Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies

Volume 3 Number 11, November, 2023

p- ISSN 2775-3735- e-ISSN 2775-3727

COMPARING KAHOOT, QUIZIZZ, AND WORDWALL IN

EFL READING CLASS

Wasilatul Ibad, Yuliyanto Sabat, Lailatul Musyarofah, Sulistyaningsih

IAI Al-Khoziny Sidoarjo, Indonesia
STIKIP PGRI Sidoarjo, Indonesia
Email: ibad280590@gmail.com, sabatkeren@gmail.com, ibulaila7810@gmail.com,
sulistyaningsih3112@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to compare Kahoot, Quizizz, and Wordwall on student
learning outcomes in reading classes. The urgency of this research was to provide references
for educators in choosing gamification platforms that are effective for improving learning
outcomes and efficient for use as assessment media. This research was comparative
quantitative research with a true experimental design. The data analysis technique used
was one-way ANOVA with a sample of 57 students. The results stated that there were
differences in student learning outcomes that were gamified via Kahoot, Quizizz, and
Wordwall. This hypothesis was taken because the analysis results in the ANOVA table show
a significance value of 0.013 <0.05, meaning that there are differences in student learning
outcomes, so the H1 hypothesis was accepted and the H0 hypothesis was rejected.
Furthermore, the results of the post hoc test analysis state that Quizizz was more effective
in improving student learning outcomes compared to groups that are gamified via Kahoot
and Wordwall. This was evidenced by the average learning outcomes in the Quizizz group
of 9.00, which were the highest compared to the Kahoot and Wordwall groups.
KEYWORDS Gamification, Kahoot, Quizizz, Wordwall, Learning outcomes
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-
ShareAlike 4.0 International

INTRODUCTION
Technological advances have brought major social changes to the field of ed-
ucation (Olmanson, 2011). COVID-19 has caused all educational institutions to im-
plement distance learning. In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO)
declared COVID-19 a pandemic and issued safety and prevention measures, one of
which is implementing distance learning (Murugesan & Chidambaram, 2020). The
Ibad, W. et al. (2023). Comparing Kahoot, Quizizz, And Wordwall In EFL
How to cite: Reading Class. Journal Eduvest. 3 (11): 1984-2000
E-ISSN: 2775-3727
Published by: https://greenpublisher.id/
 Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 3, Number 11, November, 2023

trend of distance education after COVID-19 challenges educators and learners to

adapt to emerging technologies (Portugal, 2006). Distance learning has been stud-
ied and researched by many scientists. One of them is T. Rekkedal and B. Holmberg,
leading teachers in Sweden who are involved in the features of distance learning
and emphasize the post-COVID-19 education reform. Emerging technology in dis-
tance learning is one of the most progressive forms of education. The use of tech-
nology in learning aims for more effective and innovative learning. In particular,
the use of technology in distance education can enhance a more efficient learning
process (Issn 2222-2944. Інформаційні Технології: Наука, Техніка, Технологія,
Освіта, Здоров‘Я. 2018. Ч. І I, 2021).
The trend of various information technologies in distance education after
COVID-19 challenges educators and learners to adapt to emerging technologies.
Information technology in distance education helps make learning more efficient
and innovative. Various examples of information technology in distance education
include Gamification.
Gamification is a form of technology in distance learning. Gamification and
games have similar characteristics. The word gamification comes from the English
term gamification. According to the Oxford dictionary, gamification provides op-
portunities for learners to participate in mobile game-like activities such as earning
points, overcoming challenges, or receiving badges for learning points, overcoming
challenges, or completing assignments (Kapp, 2014). The term gamification was
coined in the 2000s (Sailer et al., 2017). Gamification provides us with an activity
that is fun to do and has rules to follow (Kim, 2015). Gamification uses actual
games to teach skills and knowledge. Learning games can deliver different types of
learning content in different settings. Gamification is the integration of game ele-
ments and game thinking into non-game activities (Ružic & Dumancic, 2015).
Games are one of the emerging technologies that are growing rapidly today, and
specifically, games are defined as an activity that engages the users to reach a cer-
tain level, where the users are given the facility to manage the resources that have
been provided in the game to achieve the goal. provided in the game to achieve the
goal. Basically, games are designed to make users interested, but with the times,
games are developing in the field of education. Educational games are designed to
increase the user's learning motivation. Game technology is also developed and ap-
plied in the world of education in the form of educational games. This game tech-
nology underlies the concept of gamification (Fitri Marisa et al., 2022). Gamifica-
tion refers to technology becoming more fun, either by design or as an emerging
transformation. Gamification applied in education is related to learning in virtual
environments, computer science and learners (Hamari, 2023). From the various def-
initions, it can be concluded that gamification is a learning approach that uses game
elements to improve students' learning motivation and learning outcomes. Gamifi-
cation technology is generally described as using game elements to intensify, shape,
or change behavior (Bogost, 2020) and make tasks more interesting and fun
(Kappen & Orji, 2017). Gamification technology includes motivational mecha-
nisms in its design to encourage certain behavioral consequences (Kappen & Orji,
2017). The motivational mechanisms embedded in the design are usually referred
to as "motivational capabilities" (Keates, 2015).

