International Journal of Construction Education and

Research

ISSN: 1557-8771 (Print) 1550-3984 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/uice20

Study on the Perception of Architecture and

Building Engineering Students About the
Usefulness of Quiz Games

David Bienvenido-Huertas, Elisabet Suárez Vargas, Paula M. Esquivias, María

Luisa de la Hoz Torres, Antonio J. Aguilar, Joaquín Manuel Durán Álvarez &
María Dolores Martínez Aires

To cite this article: David Bienvenido-Huertas, Elisabet Suárez Vargas, Paula M. Esquivias,
María Luisa de la Hoz Torres, Antonio J. Aguilar, Joaquín Manuel Durán Álvarez & María Dolores
Martínez Aires (2025) Study on the Perception of Architecture and Building Engineering
Students About the Usefulness of Quiz Games, International Journal of Construction Education
and Research, 21:2, 189-212, DOI: 10.1080/15578771.2024.2359392

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15578771.2024.2359392

Published online: 02 Jun 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 78

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uice20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
2025, VOL. 21, NO. 2, 189–212
https://doi.org/10.1080/15578771.2024.2359392

Study on the Perception of Architecture and Building

Engineering Students About the Usefulness of Quiz Games
David Bienvenido-Huertas , Elisabet Suárez Vargas , Paula M. Esquivias ,
María Luisa de la Hoz Torres , Antonio J. Aguilar , Joaquín Manuel Durán Álvarez ,
and María Dolores Martínez Aires
Department of Building Construction, University of Granada, Granada, Spain

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
New active methodologies have played an important role in recent Quiz games; higher
years as they carry a highly positive effect on improving students’ education; architecture;
motivation and engagement. Their application is particularly interest­ building engineering;
student opinion
ing in Building Engineering and Architecture degrees, which are char­
acterized by a large variety of subjects, with high failure and dropout
rates. This study aims to analyze the performance of Architecture and
Building Engineering students, as well as their perception and evalua­
tion of the usefulness of quiz game events in the classroom. For this
purpose, Kahoot! – a game-based learning experience – was imple­
mented in eight subjects for both bachelor’s degrees. Two playful
events were held for each subject (in the middle and at the end of
the semester), and a four-dimensional questionnaire survey (i.e. acces­
sibility, knowledge, perspective, and feeling) was conducted after each
Kahoot! session. The sum of all events reached a total of 474 participa­
tions distributed among distributed between subjects and sessions.
A qualitative and quantitative analysis was carried out to explore the
relationship between different variables (i.e. age, gender, subject, and
number of registrations). The results demonstrate the potential of quiz
games in improving the dynamics of university degree subjects in
Architecture and Building Engineering.

Introduction
Games promote learning in a fun way. This fact is not new. Since the beginning of
human history, games have been present as a mean of entertainment and skill training
(Sailer et al., 2017). The possibility of training and learning is due to the fact that they
favor aspects such as reasoning and creativity (Dias, 2017). Because of this, games are
gaining greater importance for purposes other than entertainment, giving rise to the
concept of gamification (Deterding et al., 2011). Gamification consists of the use of
games in different contexts, such as business (Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011) or
education (Villagrasa et al., 2014).
Regarding teaching, games allow students to play a more active role. This can be
achieved at all educational levels – from kindergarten to university (Prieto et al., 2019,
Toma et al., 2021). University teaching is generally based on the master class model
(Finkel, 2000). The master class consists of a topic presentation by the teacher

CONTACT María Luisa de la Hoz Torres mlhoz@ugr.es Department of Building Construction, University of Granada,
Av. Severo Ochoa s/n, Granada 18071, Spain
© 2024 Associated Schools of Construction
190 D. BIENVENIDO-HUERTAS ET AL.

throughout the duration of the class. Although this model facilitates the transmission of
ideas, its reception by the student is questioned. Thus, it is a teaching model with
detractors since it does not promote communication between students and the teacher
(Weimer, 2002). This can lead to the risk of reducing students’ interest of the students
in the subject, decreasing their participation and performance during the exams, and
favoring dropout (Liu et al., 2012). Additionally, teachers detect an uncomfortable
environment during classes, which generates frustration (Baker et al., 2010). Having
a more participative student audience can address a significant portion of these issues,
as active students typically exhibit have a higher class attendance (Del Cerro, 2015),
greater learning (Williams, 2011), better exam performance (Williams, 2011), and
contribute to a comfortable classroom (Williams, 2011). Therefore, it is crucial for
students not to perceive the game as an exam but as a class dynamic (Fernández-
Mesa et al., 2016). The potential of games is also linked to the integration of new
technologies in the classroom (Hinojo-Lucena et al., 2020). These technologies are
increasingly vital in university education, driven by the needs of the 21st-century
students, especially those digitized, who demand technology use in the classroom.
This trend has spurred research into the combined use of games and new technologies
in the classroom (Wang, 2015), revealing interesting results by encouraging student
participation (De Marcos et al., 2017, Hamari et al., 2014).
Furthermore, the use of these new technologies and game-based approaches could
facilitate the teaching tasks of university professors. University degrees are charac­
terized by having specialized and dense subjects, with extensive and precise syllabi,
leading to a decrease in student interest. Transmitting this knowledge is complex.
However, integrating games into the classroom can result in greater engagement, so
their design should be adapted to the needs of the subjects and the students
(Charnock, 2019), and pursued clearly defined objectives (Moncada & Moncada,
2014).
Due to this, a large part of the teaching research in recent years is focused on
implementing playful events in universities (Daubenfeld & Zenker, 2015, Day-Black,
2015, Giannetto et al., 2013, Guenaga et al., 2013, Jordine et al., 2014, Llorens-Largo
et al., 2016, Mathrani et al., 2016, Pertegal-Felices et al., 2020). Most of these studies
are on university degrees in the fields of medicine, computer science, and huma­
nities. However, a lack of studies in the field of Building Engineering and
Architecture degrees is detected. These degrees are characterized by challenging
subjects, covering technical aspects (e.g., materials or installations), legal aspects
(e.g., regulations and laws), and design aspects (e.g., drawing and modeling of
buildings). Additionally, the economic and construction crisis of 2008 has resulted
in a reduction of the interest in these grades and in a drop in enrollment in the
first year (Table 1) in both degrees. Therefore, the incoming students have a lower
educational level and, according to previous studies, the lower the level, the higher
probability of dropout (Ministry of Universities Spain, 2022, Patronato Fundación,
2022). This circumstance is correlated with other factors detected in previous studies
that influence dropout, such as the lack of vocation and engagement, low previous
academic training, poor study habits, etc., or factors related to the perceived uni­
versity learning context, such as the imbalance between effort and academic perfor­
mance, unmotivating attitude of teachers, and incompatibility with work (Casaravilla
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION EDUCATION AND RESEARCH 191

