Palabras clave
Cómo citar
Publication Snapshot
Upcoming Issue
J-HyTEL welcomes original and rigorous scholarship advancing education, media technology, and computer science applications.
Rolling submissions are accepted throughout the year.
Resumen
La gamificación se ha convertido en una innovación destacada en la educación contemporánea; sin embargo, su influencia en la puesta en práctica de las subjetividades profesionales de los docentes sigue sin estar suficientemente explorada. Por ello, se sabe poco sobre cómo las aplicaciones de gamificación en línea, como Kahoot, configuran las formas dinámicas en que los docentes perciben, comprenden y ponen en práctica su identidad profesional en los contextos de la educación superior. Adoptando un marco tripartito de «saber» (epistemológico), «ser» (ontológico) y «hacer» (praxiológico), este estudio cualitativo empleó entrevistas con estimulación visual y observaciones a distancia con diez profesores de una universidad de Oriente Medio. El análisis reveló tres temas clave que configuran las subjetividades de los docentes: la creación y el intercambio de contenidos de cuestionarios; la adaptación a la cultura institucional; y la infantilización de los estudiantes mediante el aprendizaje gamificado. Los resultados sugieren que Kahoot influyó en la forma en que estos docentes percibían y desempeñaban sus roles profesionales, permitiéndoles posicionarse como creadores de contenidos creativos y profesionales alineados con la institución, al tiempo que planteaban inquietudes sobre los enfoques pedagógicos adecuados en contextos de educación superior. Este estudio demuestra cómo las aplicaciones de gamificación pueden moldear activamente las subjetividades profesionales en la educación superior, haciendo hincapié en que una gamificación exitosa requiere una consideración cuidadosa tanto del apoyo institucional como de la autonomía de los docentes. Además, los resultados ofrecen importantes implicaciones para el desarrollo profesional, la política institucional y la integración reflexiva de la gamificación en diversos contextos culturales de la educación superior contemporánea.
RIS is compatible with Zotero, Mendeley, and EndNote. Immediate opening depends on the visitor's browser and reference-manager settings.
Declarations reported in the published article
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.
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)
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 13Competing Interests
The author declares no competing interests.
View statement in PDF · PDF page 13Generative AI Disclosure
No generative AI or AI-assisted technologies were used in the writing of this manuscript.
View statement in PDF · PDF page 13Citas
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
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
Derechos de autor 2025 Natalie-Jane Howard, Elizabeth J. Cook