1985 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
Wasilatul Ibad, Yuliyanto Sabat, Lailatul Musyarofah, Sulistyaningsih

Gamification technology also instills autonomy, competence, and relatedness

(Deterding, 2012). Learning outcomes are closely related to learning interests
(McCord, 2019). Interest and motivation can be indicators of better learning out-
comes (Nicholls, 1984). So that interest activates individuals to get the expected
learning outcomes because when they have interest, it will increase motivation and
and achievement (Revelle & Michaels, 1976).
The phenomenon of using gamification technology for language learning and
teaching in the classroom will increase student motivation and achievement. How-
ever, the real challenge lies with educators in choosing the right technology plat-
form to use in their classrooms so as to create an effective learning environment
suitable for producing maximum learning outcomes. Therefore, this research will
discuss a comparison of learning outcomes with some of the currently trending
gamification technologies, namely Kahoot, Quizizz, and Wordwall, for the pur-
poses above.
Learning outcomes have become very popular among educational theorists.
Learning outcomes are used to determine what students should know or understand
and what skills or capacities they should have at the end of a particular learning
period. Generally, they specify minimum standards (Hussey & Smith, 2002).
Learning outcomes describe the expected results of students after demonstration in
terms of knowledge, skills, and values after completing something that has been
demonstrated. Learning outcomes serve as the basis for evaluating the effectiveness
of the teaching and learning process (Osters, 2003). Abuaiadah also explains that
learning outcomes are statements about what students are expected to know, under-
stand, and/or be able to demonstrate after completing the learning process. In some
literature, the term "competence" is used as an indicator for measuring learning out-
comes. The relationship between competencies and learning outcomes is discussed
by Hartel and Foegeding (2004). Hartel and Foegeding define competencies as
"general statements detailing the knowledge and skills desired of students. From
competencies come learning outcomes. So learning outcomes describe specifically
what students are expected to be able to do to demonstrate that they have acquired
certain competencies by determining evaluation indicators and developing a func-
tional delivery system (Kennedy et al., 2009).
Various journals and literature explain learning outcomes(Abuaiadah et al.,
2019). In general, learning outcomes are used to help students focus on doing what
is expected. Learning outcomes should be stated in clear and unambiguous terms
so that they are easily understood by students and teachers. Therefore, when writing
learning outcomes, it is important for a teacher to specify the minimum standards
that allow students to pass (Kennedy et al., 2007). In formal education, learning
outcomes play an important role and are related to the formal education period that
has been set (Souto-Otero, 2012). The urgency of learning outcomes in formal ed-
ucation is to measure skills and competencies to be equivalent to those produced in
the prevailing education system (Date et al., 2000). As such, learning outcomes can
be thought of as the building blocks of basic education, with impacts at local, na-
tional, and international levels (Adam, 2004).
Learning outcomes are widely used in higher education, especially for all de-
gree programs (Hussey & Smith, 2008). One indicator of the success of a research

Comparing Kahoot, Quizizz, And Wordwall In EFL Reading Class

1986
 Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 3, Number 11, November, 2023

or academic program is its learning outcomes. Learning outcomes provide a clear

Figure of what can be achieved by following a particular program. Whether it is a
short course or a degree program, both must include and write down the learning
outcomes. The purpose of this is to measure before the start of the course and after
it has been completed (Mahajan & Singh, 2017). Wisdom defines learning out-
comes as not a 'once and for all' activity but an iterative process (Hussey & Smith,
2003). Learning outcomes are explicit statements of learning outcomes consisting
of knowledge, skills, abilities, attitudes, and understanding that will be achieved by
a person as a result of his or her successful engagement in a series of higher educa-
tion experiences (Adam, n.d.). Otter defines learning outcomes as 'what learners
know and can do as a result of learning' (Allan, 1996). Education expert Sara
Brooks states that learning outcomes remain a central part of their learning experi-
ence as well as helping students learn more effectively (Brooks et al., 2014). They
make connection between curriculum, assessment, and learning outcomes. The cur-
riculum describes the objectives of an activity to be achieved and the appropriate
teaching strategies and assessments. Assessment determines exams based on the
material that has been delivered, and learning outcomes clarify what students gain
from having attended a particular course or lecture (Jenkins, Alan & Unwin, 2001).
Extensive reading involves rather long texts. Journal articles, technical re-
ports, long essays, short stories, and books fall into this category. This type of read-
ing almost always involves a focus on meaning. Another complication of assessing
extensive reading is that the expected response from the reader is likely to involve
as much written or oral performance as possible (Brown H. Douglas &
Abeywickrama Priyanvada, 2018). Theory and practice of extensive reading as an
approach to teaching foreign languages in general and foreign language reading in
particular. Unique assignments for extensive reading are Responding to reading,
skimming, summarizing, and notetaking.
Recently, a new type of strategy for language learning and teaching has been
used, namely gamification-based learning. The main goal of gamification for lan-
guage learning and teaching is to motivate and increase activity and retention. Gam-
ification for teaching and learning in the classroom promotes independent and col-
laborative learning and enhances critical thinking and problem-solving skills, in-
creasing student response and participation in the learning process and resulting in
positive learning outcomes.
Taking data from the 2018 LMS Talent Gamification Survey, the percentage
resulting from this data shows that 87% of gamification has a very large effect on
the progress of students' learning desires. Student learning interests will certainly
affect student learning outcomes. Therefore, several universities in Indonesia are
actively looking for learning methods that are not boring but also allow students to
obtain maximum learning results. Several research trials have proven that gamifi-
cation has succeeded in increasing enthusiasm and student learning outcomes (Aini
et al., 2020).
There are several previous studies that are comparable to this research. First,
Derya Orhan Göksüna, Gülden Gürsoyb, entitled " Explored gamified learning ex-
periences using Kahoot and Quizizz. It focused on gamification tools' success and
engagement using mixed design principles and compared it to an experimental

