‘Sir, are we playing ‘Kahoot’ this afternoon? It’s Friday!’
The cry rings out across the basketball court as I wander from student group to student group, confiscating the very tool they will need in order to engage in the activity I have planned for Year 9, last period.
‘Kahoot’ is fun. The students seem to love it, I enjoy using it and they certainly seem engaged. That’s not unexpected I suppose, because with ‘Kahoot’ I, ‘Make learning awesome!’ (https://kahoot.com) and who wouldn’t want to do that! A further peruse of their website tells me that, ‘Decades of research have shown… (‘Kahoot’ is) a powerful way for improving learning that often yields greater benefits than spending the same amount of time on additional study’ (Schewe, 2019).
It does make me wonder though, why am I so keen to use this platform, every Friday? Have I been suckered in? Are the students actually learning, or am I just using this gimmick because it’s the only way to stop the boys from climbing the walls? As I wander, I ponder my pedagogy. Am I thinking enough about this technology and how I use it in the classroom? Is it too narrow, just busy work to keep them occupied? Or is this a valid and effective micro, behaviourist pedagogy, which fits within a more varied meso teaching and learning program, as a part of my broad mixed, philosophy of teaching?
Due to the pervasive and ever changing nature of technology, ‘rethinking… teaching and learning activities is a mandatory step.’ (Mota et al., 2014). So, it follows that seeking to understand whether my use of ‘Kahoot’ and other student response systems (SRS) is part of an authentic pedagogical approach is necessary because, ultimately, we want to engage the students in learning that is ‘active, constructive, intentional, authentic, and cooperative’ (Jonassen et al., 2008 in Bower, 2017), i.e. meaningful.
‘Kahoot’ is and online learning game, a form of an SRS, which promise ‘Higher student engagement and greater student performance.’ (Christopherson, 2011), where students use their mobile device to answer teacher prepared questions, creating a fun and competitive environment where students receive non-threatening, instantaneous feedback on their responses. Like other behaviourist learning activities, in receiving immediate feedback on their responses, there is a reinforcement of behaviour whereby ‘the learner is conditioned to produce the appropriate response’ (Bower, 2017). However, some studies suggest that ‘the simple addition of an SRS into a classroom will not greatly affect students’ performance or engagement’ (Christopherson, 2011). Instead, the key to improving outcomes for students comes with a change in the pedagogy of the ‘individual behind the podium’ (Christopherson, 2011), where the teacher is more thoughtful and engaged with learner needs, tailoring the activity specifically to the individual environment of their classroom. It is the design of the learning that will make the activity an effective one, not simply the activity. For example, using questions that require ‘analysis synthesis and evaluation’ (Christopherson, 2011), will aid this process.
There is no doubt that, ‘Technology is changing the way teachers conduct their lessons’ and ‘Just having the technology tools in the classroom does not necessarily translate to positive educational outcomes’(Keengwee & Onchwari, 2011). However, if we understand technology as the ‘nouns’ that is the tools, used to promote the ‘verbs’, that is the learning, (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich) then, the mechanics (teachers) can move beyond gimmicky integration of technology like ‘Kahoot’ and other SRS, to a more authentic integration, that enables and promotes new understanding.
It is clear that ‘Kahoot’ and other SRS have their place in the classroom. I will continue to use them with my Year 9 class on a Friday afternoon, however, I will be more intentional in how I design the learning, in order to promote authentic understanding.
References
Bower, M. (2017). Design of technology-enhanced learning – Integrating research and practice. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Group
Christopherson, K. M. (2011) Hardware or wetware: What are the possible interactions of pedagogy and technology in the classroom? Teaching of Psychology, 38(4), 288-292
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required by Jonassen’s vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers & Education, 64, 175-182.
Keengwe, J., & Onchwari, G. (2011). Fostering meaningful student learning through constructivist pedagogy and technology integration. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 7(4), 1-10
Mota, D., Reis, L. P., & Vaz de Carvalho, C. (2014). Design of learning activities – Pedagogy, technology and delivery trends. EAI Endorsed Transactions on e-Learning 1(4), 1-11.
Schewe, O., (2019). How to create powerful quizzes for teaching. Retrieved from https://kahoot.com/blog/2019/08/26/how-to-create-powerful-quizzes-for-teaching
EDCN865 - David Hall 