Table 1. Average results by subject areas. Data obtained from (Ministry of Universities (Spain), 2022,
Patronato Fundación, 2022).
Dropout Minimum admission % credits in second and Average mark of the
Subject areas rate score (min: 0; max:14) successive registrations academic record
Education 6.5 7.57 12.0 7.69
Arts and Humanities 11.3 7.14 25.7 7.45
Social Sciences, Journalism and 12.6 8.19 28.1 7.28
Documentation
Business, Administration and Law 16.5 7.09 23.4 6.99
Sciences 15.7 9.57 21.9 7.16
Computer Science 18.6 8.44 27.8 7.15
Engineering, Industry and 22.5 6.36 24.5 6.79
Construction
Agriculture, Livestock, Forestry, 20.8 8.19 18.6 6.86
Fishing and Veterinary Science
Healthcare and Social Services 8.7 10.26 11.5 7.52

et al., 2012). In fact, in Engineering, Industry, and Construction subject areas

experience a higher dropout rate than other subject areas (Table 1).
Given this, recreational events could be an opportunity to improve participation in the
classroom and enhance students’ interest in the content. The design of video games for these
studies has been addressed in many studies. In this sense, the use of Minecraft in graphic design
subjects (Fonseca et al., 2017, Valls et al., 2016), or construction site management simulation
can be highlighted (Castronovo et al., 2022, Goedert & Rokooei, 2016, Teizer et al., 2020).
Although these approaches are interesting, they face technical difficulties in video game design
by the instructors (Theodosiou & Karasavvidis, 2015), and may cause stress in students due to
having to learn the rules of the game and their level of difficulty (Sánchez-Mena et al., 2019).
For these reasons, the use of simpler gamification approaches is of interest to both teachers and
students. Similarly, video game approaches may have a more limited applications in the subjects
of technical and legal subjects. For these subjects, the use of quiz games such as Trivial Pursuit
or Kahoot! could be an opportunity to achieve better performance and student participation.
On this line, the studies conducted by Zhang and Yu (2021) and Bienvenido
Huertas et al. (2023) regarding the use of Kahoot! in courses of Architecture are
highlighted. However, the studies were constrained by sample size. Zhang and Yu’s
(2021) study focused on a construction subject (21 students), while the study by
Bienvenido Huertas et al. (2023) focused on an installation subject (67 students).
Additionally, these previous studies had limitations in student evaluation.
Considering that classroom dynamics aim not only to enhance performance but also
to encourage student participation, understanding their detailed opinions is crucial. In
this context, prior studies in other university degrees have extensively centered on
exploring students’ opinions.
Considering this context, the objective of this study is to analyze the potential of
incorporating quiz games in Engineering and Construction subjects. For this, eight
subjects, evenly split between from the bachelor’s degrees of Building Engineering and
Architecture, were selected. Recreational events and assessment surveys, focusing on four
learning dimensions, were administered. The results were analyzed qualitatively and
quantitatively and compared with the performance of the students. These findings
allow an evaluation of the appropriateness of integrating recreational events into these
university degrees.
192 D. BIENVENIDO-HUERTAS ET AL.

Methodology
Case study
The dynamics of quiz game events were implemented during the 2022/2023
academic year in four subjects each of Building Engineering and Architecture degrees
at the University of Granada. In Spain, students of Architecture and Building
Engineering students share certain similarities and differences. Architecture students
acquire skills for the design and construction management of buildings and urban
planning projects. These students deal with technical and humanity matters, such as
Mathematics, Physics, Art History, Technical Mathematics, Physics, Art History,
Technical drawing or Urban planning, while Building Engineering students acquire
skills for the material execution of construction works. These students deal mainly
technical matters such as Mathematics, Physics, Materials, Organization and
Scheduling of Works, as well as Economic Control (The Government of Spain, 1999).
Some studies highlight that many of the technical subjects present a high rate of
dropouts and failures. For example, in the case of installations subjects, the failure
rate can be as high as 40% and the dropout rates can be as high as 20% (Rubio-
Bellido et al., 2021). Therefore, they are subjects which need to implement new teaching
dynamics to improve the learning of concepts.
Table 2 summarizes information on the subjects where dynamics were implemented.
There were four subjects from the degree on Architecture program (Basis to Construction,
Construction 1, Construction 2, and Installations) and four subjects from the degree on
Building Engineering (Installations 1, Organization and Programming, Project
Management and Works Equipment, and Occupational Safety and Health). As shown,

Table 2. Subjects analyzed in the study.

Bachelor’s Level
Subject Degree Course Semester ECTS Type course Teaching content
Installations 1 Building 2 2 6 Compulsory 200 Hydraulic installations (water supply,
Engineering plumbing, drainage and water
heating for domestic or
conditioning use)
Organization and Building 3 1 6 Compulsory 300 Organization, programming and
Programming Engineering planning of construction processes
Project Building 4 1 6 Compulsory 400 Works teams, technical and human
Management Engineering means in the execution and
and Works maintenance of buildings.
Equipment
(PMWE)
Occupational Building 4 1 6 Compulsory 400 Occupational safety studies and
Safety and Engineering plans. Coordinate the activity of
Health (OSH) safety works
Basis to Architecture 1 2 6 Basic 100 General knowledge of all the building
Construction constructive systems
Construction 1 Architecture 2 1 6 Compulsory 200 Construction of steel, brickwork and
wood structural systems
Construction 2 Architecture 3 1 6 Compulsory 300 Construction of reinforced concrete
structures
Installations 2 Architecture 3 2 6 Compulsory 300 Building thermal conditioning and
Heating, Ventilation and Air
Conditioning systems
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION EDUCATION AND RESEARCH 193

Table 3. Groups and students by subjects.

Subject Groups Number of students
Installations 1 1 (Group A) 35
Organization and Programming 1 (Group A) 20
Project Management and Works Equipment 2 (Group A and B) 44
Occupational Safety and Health 1 (Group A) 35
Basis to Construction 2 (Group A and B) 71
Construction 1 2 (Group A and B) 85
Construction 2 1 (Group A) 30
Installations 2 2 (Group A and B) 60

both Architecture and Building Engineering students engage with various areas such as
installations, construction, structures, and management, each but with a distinct focus. The
authors, who are lecturers in these subjects, designed and adapted the games to the thematic
blocks of each subject. None of the participating students were concurrently enrolled in two
or more of the selected subjects.
Depending on the authors’ teaching assignments, the incorporation of playful events can
be executed in one or two groups. Table 3 indicates the number of participant groups for
each subject, along with the total sum of the potential participating students for each
subject.

Implementation of recreational events and assessment survey

The quiz game events were conducted using Kahoot!. Kahoot! is a web application that
enables the creation of question-answer games (Ismail & Mohammad, 2017, Rodríguez-
Fernández, 2017). It holds increasing relevance in the teaching field. Aspects such as the
interface, character choices, and game monitoring typically make the experience enjoy­
able for students. This popularity has led to the tool’s utilization in university degrees
(Bicen & Kocakoyun, 2018, Dolezal et al., 2018, Kay & LeSage, 2009, Plump & LaRosa,
2017, Wang & Lieberoth, 2016). The only requirement for its use is that each student
possess a computer or smartphone with an internet connection (Zhang & Yu, 2021).
Implementing playful events using Kahoot! seeks to assess the knowledge acquired
during the previous classes. In addition, it aims to improve the motivation and parti­
cipation of students by promoting their competitiveness. The platform is employed to
improve classroom participation, assess the understanding of learning comprehension,
and reinforce knowledge.
In every participant subject, two Kahoot! sessions were held-one in the middle and one at
the end of each semester. The games were voluntary and did not contribute to the final
qualification of the subject. Additionally, the games were scheduled on the calendar,
allowing students to be aware of the timing. The first set of sessions covered group of
sessions was based on the course content covered up to the that point (midway point of the
semester, while), and the second set included the remaining course content. Each Kahoot!
session comprised 7–10 questions, with a response time of 60 s. The maximum number of
questions was limited to 10 to ensure students’ concentration during the game. This
criterion aligns with based on the game designs carried out in other existing state-of-the-
art studies (Jones et al., 2019, Kohnke & Moorhouse, 2022). The questions, ranging from
image identification to problem-solving and concepts, were crafted by the lecturers and
194 D. BIENVENIDO-HUERTAS ET AL.

