The effect of points and audio on concentration, engagement, enjoyment, learning, motivation, andclassroomdynamicsusingKahoot!AlfIngeWang1andAndreasLieberoth21NorwegianUniversityofScienceandTechnology,Dept.ofComp.&InfoScience,Trondheim,Norway 2AarhusUniversity,InteractingMindsCenter(IMC)andDepartmentofEducation,Aarhus,Denmark1alfw@idi.ntnu.no 2andreas@edu.au.dkAbstract:Therearemanyexampleson theuseofgame-based learning inandoutside theclassroom,alongwith evaluation of their effect in terms of engagement, learning, classroom dynamics, concentration,motivationandenjoyment.Mostoftheresearchinthisareafocusesonevaluationsoftheuseofgame-basedlearningapplicationsandtheeffecttheyhaveonthestudents.Themajorityofthesepapersshowthatgame-basedlearninghasapositiveeffectcomparedtomoretraditionallearningmethods.However,thereareveryfewpapersthatinvestigatewhatspecificelementsingame-basedlearningapplicationsthatproduceapositiveeffect.Inthispaper,wepresentanexperimentwhereweinvestigatedhowtheuseofpointsandaudioaffectthelearningenvironment.Specifically,thepaperpresentsresultsfromanexperimentwherethesamelecturewastaughtfordifferentgroupofstudentsusingthegame-basedlearningplatformKahoot!.OnegroupusedKahoot! as it supposed to be usedwith audio and points, one group used Kahoot!with audio butwithoutpoints,onegroupusedKahoot!withoutaudiobutwithpoints,andonegroupusedKahoot!withoutpointsandaudio.Theresultsfromtheexperimentrevealthattherearesomesignificantdifferenceswhetheraudioandpoints are used in game-based learning in the areas of concentration, engagement, enjoyment, andmotivation.Themostsurprisingfindingwashowtheclassroomdynamicswaspositivelyaffectedbytheuseofaudio.Atotalof593studentsparticipatedinthisexperimentwithagenderdistributionof44%femaleand56malestudents.Keywords:Game-basedlearning,student-responsesystem,Kahoot!,evaluation,socialinteraction.

1. IntroductionInthesixtiesresearchersbuiltprototypesonstudentresponsesystems(SRS)(Judson2002),andSRSsstartedtobeusedineducationintheearlyseventies(BesslerandNisbet1971,Casanova1971).Intherecentyears,game-basedlearninghasbecomemorecommoninlearningenvironmentalongwiththeintroductionofgame-based student response systems (GSRS). Themain difference between aGSRS and a SRS is that the game-based version focuses more on engagement andmotivation by stimulating the students through graphics,animation,andaudio,aswelltheuseofscoretomotivatetopersonalimprovementorcompeteagainstfellowstudents. The gamification of SRS’ is done by temporarily transforming the classroom into a game show asshownonTV,wheretheteacherplaytheroleofagameshowhostandthestudentsarethecompetitors.Well-designed video games are said tobe learningmachines (Gee2003), and theyhave thepotential to get theplayerssomotivatedandengagedthattheyarenotawarethatlearningisactuallyhappening.InK-12,gameshave been found to be beneficial for academic achievement, motivation and classroom dynamics (Rosas,Nussbaumet al. 2003). Games have also been found to have a similar effect in higher education (Sharples2000).Previousresearchindicatesthatgamescanbemadeanintegratedpartoftraditionalclassroomlecturestoimprovelearning,motivationandengagement(CarverJr,Howardetal.1999,Carnevale2005,Wang,Øfsdaletal.2007,Wang,Øfsdaletal.2008,Wu,Wangetal.2011).ThisarticlepresentsanexperimentwherethefocuswastostudytheeffectoftheuseofaudioandpointsintheGSRSKahoot!.Section2presentstherelatedwork.Section3presentsmaterialandmethodsincluding,adescription of the GSRS tool used in the experiment, the data sources used, the research context andparticipants of the experiment, the experiment procedures, and the data analysis. Section 4 presents theresultsfromtheexperiment.Section4discussestheresultsandconcludesthearticle.

