Let’s Play! or Don’t? The Impact of UX and Usability on the Adoption of
a Game-based Student Response System
Myrian Rodrigues
, Barbara Nery
, Miguel Castro
, Victor Klisman
, Jos
e Carlos Duarte
Bruno Gadelha
and Tayana Conte
Institute of Computing, Federal University of Amazonas (UFAM), Manaus-AM, Brazil
Game-based Learning, Game-based Student Response, Kahoot!, Remote Learning, Teachers’ Perspective,
Usability, User Experience.
Remote teaching emerged as an alternative to face-to-face classes during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this
scenario, teachers adopt formative assessments through different approaches. One of these approaches is
Game-based Student Response Systems (GSRS). Kahoot! is a prominent GSRS widely adopted in the educa-
tional context. Previous studies investigated the effects and use of Kahoot! by students. Still, none of them
reports the teachers’ perception of its Usability and User Experience (UX), attributes that influence the tool’s
adoption. This paper presents the usability and UX evaluation of Kahoot! from the point of view of teachers
and students. To comparatively visualize the difference in the experience of the two profiles of platform users,
we included five students and five teachers in the study. The evaluation results showed that teachers were more
dissatisfied, although the positive and negative emotions were similar for the two profiles. We then conducted
interviews with the teachers to understand the motives behind their dissatisfaction. The interviews helped us
determine which aspects related to usability and UX teachers perceived as critical during the use of Kahoot!.
Due to the pandemic of the New Coronavirus-
COVID-19 (WHO, 2020), social isolation measures
were adopted to combat the proliferation of the new
virus, directly impacting the continuity of in-person
classes. Teaching activities became predominantly re-
mote in most countries to minimize the effects caused
by isolation during the school period (Misirli and Er-
gulec, 2021). With that, even lecturers and institu-
tions that were previously resistant to the insertion
of new technologies had to adapt their practices and
methods. Consequently, the classes needed to be-
come more dynamic to promote student engagement
(Dhawan, 2020).
However, according to Wang and Tahir (2020),
most teachers agree that maintaining students’ con-
centration, motivation, and active participation during
a class is challenging.
In this context, formative assessments urge as an
alternative to foster student’s engagement. It affects
students’ motivation and promotes active involvement
in their learning (Marchisio et al., 2020). Forma-
tive assessment comprises activities to support stu-
dents during their knowledge acquisition, providing
evidence-based support that helps them assess the
quality of their progress (Marchisio et al., 2020). One
of the ways to implement it in the current scenario
is through Game-Based Student Response Systems
(GSRS) (Wang and Tahir, 2020). GSRSs incorporate
gamification elements into Student Response Systems
(SRSs), used to present multiple-choice questions, en-
abling students to solve them together (Owen and
Licorish, 2020; Wang, 2015).
An example of a GSRS that has been growing in
recent years is Kahoot!, a platform designed to meet
the needs of students and education professionals who
want to create, practice, and share learning games in
an attractive and engaging setting (Wang and Tahir,
2020; Kahoot!, 2021). Furthermore, Kahoot! has also
been frequently used to review knowledge and carry
out formative assessments (Wang and Tahir, 2020).
Since the launch of Kahoot!, researchers have
Rodrigues, M., Nery, B., Castro, M., Klisman, V., Duar te, J., Gadelha, B. and Conte, T.
Let’s Play! or Don’t? The Impact of UX and Usability on the Adoption of a Game-based Student Response System.
DOI: 10.5220/0011065800003182
In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2022) - Volume 1, pages 273-280
ISBN: 978-989-758-562-3; ISSN: 2184-5026
2022 by SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
published many studies of its effects in the classroom.
Wang and Tahir (Wang and Tahir, 2020) analyzed 93
studies that address the effect of using Kahoot! for
learning and raised the perceptions of students and
teachers about using the tool. However, they do not
report any issues or perceptions about the platform
regarding its ease of use or usability and user expe-
rience (UX), especially from teachers’ perspectives.
We understand that usability and UX influence the ac-
ceptance or rejection of a system, as they are essential
aspects in adopting tools by users. Therefore, they
are pertinent to be investigated in depth (Hassenzahl,
2018; Van der Heijden, 2004).
