Educator Professional Subjectivities in Gamification: Knowing, Being and Doing
Scholarly dissemination Share this article
LinkedIn WhatsApp Facebook X Email
PDF (ENG)

Keywords

Gamification Educator Subjectivity Kahoot Higher Education Educational Technology

How to Cite

Howard, N.-J., & Cook, E. J. (2025). Educator Professional Subjectivities in Gamification: Knowing, Being and Doing. Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning, 3(2), 128–143. https://doi.org/10.58536/j-hytel.171
Article at a Glance

Publication Snapshot

Published 06.05.2025
Pages 128-143
References 37
Access Open Access
Now Welcoming Submissions
Call for Papers

Upcoming Issue

Volume4
Number3
October 2026
Submission Scope

J-HyTEL welcomes original and rigorous scholarship advancing education, media technology, and computer science applications.

Submit Manuscript Author Guidelines

Rolling submissions are accepted throughout the year.

Abstract

Gamification has emerged as a prominent innovation in contemporary education, yet its influence on the enactment of educators’ professional subjectivities remains underexplored. As such, little is known about how online gamification applications like Kahoot shape the dynamic ways educators perceive, understand and enact their professional selves within higher education contexts. Adopting a tripartite framework of knowing (epistemological), being (ontological) and doing (praxiological), this qualitative study employed visual-elicitation interviews and remote observations with ten lecturers at a Middle Eastern college. The analysis revealed three key themes shaping educator subjectivities: creating and sharing quiz content; conforming with institutional culture; and infantilizing students with gamified learning. The findings suggest that Kahoot influenced how these educators perceived and performed their professional roles, enabling them to position themselves as creative content developers and aligned institutional practitioners, while also raising concerns about appropriate pedagogical approaches in tertiary contexts. This study demonstrates how gamification applications may actively shape professional subjectivities in higher education, emphasizing how successful gamification requires careful consideration of both institutional support and educator agency. Moreover, the findings offer important implications for professional development, institutional policy, and the thoughtful integration of gamification across diverse cultural contexts in contemporary higher education.

PDF (ENG)
https://doi.org/10.58536/j-hytel.171
PDF (ENG)
Abstract Views894
File Downloads446
Researcher tools Save & Cite

RIS is compatible with Zotero, Mendeley, and EndNote. Immediate opening depends on the visitor's browser and reference-manager settings.

Research Transparency

Declarations reported in the published article

View Full PDF
Author Contributions

Natalie-Jane Howard: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft. Elizabeth J. Cook: Writing – Review & Editing, Visualization. All authors have read and approved the final version of this manuscript.

Detected CRediT roles
Conceptualization Investigation Methodology Visualization Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing
View statement in PDF · PDF page 12
Acknowledgments

We would like to sincerely thank the participants in this study and the anonymous reviewers for their time and helpful feedback. Ethical Statement As this study involved human participants, ethical approval was obtained from the research site’s institutional review board prior to data collection. All participants received a detailed information sheet and provided written permission by signing a consent form, for both interviews and observations. The participants were informed they could relinquish their consent at any time if they felt uncomfortable or did not wish to continue.

Educator Professional Subjectivities in Gamification: … (Natalie-Jane Howard & Elizabeth J. Cook, 2025)

View statement in PDF · PDF page 12
Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-forprofit sectors.

View statement in PDF · PDF page 13
Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

View statement in PDF · PDF page 13
Generative AI Disclosure

No generative AI or AI-assisted technologies were used in the writing of this manuscript.

View statement in PDF · PDF page 13

Statements are reproduced from the final published PDF using exact section headings. The PDF remains the authoritative version. Absence of a panel does not establish that the declaration is absent from the PDF.