1987 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
Wasilatul Ibad, Yuliyanto Sabat, Lailatul Musyarofah, Sulistyaningsih

design for reading comprehension. (Orhan Göksün & Gürsoy, 2019). Second, Can
Mese, and Ozcan Ozgur Dursun conducted research with the title "Effectivity of
Gamification Elements in Blended Learning Environments". Investigated the effec-
tiveness of gamification elements in a blended learning environment using a mixed
design. This study differs from others as it used quantitative methods and a true
experimental design (Mese & Dursun, 2019). Third, Desy Safitri, entitled ""Im-
provement of Student Learning Motivation through Word-Wall-based Digital
Game Media". This research was Examined the use of digital game-based media
for improving student learning motivation. The study’s focus was on learning out-
comes using one-way ANOVA analysis, which differs from previous research that
used qualitative t-tests and focused solely on motivation (Safitri et al., 2022). Fourth,
Tika Wahyu Lestari has conducted a research entitled " Kahoot and Quizizz: a com-
parative research on the implementation of e-learning application toward students’
motivation". This research Explored the effects of Quizizz and Kahoot on student
motivation. This study used qualitative methods and focused on learning outcomes
rather than motivation, unlike prior research (Lestari, 2019).
Fifth, Suwarto, conducted a research titled “Using Quizizz to Improve Learn-
ing Achievement”. This research Investigated using Quizizz to improve learning
achievement, applying classroom action research with two cycles. The study was
distinct due to its use of an experimental design, unlike the previous classroom ac-
tion research (M.Pd, 2021). Sixth, Nurul Halimah conducted research the title “ The
Effect of Quizizz-Based Formative Assessment on Student Learning Outcomes”.
This research Focused on the effect of Quizizz-based formative assessment on
learning outcomes. The research compared the effectiveness of different gamifica-
tion tools (Kahoot, Quizizz, and Wordwall) on learning outcomes, using ANOVA
for analysis (Airlanda, 2021).
Seventh, Yanawut Chaiyo, conducted research the title “ The Effect of Ka-
hoot, Quizizz and Google forms on the Student's Perception in the Classrooms Re-
sponse System”. This paper Compared Kahoot, Quizizz, and Google Forms on stu-
dents' perceptions in the classroom. While previous studies focused on comparing
perceptions, this research concentrated on learning outcomes (Chaiyo & Nokham,
2017).
Eighth, Syafiqah Hasram conducted research the title “The Effects of Word-
wall Online Games (WOW) on English Language Vocabulary Learning Among
Year 5 Pupils”. This research Studied the effects of Wordwall (WOW) on English
vocabulary learning among pupils, comparing it to reading skills. Unlike prior re-
search on vocabulary, this study used ANOVA analysis for reading skills (Hasram
et al., 2021).
Ninth, Agus Suharsono conducted research the title “ The use of Quizizz dan
Kahoot in the training for millennial generation”. This research Explored the use of
Quizizz and Kahoot in training for the millennial generation. While prior studies
compared students' perceptions of gamification tools, this research focused on com-
paring student learning outcomes (Suharsono, 2020).
In short the research gap between this and previous research, in this research
does not only describe the phenomenon of technology use in the classroom. How-
ever, this research explains that even though technology is abundant, the real

Comparing Kahoot, Quizizz, And Wordwall In EFL Reading Class

1988
 Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 3, Number 11, November, 2023

challenge lies with educators in choosing the right technology platform to use in
their classes, namely, the Kahoot, Quizizz, and Wordwall game platforms that can
effectively motivate students to learn and encourage continuous learning. The con-
firmation of the next difference is that this research does not only measure learning
outcomes based on one platform but also describes significant differences in results
among Kahoot, Quizizz, and Word Wall as the selection of the most effective tech-
nology platforms for student learning outcomes in the EFL reading context.
Based on the situation and problems described above and supported by pre-
vious research on the advantages of gamification technology in the learning process,
the researcher is interested in conducting a research with the title " Comparing ka-
hoot, Quizizz, and Wordwall on learning outcome in EFL reading class"

