Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Articles

Vol. 1 No. 2 (2021): Technology enhanced learning in the MENA region

Examining the use of Kahoot to support digital game-based formative assessments in UAE higher education

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21428/8c225f6e.32b8666f
Submitted
8 August 2026
Published
15-08-2026

Abstract

Attempts to sustain economic growth and diversification within the Middle East have seen governments invested in various educational initiatives. In alignment with this ethos, the United Arab Emirates offers citizens, free education in government-funded higher educational institutes, and bursaries linked to grade point average scores.

It is believed that incentivised learning environments provide a powerful motivation to stimulate academic excellence in summative assessments⁠—linked to grade point average scores. An unfortunate outcome of these environments may, however, be that non-grade point reliant tasks are not prioritised by learners. Thus, identifying pedagogical tools which engage student agency towards such tasks, is of obvious interest to educators working within these settings.

One such tool which may engage student agency towards formative assessments, is the digital game-based learning platform Kahoot. Kahoot is known to have permeated many educational domains due to its claimed ability to transform classrooms into fun, competitive environments, where students are engaged and motivated to learn. There is, however, a sparsity of literature evidencing the effects that contextual or demographic influences may have upon this and other digital game-based learning tools effectiveness. As such, an explanatory case-based study situated in the United Arab Emirates incentivised learning environment, was undertaken to evaluate female students’ perceptions of Kahoot, as a formative assessment tool. To achieve this Mwanza's eight-step model for translating data into activity theory components was utilised to develop semi-structured interview questions (Mwanza, 2002). These questions permitted analyses of the social, the individual, and socio-economic structures influencing user engagement with this technology.

Upon introduction of Kahoot as a formative assessment tool, into the incentivised learning context of the UAE, students described contradictions between classroom and institutional rules, community expectations and the divisions of labour. The transformed classroom environments resultant from resolution of these contradictions produced, greater learner collaboration, superior knowledge retention, reduced test anxiety, and increased levels of student satisfaction.

In contrast with other contexts, this study evidenced that digital game-based learning did not predominantly influence student’s motivation to study outside of the classroom for formative assessments. Instead, conventional paper-based assessments provided the greater impetus to engage in out of class learning. This finding may have resulted from the socio-economic and socio-cultural perceptions of the students within this specific learning context.

This study, therefore, urges researchers and educators to undertake shifts in their consciousness to acknowledge socio-cultural and intersubjective factors, which may impact upon the effectiveness of digital game-based learning as a formative assessment tool. This is in recognition of this study’s findings that such technologies, may be heavily dependent upon both contextual and demographic influences of those utilising them.