provided some optional answers to the students. At the end of question in every playful
event, the correct answer and the number of students choosing each option were displayed.
Subsequently, the teacher explained the rationale behind the correct answer. Each question
concluded by presenting a cumulative ranking of the top three students who answered
correctly and in the shortest possible time.
The objective of this study is analyze the performance of the students and their percep­
tion and evaluation of using games. This methodology is based on the one by other works in
the state of the art (Fuster-Guilló et al., 2019). Regarding performance, the percentage of
correct answers and the scores obtained by the students in each sessions were collected.
Similarly, the performance of the students during the evaluations of the subjects was
compiled. In terms of the students’ perception and evaluation, anonymous surveys were
conducted at the end of each gamification session.
The survey adopted a questionnaire format including the questions presented in Table 4.
The design followed the question format in scientific literature (Wang & Tahir, 2020). After
analyzing the literature, the authors selected 22 questions to evaluate student opinions
across four dimensions: (i) D1-Accessibility, to assess accessibility and possible difficulties
in carrying out recreational events (7 questions); (ii) D2-Knowledge, to evaluate the
perception of the level of learning with quiz game events (4 questions); (iii) D3-
Perspective, to assess interest in carrying out more recreational events, both in the analysis
subject and in others (3 questions); and (iv) D4-Feeling, to assess the student’s feelings
about recreational events, including aspects such as fun (8 questions). Each of these
questions had answers based on a 5-point Likert scale (from “Strongly disagree” to
“Strongly agree”). Similarly, students were asked about their age, gender, and the number
of registrations in the same subject.

Table 4. Dimensions and questions of the survey carried out on the students.
Dimension Question
D1. Q01 I was able to communicate with other players while playing.
Accessibility Q02 The response time was adequate.
Q03 The response options are clear.
Q04 The size of the text and images are displayed correctly.
Q05 I have the necessary resources to access the Kahoot! website online.
Q06 The Kahoot! website is reliable, and I have had no incidents during the classroom session.
Q07 I would like to play games like Kahoot! without using technology (computers, smartphones, etc.).
D2. Q08 Kahoot! was useful to learn concepts of the subject.
Knowledge Q09 Kahoot! has helped me to know the level of knowledge that I have in the session carried out in the
classroom.
Q10 Kahoot! has served for the best learning of the contents of the subject.
Q11 The explanations provided by the teacher at the end of each question were useful to understand
which was the correct answer.
D3. Q12 I would like to see more Kahoot! used in this subject.
Perspective Q13 I would like other gamification approaches to be considered in addition to Kahoot!.
Q14 I am in favor of university studies using this approach (playful events) in other subjects.
D4. Feeling Q15 Kahoot! is a good tool for learning.
Q16 I feel comfortable learning with Kahoot!.
Q17 When I answered questions on gamification quizzes, I was interested in the correct answers and my
progress scores.
Q18 I have a greater affinity with the subject after using Kahoot!.
Q19 The experience has motivated me to keep up with the topic and learn more about it.
Q20 Kahoot! favors a form of friendly competition with the other players.
Q21 It was fun to use Kahoot in the classroom.
Q22 Rate your final experience with Kahoot!. Rate from 1 to 5, with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the
highest.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION EDUCATION AND RESEARCH 195

Figure 1. Histogram of the analysis cohort during the 2022–2023 academic year.

After conducting recreational events during the 2022/2023 academic year, a total of
474 records were obtained. Figure 1 summarizes data related to subjects, age, gender,
and participants’ registration numbers. Notably, the number of female students (273)
exceeded that of male students (196), with a minimal count of non-binary gender
students (5). The age range spanned from 18 to 40 years, primarily concentrated in the
18–20 age bracket (228 students). Most participants registered for the subject for the
first time (411 students). The number of participating students per subject varied
based on the analyzed groups and subject dropout rates during the recreational events.
Consequently, Basis to Construction and Construction 1 garnered the highest survey
response rates.
196 D. BIENVENIDO-HUERTAS ET AL.

Quantitative analysis of the surveys

The results of the surveys were assessed both qualitatively and quantitatively. In this analysis, the
responses from Table 4, as well as age, gender, and number of registrations, were used. For
qualitative analysis, both the association between questions and grouping of observations were
conducted. The association analysis was based on evaluating the Chi-Square (Eq. (1)) and the
correlation between variables. The corrected contingency coefficient was used for polytomous
variables with the same number of categories (5×5) (Eq. (2)), and the V’ Cramer for polytomous
variables with different numbers of categories (Eq. (3)). The responses of the four dimensions of
analysis that used a Likert scale employed the contingency coefficient, while the analysis with
gender and the number of registrations used the V’ Cramer. The association between variables
was considered at a significance value of 0.05.

Where ni is an observation with a value A; nj is an observation with a value B; χ 2 is the Chi-

square coefficient; N is the number of observations; k is the minimum number of rows and
columns of the matrix of polytomous variables; r is the number of rows; and c is the number of
columns.
Likewise, quantitative analysis relied on a cluster analysis of observations from the survey
dataset. Four questions demonstrating significant independence were identified based on
previous association results. These variables are elaborated on in the results section. The
Ward method (Ward, 1963) was then employed, which involved the grouping of observations
to minimize cluster variation. Finally, given the categorical nature of the variables, the calcula­
tion of distances between observations was done using the Jaccard index.

Results and discussion

Performance of the students with the quiz game events carried out in Kahoot!
Firstly, the decision was made to evaluate the students’ performance regarding the quiz
game events. For this, the percentage of correct answers (Figure 2) and the scores obtained
by the students in the Kahoot! tests (Figure 3) were assessed.
In the case of the average percentage of correct answers, it was possible to appreciate how the
yields showed different trends depending on the subject. Thus, the subjects of Basis to
Construction, Organization and Programming, (Project Management and Works Equipment
(PMWE), and Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) obtained percentages of correct answers
between 44.3% and 75.5% in the first playful event, while the others obtained low percentages. In
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION EDUCATION AND RESEARCH 197

Figure 2. Percentage of correct and incorrect answers in the games carried out in the subjects.

Figure 3. Distribution of the scores obtained by the students in the games.

subjects such as Installations, the average percentage of correct answers was only 23.8%. This
reflects the great disparity the students present in the performance of the games. Thus, in some
subjects, they may have a better assimilation of knowledge, while in others, they may face more
difficulties. It is also worth noting that the disparities in performance can also be due to the
university degree, since the professional profile of the degrees are different. However, the quiz
198 D. BIENVENIDO-HUERTAS ET AL.

game events do not have an evaluative objective, so students can play the game calmly. It serves
as a reminder of knowledge in the subject and is also
Except for Basis to Construction and Installations 1, the other subjects obtaining a high
percentage of correct answers belong to Building Engineering subjects. This difference in
performance may be attributed to the more technical profile of a building engineer compared
to an architect. Therefore, a student’s profile is a factor that could contribute to the variability in
correct answer percentages. Likewise, there is a clear decrease in student performance in
the second recreational event, which took place at the end of the teaching semester. The decrease
in performance may result from several factors, including limited time available to study (due to
concentrated deadlines for multiple subjects), leading to reduced student commitment.
However, this aspect could not be specified in the study, as performances in other subjects
(Construction 1, Installations 1, and Occupational Safety and Health) were equal to or higher
than those in the first game.
To broaden the analysis, we evaluated the distributions of scores obtained by students in the
Kahoot! tests (Figure 3). Kahoot! assigns scores based on correct answers and response time.
The median scores of Building Engineering subjects (except Installations 1) surpassed
Architecture subjects in the first play event. In the second session, a decrease in results is
observed, aligning with the average percentage. Nonetheless, some students successfully
answered all questions in both events. The only exception was the Installation subjects.
Thematic blocks pose a challenge for Architecture and Building Engineering students in these
subjects, resulting in low performance. The quiz game aims to enhance content understanding,
which could potentially lead to an improved exam performance. To assess this aspect, the results
obtained during the Kahoot! tests were compared with those from the corresponding exams.
The analysis focused on Construction subjects since the exams in these subjects consisted of
taking multiple-choice questions. Figure 4 illustrates the cloud of points between percentages of
correct answers in Kahoot! tests versus exams.