RESEARCH METHOD
The research employed a quantitative approach to gauge objective data
through scientific calculations and an experimental design with a true experimental
methodology called "Posttest-Only Control Group Design." This design involved
two groups - an experimental and a control group, with random selection for
treatment application (X) in the former. The research was conducted among
students of the Islamic education research program in the second semester of the
2022-2023 academic year, with a population of 135 students. A simple random
sampling technique was employed, resulting in a sample of 57 students for the
experimental and control groups. Research instruments included learning outcome
tests, observation, and documentation. The test questions followed a multiple-
choice format, assessing students' reading comprehension. The test was guided by
the Guttman scale, scoring 1 for correct and 0 for incorrect/no answers. Observation
sheets and documentation were used to collect structured information and data from
the research sources, respectively. The data collection process included
observations, conducting interviews, and developing research instruments. The
independent variable was gamification-based learning, and the dependent variable
was learning outcomes, which were analyzed using ANOVA (Analysis of Variance)
through the SPSS program. The ANOVA test was chosen based on the one-way
classification (one-way ANOVA) as there was one independent variable and one
dependent variable, focusing on determining differences in means between groups
post-treatment. Assumptions including normality, homogeneity, and average
differences between groups were considered for ANOVA analysis.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

A. FINDING
This research was carried out in the English II course at IAI Al-Khoziny Si-
doarjo. The urgency of this research was to answer the problem that had been for-
mulated in Chapter I. In chapter 4, the author presented the answers to the

1989 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
Wasilatul Ibad, Yuliyanto Sabat, Lailatul Musyarofah, Sulistyaningsih

formulation of the problem contained in chapter I. The results of the research show
the following data:
1. Recapitulation of learning outcomes from the experimental group

Table 4.1 Kahoot

N Test item Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 8
2 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
3 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 11
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 10
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 11
7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 10
8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 11
9 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 9
10 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 8
11 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 6
12 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 6
13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 11
14 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 10
15 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 6
16 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 7
17 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 8
18 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
19 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 7

Explanation from Table 4.1: The learning outcomes in the table were cal-
culated based on the Guttman scale, with the provision that if the score was correct,
it was worth 1 and if it was wrong, it was worth 0. Researcher used the Guttman
scale in data analysis because she wanted better learning outcomes. really emphatic
kind of answer. Like right or wrong answers. The number of questions was 12, and
the number of samples was 19.
Table 4.2 Quizizz
N Test item Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 8
2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 8
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 11
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 10
5 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 5
6 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 9
7 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 8
8 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 6
9 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 5

Comparing Kahoot, Quizizz, And Wordwall In EFL Reading Class

1990
 Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 3, Number 11, November, 2023

10 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 4
11 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 4
12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 9
13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 4
14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 10
15 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3
16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 10
17 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 7
18 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 8
19 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 6

Explanation from Table 4.2: The learning outcomes in the table were cal-
culated based on the Guttman scale, with the provision that if the score was correct,
it was worth 1 and if it was wrong, it was worth 0. Researcher used the Guttman
scale in data analysis because she wanted better learning outcomes. really emphatic
kind of answer. Like right or wrong answers. The number of questions was 12, and
the number of samples was 19.
Table 4.3 Wordwall
N Test item Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 9
2 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
3 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 11
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 10
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 11
7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 10
8 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
9 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
10 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 8
11 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
12 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 6
13 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 10
15 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 6
16 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 7
17 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 8
18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 10
19 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 7

Explanation from Table 4.3: The learning outcomes in the table were cal-
culated based on the Guttman scale, with the provision that if the score was correct,
it was worth 1 and if it was wrong, it was worth 0. Researcher used the Guttman
scale in data analysis because she wanted better learning outcomes. really emphatic

1991 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
Wasilatul Ibad, Yuliyanto Sabat, Lailatul Musyarofah, Sulistyaningsih

kind of answer. Like right or wrong answers. The number of questions was 12, and
the number of samples was 19.
2. Recapitulation of learning outcomes from the control group
Table 4.4 Conventional
N Test item Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 9
2 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
3 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 11
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 10
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 11
7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 10
8 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
9 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 9
10 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
11 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 6
12 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 6
13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 11
14 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 9
15 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 6
16 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 7
17 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 8
18 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 6
19 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 7
20 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 6
21 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 6
22 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 8
23 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 7
24 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
25 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 9
26 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 8
27 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 7
28 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 7
29 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 9
30 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
31 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 9
32 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 11
33 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 10
34 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
35 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 10
36 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
37 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
38 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 9

Comparing Kahoot, Quizizz, And Wordwall In EFL Reading Class

1992
 Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 3, Number 11, November, 2023

39 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 6
40 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 6
41 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
42 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 11
43 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
44 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 7
45 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 8
46 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
47 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 7
48 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 6
49 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 6
50 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 8
51 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 7
52 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 11
53 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
54 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 8
55 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 8
56 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 7
57 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 8