This paper investigates teachers’ perceptions re-
garding the usability and UX of Kahoot!. We chose
Kahoot! as the object of study because it is one of
the most used GSRS today, and it is also suitable for
carrying out formative assessments in remote envi-
ronments(Wang and Tahir, 2020; Wang, 2015). We
chose the teacher’s point of view because it is essen-
tial to create and maintain an updating environment
to construct knowledge, which occurs with the sup-
port of technological tools in the online environment
(Heitink et al., 2016). The choice of technology and
its integration into the classroom largely depend on
initial teacher adoption.
We conducted the evaluation using Usability Tests
with the Cooperative Evaluation technique (Dix et al.,
2004) and UX Evaluations with AttrakDiff (Has-
senzahl et al., 2003), PrEmo (Du, 2019) and semi-
structured interviews (Longhurst, 2003). Five teach-
ers and five students participated in the evaluations to
verify if Kahoot! would present satisfactory results
for the two user profiles, on the mobile and desk-
top version of Kahoot!. However, we interviewed the
teachers who participated in the study to raise their
perceptions of usability and UX and identify whether
they influenced the adoption and use of Kahoot! in
online classes.
Through the investigation results, this paper
presents information related to the usability and UX
of Kahoot!, which can encourage improvements in
GSRSs tools, especially for the teacher profile. We
hope to contribute to developing technologies that
bring good usability and UX to students and teachers.
Game-based learning enables new interactions be-
tween teachers and students, transforming lessons
into more dynamic, engaging, and collaborative ac-
tivities (Wang and Tahir, 2020; Nicholson, 2015).
Several studies demonstrate that most game-based
learning tools such as GSRSs have a positive effect
compared to traditional learning methods (Wang and
Tahir, 2020; Wang and Lieberoth, 2016).
2.1 Game-based Student Response
Game-based learning environments utilize game prin-
ciples and apply them in the learning context to make
users more engaged and invested in their learning
ardenas-Moncada et al., 2020; Pho and Dinscore,
2015). A new generation of SRSs has been popular-
ized in the last decade, the GSRSs. The new genera-
tion adds game-based learning elements such as rank-
ing, sound effects, rating, and nicknames (C
Moncada et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2019). GSRSs
are interactive learning tools that allow students to
answer questions in real-time, obtain class perfor-
mance statistics, and participate in formative assess-
ments (Owen and Licorish, 2020; C
et al., 2020).
Empirical studies show that GSRSs positively
impact student learning, motivation and focus
ardenas-Moncada et al., 2020; Owen and Licor-
ish, 2020). For teachers, these are essential charac-
teristics of engagement in a remote context (Capone
and Lepore, 2021). An example of GSRS that has be-
come popular in recent years is Kahoot! (Wang and
Tahir, 2020). In Kahoot!, the classroom becomes a
game show, with the teacher playing the presenter role
and the students becoming competitors (C
Moncada et al., 2020; Wang, 2015). Kahoot! has as
its primary focus on engagement through gamifica-
tion, where students are motivated to collaborate and
compete in teams or individually through interactive
quizzes, aiming to obtain a higher ranking (Wang and
Tahir, 2020; Wang et al., 2019).
Kahoot! is considered the most popular and cur-
rently the most used GSRS (Wang and Tahir, 2020).
Its popularity and use in classrooms have motivated
several studies evaluating its effects on students and
the teaching process.
2.2 Studies Evaluating Kahoot! and
Similar Tools
Wang and Tahir (2020) performed a literature re-
view of 93 studies focusing on the following research
topics: the effect on learning using Kahoot!, how
Kahoot! affects the classroom dynamic, how Ka-
hoot! affects student anxiety, the students’ percep-
tions about how Kahoot! affects their learning and
how Kahoot! affects teachers’ perceptions.
CSEDU 2022 - 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
However, while the authors report the teachers’
perceptions, it focuses on a single teacher profile,
most engaged with technologies.
Wang and Tahirs’ literature review also high-
lighted that there had been a notable increase in pub-
lications of articles related to Kahoot!. Among the se-
lected papers, about 88% focus on investigating how
students perceive the use of Kahoot! in learning, 39%
focus on acquired learning, 35% focus on the impact
of dynamization in the classroom, and only 11% focus
on how Kahoot! affects teachers’ perception, high-
lighting a possible gap to be studied and discussed.
