A course section that reviewed with Kahoot no-stakes quizzes differed significantly in high-stakes multiple-choice exam scores from a section that reviewed with a study guide and lecture, a difference the authors report as improvement without printing group means¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · checked against its sources 2026-11-01 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Exam scores of the section using Kahoot quizzes differed significantly from those of the control section, which reviewed with a study guide and a lecture-based review session; the authors describe the difference as improved performance but print no group means. → Iwamoto 2017

Evidence¶

Iwamoto 2017¶

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). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1145220

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Pilot quasi-experimental action research study with 49 undergraduate psychology students in two sections of one General Psychology course, one section assigned by coin flip to Kahoot. Both sections had the same lectures, videos and group discussions; the Kahoot section spent the last 10 minutes of some classes on no-stakes Kahoot quizzes while the control section continued the class. Before the exam the control section received a study guide and a 50-minute lecture-based review, and the Kahoot section a 50-minute session replaying the Kahoot quizzes; both had office hours. So the comparison is Kahoot quizzing against study-guide and lecture review, not against lecture and discussion alone. The Independent-Samples T-Test found significance "at the p<.05 level (F(1, 47) = 7.801, p = .008)"; the article prints neither group means nor an effect size, so the size of the difference, and its direction except as the authors describe it ("enhance and improve"), cannot be read from the reported results.

"An Independent-Samples T -Test was conducted to compare the effects of the online application Kahoot™ on the mean test scores in the experimental and control groups. Significance was determined between the two groups at the p<.05 level (F(1, 47) = 7.801, p = .008)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The authors observed higher engagement, enthusiasm, and peer study-group use in the Kahoot group than in the control group — related
• Students in the experimental group reported that Kahoot quizzes helped, were fun, and left them feeling positive about exam preparation — related
• Students taught with Kahoot reported significantly higher learning motivation than students taught with paper quizzes — related
• In a Thai university EFL course, students revising with Kahoot achieved higher adjusted post-test grammar and vocabulary scores than students revising with paper quizzes — related
• Classroom pretesting improves high-stakes exam performance on pretested content by 8–9% over a multi-week course — a broader claim this one bears on