2. RelatedWorkKahoot! represents a new generation of student-response systems that has a main focus on studentmotivationandengagementthroughgamification.ThetoolisaresultoftheresearchprojectLectureQuizthatstarted in2006 (Wang,Øfsdaletal.2007),where results fromexperimentationofearlyprototypes showedpositive results in terms of increased engagement, motivation and perceived learning (Wang, Øfsdal et al.2008,Wu,Wangetal.2011).Educationalgamescomparedtomainstreamentertainmentgamesareknownto

suffer from running on very few platforms (usually Windows PCs), too simplistic, being single player andoffline,offering lowproductionvalue,andaretypicallymoretargetedtowardsparents, teachersandformallearning curriculum thanbeing fun for the students (Kirriemuir andMcFarlane2004). This is especially truewheneducationalgamestrytocopyexistinggameconceptsandaddsomelearningontopofit.Kahoot!wasnotdesignedtocopyanyexistinggame,butrathertofindagameconceptthatcouldfitaclassroomsettingandthatcouldbealignmentwithTomMalone’stheoryofintrinsicallymotivatinginstructions(Malone1980).Malone’s theory lists three categories that make things fun to learn: Challenge (goals with uncertainoutcomes),Fantasy (captivate through intrinsic or extrinsic fantasy), andCuriosity (sensor curiosity throughgraphics and audio, and cognitive curiosity). As the game should be used in the classroom, it was alsoimportanttoincorporatesocialgameplay.Theresultwastodevelopagameconceptwherethefantasyisthattheclassroomtemporarilyischangedintoagameshowwheretheteacheristhegamehostandthestudentsarethecompetitors.Thechallengeistoanswerquestionsandcompeteagainstotherplayers,andcuriosityisprovidedthroughinspiringgraphicsandaudio,aswellassolvingacognitivepuzzle.Thelackofvarietyingameplay is compensated by the competitive nature of playing against a whole class of students. Reports fromthousandsofteachersandstudentsallovertheworldgiveanindicationthattheconceptworksasintended.Learninggamesarecommonlyusedtoreviewfactsusingmultiple-choicequestionssimilartowhatisdoneinKahoot!. However, such games can also be used to teach skills, judgment, behaviors, theories, reasoning,process,procedures,creativity,language,systems,observation,andcommunicationusingvariousapproaches(Prensky2005).A wide variety of software now exists that employ some variation on game elements to motivate, supplyfeedback,andstructureparticipationtrajectories.Researchineducationalsettingshasshownthatgamesandgame elements can influence subjective experience as well as behavior and learning outcomes, but thesefactorsareoftenintermingledwithinstudies.Further,individualgameelementsarerarelytestedinisolation,makingitdifficulttodeterminetheimpactofindividualdesignfeatures,ortheirfactorialinterplay,relativelyto e.g. the basic functionalities of a student-response system or extrinsic motivators leveraged withinorganizationswhen theyadaptgamified learningplatforms.However, a fewstudieshavebegun toemerge,that test thepsychologicalandbehavioral impactsof individualgamedesignelements innon-gamesettings(Deterding,Dixonetal.2011)byadoptingcontrolledexperimentalrigorinthelaborthefield(AttaliandArieli-Attali 2015, Lieberoth 2015, Mekler, Brühlmann et al. 2015). For instance, Lieberoth used a three-groupexperimental setup to dissociate the psychological effects of competitive game mechanics from thepsychologicalexpectationscreatedby thegamelike lookof theactivity. In this studyusingacombinationofbehaviorandsurvey, intrinsicmotivationwas found tobe significantlyhigher in conditionsusing the“gamelooking” elements than the control condition, regardless of whether any actual game mechanics used. Aweaknessofsuchstudies,however,isthatindividualdesignelementsarerarelycompletelyisolatedinfavorofcomparinga“fullgame”withmanymovingpartstoa(oftenpassive)controlcondition. InLieberoth’sgameframingstudy,forinstance,theeffectofthecompetitivemechanicswerenotisolated.Inordertocreateafull2x2 factorial design, a fourth condition with game mechanics but with no game looks would have beenneeded,soallfourresultinggroupscouldbecomparedusingaslightlydifferentstatisticaltechnique.Inordertodissociatetheeffectsofdifferentdesignelements inKahoot!,wethereforeoptedforatrue2x2factorialdesign, switching sound and points off and on in a field experiment. The colorful look, social space andimmediate feedback remained staple, which arguably creates a certain baseline game feel (Swink 2009)somewherebetweenthe“juiciness”ofcasualgames(Juul2010)and“shallow”gamification(Lieberoth2015).ButthesetupallowsustouniquelyinvestigatethesubjectiveimpactoftwoofKahoot!’smovingparts:Pointsandaudio/music.Pointsandotherkindsof score tallyinghasbeena stapleofgamedesign forwhat looks likemillennia (Bell1980, Elias, Garfield et al. 2012), but the phenomenon is alsowell known in education,where it has beendebatedintermsofimmediateimpactonclassroombehaviorversuslongtermachievement(McLaughlinandMalaby1972,Greene,Sternbergetal.1976,Deci,Koestneretal.1999).Thisdiscussionhasresurfacedintheuseandcriticismofpointsandbadgesingamification(Fuchs,Fizeketal.2014,Lieberoth,Mølleretal.2015,PrestopnikandTang2015).Themostcomprehensive reviewofgamification results todata showsgenerallymixed results (Hamari, Koivisto et al. 2014).When discussing “full games” for purposes like citizen science,empiricalstudiesindicatethatpointscanhaveasupportiveroleinengagement,butthatfactorslikescienceinterest and different kinds of narrative surrounding the task hold more motivational power (Iacovides,Jennettetal.2013,Lieberoth,Pedersenetal.2015,PrestopnikandTang2015).Likewise,studiesfromonlinetaskstolearningcontextswithout“fullgame”structurehaveshownsomebehavioralimpactofpointsinterms

