Over 65% of faculty at Conestoga use competitive and gamified quizzes in apps like Kahoot!, Mentimeter or Socrative. These add a bit of competition and engagement to review periods and retrieval practice activities. They help space out information so that it is revisited and recalled frequently in the semester. But what does the research say about competition, games, and learning? How do they impact student outcomes?
Gamified and competitive quizzes can renew interest and curiosity in course content. This is likely because games affect us right in the endorphins, giving us a positive boost to the confidence and refreshing our enjoyment of the content (Yee, 2006). In a wide literature review on game based learning in higher education, Subhash and Cudney (2018) found that that engagement and interest were the key benefits to competitive quizzes, which spurred learner’s to study more. Sanchez, Langer and Kaur (2019) found that competitive quizzes bring novelty to the learning experience, temporarily improving student performance on assessments.
But while quizzes may help with short term memorization, the effects may not translate into long term learning. Quizzes improve performance if they directly precede a test (Faghihi et al., 2014; Whitman, Tanzer, and Nemec, 2019), but do not correlate with any significance with longer term improvements in assessment performance (Sanchez, Langer and Kaur 2019; Stachowski & Hamilton 2019). Competitive quizzing, while fun, does not seem to have impact beyond the next test.
Research also cautions about which students are advantaged by gamified quizzes. It’s often the learners who are already successful who benefit from the repeated practice of quizzing (Sanchez, Langer and Kaur, 2019). Mark Rober, a former NASA engineer and current inventor and YouTuber, discusses this phenomenon in action.
Interestingly, timed competition and point loss actually lower engagement and interest from struggling learners. Failure in quizzing may confirm feelings of inferiority and performance anxiety. If quizzes are run too quickly or too enthusiastically, learners with exceptionalities who need processing time may also be excluded. If questions are not read aloud, at an appropriate pace, it may exclude learners with language processing or visual support needs.
Instead, learners most deeply benefit from game elements like collaborative multiplaying, opportunities for chat or discussion, variety in questions and repeated attempts. Multiplayer experiences where students partner or group up to discuss questions before answering, even for simple multiple choice questions, constructs learning as collaborative, thoughtful, fun and dynamic.
The most directly observable benefit of gamified quizzing is an improvement in learners’ intrinsic motivation to study.
- Since much of the beneficial impact of game-based quizzes comes from their novelty, the same tool shouldn’t used repetitiously (Sanchez, Langer and Kaur, 2019).
- Bellotti et al. (2014) found that variety and breadth of question types support concept attainment, especially in complex content topics.
- Adding in opportunities for discussion, like Turn & Talk or Think, Pair, Share, to deepen student understanding of concepts (Clark, Kehoe and Broin, 2018).
- Once most learners have attained the concepts, quizzing can become more of a retrieval practice effort, imitating (but not replicating) questions from upcoming tests or exams (Sanchez, Langer and Kaur 2019).
The value of game-based quizzing as a learning strategy can be improved by
- removing time constraints, allowing time for processing;
- bringing in variety in the quizzing activities;
- keeping the activity lighthearted, low-stakes and fun;
- removing point values, unless learners are in groups blended across levels of achievement;
- giving the chance for a short pair or team discussion before submitting an answer;
- adding a debate dimension, when answers are split between two plausible answers;
- having students create and share their own review and study tools, learning from each other’s games, flashcards and quizzes.
Quizzing Tools to Try
Here are some well loved options educators use to do gamified quizzing in their classrooms. For some apps, some features are behind paywalls – try to leverage the free features extensively.
PowerPoint-based Jeopardy Games
Bring in a new take on a classic trivia game by using a Jeopardy PowerPoint deck to gamify a review or test prep period. Use your best game-show presenter voice to add some levity to the experience and reduce anxiety. Let learners play as pairs or small teams and track their own “points”. Offer a small token or reward for them to achieve. Try using this downloadable template.
For self-paced quizzes, with positive scoring and sharing potential, try out the free Quizizz app. Educators and students can make quizzes and flashcards, and there is no paid version to the service. These review tools can be built and shared among students as study and review tools before an exam.
Ask learners to create and share their own flashcard sets as study aids with this free and popular app. Search from the many available previously created sets, or make some yourself in just a few clicks. Learners can study in a variety of ways, including by looking, listening, reading, spelling and testing themselves on key terms and concepts.
Socrative is a popular quizzing and questioning tool, free for audiences of up to 50 students. Many educators create multiple choice or true or false check ins, but the real asset in this app is the Exit Ticket, which lets you create in-the-moment consolidating questions to ask learners. Read these aloud for students in need of language processing support.
Socrative is less gamified than other quizzing tools, and this advantages students who truly need the practice. Once most learners are approaching an appropriate degree of mastery, try out a Space Race, which groups learners into teams to compete for the win as a unit.
Make fun and interactive multiple choice quizzes to run live in class, or invite students to make them for each other. Over 65% of Conestoga faculty already use Kahoot! in their teaching and review periods.
Be aware of the limits. A free Kahoot! account lets you build an unlimited number of quizzes, with a maximum participant list for each of 50. If your class list is over 50, partner students up into pairs.
Clarke, G., Kehoe, J., & Broin, D. Ó. (2018). The Effects of Gamification on Third Level Motivation Towards Studying. Proceedings of the European Conference on Games Based Learning, 819.
S. Deterding, D. Dixon, R. Khaled, L. Nacke. From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification.” MindTrek’11 proceedings of the 15th international academic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media environments, ACM, Tampere (2011), pp. 9-15.
Faghihi, U., Brautigam, A., Jorgenson, K., Martin, D., Brown, A., Measures, E., & Maldonado-Bouchard, S. (2014). How Gamification Applies for Educational Purpose Specially with College Algebra. Procedia Computer Science, 41, 182–187. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2014.11.102
Sanchez, D. R., Langer, M., & Kaur, R. (2019). Gamification in the classroom: Examining the impact of gamified quizzes on student learning. Computers & Education, 144. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103666
Stachowski, A. A., & Hamilton, K. L. (2019). Comparison of three “gamified” exam review activities. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000154
Subhash, S. and Cudney, E. (2018). Gamified learning in higher education: A systematic review of the literature. Computers in Human Behaviour v. 87. 192-206. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.028
Whitman, A. C., Tanzer, K., & Nemec, I. E. C. (2019). Gamifying the memorization of brand/generic drug names. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 11(3), 287–291. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2018.12.014
N. Yee. (2006). The psychology of MMORPGs: Emotional investment, motivations, relationship formation, and problematic usage. Avatars at work and play: Collaboration and interaction in shared virtual environments, Vol. 34 (2006), pp. 187-20
- October 15, 2019
- This work is licensed under a Creative Commons CC-BY Attribution 4.0 International License.