Figure 4. Comparison of percentages of correct answers in construction subjects: (a) comparative point
cloud between the percentage of correct answers in the exam and correct answers during the games; and
(b) box plot with the increase in the percentage of correct answers in the exam with respect to Kahoot
answers.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION EDUCATION AND RESEARCH 199

The results demonstrate that most students exhibited enhanced exam performance.
Specifically, the interquartile range for score improvement was 40.89%, with some instances
showing a remarkable 100% increase. The improvement may stem from various factors,
including increased study time. Notably, the earlier utilization of Kahoot! tests emerged as
a potential contributing factor. Therefore, it is expected that students who participate in the
games have a greater possibility of improving their performance. This aspect does not have
to apply to all students, as in some cases, worse performance can be obtained. In this sense,
6% of the cohort obtained worse performance in the exams than in the games. Nevertheless,
participating in games allows achieving improvements, but performance also depends on
other factors. In any case, games facilitate improvements in learning and exam
performance.

Qualitative analysis of the assessment of the 4 dimensions

Once the academic performance of the students was assessed through Kahoot! tests, their
evaluation was analyzed in four dimensions: (i) D1: Accessibility (Q01–Q07); (ii) D2:
Knowledge (Q08–Q11); (iii) D3: Perspective (Q12–Q14); and (iv) D4: Feeling (Q15–
Q22). As specified in Section 2, each question was assessed using a Likert scale. Figure 5
displays the results from the assessment surveys conducted with a cohort of 474 students.
Regarding dimension D1, the results showed the following percentage distribution of
responses: 5% for A1 (“Strongly disagree”), 5% for A2 (“Disagree”), 12% for A3 (“Neutral”),
18% for A4 (“Agree”), and 59% for A5 (“Strongly agree”). Thus, the majority percentage of
responses was “Agree” and “Strongly agree.” This dimension covers questions associated
with response time or visibility of text and images, so the configuration of a time of 60
seconds per question and the Kahoot! interface is adequate to achieve accessibility.
Furthermore, the Kahoot! website was reliable during the tests, and there were no signifi­
cant incidents (95% of the responses for A4 and A5). In any case, the reliability of the
Kahoot! website did not prevent many students from wanting to carry out recreational
events without any type of technology (Q07). In this sense, 32% of the students positively
valued the possibility of playing the games without using computers or smartphones. This
may respond to possible technophobia among some students, as well as a potential genera­
tion gap (the student cohort ranges from 18 to 40 years old). The issue of age will be
discussed in greater detail in subsection 3.3 of the quantitative analysis. In any case, the
results show how the use of Kahoot! is accessible and the response times are adequate.
However, future work should address the use of other game approaches that do not require
the use of technology and represent an alternative for the 32% of students who voted not to
use technology.
With respect to dimension D2 (knowledge), the distribution of answers was very similar
to D1: 1% for A1, 2% for A2, 9% for A3, 30% for A4, and 57% for A5. Despite this, a higher
concentration of responses in the “Agree” and “Strongly agree” evaluations is evident in this
dimension. The use of playful events with Kahoot! proved beneficial for learning subject
concepts, and the explanations provided at the end of each question were essential. It is
evident that there is a highly favorable response in the knowledge dimension, with only
a minority of the cohort providing a negative evaluation. In fact, only less than 5% indicated
an unfavorable response in this dimension. Similar percentages have been found in previous
studies (Chapman & Rich, 2018).
200 D. BIENVENIDO-HUERTAS ET AL.

Figure 5. Histogram with the answers obtained in the 22 questions.

In terms of student motivation, it is worth noting that it can be divided into
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Students’ intrinsic motivation refers to the act of
performing tasks without for which there is no external incentive or reward. In
contrast, the term extrinsic motivation describes what students feel when they
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION EDUCATION AND RESEARCH 201

complete a task because of some external stimulus (e.g., rewards) (Medel-San ElíElíAs
et al., 2022). In this study, participation is voluntary, and there is no reward for
correctly completing the quizzes. This may result in the amotivation of some students.
Future studies should address the influence of using rewards and compare students’
motivation with and without them.
The same trend in answers distribution was found in the perspective dimension (D3).
The focus was on the possibility of incorporating more quiz game events in both the
experimental subjects and others. In this case, 87% of the responses concentrated on the
evaluations of “Agree” and “Strongly agree.” Thus, most of the cohort appreciates the use of
playful events as an interesting reinforcement of the acquired knowledge. Similarly, it calls
for exploring other gamification approaches (Q13). This aspect represents one of the main
knowledge gaps in Architecture and Building Engineering degrees, with few studies addres­
sing the use of gamification approaches.
Dib and Adamo-Villani (2014) suggested in their study that gamification can
enhance student learning in university degrees related to Engineering, Architecture,
and Construction. The authors proposed a role-playing serious game (RPG) in which
the student is the protagonist of the story. Their results showed that the use of
gamification techniques increased subjects’ content learning by 26%. George et al.
(2017) proposed a game based on a mobile application for iPad. Their study showed
that the game helped in the practice or reinforce reinforcement of complex exercises
prior to some written evaluations by teachers. While Goedert and Rokooei (2016)
developed a simulation-based serious game for construction education in a situated
context. Players indicated that the game was engaging, and their interest in construc­
tion had improved by varying degrees. The development of different gamification
techniques has been previously studied; among them, the use of virtual environments
and simulations is frequent (Ilbeigi et al., 2023). These techniques are usually more
complex and costly to develop than other tools, such as Kahoot!. Therefore, the results
of this study show that the use of Kahoot! could have a positive impact on student
engagement. However, in other university degrees, very different gamification
approaches have been successfully adopted, such as escape rooms, card games,
Plickers, etc.
Finally, the dimension of feeling (D4) showed a high concentration of positive responses,
with 87% for A4 and A5. They believe that learning is comfortable and enjoyable through
quiz game events that spark curiosity about correct answers. Overall, students’ feelings were
positive. Only questions Q18 and Q19 had a lower percentage of positive responses in A4
and A5. These questions aimed at establishing affinity with the subject and fostering a desire
to learn more. Although positive responses were received, the percentage differed from the
general percentage for D4. While students could develop a greater affinity with the subject,
the playful events were not as effective as in other questions. Future work should address the
use of other gamification approaches and explore the nonuse of technologies to enhance
students’ affinity with the subject.
In any case, the results of the assessment survey have shown a positive response from the
students in various dimensions. This reflects the feasibility of using play events with
Kahoot! in Architecture and Building Engineering subjects.
202 D. BIENVENIDO-HUERTAS ET AL.