References

  1. Andrade, H. L., Wang, X. L., Du, Y., & Akawi, R. L. (2009). Rubric-referenced self assessment and self-efficacy for writing. Journal of Educational Research, 102(4), 287–301.
  2. Bahati, B., Fors, U., Hansen, P., Nouri, J., & Mukama, E. (2019). Measuring learner satisfaction with formative e-assessment strategies. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 14(7), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i07.9120
  3. Barab, S. A., Barnett, M., Yamagata-Lynch, L., Squire, K., & Keating, T. (2002). Using activity theory to understand the contradictions characterizing a technology-rich introductory astronomy course. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(2), 76–107. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884MCA0902_01
  4. 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.
  5. Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
  6. Black, P., & Williams, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.
  7. Bligh, B., & Coyle, D. (2013). Re-mediating classroom activity with a non-linear, multi-display presentation tool. Computers & Education, 63, 337–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.01.001
  8. Bligh, B., & Flood, M. (2015). The Change Laboratory in Higher Education: research-intervention using activity theory. In J. Huisman, & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and Method in Higher Education Research (pp. 141-168). Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1108/s2056-375220150000001007
  9. Bligh, B., & Flood, M. (2017). Activity theory in empirical higher education research: choices, uses and values. Tertiary Education and Management, 23(2), 125–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2017.1284258
  10. Blunden, A. (2010). An interdisciplinary theory of activity. Leiden: Brill.
  11. Cameron, J. (2001). Negative effects of reward on intrinsic motivation, a limited phenomenon: Review of Educational Research, 7(1), 29–42.
  12. Castro, J. F., G, Y., Contreras, H., Linares, F., & Watson, H. (2018). The Effect of Monetary Incentives on Cognitive Effort, Emotions and Test-Solving Performance. Peruvian Economic Association.
  13. Crook, C. (2010). Versions of computer-supported collaboration in higher education. In Ludvigsen, S. R., Lund, A., & Rasmussen, I. (Eds), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practice (pp. 156–171). Routledge.
  14. Duty, S. M., Christian, L., Loftus, J., & Zappi, V. (2016). Is cognitive test-taking anxiety associated with academic performance among nursing students? Nurse Educator, 41(2), 70–74.
  15. Ebner, M., & Holzinger, A. (2007). Successful implementation of user-centred game-based learning in higher education: an example from civil engineering. Computers & Education, 49(3), 873–890.
  16. Embassy of the UAE. (2021). Education in the UAE. Retrieved March 28, 2021, from https://www.uae-embassy.org/about-uae/education-uae
  17. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
  18. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory as individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & L. Pumamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812774.003
  19. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Towards an activity-theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.
  20. FCHS. (2021a). Incentives. Incentives for UAE Nationals. Retrived April 19, 2021, from https://www.fchs.ac.ae/En/Perspective%20Students/Pages/Stipends.aspx
  21. FCHS. (2021b). Scholarship. For Non-UAE nationals. Retrived April 19, 2021, from http://www.fchs.ac.ae/En/Perspective%20Students/Pages/Scholarship.aspx
  22. Federal Government UAE. (2010). UAE Vision 2021. Retrieved from https://www.vision2021.ae/en
  23. Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., & Marshall, S. (2015). A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: Enhancing academic practice (Fourth Edition). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
  24. Hainey, T., Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., Wilson, A., & Razak, A. (2016). A systematic literature review of game-based learning empirical evidence in primary education. Computers & Education, 102, 202–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.09.001
  25. Hardman, J. (2005). An explanatory case study of computer use in a primary school mathematics classroom: New technology, new pedagogy? Perspectives in Education, 23(4), 99–111.
  26. 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. https://doi.org/10.21315/eimj2017.9.2.2
  27. 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. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.306561
  28. Kahoot. (2018). New year, new heights: Kahoot! grows by 75% to reach 70 million unique users. Retrieved from https://kahoot.com/press/2018/01/18/kahoot-grows-reach-70-million-unique-users/#:~:text=About Kahoot!&text=The game platform now hosts,in more than 200 countries.
  29. Kamel, S. (2014). Education in the Middle East: Challenges and opportunities. In N. Azoury (Ed.), Business and Education in the Middle East (pp. 99–130). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137396969
  30. Keeley, J., Zayac, R., & Correia, C. (2008). Curvilinear relationships between statistics, anxiety and performance among undergraduate students: Evidence for optimal anxiety. Statistics Education Research Journal, 7(1), 4–15.
