The Impact of Gamification “Kahoot App” in Teaching English for Academic Purposes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Incorporating gamification into foreign language learning is a successful and effective strategy for improving learners' level of language skills and helping them to master communication with others. This study aimed to determine the impact of Kahoot, a gamification-based technological application, on English language vocabulary for academic purposes and motivation. Thus, 60 students were selected from among the university students enrolled in the English Language for Academic Purposes course. These students were randomly split into two equal classes: the control and experimental groups. English vocabulary Test was given to both groups following a pre-test, with the experimental group receiving Kahoot instruction while the control group received traditional instruction. The teaching continued for ten weeks, after which the students were tested with a post-test on the same vocabulary learned. Moreover, a motivation scale was used to identify the effect of Kahoot in enhancing the students' motivation toward learning English for academic purposes. The results showed positive results on the extent of the positive impact (of the Kahoot learning tool based on gamification) in learning English vocabulary for academic purposes and motivation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it