Quantitative analysis of the assessment of the four dimensions

The preceding results present the qualitative analysis of the survey conducted by the
students. It is evident that the results are positive across various dimensions. However,
the analysis did not assess the interrelation between the different questions and answers,
along with other variables like age, gender, or the number of registrations in the same
subject.
To evaluate these aspects, we assessed the association or independence of the variables
based on compliance with the null hypothesis. We also examined their correlation using the
contingency coefficient or Cramer’s V coefficient, as detailed in Section 2. Regarding the
relationship among the questions of the four dimensions, Table 5 presents the Chi-square
values, and Table 6 displays the contingency coefficient values.
Chi-square values in all relationships were higher than the critical value (26.30) obtained
for 16 degrees of freedom, and p = .05. This allows us to reject the null hypothesis and
reflects the association between all the variables. Thus, there is an association between the
answers given in the four dimensions. A significant portion of these associations is
attributed to the high percentage of responses in the “Agree” and “Strongly agree” cate­
gories. This aspect is also evident in the contingency coefficients.
In this sense, the contingency coefficients reached a maximum value of 0.85. Despite
a high predominance due to elevated contingency coefficient values, some instances yielded
lower values. For instance, the correlations of Q01 and Q07 with other questions ranged
from 0.32 to 0.57. These questions pertained to D1 and were related to communication with
other players and the nonuse of technologies. Therefore, the differences in qualitative
assessment for these questions led to reduced correlation with responses to other questions.
While most students positively evaluated the experience, disagreements surfaced regarding
communication with other players and the possibility of performing Kahoot! without
technologies. Nevertheless, an association exists, although Chi-Square values were lower
than in other questions.
Likewise, low correlations are also observed in other questions of D1 (Q04, Q05, and
Q06) with the rest of the variables. These determination coefficients were below 0.69.
Although higher than those of Q01 and Q07, they remained lower than the rest of the
analyzed combinations. Therefore, the correlation analysis indicates that the dimension of
accessibility in quiz game events exhibits a different trend than the dimensions of knowl­
edge, perspective, and sensations. Although playful events were beneficial for students’
learning, and they value their use in other subjects, the accessibility of the games needs
improvement. This improvement should not be applied to response time (Q02) or enhan­
cing response options (Q03). Instead, the focus should be on improving the size of the text
(Q04), resources (Q05), and web incidents in the classroom (Q06). Additionally, playing
games without technologies should be assessed.
After analyzing the association between the questions of each dimension, we decided to
conduct an analysis of the variables’ association those with gender, age, and the number of
student registrations. Table 7 summarizes the results obtained. The contingency coefficient
for age and the V’ Cramer for gender and the number of registrations were used. In the case
of age, four observations with an NA value were discarded. Concerning age, an association
was observed between the age of the respondents and some questions. Thus, age showed
associations with questions from all four dimensions. Younger students exhibited a greater
Table 5. Matrix with the values obtained from Chi-square between the questions of the 4 dimensions. To simplify the table, the values are rounded to the highest
whole number. Values that are higher than the critical value (26.30) are put in bold.
Chi-square
Question Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22
Q01 89 62 47 55 43 86 73 69 77 78 77 71 81 108 88 63 78 86 122 99 87
Q02 521 187 260 152 81 333 324 276 396 325 278 303 438 319 334 202 255 446 438 530
Q03 221 233 178 60 356 340 301 434 352 293 262 386 364 370 252 281 454 384 516
Q04 389 245 52 120 173 93 140 122 111 161 173 129 120 77 82 186 231 183
Q05 604 56 194 298 156 225 185 211 282 298 246 212 84 89 304 359 514
Q06 63 121 186 115 173 138 95 198 173 205 163 63 95 189 246 294
Q07 100 70 82 61 88 144 87 71 64 77 169 132 66 61 72
Q08 438 655 515 399 292 370 653 491 488 360 334 398 293 516
Q09 482 447 296 257 374 435 393 515 213 254 434 351 490
Q10 475 416 265 291 608 452 429 370 312 341 251 481
Q11 387 316 327 518 458 527 247 316 432 330 530
Q12 345 566 631 602 461 301 248 372 448 540
Q13 437 344 356 260 282 210 275 262 419
Q14 496 555 369 250 215 365 472 432
Q15 484 515 305 281 431 428 578
Q16 496 342 275 393 432 665
Q17 347 309 362 274 494
Q18 495 258 230 323
Q19 305 264 380
Q20 604 560
Q21 489
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
203
 204

Table 6. Matrix with the adjusted contingency coefficient between the questions of the 4 dimensions.
Contingency coefficient
Question Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22
Q01 0.44 0.38 0.33 0.36 0.32 0.44 0.41 0.40 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.40 0.43 0.48 0.44 0.38 0.42 0.44 0.51 0.46 0.44
Q02 0.81 0.59 0.67 0.55 0.43 0.72 0.71 0.68 0.75 0.71 0.68 0.70 0.77 0.71 0.72 0.61 0.66 0.78 0.77 0.81
D. BIENVENIDO-HUERTAS ET AL.

Q03 0.63 0.64 0.58 0.37 0.73 0.72 0.70 0.77 0.73 0.69 0.67 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.66 0.68 0.78 0.75 0.81
Q04 0.75 0.65 0.35 0.50 0.58 0.45 0.53 0.50 0.49 0.56 0.58 0.52 0.50 0.42 0.43 0.59 0.64 0.59
Q05 0.84 0.36 0.60 0.69 0.56 0.63 0.59 0.62 0.68 0.69 0.65 0.62 0.43 0.44 0.70 0.73 0.81
Q06 0.38 0.50 0.59 0.49 0.58 0.53 0.46 0.61 0.58 0.61 0.57 0.38 0.46 0.60 0.65 0.69
Q07 0.47 0.40 0.43 0.38 0.44 0.54 0.44 0.40 0.39 0.42 0.57 0.52 0.39 0.38 0.40
Q08 0.77 0.85 0.81 0.76 0.69 0.74 0.85 0.80 0.80 0.73 0.72 0.76 0.69 0.81
Q09 0.79 0.78 0.69 0.66 0.74 0.77 0.75 0.81 0.62 0.66 0.77 0.73 0.80
Q10 0.79 0.76 0.67 0.69 0.84 0.78 0.77 0.74 0.70 0.72 0.66 0.79
Q11 0.75 0.71 0.71 0.81 0.78 0.81 0.65 0.71 0.77 0.72 0.81
Q12 0.73 0.82 0.84 0.84 0.78 0.70 0.65 0.74 0.78 0.82
Q13 0.77 0.72 0.73 0.66 0.68 0.62 0.68 0.67 0.77
Q14 0.80 0.82 0.74 0.66 0.62 0.74 0.79 0.77
Q15 0.79 0.81 0.70 0.68 0.77 0.77 0.83
Q16 0.80 0.72 0.68 0.75 0.77 0.85
Q17 0.73 0.70 0.74 0.68 0.80
Q18 0.80 0.66 0.64 0.71
Q19 0.70 0.67 0.75
Q20 0.84 0.82
Q21 0.80
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION EDUCATION AND RESEARCH 205

Table 7. Matrix of similarity and correlation between the survey variables and the age, gender and
number of registrations. The use of the contingency coefficient and Cramér’s V depend on the dimen­
sions of the matrices between variables. Values higher than the critical value are in bold (26.30 for age
and 15.51 for gender and number of registrations).
Question Age Gender Number of registrations
Chi-square C Chi-square V Chi-square V
Q01 49.36 0.34 14.62 0.25 5.55 0.15
Q02 35.98 0.30 9.08 0.20 4.81 0.14
Q03 51.06 0.35 6.19 0.16 29.28 0.35
Q04 22.36 0.24 14.85 0.25 25.58 0.33
Q05 31.72 0.28 11.24 0.22 16.48 0.26
Q06 14.62 0.19 1.33 0.07 22.05 0.31
Q07 23.91 0.25 8.03 0.18 2.91 0.11
Q08 29.52 0.27 23.92 0.32 16.19 0.26
Q09 30.22 0.27 10.55 0.21 8.57 0.19
Q10 23.18 0.24 13.20 0.24 3.83 0.13
Q11 44.03 0.33 7.96 0.18 13.14 0.24
Q12 35.21 0.29 3.97 0.13 7.88 0.18
Q13 35.35 0.29 12.32 0.23 9.78 0.20
Q14 23.90 0.24 8.88 0.19 11.23 0.22
Q15 32.67 0.28 18.61 0.28 8.56 0.19
Q16 26.83 0.26 9.21 0.20 28.78 0.35
Q17 25.04 0.25 15.22 0.25 12.33 0.23
Q18 18.85 0.22 10.93 0.21 4.53 0.14
Q19 38.42 0.31 10.15 0.21 6.23 0.16
Q20 31.04 0.28 8.36 0.19 5.64 0.15
Q21 32.14 0.28 7.22 0.17 13.44 0.24
Q22 31.16 0.28 9.33 0.20 3.01 0.11