of response speed (Attali and Arieli-Attali 2015) and number of tasks completed (Mekler, Brühlmann et al.2015),eventhoughthisdidnotnecessarilymirrortaskperformance,normeasuresof intrinsicmotivationorparticipants’ subjective participation motifs. This latter category of traditional gamification fits Kahoot!somewhat better than “full“ learning games, but Kahoot! also differs notably in its real-time merging ofquiz/pollingwithin-personlecturessharedinthesocialsettingofalecturehall.One feature that might contribute to the shift from psychological “lecture mode” to a more game/playoriented frame is Kahoot!’suseof audioandmusic. Thepsychological impactofmusichasbeen studiedatmultiplelevelsfromitssocialpsychologicalroleineverydaylife(Rentfrow2012)toitsbiologicalunderpinnings(Juslin and Västfjäll 2008, Janata, Tomic et al. 2012) and how at least three universal emotions can berecognizedinandelicitedbymusicacrosscultures(Fritz,Jentschkeetal.2009).Audioeffects,andmoreorlessambientanddynamicmusic,hasbeenacentralpartofdigitalgamedesignforalmostas longastechnologyhasallowed(Collins2009,Kamp2014).Indeed,inMalone’searlyworkongamesforlearning,itwasfoundthatmusicwasamongseveralmotivatinggamefactors,butmostnotablyforfemalesubjects(Malone1981).Morerecently,musicinvideogameshasbeenlinkedtostressresponses(Hébert,Bélandetal.2005)andaggressivebehavior(ZhangandGao2014).Inhebroaderbehaviordesignframework,situationalmusichasbeenfoundtohaveabearingongamblingbehavior(Dixon,Triggetal.2007),andbothpleasant(North,Tarrantetal.2004)and chilling (Fukui and Toyoshima 2014) music has been found to induce altruistic behavior in field- andbehavioraleconomyexperimentsrespectively.Points and music are thus to well-studied phenomena that may each have their own role to play in theexperienceof,andbehaviorin,Kahoot!useinlecturerooms.

3. MaterialandMethodThissectionpresentstheKahoot!game-based learningplatform,thedatasources, theresearchcontextandparticipants,researchprocedures,andthemethodfordataanalysis.

3.1 ResearchQuestionsandResearchApproachThe research goal of the experiment presented in this articlewas to investigate how the use of audio andpointsinthegame-basedlearningplatformKahoot!affectsthestudents.TheresearchmethodusedisbasedontheGoal,QuestionMetrics(GQM)approach(Basili1992)wherewefirstdefinearesearchgoal(conceptuallevel), then define a set of research questions (operational level), and finally describe a set of metrics toanswerthedefinedresearchquestions(quantitativelevel).

3.1.1 ResearchGoalandResearchQuestions

TheresearchgoalofthisstudywasdefinedasthefollowingusingtheGQLtemplate(Basili1992):The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of use of audio and points in a game-based learningplatformforteachingnewmaterialfromthepointofviewofastudentinthecontextofalecture.Ournull-hypothesiswasthatthereisnotdifferenceinstudents’attituderelatedtovariationsinuseofaudioandpoints inagame-based learningplatform. In thecontextof theuseofgame-based learningplatform inclassroomteaching,thefollowingresearchquestions(RQs)weredefinedbydecomposingtheresearchgoal:

• RQ1:Howdoestheuseofaudioandpointsaffectthestudents’concentration?• RQ2:Howdoestheuseofaudioandpointsaffectthestudents’engagement?• RQ3:Howdoestheuseofaudioandpointsaffectthestudents’enjoyment?• RQ4:Howdoestheuseofaudioandpointsaffectthestudents’motivationandeffort?• RQ5:Howdoestheuseofaudioandpointsaffectthestudents’learningoutcome?• RQ6:Howuseofaudioandpointsaffecttheclassroomdynamics?