Studies such as those by G
un and G
(2019), Licorish and George (2018), and Wang (2015)
also discuss user perception and increased engage-
ment when using various GSRSs in the classroom.
However, they do not directly address perceptions or
evaluations regarding the usability and UX of these
tools. Moreover, despite the review of Wang and
Tahir (2020) briefly exposing the teachers’ perspec-
tive on Kahoot!, it only emphasizes pedagogical or
technical challenges related to its implementation, not
presenting relative perceptions on the ease of use, us-
ability, or experience of using the platform.
2.3 Usability and UX in Learning Tools
According to the ISO (ISO, 2019), Usability is “the
extent to which a system, product or service can be
used by users to achieve certain goals with effective-
ness, efficiency, and satisfaction in a certain context of
use”. As stated by Nielsen and Loranger (2006), the
concept of usability is related to five criteria: learn-
ing, memorization, error prevention, efficiency, and
The ISO 9241-210:2019 defines User Experience
(UX) as “user perceptions and responses resulting
from the use or anticipation of the use of a product,
system or service”. In addition, it states that user ex-
perience is related to three main criteria: usefulness,
ease of use, and pleasure (ISO, 2019). The user expe-
rience encompasses all aspects of the interaction with
a product. It contains their perceptions and responses,
related to pragmatic aspects, linked to objectives and
effective and efficient means of manipulating the en-
vironment, and hedonic aspects, linked to the individ-
uals’ self and their psychological well-being, provid-
ing stimulation, identification, or provoking memo-
ries(Hassenzahl, 2018).
The increasing number of software on the market
made improving the quality of these products a dif-
ferential for their success and expansion (Beauregard
et al., 2007). Among the efforts made to improve the
quality of these products, we can mention the Usabil-
ity Tests (Lewis, 2006) and the UX evaluations (Ver-
meeren et al., 2010).
In a usability-testing session, evaluators observe
one or more participants while performing specific
tasks with the product in a test environment (Lewis,
2006). Amid the different existing techniques for car-
rying out usability tests, the Cooperative Evaluation
technique (Dix et al., 2004) encourages the user to
criticize the system under evaluation and allows eval-
uators to clarify confusing points at the time of appli-
cation from the test (Følstad and Hornbæk, 2010; Dix
et al., 2004). UX evaluations (Vermeeren et al., 2010)
are assessments used to obtain evidence about using
a specific technology by collecting UX data (Rivero
and Conte, 2017).
We used three techniques to collect UX data:
Product Emotion Measure (PrEmo) (Du, 2019),
AttrakDiff (Hassenzahl et al., 2003), and Semi-
structured Interviews (Longhurst, 2003). PrEmo is
a non-verbal self-report method that measures four-
teen emotions that are often triggered by the prod-
uct experience. Of these emotions, seven are pleasant
(admiration, joy, desire, pride, hope, fascination, and
satisfaction), and seven are unpleasant (sadness, fear,
dissatisfaction, shame, monotony, disgust, and con-
tempt) (Desmet, 2018; Laurans and Desmet, 2017;
Du, 2019). AttrakDiff, on the other hand, assesses
user feelings using a questionnaire with twenty-eight
items, in addition to studying the hedonic and prag-
matic dimensions of UX with semantic differentials.
The results are quantitative and comparative data,
which assess the perception of the experiences, not
the actual experiences (Hassenzahl et al., 2003).
Moreover, to collect more detailed information re-
garding the perceptions of use, we conducted Semi-
structured interviews, a verbal approach where the re-
searcher and subjects exchange information through
questions and answers while maintaining the flexibil-
ity to investigate essential points by including more
questions (Longhurst, 2003).
Given the influence of Usability and UX on the ac-
ceptance and adoption of a system (Hassenzahl, 2018;
Van der Heijden, 2004), we carried out a study to eval-
uate such attributes in the Kahoot! tool. Our work
contributes to the gap identified in the literature re-
garding the Usability and UX Evaluation of GSRSs.
