Kahoot! in a dental hygiene class: Motivating or stressful for students?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Kahoot! is an online quiz game that has become popular in education, including health professional education. Despite the known benefits of Kahoot!, application of this game in dental hygiene education is rare. Description of case: Kahoot! was incorporated into a dental hygiene course at the University of Alberta, Canada. A pilot study was conducted to describe students' experiences with and perspectives on Kahoot! gaming. Nineteen percent (19%) of the students in the course participated in a voluntary, anonymous survey. The results indicated positive impacts of Kahoot! on student components of motivation: attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction. Seventy-five percent (75%) of the survey respondents reported in-class competition in Kahoot! as a source of motivation; 24% found the live leaderboard stressful. Discussion: Despite some stressful experiences reported by students, this study suggests that Kahoot! is an excellent tool for promoting student engagement. Conclusion: Further studies are needed in this area to explore the impact of Kahoot! on the academic performance and learning outcomes of dental hygiene students.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".