3.2 TheKahoot!Game-basedStudentResponseSystem

Kahoot! is a game-based student response system (GSRS) launched by the teacher in a web-browser on alaptopconnectedtoalargescreen.Kahoot!providesatoolforcreatingquizzesincludingaddingpicturesandYouTube videos to thequestions. It alsomakes it possible to publish and share your ownquizzes, andedit

quizzes made by others. When playing Kahoot!, the students will log into the system using a gamepin (anumber)andanickname.Thegoalforthestudentsistoanswerthecorrectanswerasfastaspossibletogetasmanypointsaspossible.Figure1showshowKahoot!isplayed.Aquestionisshownonthelargescreenalongwithfourorlessalternativeanswersshownindifferentcolorswithassociatedgraphicalsymbols.Thestudentsgivetheiranswersbychoosingthecolorandsymbolsheorhebelievescorrespondstothecorrectanswer.

Figure1PlayingKahoot!Betweeneveryquestion,adistributionofhowthestudentsansweredisshownbeforeascoreboardofthefivebestplayers.Thestudentsget individualfeedbackontheirquestions intermsofcorrectness,thenumberofpoints,theranking,howfarthestudentisbehindthestudentrankedabove,andthecorrectanswerifwronganswerisgiven.AttheendofaKahoot!session,thewinner’snicknameandpointswillbeshownonthelargescreen.Duringthequiz,Kahoot!usesaplayfulgraphicaluserinterfaceaswellasmusicandsoundstogiveitaplayful and competitive atmosphere similar to a game show on TV. The students are also asked to givefeedbackonthequiztheyhaveplayedthroughgivingscoresonwhetherthequizwasfun,educational,canberecommended to others, andhowyou generally feel about thequiz. Kahoot! canbeplayed in twomodes:playersvs.playersandteamsvs.teams.Finally,Kahoot!providesthefunctionalityfortheteachertodownloadtheresultsfromthequizinanExcelspreadsheet,aswellasre-playingaquizinghost-mode.

3.3 DataSourcesAquestionnairewasdevelopedtomeasure thestudents’perceivedconcentration,engagement,enjoyment,learning,andmotivation.Thequestionnairewasadaptedfromthecoursemotivationsurvey(CMS)(Kebritchi,Hirumietal.2010)toourresearchcontext,andintegratedwithrelevantquestionsintheMotivatedStrategiesforLearningQuestionnaire(MSQL)(Pintrich1991)and(Lepper,Corpusetal.2005).Thequestionnaireusedafour-point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree without any neutral. In addition, we usedobservationsduringthelecturestogetdataontheclassroomdynamics.

3.4 ResearchContextandParticipantsThe experiment was performed in the IT introductory course at Norwegian University of Science andTechnology (NTNU). There were two reasons for choosing this particular course for doing the experiment.First, the IT introductory course is a large coursewithmany students,meaning that itwouldbepossible tocollectdatafrommanysubjects.Second,duetothesizeofthiscourse,thesamelecturehastobetaughtinfourparallelsby thesame lecturer.Thismeans that theonlyvariationof theparallel lecture is thestudentsattending.TheITintroductorycourseisamandatorycourseforallfirstyearstudentsattheuniversity,yieldingthatthegroupsofstudents intheexperimentshouldbefairlyuniform.TheexperimentwasconductedoverfourdaysbetweenNovember9thand12th2015.Atotalof593studentscompletedtheirquestionnaire,wherethegenderdistributionwas44%femaleand56%male.