To evaluate the tool from a more general point of
view, we included teachers and students in the initial
phase of the study.We used Kahoot! in its two avail-
able versions, mobile and desktop.
Let’s Play! or Don’t? The Impact of UX and Usability on the Adoption of a Game-based Student Response System
The evaluation took place virtually through
Google Meet, where we invited participants to per-
form the objectives and tasks proposed to them in
Kahoot!. This stage constituted the Usability Test
(Lewis, 2006), and the technique used was the Co-
operative Evaluation (Dix et al., 2004). At the end of
each objective and task performed by the participants,
they answered an online form through Google Forms
to report their emotions by choosing images that rep-
resented them. This activity was part of the UX Eval-
uation (Vermeeren et al., 2010), using the technique
PrEmo (Du, 2019). After completing all the objec-
tives proposed for the evaluations, the participants
were invited to characterize their experience of using
the platform in an online questionnaire
using the At-
trakDiff technique (Hassenzahl et al., 2003). The last
stage of the UX Evaluation consisted of an interview
with the teachers that participated in the study.
3.1 Participants
The Usability Test and UX Evaluation included ten
participants aged between 18 and 60 years: five teach-
ers from different backgrounds and five university stu-
dents. One of the criteria for selecting the participat-
ing teachers was that they had never used Kahoot! in
their classroom. However, the previous use of the tool
with the student profile was not an exclusion factor.
For the participating students, we required that they
had no previous experience with the platform. Fur-
thermore, we considered only the teachers for the in-
terview stage because we wanted to understand what
they disliked about the platform.
3.2 Usability Test
To carry out the Usability Test, we established a
roadmap with the general objectives of the partici-
pants, which are available in the complementary ma-
terials (Rodrigues et al., 2022). For teachers, we set
the following objectives:
Objective 1: Explore the access and registration
on the Kahoot! website as a teacher.
Objective 2: Explore creating kahoots.
Objective 3: Explore Kahoot!’s gameplay.
Objective 4: Explore the settings.
Objective 5: Explore Kahoot!’s groups.
For the students, we defined the following objec-
Objective 1: Explore the access and registration
on the Kahoot! website as a student.
http: //www.attrakdiff.de
Objective 2: Explore Kahoot!’s gameplay.
Objective 3: Explore Kahoot!’s gameplay.
Objective 4: Explore the “Discover” section.
We adopted four metrics during the Usability Test:
“Time taken to complete a task, measured in sec-
onds, “Number of errors made, “Numbers of times
the participant expressed confusion, and “Numbers
of times the participant asked for help from the mod-
erator. We established these metrics according to
their impact on the user experience. For example, the
fact that the participant fails to complete a task is se-
vere. It indicates that using the application is highly
frustrating and prevents its proposal from being effec-
tively achieved.
3.3 UX Evaluation and Interviews
We performed UX Evaluation with the PrEmo tech-
nique right after the Usability Test, after the partici-
pant completed an objective and the proposed tasks.
We aimed to obtain an immediate perception of the
activities. The AttrakDiff questionnaire was applied
after the participants completed all the proposed ob-
jectives for the Usability Test. After analyzing the
results of both techniques, we conducted interviews
with the teachers to investigate their perceptions re-
garding the usability and user experience of Kahoot
and the impact these perceptions’ would have on
teachers’ adoption of the platform in online classes.
The complete interviews had twenty guiding ques-
tions available in full at (Rodrigues et al., 2022).
Given that some teachers had previous experience as
students, the interview questions were mainly about
their experience with the platform, before and after
the first use. We also aimed to raise their impressions
regarding Kahoot!’s interface and whether or not they
would adopt it in their online classes.
This section presents the results obtained in the Us-
ability Tests and UX Evaluations performed with
teachers and students. We also present teachers’ per-
ceptions on the use of Kahoot! as a result of the semi-
structured interviews.
4.1 Usability Test: Cooperative
After analyzing the results obtained through the Co-
operative Evaluation(Rodrigues et al., 2022), we ob-
served that the participants had difficulties achieving
CSEDU 2022 - 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
some objectives and their respective tasks. Teachers
had more significant challenges with objective 2 (Ex-
plore creating kahoots) and objective 3 (Explore Ka-
hoot!’s gameplay.). Some participants reported the
lack of consistency of the platform. Although Ka-
hoot! was configured to their local language, it pre-
sented some pages and terms in English, demonstrat-
ing a lack of standardization.