References

37 References

[1] N. Kumar, E. J. Cook, F. S. Fayda‐Kinik, and L. Maisuradze, “ICTs influence on knowledge sharing in higher education: A pre-AI systematic literature review,” Eur. J. Educ., Jan. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12803

[2] Y. S. Chee, S. Mehrotra, and J. C. Ong, “Professional development for scaling pedagogical innovation in the context of game-based learning: teacher identity as cornerstone in ‘shifting’ practice,” Asia-Pac. J. Teach. Educ., vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 423–437, Oct. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2014.962484

[3] R. Abbas, A. Sebastián, and J. Casanova, “Evaluating classroom response systems in engineering education: Which metrics better reflect student performance?,” Educ. Inf. Technol., pp. 1–19, Sep. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10639-024-13048-5

[4] A. I. Wang and R. Tahir, “The effect of using Kahoot! for learning – A literature review,” Comput. Educ., vol. 149, p. 103818, May 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2020.103818

[5] A. Aibar-Almazán, Y. Castellote-Caballero, M. del C. Carcelén-Fraile, Y. Rivas-Campo, and A. M. González-Martín, “Gamification in the classroom: Kahoot! As a tool for university teaching innovation,” Front. Psychol., vol. 15, p. 1370084, Mar. 2024. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2024.1370084

[6] A. S. Akbar, “Kahoot! as a digital game based learning strategy: A literature review,” Humanit. Educ. Appl. Linguist. Lang. Teach. Conf. Ser., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–7, Jan. 2024. https://doi.org/10.36597/HEAL.V1I1.1462

[7] L. Gourlay et al., “Engagement discourses, relationality and the student voice: connectedness, questioning and inclusion in post-Covid digital practices,” J. Interact. Media Educ., vol. 2021, no. 1, 2021. https://doi.org/10.5334/JIME.655

[8] T. Addhiny, “Kahoot! in English Language Learning: University Students’ Perceptions and Challenges Explored,” Int. J. English Appl. Linguist. (IJEAL), vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 296–303, Oct. 2024. https://doi.org/10.47709/IJEAL.V4I2.4733

[9] O. Benzizoune and M. Chibi, “The Effectiveness of Using Kahoot in Reinforcing Grammar and Writing for Ibn Tofail University EFL Students,” J. English Lang. Teach. Appl. Linguist., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 103–113, Oct. 2024. https://doi.org/10.32996/JELTAL.2024.6.4.11

[10] 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, Sep. 2022. https://aisel.aisnet.org/jise/vol33/iss3/5

[11] N. J. Howard, “Barriers and drivers in online micro-course professional development: Navigating issues of teacher identity and agency,” Teach. Teach. Educ., vol. 105, p. 103397, Sep. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TATE.2021.10339

[12] W. Mihat, W. L. Wong, H. Y. Lee, and S. S. Lee, “Kahoot! in Higher Institution: A Comparative Study of Lecturers’ and Students’ Perceptions on a Game-Based Learning Platform,” Comput.-Assist. Lang. Learn. Electron. J., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 224–243, Sep. 2024. https://callej.org/index.php/journal/article/view/442

[13] N. J. Howard, “Lecturer professional identities in gamification: a socio-material perspective,” Learn. Media Technol., vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 476–492, Jul. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2022.2086569

[14] I. Engeness, “Developing teachers’ digital identity: towards the pedagogic design principles of digital environments to enhance students’ learning in the 21st century,” Eur. J. Teach. Educ., vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 96–114, Jan. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1849129

[15] A. I. Wang, “The wear out effect of a game-based student response system,” Comput. Educ., vol. 82, pp. 217–227, Mar. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2014.11.004

[16] T. Nousiainen, M. Kangas, J. Rikala, and M. Vesisenaho, “Teacher competencies in game-based pedagogy,” Teach. Teach. Educ., vol. 74, pp. 85–97, Aug. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TATE.2018.04.012

[17] M. Kangas, A. Koskinen, and L. Krokfors, “A qualitative literature review of educational games in the classroom: the teacher’s pedagogical activities,” Teach. Teach., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 451–470, May 2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1206523

[18] F. Acuña, “Governing teachers’ subjectivity in neoliberal times: the fabrication of the bonsai teacher,” J. Educ. Policy, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 171–190, Mar. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2023.2196954

[19] M. Pierlejewski, “‘I feel like two different teachers’: the split self of teacher subjectivity,” Pedagogy, Cult. Soc., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 515–530, May 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2021.1924845

[20] N. J. Howard, “Constructing professional identities: Native English-speaking teachers in South Korea,” Qual. Rep., vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 1478–1510, 2019. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715./2019.3606