3.5 ProceduresThelectureintheexperimentwasconductedaccordingtoFigure2.First,theteacherintroducedthelecturebypresentingtheagendaandthecurrenttopic.Second,theteachertaughtthetopicsoftwareengineeringusingKahoot!andquestions insteadofslides.Theprocedurewasthat first thestudentswereaskedaquestion in

Kahoot! and they got their chance to respond. The lecturer would then comment on how the studentsresponded before he explained more details related to the current question. In the experiment we madevariations intheuseofaudioandpoints forthefourparallel lectures. Inone lectureKahoot!wasusedas itshouldwithaudioandpoints,inonetheaudiowasturnedoff,inoneavariantofthequizwithoutpointswasused, and in one the audio was turned off as well as the quiz without points was used. A Kahoot! quizconsisting of the same 22 questions on software engineering was used in all parallels. The students wereobserved during lecture from the perspective of classroom dynamics. Third, the students filled in aquestionnaireelectronicallyusingKahoot!.

Figure2ExperimentProcedures

3.6 DataAnalysisTheKruskal-WallistestwasranonthedatafromthequestionnairetoinvestigatethedifferencesbetweentheresponsesfromthefourgroupsFullKahoot!,Noaudio,Nopoints,andNoaudioorpoints.TheKruskal-Wallistestisanonparametrictestforthesignificanceofthedifferencesamongthedistributionsofinourcasefourindependentsamplesofdifferencesizes.

4. ResultsThissectionpresents theresults fromthecontrolledexperiment. In theanalysiswe lookedatdifferences instudents’motivation, enjoyment, engagement, and concentration in regards to the used quizmethod. Thissection also reports on differences in the learning outcome. Note that the descriptive statistics hassummarizedthefour-pointLikertscaleintothetwocategoriesDisagreeandAgreeforimprovedreadability.

4.1 RQ1:EffectonConcentrationTable1showsthedescriptivestatisticsandtheresultsfromtheKruskal-Wallistestforstatementsrelatedtoconcentration. The results show that there is a statistically significant difference in how Kahoot! kept thestudentsconcentrationduringthelecturerelatedtotheuseofpointsandaudio(statement2).Whennoaudioor points were used, the concentration during the lecture was significantly lower compared to the othervariants.Thisshowsthat forholdingthestudentsconcentrationduringa lectureboththeuseofpointsandaudioareimportant.Interestingly,therewasnonoticeabledifferenceinconcentrationwhileplayingthequizforvariationsinusingaudioand/orpoints(statement1).Ingeneralabove80%ofthestudentsexpressedthatKahoot!helpedontheconcentrationbothduringthequizandduringthelecture.Table1ResultsonConcentrationStatement Group Disagree Agree H P

1. Playing the quiz did not hold myattention

FullKahoot! 85% 15%

0.23 0.9726Noaudio 84% 16%Nopoints 84% 16%Noaudio/points 82% 17%

2. Thequizkeptmyconcentrationduringthelecture

FullKahoot! 18% 82%

60.25 <0.0001Noaudio 16% 84%Nopoints 16% 84%Noaudio/points 28% 72%

4.2 RQ2:EffectonEngagement

Table2showsthedescriptivestatisticsandtheresultsfromtheKruskal-Wallistestforstatementsrelatedtoengagement. The results show that there is a statistically significantdifference inwhether the students feltpulse answering the questions related to the use of points (statement 4).When pointswere used, 68-69%agreedthattheyfeltincreasedpulse,comparedto32-39%whenpointswerenotused.Interestingly,thereisalsoatendencythatthiseffectisstrongerwhenKahoot!isplayedwithoutbothaudioandpoints.Theresultsdid not reveal any statistically significant difference on the students’ perception of the quiz being boring(statement3).However,thereisatendencythatmorestudentswhoplayedKahoot!withoutaudioandpointsweretoa largerdegreebored (16%)comparedtotheothers (4%-9%).Onengagement, themost importantfactoristheuseofpoints,butthereisalsoatendencythataudioplayavitalrole.Table2ResultsonEngagementStatement Group Disagree Agree H P

3. Ithoughtplayingthequizwasboring FullKahoot! 93% 7%

2.42 0.4899Noaudio 96% 4%Nopoints 91% 9%Noaudio/points 84% 16%

4. I felt increasedpulsewhen answeringquestions

FullKahoot! 31% 69%

50.56 <0.0001Noaudio 32% 68%Nopoints 61% 39%Noaudio/points 68% 32%

4.3 RQ3:EffectonEnjoyment

Table3showsthedescriptivestatisticsandtheresultsfromtheKruskal-Wallistestforastatementrelatedtoenjoyment.The results showthat there isa statistically significantdifferenceon thestudents’perceptionofthequizbeingfun.AsmallerpercentageofthestudentswhoplayedaKahoot!withoutaudioandpointsagreethatthequizwasfun(75%)comparedtoothergroupsofstudents(91-94%).Table3ResultsonEnjoymentStatement Group Disagree Agree H P