Regarding Objective 3, we had higher errors and
the number of times that the participant expressed
confusion. It demonstrates that teachers found it more
challenging to perform than the other proposed activ-
ities. Once again, we can observe that Kahoot! does
not present straightforward navigability.
4.2 UX Evaluation
In the UX Evaluation, we observed the experiences
perceived in pragmatic and hedonic terms that Ka-
hoot! brought to the participants. Below, we present
in more detail the results of PrEmo and AttrakDiff.
4.2.1 PrEmo
This method measured the UX through the emo-
tions reported by the participants when perform-
ing the Goals and Tasks defined for the Usability
Test. The results achieved are available in (Rodrigues
et al., 2022).During UX Evaluations, teachers re-
ported emotions like satisfaction, dissatisfaction, and
monotony. The first emotion is classified as a positive
emotion and the following as negative or neutral emo-
tions. The number of negative emotions was close to
the number of positive emotions, where 95 were neg-
ative, and 91 were positive. This result demonstrates
that teachers felt neutral about the experience of us-
ing the tool.
In the student’s results, the most reported emo-
tions were: satisfaction and joy, which are classi-
fied as positive. Therefore, we conclude that the stu-
dents’ experience was good when performing the pro-
posed objectives and tasks, as positive emotions were
pointed out 77 times, against 41 reports of emotions
classified as negative or neutral.
4.2.2 AttrakDiff
In Figure 1, we can observe that the teachers’ experi-
ence was not as positive as that of the students. Some
words chosen among the pairs were on the horizontal
axis with values close to 0 and some close to -1. This
result indicates that teachers rated Kahoot! as tech-
nical, confusing, and ordinary. Therefore, teachers
consider that these attributes of Kahoot! can be im-
We can observe that the teacher’s experience, in
general, was less satisfactory. Teachers expressed
more neutral results and minor variance, indicating
the opportunity to improve Kahoot!. On the other
hand, students showed an increasing and positive re-
sult, as their mean values are all positive and some are
higher than 1. In (Rodrigues et al., 2022) we can see
the average values of the dimensions PQ and HQ.
PQ-related results describe Kahoot!’s usability
and how users achieve the objectives when using it.
Figure 2 shows that teachers believed that Kahoot!
would help them achieve their goals on the platform.
However, they also had reservations, as their indica-
tive values of pragmatic qualities are close to zero. On
the other hand, students expressed higher values re-
garding pragmatic qualities, demonstrating that they
were more confident that the platform would help
them achieve the proposed objectives. The results of
the HQ-I dimension, which explores users’ identifi-
cation with Kahoot!, indicated that the platform gen-
erated similar identification in students and teachers.
Regarding the HQ-S, which indicates how much Ka-
hoot! meets the users’ needs in generating interest
and stimulation, we can see that the tool also offered
similar stimulation and motivation in teachers and stu-
dents. As for the ATT, which describes the general
quality of Kahoot! perceived by users, we can infer
that teachers perceived the platform as less attractive
than the students, as its numbers were closer to zero.
Figure 2 shows that students’ experience was gen-
erally positive and without significant variations in
terms of perceptions, as their values for PQ, HQ-I,
and ATT remained moderate, with attention only to
the HQ-S dimension. As its value was closer to zero,
we infer that the platform was moderately stimulat-
According to Figure 2, the average values of
the pragmatic quality in the teacher’s point of view
(PQ=0.10) were lower than when considering the per-
ceptions of the students (PQ=0.96). It indicates that
teachers rated Kahoot! less efficient and effective than
students. Moreover, the average hedonic quality was
slightly lower for teachers (HQ=0.77) than for stu-
dents (HQ=0.79), implying that teachers had a less
significant stimulus in using the platform.
4.2.3 Interviews
According to the data collected during the interview,
teachers pointed out the good relationship of the
students with the GSRS, as some students already
showed interest in using Kahoot! in the classroom,
which motivated them to adopt the platform. Besides
that, teachers who had already used Kahoot! as a stu-
dents had positive memories of its use. It influenced
Let’s Play! or Don’t? The Impact of UX and Usability on the Adoption of a Game-based Student Response System
Figure 1: Teacher’s and Student’s pair of words.