Explanation from Table 4.4: The learning outcomes in the table were cal-
culated based on the Guttman scale, with the provision that if the score was correct,
it was worth 1 and if it was wrong, it was worth 0. Researcher used the Guttman
scale in data analysis because she wanted better learning outcomes. really emphatic
kind of answer. Like right or wrong answers. The number of questions was 12, and
the number of samples was 19.
3. Recapitulation of total learning outcomes for the experimental group
and control group
Recapitulation of learning outcomes in the experimental group was using Ka-
hoot, Quizizz, and Wordwall gamification while in the control group using conven-
tional The table presented two sets of data to clarify learning outcomes. Ordinal
data was based on the Guttman scale, with the condition that if the score was cor-
rect, it was worth 1, and if it was wrong, it was worth 0. Meanwhile, nominal data
was based on the Ministry of Education and Culture assessment guideline with the
formula below (Widana, 2017):
Figure 4.1 “Assessment guideline”

Outcomes = Gain score X 100

The Highest Score

4. Comparative analysis of the learning outcomes of the experimental

group and the control group using one-way classification (one-way
ANOVA)
a. Normality test

1993 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
Wasilatul Ibad, Yuliyanto Sabat, Lailatul Musyarofah, Sulistyaningsih

Table 4.6 Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Kahoot .173 19 .139 .902 19 .052
Quizizz .169 19 .157 .939 19 .252
Wordwall .184 19 .089 .909 19 .070
Conventional .192 19 .063 .902 19 .053
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Explanation from Table 4.6 : As explained above, the provisions that must
be taken into account when carrying out a normality test are that if the sample size
is 50, then use "Shapiro Wilk" and if the sample size is >50, then use "Kolmogorov
Smirnov". Based on these provisions, this research used "Kolmogorov Smirnov"
because the sample size was >50. Kahoot's significance value was 0.139 > 0.05.
The Quizizz significance value was 0.157 > 0.05. The wordwall significance value
was 0.089 > 0.05, and the conventional significance value was 0.063 > 0.05. Mean-
ing that all experimental and control group data were normally distributed.
b. Homogeneity test:
Table 4.7 Test of Homogeneity of Variances
Learning Outcomes
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
2.538 3 110 .060

Explanation from Table 4.7 As explained above, the provisions that must
be taken into account when carrying out a homogeneity test are that if the signifi-
cance value is < 0.05, then the data comes from a population that has unequal vari-
ance. Meanwhile, if the significance value is > 0.05, the data comes from a popula-
tion that has the same variance. From the results of the analysis in the table, it can
be concluded that the data has the same variance (homogeneity).
c. ANOVA test:
Table 4.8 ANOVA
Learning Outcomes
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between
40.991 3 13.664 3.764 .013
Groups
Within
399.263 110 3.630
Groups
Total 440.254 113

Explanation from Table 4.8: The interpretation of this table is: (1) If the
significant value in the table is > 0.05, then there is no difference in student learning
outcomes gamified via Kahoot, Quizizz, or Wordwall. (2) If the significant value
in the table is < 0.05, then there is a difference in student learning outcomes gami-
fied via Kahoot, Quizizz, and Wordwall.

Comparing Kahoot, Quizizz, And Wordwall In EFL Reading Class

1994
 Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 3, Number 11, November, 2023

Decision : Because in the probability column (Sig), the value was 0.013
<0.05, meaning there was a difference in student learning outcomes gamified via
Kahoot, Quizizz, and Wordwall.
5. Comparative analysis of learning outcomes to test which concentration
is higher using a post hoc test
Table 4.9 Multiple Comparisons using a post hoc test
Dependent Variable: Learning Outcomes
Tukey HSD
(I) (J) Group Mean Differ- Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval
Group ence (I-J) Lower Bound Upper Bound
Q -.211 .618 .986 -1.82 1.40
*
K W 1.684 .618 .037 .07 3.30
C .474 .505 .784 -.84 1.79
K .211 .618 .986 -1.40 1.82
Q W 1.895* .618 .014 .28 3.51
C .684 .505 .530 -.63 2.00
K -1.684* .618 .037 -3.30 -.07
*
W Q -1.895 .618 .014 -3.51 -.28
C -1.211 .505 .083 -2.53 .11
K -.474 .505 .784 -1.79 .84
C Q -.684 .505 .530 -2.00 .63
W 1.211 .505 .083 -.11 2.53
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Explanation from Table 4.9: In the Tukey HSD Mean Difference column,
the mean group differences are: (1) The Kahoot group compared to the Quizizz
group had a mean difference of -.211. The Kahoot group compared to the Wordwall
group had a mean difference of 1,684*.The Kahoot group compared to the conven-
tional group has a mean difference of 0.474. (2) The Quizizz group compared to the
Kahoot group has a mean difference of 0.211.
The Quizizz group compared to the Wordwall group had a mean difference of
1.895*. The Quizizz group compared to the conventional group had a mean differ-
ence of 0.684. (3) The Wordwall group compared to the Kahoot group had a mean
difference of -1,684*. The Wordwall group compared to the Quizizz group had a
mean difference of -1.895*. The wordwall group compared to the conventional
group has a mean difference of -1.211. (4) The conventional group compared to the
Kahoot group has a mean difference of -.474. The conventional group compared to
the quiz group had a mean difference of -.684. The conventional group compared
to the wordwall group had a mean difference of 1.21.
The meaning of the sign *) was that the difference in concentration between
the four groups was significant; this condition was clarified in the probability col-
umn (Sig), whose value was ( < 0.05), which means significant, thus there were
differences in student learning outcomes gamified via Kahoot, Quizizz, Wordwall,
and conventional groups.