5.Playingthequizwasfun FullKahoot! 8% 92%

9.68 0.0215Noaudio 6% 94%Nopoints 9% 91%Noaudio/points 25% 75%

4.4 RQ4:EffectonPerceivedLearningTable4showsthedescriptivestatisticsandtheresultsfromtheKruskal-Wallistestforastatementrelatedtoperceived learning. The results show that there is no statistically significant difference in how the studentsperceivedwhethertheylearnedsomethingfromplayingthequiz.Thelargemajorityofthestudent(over90%)perceived that they learn something from playing the quiz. Interestingly, there also seam to be a weaktendencythatstudentsperceivethattheylearnmorewhenthereisnopoints(98%agree)involved,andtheylearnlesswhentheyplayaKahoot!withpointsbutwithoutaudio(90%agree).Table4ResultsonPerceivedLearningStatement Group Disagree Agree H P

5. I learned something from playing thequiz

FullKahoot! 5% 95%

1.17 0.7602Noaudio 10% 90%Nopoints 2% 98%Noaudio/points 2% 98%

4.5 RQ5:EffectonSubjectiveMotivationandEffort

Table5showsthedescriptivestatisticsandtheresultsfromtheKruskal-Wallistestforastatementrelatedtomotivation and effort. The results show that there is statistically significant difference for statement 8 on

motivationfordoingwellonthequiz,wherethestudentswhoplayedKahoot!withpointsbutwithoutaudioto a less extent agreed that they did not try very hard to dowell on the quiz (7%) compared to the othergroups (23%-36%).AmongthestudentswhoplayedKahoot!withoutaudioorpoints36%said that theydidnottryveryhardtodowellonthequiz.Basedonsomeoralfeedbackfromthestudents,themotivationfordoingwellonthequizwithpointsbutwithoutaudioincreasedasitfeltmorelikeaformaltest.Table5ResultsonMotivationStatement Group Disagree Agree H P

6. Itwasimportanttodowellonthequiz FullKahoot! 28% 72%

2.8 0.4235Noaudio 22% 78%Nopoints 34% 66%Noaudio/points 34% 66%

7. Playing the quiz could be of somevaluetome

FullKahoot! 7% 93%

0.78 0.8542Noaudio 7% 93%Nopoints 6% 94%Noaudio/points 11% 89%

8. I did not try very hard to do well onthequiz

FullKahoot! 77% 23%

11.74 0.0083Noaudio 93% 7%Nopoints 74% 26%Noaudio/points 64% 36%

9. Playing the quiz made me lessmotivatedaboutthesubject

FullKahoot! 93% 7%

0.25 0.9691Noaudio 91% 9%Nopoints 90% 10%Noaudio/points 90% 10%

4.6 RQ6:EffectonClassroomDynamics

Wedidnotincludeanystatementsonclassroomdynamicsinthequestionnaire,buttheresultsreportedherearebasedonobservationsofthestudentbehaviourinthelecturehall.Hereisasummaryoftheobservationsforthevariousgroups:

• FullKahoot!:Highspirit in theclassroom, laughter, focusedstudents, louddiscussionsbetweenthequestions in the quiz, loud cheering when getting the correct answers, some students started todance in their seats, and there were open questions to the teacher during and at the end of thelecture.Theclasswashighlyresponsive.

• Noaudio:Quietclassroom,concentratedstudents,nocheering,nodiscussionamongstudents,andnoquestionsduringthelecture.

• Nopoints:Highspiritintheclassroom,laughter,quietcheeringwhengettingcorrectanswers,somediscussionsbetweenquestions,openquestionsduringthelecture,andsomestudentsweredancingintheirseats.

• Nopoints/noaudio: Lowenergy in theclassroom, totallyquiet,nocelebrationoncorrectanswers,lowresponse,andnowopenquestionsfromstudents.

BasedontheobservationsitwasobviousthattheuseofaudioinKahoot!hadthelargestimpactonclassroomdynamics in termsof interaction, responseandspirit.Theaudiosimplyproducedmoreenergy in the room,and opened up for a more interactive environment. The best effect on classroom dynamics was achievedthroughthecombinationofbothpointsandaudio/music.