Figure 2: Diagram of average values of AttrakDiff dimen-
them to want to adopt the tool in their classrooms.
“Kahoot! brought me a vision of when I was a stu-
dent, and I wanted my students to feel the stimulation
I felt as a student, all in a dynamic, cool, and fun way
through a competition. . . ”, reported one of the teach-
However, this previous positive experience using
the features developed for students promoted high ex-
pectations in the teachers. When teachers use their
specif resources of the tool and their expectations are
not met, they feel frustrated. We can observe that
when one of the teachers with previous experience as
a student says: “This thing of creating an expectation
is terrible, because when I used it for the first time
it was as a student, and I thought it was cool, pretty
and easy to use. So I thought I would like to use it in
my classrooms and show it to my students. I thought
it would be easy for me as a teacher to use, and it
Teachers who never tried Kahoot! but were recep-
tive to using new technologies to streamline classes
and carry out formative assessments, reported dissat-
isfaction with the lack of platform standards. They
reported issues related to the language and the lack
of intuitiveness in the interface to achieve the pro-
posed objectives, such as the creation of new kahoots.
We captured some screenshots of interface issues that
teachers reported(Rodrigues et al., 2022).
Regarding the interface problems teachers re-
ported, we can cite:
An interface that is not visually pleasing and
has solid colors is tiring for the eyes;
Functions that are difficult to access and that are
not simply arranged, as well as symbols that are
confusing and difficult to understand;
Difficulty in using some features, such as adding
media to the created kahoot.
4.3 Discussion
After analyzing the results of the Usability and UX
Evalution with the PrEmo and AttrakDiff techniques,
we found that the teachers presented results that
tended to be slightly negative but primarily neutral.
However, they reported being dissatisfied with Ka-
hoot!’s usability and UX. This divergence motivated
us to interview teachers to understand their dissatis-
faction, despite the neutral results.
Some teachers had their first contact with Kahoot!
as pre-study students. However, when they tried the
resources developed for teachers, it did not live up
to their expectations. Possible factors contributing to
this frustration are the difficulty of use in essential
tasks and increased handling complexity during the
execution of the tasks, as shown in the results of the
Cooperative Evaluation and AttrakDiff. We can also
attribute teachers’ dissatisfaction to the loss of the
playful, pleasant, and easy-to-handle aspect that
the tool brought in its interface for student profile, as
evidenced in the interviews.
Teachers who first used Kahoot! with the teacher
profile tended to have more negative opinions about
the platform. These teachers highlighted that for a
CSEDU 2022 - 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
better acceptance of the platform in their pedagogi-
cal practices, it would need improvements in terms of
usability and UX for the teacher’s profile.
Although Kahoot! did not meet teachers’ expec-
tations, some of them wanted to adopt the tool. The
main factor was the desire to provide their students
with the same positive experience they had previously
as students on the platform, even if they had to over-
come obstacles and challenges. Consequently, the
fact that some teachers were already motivated to use
Kahoot! in their classes may have influenced the neu-
trality of the evaluation results. However, even a pre-
vious motivation was not enough to change the per-
ceptions after using Kahoot! as a teacher.
Regarding problems perceived in the platform in-
terface, we observed that elements such as the color
scale needs reassessing, as the participating teachers
didn’t accept them well. Teachers related problems
regarding the interface’s intuitiveness, such as fea-
tures that are not easily accessible and symbols that
are confusing and difficult to understand. We believe
that corrections and GSRSs projects that consider
Nielsen’s heuristics (Nielsen and Molich, 1990) could
meet many of these improvement requests, aiming the
development of easy-to-navigate interfaces providing
better interaction and experience for target users.
Based on the results, it is possible to verify that
they are complementary to the results obtained in
other studies such as Wang and Tahir (2020), as they
bring the teacher’s perspective of using the tool. This
angle has been little addressed and investigated, de-
spite the importance of the teacher’s role in accept-
ing and using technologies in classrooms. Therefore,
this work complements existing studies, highlighting
harmful elements and opportunities for improvement
regarding the usability and UX of a GSRS, such as
Kahoot!, for the teacher profile.