[21] T. Brown, “Introduction,” Math. Educ. Subj., pp. 1–6, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1739-8_1

[22] E. Daniel, E. Hartnett, and M. Meadows, “Don’t throw rocks from the side-lines: A sociomaterial exploration of organizational blogs as boundary objects,” Inf. Technol. People, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 542–561, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-02-2015-0036

[23] M. K. Stein, R. D. Galliers, and M. L. Markus, “Towards an Understanding of Identity and Technology in the Workplace,” J. Inf. Technol., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 167–182, Sep. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1057/JIT.2012.32

[24] A. Hense, “Combining Graphic Elicitation Methods and Narrative Family Interviews in a Qualitative Multimethod Design,” Forum Qual. Sozialforsch./Forum: Qual. Soc. Res., vol. 24, no. 1, Jan. 2023. https://doi.org/10.17169/FQS-24.1.3970

[25] G. Symon and K. Pritchard, “Performing the Responsive and Committed Employee through the Sociomaterial Mangle of Connection,” Organization Stud., vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 241–263, Dec. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840614556914

[26] R. Vivek, Y. Nanthagopan, and S. Piriyatharshan, “Beyond Methods: Theoretical Underpinnings of Triangulation in Qualitative and Multi-Method Studies”,” SEEU Rev., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 105–122, 2023. https://doi.org/10.2478/seeur-2023-0088

[27] J. Rowlands, “Interviewee transcript review as a tool to improve data quality and participant confidence in sensitive research,” Int. J. Qual. Methods, vol. 20, p. 16094069211066170, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211066170

[28] B. H. Nam, A. S. English, X. Li, H. Hanh Van, and J. K. Nyman, “Subjectivities and the future of comparative and international education: teacher researchers and graduate student researchers as co-constructive narrative inquirers,” Educ. Rev., vol. 76, no. 5, pp. 1093–1112, Jul. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2022.2159934

[29] S. Chan and N. Lo, “Enhancing EFL/ESL instruction through gamification: a comprehensive review of empirical evidence,” Front. Educ., vol. 9, p. 1395155, Aug. 2024. https://doi.org/10.3389/FEDUC.2024.1395155

[30] L. Jaramillo-Mediavilla, A. Basantes-Andrade, M. Cabezas-González, and S. Casillas-Martín, “Impact of Gamification on Motivation and Academic Performance: A Systematic Review,” Educ. Sci., vol. 14, no. 6, p. 639, Jun. 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/EDUCSCI14060639

[31] T. Fenwick and R. Edwards, “Networks of knowledge, matters of learning, and criticality in higher education,” High, Educ., vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 35–50, Jan. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10734-013-9639-3

[32] S. Mehrotra, Y. S. Chee, and J. C. Ong, “Narrating professional development trajectories in the context of the Statecraft X game-based learning curriculum,” Teach. Teach. Educ., vol. 38, pp. 12–21, Feb. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TATE.2013.10.003

[33] E. Simon, “Cultivating Professional Identity: The Vital Role of Practical Teaching Experience for Future Educators,” Educ. Sci., vol. 14, no. 5, p. 439, Apr. 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/EDUCSCI14050439

[34] H. Baycar, “Promoting multiculturalism and tolerance: Expanding the meaning of ‘unity through diversity’ in the United Arab Emirates,” Dig. Middle East Stud., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 40–59, Jan. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1111/DOME.12282

[35] M. Binothman, M. Alhabbash, N. Al Mohammedi, and A. Ibrahim, “Unraveling high-school students’ learning experiences in English, Science, and Math: a mixed methods study,” Cogent Educ., vol. 11, no. 1, Dec. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2351243

[36] R. M. Garces-Bacsal, R. Tupas, N. M. Alhosani, and H. Elhoweris, “Teachers’ perceptions of diversity and ‘others’ in United Arab Emirates (UAE) Schools,” Pedagogy, Cult. Soc., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 77–95, Jan. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2021.2011774

[37] M. Zukas and J. Malcolm, “Reassembling academic work: a sociomaterial investigation of academic learning,” Stud. Contin. Educ., vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 259–276, Sep. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2018.1482861

Copyright and License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2025 Natalie-Jane Howard, Elizabeth J. Cook

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.