5. DiscussionandConclusionInthisarticle,wehavepresentedanexperimentwhereweinvestigatedtheeffectofusingaudioandpointsinthe game-based learning platform for the classroom – Kahoot!. In the experiment, the same lecture onsoftwareengineeringwastaughttofourparallelswhereKahoot!wasusedthroughoutthelecturetofacilitatequestionsandanswers insteadofusingslidesormoretraditionalteachingtools.TheonlyvariationbetweenthefourparallellectureswastheuseofaudioandpointsinKahoot!.Attheendofthelectures,thestudentswere asked to fill in the same questionnaire with statements related to concentration, engagement,

enjoyment,learning,andmotivation.TheKruskal-Wallistestwasusedtotestthehypothesisthattherewasnodifferenceinthestudents’attitudesforvariationsofaudioandpoints.Theresultsshowthatvariationinuseofaudio and points had a statistically significant difference for concentration (RQ1), engagement (RQ2),enjoyment (RQ3), andmotivation and engagement (RQ5).Observations in the classroomalso revealed thataudio andmusic affects the classroomdynamics in a significant positiveway, andpoints also contribute toimprovetheclassroomdynamicsbuttoamorelimitedextend.In this first treatment, we have focused our efforts on a broad analysis of positive/negative single itemresponses,andgiven littleattentiontomorecomplexrelationshipswithinthedatasuchasbetweensubjectrelationshipsandmoderationbyfactorslikegenderfoundinotherresearchonpointsandmusic,whichmayberevealedwithdeeperfactorialanalysesofthethusfarpromisingdataset.

ReferencesAttali, Y. and M. Arieli-Attali (2015). "Gamification in assessment: Do points affect test performance?"Computers&Education83:57-63. Basili,V.R. (1992).Softwaremodelingandmeasurement: theGoal/Question/Metricparadigm,UniversityofMarylandforAdvancedComputerStudies. Bell,R.C.(1980).Discoveringoldboardgames,Shire. Bessler,W.C.andJ.J.Nisbet(1971)."Theuseofanelectronicresponsesysteminteachingbiology."ScienceEducation55(3):275-284. Carnevale, D. (2005). "Run a class like a game show:‘Clickers’ keep students involved." Chronicle of HigherEducation51(42):B3. CarverJr,C.A.,etal.(1999)."Enhancingstudentlearningthroughhypermediacoursewareandincorporationofstudentlearningstyles."Education,IEEETransactionson42(1):33-38. Casanova,J.(1971)."Aninstructionalexperimentinorganicchemistry.Theuseofastudentresponsesystem."JournalofChemicalEducation48(7):453. Collins,K.(2009)."Anintroductiontoproceduralmusicinvideogames."ContemporaryMusicReview28(1):5-15. Deci,E.L.,etal.(1999)."Ameta-analyticreviewofexperimentsexaminingtheeffectsofextrinsicrewardsonintrinsicmotivation."Psychologicalbulletin125(6):627. Deterding,S.,etal.(2011).Fromgamedesignelementstogamefulness:defininggamification.Proceedingsofthe15thinternationalacademicMindTrekconference:Envisioningfuturemediaenvironments,ACM. Dixon,L.,etal.(2007)."Anempiricalinvestigationofmusicandgamblingbehaviour."InternationalGamblingStudies7(3):315-326. Elias,G.S.,etal.(2012).Characteristicsofgames,MITPress. Fritz,T.,etal.(2009)."Universalrecognitionofthreebasicemotionsinmusic."Currentbiology19(7):573-576. Fuchs,M.,etal.(2014).Rethinkinggamification,mesonPressbyHybridPublishingLab. Fukui, H. and K. Toyoshima (2014). "Chill-inducing music enhances altruism in humans." Frontiers inpsychology5. Gee,J.P. (2003)."Whatvideogameshavetoteachusabout learningand literacy."Comput.Entertain.1(1):20-20.