1995 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
Wasilatul Ibad, Yuliyanto Sabat, Lailatul Musyarofah, Sulistyaningsih

Table 4.10 Learning Outcomes

Tukey HSD
Group N Subset for alpha = 0.05
1 2
W 19 7.11
C 57 8.32 8.32
K 19 8.79
Q 19 9.00
Sig. .145 .620
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 22.800.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used.
Type I error levels are not guaranteed.

Explanation from Table 4.10: From the post-hoc homogeneous subset con-
centration table, it could be seen that the fourth group In the Wordwall group, the
average learning outcome was 7.11. In the conventional group, the average learning
outcome was 8.32. In the Kahoot group, the average learning result was 8.79. In the
Quizizz group, the average learning result was 9.00.
From the results above, the group with the highest concentration was the Quizizz
group, which was 9.00 higher than the other groups. It was concluded that Quizizz
was the most effective among gamified student learning outcomes via Kahoot,
Quizizz, and Wordwall.

B. DISCUSSION
This section presents a discussion of research findings. There are two research
questions asked in this research. The discussion focuses on the findings of the two
research questions posed.
The first discussion concerns differences in student learning outcomes that
were gamified via Kahoot, Quizizz, and Wordwall. From the research results, it was
concluded that there were differences in student learning outcomes that were gam-
ified via Kahoot, Quizizz, and Wordwall. This was proven by the analysis of the
ANOVA test results, which had a significance value of 0.013 < 0.05. So the con-
clusion that can be drawn is that there were differences in student learning outcomes
that are gamified via Kahoot, Quizizz, and Wordwall. These differences were de-
tailed as follows: (1) The Kahoot group compared to the Quizizz group had a mean
difference of -0.211. The Kahoot group compared to the Wordwall group had an
average difference of 1.684*. The Kahoot group compared to the conventional
group had an average difference of 0.474. (2) The Quizizz group compared to the
Kahoot group had an average difference of 0.211. The Quizizz group compared to
the Wordwall group had an average difference of 1.895*. The Quizizz group com-
pared to the conventional group has an average difference of 0.684. (3) The Word-
wall group compared to the Kahoot group had an average difference of -1.684*.
The Wordwall group compared to the Quizizz group had an average difference of -
1.895*. The wordwall group compared to the conventional group had an average
difference of -1.211. (4) The conventional group compared to the Kahoot group had

Comparing Kahoot, Quizizz, And Wordwall In EFL Reading Class

1996
 Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 3, Number 11, November, 2023

an average difference of -0.474. The conventional group compared to the quiz group
had an average difference of -0.684. The conventional group compared to the word-
wall group had an average difference of 1.21.
The second discussion focuses on which was the most effective among stu-
dent learning outcomes that were gamified via Kahoot, Quizizz, and Wordwall.
From the research results, it was concluded that Quizizz was the most effective
among student learning outcomes that were gamified via Kahoot, Quizizz, and
Wordwall. This is reinforced by the theory, which states that Quizizz is more inter-
active than the others. Quizizz has advantages that can be used as learning evalua-
tion material; for example, there is data and statistics. Apart from that, when using
Quizizz, students are very enthusiastic about working on the questions; they con-
centrate more on answering and managing their time. One of the advantages of the
Guttman-based scale in this application is that it is automatic. Quizizz has an attrac-
tive appearance and is equipped with children's animation features as well as musi-
cal accompaniment, time limits for each question, and accurate results when all
students have finished (Zarkasi et al., 2023).
Using Quizizz, teachers do not need to project questions on the board or
screen because each student has access to their question and answer gameplay. An-
other advantage of using Quizizz is that it can also be integrated into Google Class-
room. The questions on Quizizz are automatically randomized for each student so
that students cannot copy one another. From the results of observations made by
observers via previous research, it was stated that the implementation of formative
assessment based on the Quizizz application was more effective than other applica-
tions. One of Tika Wahyu Lestari's studies states that Quizizz also has several fea-
tures that are more prominent than Kahoot. Quizizz is very useful for both students
and teachers because the questions that will be given to students appear on each
student's screen, so they can answer the questions at their own pace and review the
answers at the end (Tulungagung, 2019).
The results of other studies also show that Quizizz is more preferable to Ka-
hoot for participants because in Quizizz, the questions and answers appear on the
screen of each participant's cellphone or laptop. Plus, the answer is in Kahoot and
word walls are just symbols, whereas on Quizizz the answers are actually words,
numbers, or combinations of words. After the quiz is over, the questions that have
been answered can be checked to find out which ones were answered incorrectly
and which ones were not mastered by the participants (Retnawati, 2019).
The results of the discussion in this research stated that Quizizz could be a
reference for educators in choosing the right technology platform to use in their
classes because, via this scientific research process, it is concluded that Quizizz was
not only effective in motivating students but also effective as a tool in conducting
formative assessments to measure student learning outcomes in class.

