Students,” J. Nonform. Educ., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 10–22, 2023, doi: 10.15294/jne.v9i1.42095.
E. Evendi and N. N. S. P. Verawati, “Evaluation of Student Learning Outcomes in Problem-Based Learning: Study of Its Implementation and Reflection of Successful Factors,” J. Penelit. Pendidik. IPA, vol. 7, no. SpecialIssue, pp. 69–76, 2021, doi: 10.29303/jppipa.v7ispecialissue.1099.
I. V. Rossi, J. D. de Lima, B. Sabatke, M. A. F. Nunes, G. E. Ramirez, and M. I. Ramirez, “Active learning tools improve the learning outcomes, scientific attitude, and critical thinking in higher education: Experiences in an online course during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ., vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 888–903, 2021, doi: 10.1002/bmb.21574.
L. Sandra, F. Lumbangaol, and T. Matsuo, “Machine Learning Algorithm to Predict Student’s Performance: A Systematic Literature Review,” TEM J., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1919–1927, 2021, doi: 10.18421/TEM104-56.
J. Musengimana, E. Kampire, and P. Ntawiha, “Factors Affecting Secondary Schools Students’ Attitudes toward Learning Chemistry: A Review of Literature,” Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2021, doi: 10.29333/ejmste/9379.
H. Y. Agustian et al., “Learning outcomes of university chemistry teaching in laboratories: A systematic review of empirical literature,” Rev. Educ., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1–41, 2022, doi: 10.1002/rev3.3360.
P. N. Iwuanyanwu, “Addressing common deficiencies of mathematics skills among chemistry student teachers,” African J. Educ. Stud. Math. Sci., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 2021, doi: 10.4314/ajesms.v17i1.1.
V. G. Zuin, I. Eilks, M. Elschami, and K. Kümmerer, “Education in green chemistry and in sustainable chemistry: perspectives towards sustainability,” Green Chem., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 1594–1608, 2021, doi: 10.1039/d0gc03313h.
A. Almusaed, A. Almssad, I. Yitmen, and R. Z. Homod, “Enhancing Student Engagement: Harnessing ‘AIED’’s Power in Hybrid Education—A Review Analysis,” Educ. Sci., vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 1–24, 2023, doi: 10.3390/educsci13070632.
E. Byusa, E. Kampire, and A. R. Mwesigye, “Game-based learning approach on students’ motivation and understanding of chemistry concepts: A systematic review of literature,” Heliyon, vol. 8, no. 5, p. e09541, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09541.
F. Tuma, “The use of educational technology for interactive teaching in lectures,” Ann. Med. Surg., vol. 62, no. December 2020, pp. 231–235, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.01.051.
S. Mhlongo, K. Mbatha, B. Ramatsetse, and R. Dlamini, “Challenges, opportunities, and prospects of adopting and using smart digital technologies in learning environments: An iterative review,” Heliyon, vol. 9, no. 6, p. e16348, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16348.
S. K. S. Cheung, L. F. Kwok, K. Phusavat, and H. H. Yang, “Shaping the future learning environments with smart elements: challenges and opportunities,” Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2021, doi: 10.1186/s41239-021-00254-1.
L. Major, G. A. Francis, and M. Tsapali, “The effectiveness of technology-supported personalised learning in low- and middle-income countries: A meta-analysis,” 2021. doi: 10.1111/bjet.13116.
D. Baidoo-Anu and L. O. Ansah, “Education in the Era of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI): Understanding the Potential Benefits of ChatGPT in Promoting Teaching and Learning,” J. AI, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 52–62, 2023, doi: 10.61969/jai.1337500.
S. Sukumaran and S. Kuyare, “Using Kahoot! as an assessment tool to enhance learning in a traditional lecture-based classroom,” South-East Asian J. Med. Educ., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 46–49, 2022, doi: 10.4038/seajme.v16i1.403.
R. Martínez-Jiménez, C. Pedrosa-Ortega, A. Licerán-Gutiérrez, M. C. Ruiz-Jiménez, and E. García-Martí, “Kahoot! as a tool to improve student academic performance in business management subjects,” Sustain., vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 1–13, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13052969.
C. N. T. Phan and A. N. P. Tran, “Students’ Achievements and Teachers’ Perception: Exploring the Effectiveness of Kahoot for Vocabulary Learning in Vietnamese Classrooms,” Proc. Int. Conf. Res. Educ. Sci., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 787–798, 2024.
Z. I. Saputri, “A Comprehensive Exploration of Effective Learning Strategies Through Engaging and Interactive Kahoot Games in Educational Setting,” Indones. Res. J. Educ., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 327–331, 2024.
T. M. Lofti, B. W. Pratolo, and U. A. Dahlan, “Students’ Perceptions Toward The Use of Kahoot! Online Game for Learning English,” Ethical Ling., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 276–284, 2021.
A. R. Rojabi et al., “Kahoot, is it fun or unfun? Gamifying vocabulary learning to boost exam scores, engagement, and motivation,” Front. Educ., vol. 7, no. September, pp. 1–11, 2022, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.939884.
S. A. Licorish and A. L. J. Lötter, “When Does Kahoot! Provide Most Value for Classroom Dynamics, Engagement, and Motivation?: IS Students’ and Lecturers’ Perceptions,” J. Inf. Syst. Educ., vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 245–260, 2022.
Y. Wirani, T. Nabarian, and M. S. Romadhon, “Evaluation of continued use on Kahoot! As a gamification-based learning platform from the perspective of Indonesia students,” in Procedia Computer Science, Elsevier B.V., 2021, pp. 545–556. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2021.12.172.