Greene,D.,etal.(1976)."Overjustificationinatokeneconomy."JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology34(6):1219. Hamari, J., et al. (2014). Does gamification work?--a literature review of empirical studies on gamification.SystemSciences(HICSS),201447thHawaiiInternationalConferenceon,IEEE. Hébert, S., et al. (2005). "Physiological stress response to video-game playing: the contribution of built-inmusic."Lifesciences76(20):2371-2380. Iacovides, I., et al. (2013).Dogamesattractor sustainengagement in citizen science?:a studyof volunteermotivations.CHI'13ExtendedAbstractsonHumanFactorsinComputingSystems,ACM. Janata, P., et al. (2012). "Sensorimotor coupling in music and the psychology of the groove." Journal ofExperimentalPsychology:General141(1):54. Judson, E. (2002). "Learning from past and present: Electronic response systems in college lecture halls."JournalofComputersinMathematicsandScienceTeaching21(2):167-181. Juslin, P. N. and D. Västfjäll (2008). "Emotional responses to music: The need to consider underlyingmechanisms."Behavioralandbrainsciences31(05):559-575. Juul,J.(2010).Acasualrevolution:Reinventingvideogamesandtheirplayers,MITpress. Kamp,M.(2014)."MusicalEcologiesinVideoGames."Philosophy&Technology27(2):235-249. Kebritchi, M., et al. (2010). "The effects of modern mathematics computer games on mathematicsachievementandclassmotivation."Computers&Education55(2):427-443. Kirriemuir,J.andA.McFarlane(2004)."LiteratureReviewinGamesandLearning." Lepper,M.R.,etal.(2005)."Intrinsicandextrinsicmotivationalorientationsintheclassroom:Agedifferencesandacademiccorrelates."Journalofeducationalpsychology97(2):184. Lieberoth, A. (2015). "Shallow gamification testing psychological effects of framing an activity as a game."GamesandCulture10(3):229-248. Lieberoth,A.,etal. (2015)."DeepandShallowGamificationinMarketing:ThinEvidenceandtheForgotten."EngagingConsumersthroughBrandedEntertainmentandConvergentMedia:110. Lieberoth,A.,etal.(2015)."GettingHumanstodoQuantumOptimization-UserAcquisition,EngagementandEarlyResultsfromtheCitizenCyberscienceGameQuantumMoves."arXivpreprintarXiv:1506.08761. Malone, T. W. (1980). What Makes Things Fun to Learn? Heuristics for designing Instructional ComputerGames. The 3rd ACM SIGSMALL symposium and the first SIGPC symposium on Small systems. Palo Alto,California,UnitedStates,ACMPress. Malone,T.W.(1981)."Towardatheoryofintrinsicallymotivatinginstruction."Cognitivescience5(4):333-369. McLaughlin, T. F. and J. Malaby (1972). "INTRINSIC REINFORCERS IN A CLASSROOM TOKEN ECONOMY1."JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis5(3):263-270. Mekler,E.D.,etal.(2015)."Towardsunderstandingtheeffectsofindividualgamificationelementsonintrinsicmotivationandperformance."ComputersinHumanBehavior. North,A.C.,etal.(2004)."TheEffectsofMusiconHelpingBehaviorAFieldStudy."EnvironmentandBehavior36(2):266-275.

Pintrich,P.R.(1991)."AmanualfortheuseoftheMotivatedStrategiesforLearningQuestionnaire(MSLQ)." Prensky, M. (2005). "Computer games and learning: Digital game-based learning." Handbook of computergamestudies18:97-122. Prestopnik,N.R. and J. Tang (2015). "Points, stories,worlds, anddiegesis: Comparingplayerexperiences intwocitizensciencegames."ComputersinHumanBehavior52:492-506. Rentfrow,P.J.(2012)."Theroleofmusicineverydaylife:Currentdirectionsinthesocialpsychologyofmusic."Socialandpersonalitypsychologycompass6(5):402-416. Rosas, R., et al. (2003). "BeyondNintendo: design and assessment of educational video games for first andsecondgradestudents."ComputerEducation40(1):71-94. Sharples,M.(2000)."Thedesignofpersonalmobiletechnologiesforlifelonglearning."Comput.Educ.34(3-4):177-193. Swink,S.(2009).Gamefeel:agamedesigner'sguidetovirtualsensation,MorganKaufmann. Wang,A.I.,etal.(2007).LectureQuiz-AMobileGameConceptforLectures.IASTEDInternationalConferenceonSoftwareEngineeringandApplication(SEA2007).Cambridge,MA,USA,ActaPress:6. Wang,A.I.,etal.(2008).AnEvaluationofaMobileGameConceptforLectures.Proceedingsofthe200821stConferenceonSoftwareEngineeringEducationandTraining-Volume00,IEEEComputerSociety. Wu,B.,etal.(2011).ImprovementofaLectureGameConcept-ImplementingLectureQuiz2.0.Proceedingsofthe3rdInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation. Zhang, J. and X. Gao (2014). "Background music matters: Why video games lead to increased aggressivebehavior?"EntertainmentComputing5(2):91-100.