tendency to provide positive evaluations in accessibility, indicating a clear association. Only

in questions regarding the reliability of the Kahoot! website and the nonuse of technologies
was independent between the variables detected. Similarly, there are associations of age with
the usefulness of games for learning and fun. Despite this, it should be noted that these
associations have low coefficient of determination values.
With respect to gender, the V’ Cramer values were very low (ranging between 0.07 and
0.32). Consequently, no relationship exists between students’ gender and their assessment
of the students’ gaming experience. Concerning the number of registrations, some cases
showed associations with V’ Cramer values exceeding 0.30. Many of these associations were
linked to accessibility and learning comfort with the game. Notably, students in their second
or third registration consistently valued recreational events positively, while negative
evaluations predominantly originated from first-time registrants. Hence, a correlation exists
between the number of registrations and students’ appreciation. Therefore, those repeating
the subject tend to value the implementation of such dynamics in the classroom more
positively, likely due to their prior experience with thematic block difficulties.

Student assessment groups and relationship analysis with other variables

To conclude the analysis of the results, the surveys were grouped to assess the existence of
students with similar characteristics. The classification method used is described in
Section 2.
Given the results obtained from the similarity analysis in subsection 3.3, cluster
analysis was performed with four variables: Q01, Q07, Q18, and Q21. Based on the
206 D. BIENVENIDO-HUERTAS ET AL.

Table 8. Number of students and centroids of each of the clusters.

Number of students Centroids
Cluster BC C1 C2 I1 I2 OP PMWE OSH Total Q01 Q07 Q18 Q21
1 26 22 12 18 9 14 21 14 136 3.21 2.67 3.09 3.89
2 28 34 17 16 25 8 20 19 167 3.69 2.78 4.31 4.99
3 12 14 3 6 14 3 6 6 64 3.52 2.20 3.00 4.97
4 26 18 20 6 16 4 11 6 107 4.75 3.81 5.00 4.99
BC: Basis to Construction; C1: Construction 1; Construction 2; Installations 2; I1: Installations 1; OP: Organization and
Programming; PMWE: Project Management and Works Equipment; OSH: Occupational Safety and Health.

resulting relationships, four groups were established due to their adequate dissim­
ilarities. The number of observations and centroids for each group are found in
Table 8.
As can be seen, the number of observations varied in each group, emphasizing
a group with a low number of observations (cluster 3). A significant portion of
observations in each cluster exhibited similarities in some variables and disparities in
the challenge (e.g., clusters 2 and 4 shared the same centroid in Q21, despite notable
differences in other variables).
In summary, the groups exhibited the following characteristics: (i) Group 1 comprises
observations with medium communication between players, most of which do not necessi­
tate a change in technology, with a medium-low affinity with the subject and a moderate
evaluation/registration of the playful event; (ii) Group 2 consists of observations with
moderate to high communication between players, mostly not requiring a technology
change, displaying high affinity with the subject, and a high valuation of the playful
event; (iii) Group 3 is composed of observations with medium to high communication
between players, not requiring a technology change, possessing a medium affinity with the
subject, and a high valuation of the playful event; and (iv) Group 4 includes observations
with high communication between players, necessitating a technology change, showing
a high affinity with the subject, and a high assessment of the playful event.
Knowing these clusters, the relationships were evaluated by cluster with the subjects
(Table 8). Considering that groups 2 and 4 were the ones that grouped the observations with
a more positive evaluation in all the questions, it was observed that all the subjects had
observations in those groups. Thus, in all subjects, satisfactory assessment results were
achieved. This demonstrates the potential of quiz game events to be used in different
subjects of the courses of Building Engineering and Architecture.
It is convenient to remember that the subjects evaluated correspond to areas as varied as
Construction, Structures, Installations, and Management. Thus, the implementation of this
type of dynamics in the classroom in the programs of these degrees is useful. In any case,
a greater predominance of students in some subjects in cluster 1 (corresponding to
medium-low level assessments) has also been detected in some cases. This cluster has no
negative evaluations of the games (Q21 has a centroid of 3.89), but it has lower evaluations
than the rest of the clusters. This is the case of the subjects of Installations 1, Organization
and Programming, and Project Management and Works Equipment. In these cases, the
difficulty of the subject may be a reason for the evaluation of the students. This can mean
that the quiz games are difficult and pose a barrier for students. The possibility of adopting
a more simplified approach to review games should be assessed in future work so that
students could adopt better assessment. In any case, the results have shown a general
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION EDUCATION AND RESEARCH 207

positive trend in most subjects and show great potential for using Kahoot! to improve
teaching in Architecture and Building Engineering degrees.

Recommendations for future work

Future research studies should explore the application of Kahoot! quiz game events in
preparing students for future working lives. This game-based learning tool facilitates the
inclusion of both images and videos to be included in quizzes, and these resources could be
used to create a story that guides the student to the resolution of real work problems.
Teachers can offer feedback during the quiz game to help students solve the case study.
Another approach is the use of Kahoot! as a cooperative and teamwork-building tool in
Building projects, which are characterized by the involvement of multiple actors during
both design and construction phases. This tool can be used to improve communication
skills through quizzes where different groups representing different actors have to work
together.

Conclusions
Completing university degrees in Architecture or Building Engineering presents
a significant challenge for students. This challenge stems from the diverse technical subjects,
such as Structures, Materials, Construction, or Installations, combined with the tradition­
ally passive involvement of students, leading to low success rates. Thus, incorporating more
active learning methods could enhance student performance. This study proposes analyzing
the impact of playful experiences in eight subjects across two Bachelor’s degrees (Building
Engineering and in Architecture), utilizing Kahoot! for the playful experiences. The study
assesses students’ performance in four dimensions: accessibility (D1), knowledge (D2),
perspective (D3), and feeling (D4).
The evaluation of the students was carried out both qualitatively and quantitatively. For
qualitative purposes, most students provided a positive assessment. They believed that
recreational events enhance learning and are enjoyable, and recommended their use in
other subjects. Moreover, they did not report significant accessibility issues. However, there
was variability in responses regarding the use of non-technological means for recreational
events. Since the quiz game events were based on Kahoot!, smartphones or computers were
necessary to play the game. Some students expressed interest in playing the games without
electronic devices.
For quantitative purposes, it was observed that all the questions were associated. Despite
this, the correlation between the questions varied; some of them had less correlation than
others, as seen with questions related to the accessibility dimension. Examples include
communication with other players, nonuse of technologies, text size, resources, the web,
and incidents in the classroom. While most responses were positive, the lack of correlation
highlights a need for accessibility improvements in games. Additionally, there was no
discernible relationship between gender and student assessments, with similar trends
observed for males, females, and non-binary genders. Regarding age, younger students
displayed a stronger inclination toward providing positive evaluations for accessibility,
indicating a clear association. In the rest of the questions, no significant associations with
age were detected.
208 D. BIENVENIDO-HUERTAS ET AL.