A. Alsswey, B. A. Alobaydi, and A. M. A. Alqudah, “The Effect of Game-Based Technology on Students’ Learning Anxiety, Motivation, Engagement and Learning Experience: Case Study Kahoot!,” Int. J. Relig., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 137–145, 2024, doi: 10.61707/565z9c91.
S. J. Litualy, H. Serpara, and E. C. Wenno, “The effect of Kahoot! learning media on learning outcomes of German language students,” J. Educ. Learn., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 254–261, 2022, doi: 10.11591/edulearn.v16i2.20458.
B. Rayan and A. Watted, “Enhancing Education in Elementary Schools through Gamified Learning: Exploring the Impact of Kahoot! on the Learning Process,” Educ. Sci., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 1–12, 2024, doi: 10.3390/educsci14030277.
A. A. A. Ahmed et al., “An Empirical Study on the Effects of Using Kahoot as a Game-Based Learning Tool on EFL Learners’ Vocabulary Recall and Retention,” Educ. Res. Int., vol. 2022, pp. 1–10, 2022, doi: 10.1155/2022/9739147.
A. Rusmardiana, D. W. Sjuchro, D. Yanti, F. Daryanti, and A. Iskandar, “Students’ Perception on the Use of Kahoot as a Learning Media,” AL-ISHLAH J. Pendidik., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 2206–2212, 2022, doi: 10.35445/alishlah.v14i1.973.
S. Kusumayanthi and M. Rusmiyati, “Students’ Engagement in Learning English Vocabulary Via Games in Kahoot!,” English J. Lit. Utama, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 444–452, 2021, doi: 10.33197/ejlutama.v6i1.153.
C. Andrade, “The limitations of quasi-experimental studies, and methods for data analysis when a quasi-experimental research design is unavoidable,” Indian J. Psychol. Med., vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 451–452, 2021.
M. Sohrabi, M. Azizzadeh forouzi, R. Mehdipour-Rabori, B. Bagherian, and M. Nematollahi, “The effect of a training program on maternal role adaptation and self-esteem of mothers with preterm infants: a quasi-experimental study,” BMC Womens. Health, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2021, doi: 10.1186/s12905-021-01440-z.
H. H. Ayob, G. Daleure, N. Solovieva, W. Minhas, and T. White, “The effectiveness of using blended learning teaching and learning strategy to develop students’ performance at higher education,” J. Appl. Res. High. Educ., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 650–662, 2023, doi: 10.1108/JARHE-09-2020-0288.
S. Hackett, J. Janssen, P. Beach, M. Perreault, J. Beelen, and J. van Tartwijk, “The effectiveness of Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) on intercultural competence development in higher education,” Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1–21, 2023, doi: 10.1186/s41239-022-00373-3.
A. R. Al Firdausi and D. Suprayitno, “Application of the Economic Order Quantity (EOQ) Method in Soybean Raw Material Inventory Control at the Haji Maman Tofu Factory in Matraman District, East Jakarta,” Sinergi Int. J. Logist., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 73–84, 2023, doi: 10.61194/sijl.v1i2.65.
D. Wulandari, “Customer Satisfaction as a Priority in Excellent Banking Services,” KINERJA J. Manaj. Organ. dan Ind., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 27–34, 2022, doi: 10.37481/jmoi.v1i1.5.
D. Hossan, Z. Dato’ Mansor, and N. S. Jaharuddin, “Research Population and Sampling in Quantitative Study,” Int. J. Bus. Technopreneursh., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 209–222, 2023, doi: 10.58915/ijbt.v13i3.263.
C. Y. Heo, B. Kim, K. Park, and R. M. Back, “A comparison of Best-Worst Scaling and Likert Scale methods on peer-to-peer accommodation attributes,” J. Bus. Res., vol. 148, no. 1, pp. 368–377, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.04.064.
A. H. M. Aburbeian, A. Y. Owda, and M. Owda, “A Technology Acceptance Model Survey of the Metaverse Prospects,” AI, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 285–302, 2022, doi: 10.3390/ai3020018.
H. Taherdoost, “Data Collection Methods and Tools for Research; A Step-by-Step Guide to Choose Data Collection Technique for Academic and Business Research Projects Hamed Taherdoost. Data Collection Methods and Tools for Research; A Step-by-Step Guide to Choose Data Coll,” Int. J. Acad. Res. Manag., vol. 2021, no. 1, pp. 10–38, 2021, [Online]. Available: https://hal.science/hal-03741847
R. Bihu, “Questionnaire Survey Methodology in Educational and Social Science Studies,” Pharmacogn. Mag., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 40–60, 2021.
A. Ghanad, “An Overview of Quantitative Research Methods,” Int. J. Multidiscip. Res. Anal., vol. 06, no. 08, pp. 3794–3803, 2023, doi: 10.47191/ijmra/v6-i8-52.
A. Lusyiana, Christian Wiradendi Wolor, and Marsofiyati, “The Influence Secretarial Competence, Self-Esteem & Self-Efficacy of The Work Readiness of Final Year Students,” Bus. Invest. Rev., vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 63–72, 2023, doi: 10.61292/birev.v1i6.73.
A. S. Albari, M. P. Salsabila, M. F. Aziz, N. Faizah, and S. B. Putra, “Analysis of The Effect of The ’ Kahoot ’ Quiz Method on Student Enthusiasm,” Int. Journals Educ. Issues, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 35–39, 2025.
R. Sinaga and T. Sudariah, “Kahoot Application as a Learning Evaluation Media to Increase Student Learning Motivation in Islamic Education Learning at SD Inpres Nagaraja,” J. Media Learn. Technol., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 103–117, 2025.
Copyright (c) 2025 I. S. Al-Flayeh, Keziah C.B, Ruth Dikenwosi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and acknowledge that the Journal of Chemical Learning Innovation is the first publisher licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges and earlier and greater citation of published work.
.png)
.png)