Considering that the adoption of technological tools
in pedagogical practices is the teacher’s responsibil-
ity, these tools need to offer good usability and UX for
them. Even though teachers and students use different
functionalities on the platform, we expected that the
experiences would be satisfactory for all users.
Thus, this paper presented the usability and UX
evaluation of Kahoot! and analyzed whether these
factors impacted teachers’ adoption of the tool. As a
result, we identified that the platform promoted a bet-
ter user experience for students and presented more
usability and UX problems for teachers. To better
understand the teacher’s results, we performed inter-
views to collect their perceptions while using the plat-
form and whether this would impact its adoption in
their classrooms or use for conducting formative as-
sessments. The results reinforced that teachers were
already motivated to adopt the platform, primarily be-
cause of its success among students. However, after
its use with the teacher profile, their perception be-
came negative, causing them to condition the future
use of the tool in online classes or in carrying out for-
mative assessments, only if improvements were made
in this regard.
Such information is essential for software devel-
opers, as it helps them identify and avoid problems
similar to those reported by teachers regarding Ka-
hoot!’s usability and UX.
As future work, we suggest carrying out more ro-
bust studies with more GSRSs that raise problems dif-
ferent from those mentioned in this research and in-
vestigate how to make the UX and usability of GSRSs
positive for teachers and students.
This research, carried out within the scope of
the Samsung-UFAM Project for Education and Re-
search (SUPER), according to Article 48 of De-
cree no 6.008/2006(SUFRAMA), was funded by
Samsung Electronics of Amazonia Ltda., under
the terms of Federal Law no 8.387/1991, through
agreement 001/2020, signed with Federal Univer-
sity of Amazonas and FAEPI, Brazil. This re-
search was also supported by the Brazilian fund-
ing agency FAPEAM through process number
062.00150/2020, the Coordination for the Improve-
ment of Higher Education Personnel-Brazil (CAPES)
financial code 001, the S
ao Paulo Research Founda-
tion (FAPESP) under Grant 2020/05191-2, and CNPq
processes314174/2020-6. We also thank to all partic-
ipants of the study present in this paper.
Beauregard, R., Younkin, A., Corriveau, P., Doherty, R.,
and Salskov, E. (2007). Assessing the quality of user
experience. Intel Technology Journal, 11(1).
Capone, R. and Lepore, M. (2021). From distance learning
to integrated digital learning: A fuzzy cognitive analy-
sis focused on engagement, motivation, and participa-
tion during covid-19 pandemic. Technology, Knowl-
edge and Learning, pages 1–31.
ardenas-Moncada, C., V
eliz-Campos, M., and V
eliz, L.
(2020). Game-based student response systems: The
Let’s Play! or Don’t? The Impact of UX and Usability on the Adoption of a Game-based Student Response System
impact of kahoot in a chilean vocational higher ed-
ucation efl classroom. Computer-Assisted Language
Learning Electronic Journal (CALL-EJ), 21(1):64–
Desmet, P. (2018). Measuring emotion: Development and
application of an instrument to measure emotional re-
sponses to products. In Blythe, M. and Monk, A.,
editors, Funology 2, pages 391–404. Springer, Cham.
Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time
of covid-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology
Systems, 49(1):5–22.
Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G. D., and Beale, R. (2004).
Evaluation Techniques, pages 318–363. Prentice Hall,
Harlow, third edition.
Du, Y. (2019). PrEmo toolkit: Measuring emotions for
design research. Master’s thesis, Delft University of
Technology, Delft, Pa
ıses Baixos.
Følstad, A. and Hornbæk, K. (2010). Work-domain knowl-
edge in usability evaluation: Experiences with coop-
erative usability testing. Journal of systems and soft-
ware, 83(11):2019–2030.
un, D. O. and G
ursoy, G. (2019). Comparing success
and engagement in gamified learning experiences via
kahoot and quizizz. Computers & Education, 135:15–
Hassenzahl, M. (2018). The thing and i: Understand-
ing the relationship between user and product. In
Human–Computer Interaction Series, pages 301–313.
Springer International Publishing.
