Keywords
Educator Subjectivity
Kahoot
Higher Education
Educational Technology
How to Cite
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.
Abstract viewed: 741 times
PDF downloaded: 279 times
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
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Natalie-Jane Howard, Elizabeth J. Cook