CONCLUSION
Based on the problem formulation, hypothesis, and research results, it could
be concluded that: 1.There is a difference in student learning outcomes gamified
through Kahoot, Quizizz, and Wordwall. This hypothesis is taken because the
analysis results in the ANOVA table show a significance value of 0.013 <0.05,

1997 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
Wasilatul Ibad, Yuliyanto Sabat, Lailatul Musyarofah, Sulistyaningsih

meaning that there are differences in student learning outcomes that are gamified
via Kahoot, Quizizz, and Wordwall. In conclusion, H1 is accepted and H0 is
rejected. 2. Quizizz is more effective in improving student learning outcomes
compared to the group gamified through Kahoot and Wordwall. This is evidenced
by the results of the post hoc test analysis, which is a further test of the ANOVA
test. In the Wordwall group, the average student learning outcome was 7.11. In the
conventional group, the average student's learning outcome was 8.32. In the Kahoot
group, the average student learning outcomes were 8.79. In the Quizizz group, the
average learning outcome was 9.00, so it can be concluded that the group that has
the highest concentration is the Quizizz group, which is 9.00 higher than Kahoot
and Wordwall.

REFERENCES
Abuaiadah, D., Burrell, C., Bosu, M., Joyce, S., & Hajmoosaei, A. (2019).
Assessing Learning Outcomes of Course Descriptors Containing Object
Oriented Programming Concepts. New Zealand Journal of Educational
Studies, 54(2), 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-019-00139-y
Adam, S. (n.d.). An introduction to learning outcomes. 1–24.
Adam, S. (2004). Using learning outcomes; A consideration of the nature, role,
application and implications for European education of employing ‘learning
outcomes’ at the local, national and international levels. United Kingdom
Bologna Seminar, 1-2 July 2004, Heriot-Watt University (Edinburgh
Conference Centre) , July, 30.
Aini, Q., Rahardja, U., & Khoirunisa, A. (2020). Blockchain Technology into
Gamification on Education. IJCCS (Indonesian Journal of Computing and
Cybernetics Systems), 14(2), 147. https://doi.org/10.22146/ijccs.53221
Airlanda, P. (2021). Jurnal basicedu. Jurnal Basicedu, 5(3), 1683–1688.
Allan, J. (1996). Learning Outcomes in Higher Education. Studies in Higher
Education, 21(1), 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079612331381487
Bogost, I. (2020). Preface. In Persuasive Games.
https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5334.003.0001
Brooks, S., Dobbins, K., Scott, J. J. A., Rawlinson, M., & Norman, R. I. (2014).
Learning about learning outcomes: The student perspective. Teaching in
Higher Education, 19(6), 721–733.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.901964
Brown H. Douglas & Abeywickrama Priyanvada. (2018). Ies 2 | |. 245.
Chaiyo, Y., & Nokham, R. (2017). The effect of Kahoot, Quizizz and Google Forms
on the student’s perception in the classrooms response system. 2nd Joint
International Conference on Digital Arts, Media and Technology 2017:
Digital Economy for Sustainable Growth, ICDAMT 2017, 178–182.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDAMT.2017.7904957
Date, P. U. B., Type, P. U. B., & Price, E. (2000). Making Learning Visible
Identification, Assessment and (Issue 3).
Deterding, S. (2012). The Ambiguity of Games: Histories and Rhetorics of a
Gameful World. The Gameful World: Approaches, …, Taylor.
Fitri Marisa, Tubagus Mohammad Akhiriza, Anastasia Lidya Maukar, Arie Restu

Comparing Kahoot, Quizizz, And Wordwall In EFL Reading Class

1998
 Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies
Volume 3, Number 11, November, 2023

Wardhani, Syahroni Wahyu Iriananda, & Mardiana Andarwati. (2022).