Hassenzahl, M., Burmester, M., and Koller, F. (2003). At-
trakdiff: A questionnaire to measure perceived hedo-
nic and pragmatic quality. In Mensch & Computer,
volume 57, pages 187–196.
Heitink, M., Voogt, J., Verplanken, L., van Braak, J., and
Fisser, P. (2016). Teachers’ professional reasoning
about their pedagogical use of technology. Comput-
ers & education, 101:70–83.
ISO (2019). Iso 9241-210: 2019 ergonomics of human-
system interaction—part 210: Human-centred design
for interactive systems. https://www.iso.org/standard/
Kahoot! (2021). About Kahoot! Company History &
Key Facts. https://kahoot.com/company/.
Laurans, G. and Desmet, P. M. A. (2017). Developing 14
animated characters for non-verbal self-report of cat-
egorical emotions. Journal of Design Research, 15(3-
Lewis, J. R. (2006). Usability testing. In Handbook of
Human Factors and Ergonomics, volume 12, page
1275–1316. John Wiley, New York.
Licorish, S. A., Owen, H. E., Daniel, B., and George, J. L.
(2018). Students’ perception of kahoot!’s influence
on teaching and learning. Research and Practice in
Technology Enhanced Learning, 13(1).
Longhurst, R. (2003). Semi-structured interviews and focus
groups. Key methods in geography, 3(2):143–156.
Marchisio, M., Fissore, C., and Barana, A. (2020). From
standardized assessment to automatic formative as-
sessment for adaptive teaching. In 12th International
Conference on Computer Supported Education, vol-
ume 1, pages 285–296. SCITEPRESS.
Misirli, O. and Ergulec, F. (2021). Emergency remote teach-
ing during the covid-19 pandemic: Parents experi-
ences and perspectives. Education and Information
Technologies, pages 1–20.
Nicholson, S. (2015). A RECIPE for meaningful gamifica-
tion. In Gamification in education and business, pages
1–20. Springer.
Nielsen, J. and Loranger, H. (2006). Prioritizing Web Us-
ability. New Riders Publishing, USA.
Nielsen, J. and Molich, R. (1990). Heuristic evaluation of
user interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI confer-
ence on Human factors in computing systems, pages
Owen, H. E. and Licorish, S. A. (2020). Game-based stu-
dent response system: The effectiveness of kahoot! on
junior and senior information science students’ learn-
ing. Journal of Information Technology Education:
Research, 19:511–553.
Pho, A. and Dinscore, A. (2015). Game-based learning.
Tips and trends.
Rivero, L. and Conte, T. (2017). A systematic mapping
study on research contributions on ux evaluation tech-
nologies. In Proceedings of the XVI Brazilian Sympo-
sium on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages
Rodrigues, M., Nery, B., Castro, M., Klisman, V., Duarte,
J. C., Gadelha, B., and Conte, T. (2022). Let’s play!
or don’t? the impact of ux and usability on the adop-
tion of a game-based student response system: Sup-
plementary materials. https://bit.ly/3vOPSRi.
Van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic
information systems. MIS quarterly, pages 695–704.
Vermeeren, A. P., Law, E. L.-C., Roto, V., Obrist,
M., Hoonhout, J., and V
anen-Vainio-Mattila, K.
(2010). User experience evaluation methods: current
state and development needs. In Proceedings of the
6th Nordic conference on human-computer interac-
tion: Extending boundaries, pages 521–530.
Wang, A. I. (2015). The wear out effect of a game-based
student response system. Computers & Education,
Wang, A. I. and Lieberoth, A. (2016). The effect of points
and audio on concentration, engagement, enjoyment,
learning, motivation, and classroom dynamics using
Kahoot! In 10th European Conference on Games
Based Learning (ECGBL 2016), pages 738–746. Aca-
demic Conferences International Limited.
Wang, A. I. and Tahir, R. (2020). The effect of using Ka-
hoot! for learning – a literature review. Computers &
Education, 149.
Wang, W., Ran, S., Huang, L., and Swigart, V. (2019). Stu-
dent perceptions of classic and game-based online stu-
dent response systems. Nurse educator, 44(4):E6–E9.
WHO (2020). Coronavirus disease (COVID-
19). https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/
CSEDU 2022 - 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education