Finally, the number of registrations in the same subject also showed a similar
trend. Thus, students in their second or third registration consistently rated recrea­
tional events positively, while negative ratings came from students in their first
registration. This could be attributed to the experience of repeating students who
are familiar with the subject’s difficulty. In this context, performances demonstrated
that the percentage of correct answers in exams was higher compared to games.
Although other factors may influence this aspect (e.g., more time to study), the
increase in performance could also be attributed to quiz games. Similarly, in most
subjects, higher scores were obtained in the first game. This variation in scores (i.e.,
in student performance) may result from several factors. The authors posit that
a portion of the decline in performance may be attributed to the students’ workload
on the date of the second session. Given that the second session was carried out at
the end of the semester, students may have a high workload due to the deadlines of
assignments from other subjects. Conducting this session on earlier days, consider­
ing the end-of-semester workload, might enhance game performance.
In terms of learning outcomes, the results of this study revealed a positive impact in
consolidating subject concepts. Furthermore, Kahoot! can be a useful tool to evaluate
the level of knowledge of the students during lessons. This is crucial, given the multitude
of concepts derived from many subjects in the Building Engineering and Architecture
degrees, including construction concepts, installations, and legal aspects. The results also
indicated a high degree of acceptance in relation to learning the contents of the subject
content through quizzes. This fact may be closely linked to the feedback provided by the
professor at the end of each question. All of these factors, combined with students’
competitiveness, attention, and participation of the students in quiz-solving the quizzes,
could contribute to a positive learning experience in subjects that are often complex and
highly technical subjects.
Finally, the classification analysis of the respondents yielded four distinct clusters. It
revealed that all analyzed subjects had students in high-valuation groups. However, some
subjects also had a notable percentage of students in average assessment groups. This may
stem from challenges in play tests or unaccounted external factors (e.g., the nationality of the
students), which should be addressed in future studies. Nevertheless, the evaluation results
were predominantly satisfactory, highlighting the potential of using Kahoot! quiz game
events to enhance teaching in Architecture and Building Engineering university degrees.
It is concluded that the results of this study demonstrate the potential that events of this type
have in improving engagement in the classroom. Students enhance their performance and
develop a positive assessment of both the subject and the game. Thus, these dynamics could be
implemented in university degree programs for Architecture and Building Engineering. The
extensive range of subjects analyzed ensures the method’s viability across all courses in these
degrees. Nevertheless, future work should address the accessibility problems reported in the
study.

Disclosure statement
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have influenced the work reported in this paper.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION EDUCATION AND RESEARCH 209

Funding
Quality, Teaching Innovation and Foresight Unit at the University of Granada (Implementación de
herramientas educacionales de gamificación en asignaturas de titulaciones de arquitectura y
edificación - PBID 22-22).

ORCID
David Bienvenido-Huertas http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0716-8589
Elisabet Suárez Vargas http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1725-7219
Paula M. Esquivias http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3966-1266
María Luisa de la Hoz Torres http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1657-1572
Antonio J. Aguilar http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5045-8560
Joaquín Manuel Durán Álvarez http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2666-7893
María Dolores Martínez Aires http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9292-5048

References
Baker, R. S., D’Mello, S. K., Rodrigo, M. M. T., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Better to be frustrated than
bored: The incidence, persistence, and impact of learners’ cognitive–affective states during inter­
actions with three different computer-based learning environments. International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, 68(4), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.12.003
Bicen, H., & Kocakoyun, S. (2018). Perceptions of students for gamification approach: Kahoot as
a case study. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 13(2), 72. https://
doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v13i02.7467
Bienvenido Huertas, D., Rubio Bellido, C., & León Muñoz, M. Á. (2023). Analysis of the effectiveness
of using Kahoot! in university degrees in building engineering. JOTSE: Journal of Technology and
Science Education, 13(1), 288–300. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1984
Casaravilla, A., Del Campo, J. M., García, A., & Torralba, M. R. (2012). Análisis Del Pre-Abandono
En Estudios De Ingeniería Y Arquitectura En La Universidad Politécnica De Madrid. II CLABES
Segunda Conferencia Latinoamericana Sobre El Abandono En La Educación Superior, 12. https://
revistas.utp.ac.pa/index.php/clabes/article/view/1464
Castronovo, F., Van Meter, P. N., & Messner, J. I. (2022). Leveraging metacognitive prompts in
construction educational games for higher educational gains. International Journal of Construction
Management, 22(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2018.1492760
Chapman, J. R., & Rich, P. J. (2018). Does educational gamification improve students’ motivation? If
so, which game elements work best? Journal of Education for Business, 93(7), 315–322. https://doi.
org/10.1080/08832323.2018.1490687
Charnock, J. (2019). Designing playful events. In Whitton, N., & Moseley, A. (Eds.), Playful Learning
(1st ed, pp. 26–40). Routledge.
Daubenfeld, T., & Zenker, D. (2015). A game-based approach to an entire physical chemistry course.
Journal of Chemical Education, 92(2), 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed5001697
Day-Black, C. (2015). Gamification: An innovative teaching-learning strategy for the digital nursing
students in a community health nursing course. ABNF Journal, 26(4), 90–94
Del Cerro, G. (2015). Aprender jugando, resolviendo: diseñando experiencias positivas de aprendizaje.
XII Jornadas Internacionales de Innovación Universitaria Educar Para Transformar: Aprendizaje
Experiencial. http://hdl.handle.net/11268/4334, 237–244.
De Marcos, L., Garcia-Cabot, A., & Garcia-Lopez, E. (2017). Towards the social gamification of
e-learning: A practical experiment. International Journal of Engineering Education, 33(1), 66–73.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness:
Defining“gamification”. Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference:
Envisioning Future Media Environments (pp. 9–15.
210 D. BIENVENIDO-HUERTAS ET AL.

Dias, J. (2017). Teaching operations research to undergraduate management students: The role of
gamification. The International Journal of Management Education, 15(1), 98–111. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijme.2017.01.002
Dib, H., & Adamo-Villani, N. (2014). Serious sustainability challenge game to promote teaching and
learning of building sustainability. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 28(5), A4014007.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000357
Dolezal, D., Posekany, A., Motschnig, R., & Pucher, R. (2018). Effects of introducing a game-based
student response system into a flipped, person-centered classroom on object-oriented design.
International Conference on Web-Based Learning (pp. 132–139).
Fernández-Mesa, A., Olmos-Peñuela, J., & Alegre, J. (2016). Pedagogical value of a common knowl­
edge repository for business management courses. @Tic Revista D’Innovació Educativa, (16).
https://doi.org/10.7203/attic.16.8044
Finkel, D. L. (2000). Teaching with your mouth shut. Education Review. https://doi.org/10.14507/er.
v0.139
Fonseca, D., Navarro, I., Villagrasa, S., Villagrasa, S., Villagrasa, S., Valls, F., Redondo, E., Gené, M.,
Calvo, X., Aymerich, C., & Sans, M. (2017). Sistemas de Visualización Gamificados para la mejora
de la Motivación Intrínseca en Estudiantes de Arquitectura. IV Congreso Internacional Sobre
Aprendizaje, Innovación y Competitividad (CINAIC 2017). https://doi.org/10.26754/cinaic.2017.
000001_043
Fuster-Guilló, A., Pertegal-Felices, M. L., Jimeno-Morenilla, A., Azorín-López, J., Rico-Soliveres,
M. L., & Restrepo-Calle, F. (2019). Evaluating impact on motivation and academic performance
of a game-based learning experience using kahoot. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(December), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02843
George, C., Carlos, E., & David, M. (2017). Serious game for the virtual practice of the emplantillado
in the constructive system of adobe with reinforced cane. Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference on Education Technology and Computers (pp. 99–103.
Giannetto, D., Chao, J., & Fontana, A. (2013). Gamification in a social learning environment.
Proceedings of the Informing Science and Information Technology Education Conference (pp.
195–207.
Goedert, J. D., & Rokooei, S. (2016). Project-based construction education with simulations in
a gaming environment. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 12(3),
208–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/15578771.2015.1121936
The Government of Spain. (1999). Law 38/1999, of November 5, on building planning.
Guenaga, M., Arranz, S., Florido, I. R., Aguilar, E., de Guinea, A. O., Rayón, A., Bezanilla, M. J., &
Menchaca, I. (2013). Serious games for the development of employment oriented competences.
IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias Del Aprendizaje, 8(4), 176–183. https://doi.org/10.
1109/RITA.2013.2285024
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work?–a literature review of empirical
studies on gamification. 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp.
3025–3034). https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.377
Hinojo-Lucena, F.-J., Aznar-Díaz, I., Cáceres-Reche, M.-P., Trujillo-Torres, J.-M., & Romero-
Rodríguez, J. (2020). Sharenting: Internet addiction, self-control and online photos of underage
children//Sharenting: Internet addiction, self-control and online photos of underage children.
Comunicar, 28(64), 97–108. https://doi.org/10.3916/C64-2020-09
Ilbeigi, M., Bairaktarova, D., & Morteza, A. (2023). Gamification in construction engineering educa­
tion: A scoping review. Journal of Civil Engineering Education, 149(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.
1061/(asce)ei.2643-9115.0000077
Ismail, M., & Mohammad, J. (2017). Kahoot: A promising tool for formative assessment in medical
education. Education in Medicine Journal, 9(2), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.21315/eimj2017.9.2.2
Jones, S. M., Katyal, P., Xie, X., Nicolas, M. P., Leung, E. M., Noland, D. M., & Montclare, J. K. (2019).
A ‘KAHOOT!’ Approach: The effectiveness of game-based learning for an advanced placement
biology class. Simulation and Gaming, 50(6), 832–847. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878119882048
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION EDUCATION AND RESEARCH 211