Terakreditasi SINTA Peringkat 4 Gamifikasi (Gamification) Konsep dan
Penerapan. Journal Of Information Technology And Computer Science, 7(1),
219–228.
Hamari, J. (2023). Gamification. 4(2019), 9981331.
Hasram, S., Nasir, M. K. M., Mohamad, M., Daud, M. Y., Rahman, M. J. A., &
Mohammad, W. M. R. W. (2021). The effects of wordwall online games
(Wow) on english language vocabulary learning among year 5 pupils. Theory
and Practice in Language Studies, 11(9), 1059–1066.
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1109.11
Hussey, T., & Smith, P. (2002). The Trouble with Learning Outcomes. Active
Learning in Higher Education, 3(3), 220–233.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787402003003003
Hussey, T., & Smith, P. (2003). The Uses of Learning Outcomes. Teaching in
Higher Education, 8(3), 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510309399
Hussey, T., & Smith, P. (2008). Learning outcomes: A conceptual analysis.
Teaching in Higher Education, 13(1), 107–115.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510701794159
Issn 2222-2944. Інформаційні Технології: Наука, Техніка, Технологія, Освіта,
Здоров‘Я. 2018. Ч. І I. (2021). 2944.
Jenkins, Alan & Unwin, D. (2001). How to write learning outcomes. available.
Kapp, K. (2014). La gamificación del aprendizaje y la instrucción: métodos y
estrategias de juego para la formación y la educación. March, 42–46.
Kappen, D. L., & Orji, R. (2017). Gamified and persuasive systems as behavior
change agents for health and wellness. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM
Magazine for Students, 24(1), 52–55. https://doi.org/10.1145/3123750
Keates, S. (2015). Design for the value of inclusiveness. In Handbook of Ethics,
Values, and Technological Design: Sources, Theory, Values and Application
Domains. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6970-0_15
Kennedy, D., Hyland, a, & Ryan, N. (2007). Writing and using learning outcomes.
A Practical Guide, 1–103.
Kennedy, D., Hyland, A., & Ryan, N. (2009). Learning Outcomes and
Competences, Bologna Handbook. Introducing Bologna Objectives and Tools,
B 2.3-3, 1–18.
Kim, B. (2015). Chapter 2. Gamification. Library Technology Reports, 51(2), 10–
18.
Lestari, T. W. (2019). Kahoot! and Quizizz: A Comparative Study On the
Implementation of E-learning Application Toward Student’s Motivation.
LinguA-LiterA : Journal of English Language Teaching Learning and
Literature, 2(2), 13–22.
M.Pd, P. D. S. (2021). Menggunakan Quizizz untuk Meningkatkan Prestasi Belajar
Bahasa Indonesia. Jurnal Pendidikan, 30(3), 499.
https://doi.org/10.32585/jp.v30i3.1934
Mahajan, M., & Singh, M. K. S. (2017). Importance and Benefits of Learning
Outcomes. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 22(03), 65–67.
https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-2203056567

1999 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
Wasilatul Ibad, Yuliyanto Sabat, Lailatul Musyarofah, Sulistyaningsih

McCord, J. (2019). Understanding Motivations. Facts, Frameworks, and

Forecasts, 115–136. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203792452-7
Mese, C., & Dursun, O. O. (2019). Effectiveness of gamification elements in
blended learning environments. Turkish Online Journal of Distance
Education, 20(3), 119–142. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.601914
Murugesan, S., & Chidambaram, N. (2020). Success of online teaching and learning
in higher education-Covid 19 pandemic: A case study valley view university,
Ghana. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 15(7), 735–
738.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective
experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91(3), 328–
346. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.91.3.328
Olmanson, J. (2011). Emerging technologies in distance education. In Educational
Media International (Vol. 48, Issue 1).
https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2011.549680
Orhan Göksün, D., & Gürsoy, G. (2019). Comparing success and engagement in
gamified learning experiences via Kahoot and Quizizz. Computers and
Education, 135(March), 15–29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.015
Osters, S. (2003). Writing Measurable Learning Outcomes. 3rd Annual Texas A&M
Assessment Conference, 10.
Portugal, L. M. (2006). Emerging leadership roles in distance education: Current
state of affairs and forecasting future trends. Academic Leadership, 4(3), 5.
https://doi.org/10.58809/crii7780
Revelle, W., & Michaels, E. J. (1976). The theory of achievement motivation
revisited: The implications of inertial tendencies. Psychological Review,
83(5), 394–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.83.5.394
Ružic, I. M., & Dumancic, M. (2015). Gamification in education. Informatologia,
48(3–4), 198–204. https://doi.org/10.17759/jmfp.2016050302
Safitri, D., Awalia, S., Sekaringtyas, T., Nuraini, S., Lestari, I., Suntari, Y., Marini,
A., Iskandar, R., & Sudrajat, A. (2022). Improvement of Student Learning
Motivation through Word-Wall-based Digital Game Media. International
Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 16(6), 188–205.
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v16i06.25729
Sailer, M., Hense, J. U., Mayr, S. K., & Mandl, H. (2017). How gamification
motivates: An experimental study of the effects of specific game design
elements on psychological need satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior,
69, 371–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.033
Souto-Otero, M. (2012). Learning outcomes: Good, irrelevant, bad or none of the
above? Journal of Education and Work, 25(3), 249–258.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2012.689648
Suharsono, A. (2020). the Use of Quizizz and Kahoot! in the Training for Millennial
Generation. IJIET (International Journal of Indonesian Education and
Teaching), 4(2), 332–342. https://doi.org/10.24071/ijiet.v4i2.2399

Comparing Kahoot, Quizizz, And Wordwall In EFL Reading Class

2000