  31. KU. (2021). Khalifa University Undergraduate Scholarships. Retrieved April 19, 2021, from https://www.ku.ac.ae/scholarships-undergraduate
  32. Licorish, S., Owen, H. E., Daniel, B., & George, J. I. (2018). Students perceptions of Kahoot!’s influence on teaching and learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 13(9), 1–23.
  33. Lingard, L., McDougall, A., Levstik, M., Chandok, N., Spafford, M. M., & Schryer, C. (2012). Representing complexity well: A story about team-work, with implications for how we teach collaboration. Medical Education, 46(9), 869–877.
  34. List, J. R., & Rasul, I. (2011). Field experiments in labor economics. In Handbook of Labor Economics. Elsevier.
  35. Lyon, C. J., Oláh, L. N., & Wylie, E. C. (2019). Working toward integrated practice: Understanding the interaction among formative assessment strategies. The Journal of Educational Research, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2018.1514359https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_5
  36. Meguid, E. M. A., & Kahalil, M. K. (2017). Measuring medical students motivation to learn anatomy by cadaveric dissection. Anatomical Science Education, 10(4), 363–371. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1669
  37. Minor, S. ., & Gold, S. (1985). Worry and emotionality components of test anxiety. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 82–85.
  38. Morch, A. L., Nygard, K. A., & Ludvigsen, S. R. (2010). Adaption and generalisation in software product development. In H. Daniels, A. Edwards, Y. Engeström, T. Gallagher, & S. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Activity theory in practice: promoting learning across boundaries and agencies (pp. 184–205). London: Routledge.
  39. Morillas-Bario, C., Munoz-Organero, M., & Sanchez-Soriano, J. (2016). Can gamification improve the benefits of student response systems in learning? IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing, 4(3), 429–438.
  40. Murphy, E., & Rodriguez-manzanares, M. A. (2013). Activity theory perspectives on technology in higher education. IGI Global.
  41. Mwanza, D. (2002). Towards an activity-orientated design method for HCI research and practice. The Open University Press. Retrieved from http://www.idemployee.id.tue.nl/g.w.m.rauterberg/conferences/INTERACT2003/INTERACT2003-p1045.pdf
  42. Nkhoma, C., Nkhoma, M., Thomas, S., & Tu, L. K. (2018). Gamifying a flipped first-year accounting classroom using Kahoot! International Journal of Information System and Engineering, 6(2), 93–115. https://doi.org/10.24924/ijise/2018.11/v6.iss2/93.115
  43. Pachler, N., Daly, C., Mor, Y., & Mellar, H. (2010). Formative e-assessment: Practitioner cases. Computers & Education, 54(3), 715–721. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.032.
  44. Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 1–12.
  45. Parra-Santos, T., Molina-Jorda, J. M., Casanova-Pastor, G., & Maiorano-Lauria, L. P. (2018). Gamification for formative assessment in the framework of engineering learning. In The sixth international conference on technological ecosystems for enhancing multiculturality (pp. 61–65).
  46. Patronis, M., Ishtaiwa-Dweikat, F. F., Al Awad, M., & Aburezeq, I. M. (2019). Attitudes and perceptions towards summative e-assessment for free-text responses: A case study of a UAE university. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 15(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJICTE.2019010102
  47. Putwain, D. W., Langdale, H. C., Woods, K. A., & Nicholson, L. J. (2011). Developing and piloting a dot-probe measurement of attentional bias for test anxiety. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(4), 478–482. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.02.002
  48. Quinn, B. L., & Peters, A. (2017). Strategies to Reduce Nursing Student Test Anxiety: A Literature Review. Journal of Nursing Education, 56(3), 145-151. https://doi.org/doi:10.3928/01484834-20170222-05
  49. Schwarzer, R. (1984). Worry and emotionality as separate components in test anxiety. International Review of Applied Psychology, 33(2), 205–220.
  50. Shieh, J., & Cefai, C. (2017). Assessment of learning and teaching in higher education: a case analysis of a university in the south of Europe. Malta Review of Educational Research, 11(1), 29–47.
  51. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning : An historical perspective. In Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–426). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  52. Sundre, D. L., & Kitsantas, A. (2004). An exploration of the psychology of the examiner: Can examinee self-regulation and test-taking motivation predict consequential and non-consequential test performance? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(1).
  53. Wang, A. (2015). The wear out effect of a game-based student response system. Computers & Education, 82, 217–227.
  54. Wang, A. I., & Tahir, R. (2020). The effect of using Kahoot! for learning – A literature review. Computers and Education, 149(January), 103818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103818
  55. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods (4th edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.