Jordine, T., Liang, Y., & Ihler, E. (2014). A mobile-device based serious gaming approach for teaching
and learning Java programming. 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings
(pp. 1–5.
Kay, R. H., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response
systems: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 53(3), 819–827. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.compedu.2009.05.001
Kohnke, L., & Moorhouse, B. L. (2022). Using kahoot! to gamify learning in the language classroom.
RELC Journal, 53(3), 769–775. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882211040270
Liu, O. L., Bridgeman, B., & Adler, R. M. (2012). Measuring learning outcomes in higher education:
Motivation matters. Educational Researcher, 41(9), 352–362. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0013189X12459679
Llorens-Largo, F., Gallego-Durán, F. J., Villagrá-Arnedo, C. J., Compañ-Rosique, P., Satorre-Cuerda,
R., & Molina-Carmona, R. (2016). Gamification of the learning process: Lessons learned. IEEE
Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias Del Aprendizaje, 11(4), 227–234. https://doi.org/10.1109/
RITA.2016.2619138
Mathrani, A., Christian, S., & Ponder-Sutton, A. (2016). PlayIT: Game based learning approach for
teaching programming concepts. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(2), 5–17.
Medel-San ElíElíAs, L., Moreno-Beltrán, R., & Aguirre Caracheo, E. (2022). El Rol de Estudiantes de
Educación Superior en la Gamificación según su Motivación. Revista Tecnológica-Educativa
Docentes 20, 15(1), 20–26. https://doi.org/10.37843/rted.v15i1.283
Ministry of Universities (Spain). (2022). Facts and numbers of the Spanish university system.
Publication 2021-2022. https://www.universidades.gob.es/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Datos_y_
Cifras_2021_22.pdf
Moncada, S. M., & Moncada, T. P. (2014). Gamification of learning in accounting education. Journal
of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 14(3), 9.
Patronato Fundación, C. Y. D. (2022). Report CYD 2022/2022. https://www.fundacioncyd.org/pub
licaciones-cyd/informe-cyd-2020/
Pertegal-Felices, M. L., Jimeno-Morenilla, A., Sánchez-Romero, J. L., & Mora-Mora, H. (2020).
Comparison of the effects of the Kahoot tool on teacher training and computer engineering
students for sustainable education. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(11), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.
3390/su12114778
Plump, C. M., & LaRosa, J. (2017). Using Kahoot! in the classroom to create engagement and active
learning: A game-based technology solution for eLearning novices. Management Teaching Review,
2(2), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/2379298116689783
Prieto, M. C., Palma, L. O., TobíTobíAs, P. J. B., & León, F. J. M. (2019). Student assessment of the use
of kahoot in the learning process of science and mathematics. Education Sciences, 9(1), 55. https://
doi.org/10.3390/educsci9010055
Rodríguez-Fernández, L. (2017). Smartphones y aprendizaje: el uso de Kahoot en el aula universitaria.
Revista Mediterránea de Comunicación, 8(1), 181–189. https://doi.org/10.14198/medcom2017.8.1.13
Rubio-Bellido, C., León-Muñoz, M., Canivell, J., Martínez-Rocamora, A., & Bienvenido-Huertas, D.
(2021). Implementation of the subject building installations i during confinement period: Facts
and results. 5th International Conference of Educational Innovation in Building CINIE 2021 (pp.
83–84.
Sailer, M., Hense, J. U., Mayr, S. K., & Mandl, H. (2017). How gamification motivates: An experi­
mental 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
Sánchez-Mena, A., Martí-Parreño, J., & Miquel-Romero, M. J. (2019). Higher education instructors’
intention to use educational video games: An fsQCA approach. Educational Technology Research &
Development, 67(6), 1455–1478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09656-5
Teizer, J., Golovina, O., Embers, S., & Wolf, M. (2020). A serious gaming approach to integrate BIM,
IoT, and lean construction in construction education. In Construction in Construction Education
Construction Research Congress (pp. 21–30). Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
212 D. BIENVENIDO-HUERTAS ET AL.

Theodosiou, S., & Karasavvidis, I. (2015). Serious games design: A mapping of the problems novice
game designers experience in designing games. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 11(3).
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/151929/
Toma, F., Diaconu, D. C., & Popescu, C. M. (2021). The use of the kahoot! learning platform as a type
of formative assessment in the context of pre-university education during the COVID-19 pan­
demic period. Education Sciences, 11(10). 11(10), 649. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100649
Valls, F., Redondo, E., Fonseca, D., Garcia-Almirall, P., & Subirós, J. (2016). Videogame technology in
architecture education BT - Human-computer interaction. Novel user experiences. International
Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 436–447). Springer International Publishing. In
M. Kurosu (Ed.).
Villagrasa, S., Fonseca, D., Redondo, E., & Duran, J. (2014). Teaching case of gamification and visual
technologies for education. Journal of Cases on Information Technology (JCIT), 16(4), 38–57.
https://doi.org/10.4018/jcit.2014100104
Wang, A. I. (2015). The wear out effect of a game-based student response system. Computers &
Education, 82, 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.004
Wang, A. I., & Lieberoth, A. (2016). The effect of points and audio on concentration, engagement,
enjoyment, learning, motivation, and classroom dynamics using Kahoot. European Conference on
Games Based Learning (pp. 20.
Wang, A. I., & Tahir, R. (2020). The effect of using kahoot! for learning–A literature review.
Computers & Education, 149, 103818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103818
Ward, J. H. J. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the
American Statistical Association, 58(301), 236–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1963.
10500845
Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. John Wiley & Sons.
Williams, C. C. (2011). Five key ingredients for improving student motivation. Retrieved February 16,
2015 from Jupadoc. startlogic. com.
Zhang, Q., & Yu, Z. (2021). A literature review on the influence of Kahoot! On learning outcomes,
interaction, and collaboration. Education and Information Technologies, 26(4), 4507–4535. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10459-6
Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics in
web and mobile apps. “O’Reilly Media, Inc.”.