COMPARING KAHOOT, QUIZIZZ, AND WORDWALL IN EFL READING CLASS

,


INTRODUCTION
Technological advances have brought major social changes to the field of education (Olmanson, 2011).COVID-19 has caused all educational institutions to implement distance learning.In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a pandemic and issued safety and prevention measures, one of which is implementing distance learning (Murugesan & Chidambaram, 2020).The Gamification technology also instills autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deterding, 2012).Learning outcomes are closely related to learning interests (McCord, 2019).Interest and motivation can be indicators of better learning outcomes (Nicholls, 1984).So that interest activates individuals to get the expected learning outcomes because when they have interest, it will increase motivation and and achievement (Revelle & Michaels, 1976).
The phenomenon of using gamification technology for language learning and teaching in the classroom will increase student motivation and achievement.However, the real challenge lies with educators in choosing the right technology platform to use in their classrooms so as to create an effective learning environment suitable for producing maximum learning outcomes.Therefore, this research will discuss a comparison of learning outcomes with some of the currently trending gamification technologies, namely Kahoot, Quizizz, and Wordwall, for the purposes above.
Learning outcomes have become very popular among educational theorists.Learning outcomes are used to determine what students should know or understand and what skills or capacities they should have at the end of a particular learning period.Generally, they specify minimum standards (Hussey & Smith, 2002).Learning outcomes describe the expected results of students after demonstration in terms of knowledge, skills, and values after completing something that has been demonstrated.Learning outcomes serve as the basis for evaluating the effectiveness of the teaching and learning process (Osters, 2003).Abuaiadah also explains that learning outcomes are statements about what students are expected to know, understand, and/or be able to demonstrate after completing the learning process.In some literature, the term "competence" is used as an indicator for measuring learning outcomes.The relationship between competencies and learning outcomes is discussed by Hartel and Foegeding (2004).Hartel and Foegeding define competencies as "general statements detailing the knowledge and skills desired of students.From competencies come learning outcomes.So learning outcomes describe specifically what students are expected to be able to do to demonstrate that they have acquired certain competencies by determining evaluation indicators and developing a functional delivery system (Kennedy et al., 2009).
Various journals and literature explain learning outcomes (Abuaiadah et al., 2019).In general, learning outcomes are used to help students focus on doing what is expected.Learning outcomes should be stated in clear and unambiguous terms so that they are easily understood by students and teachers.Therefore, when writing learning outcomes, it is important for a teacher to specify the minimum standards that allow students to pass (Kennedy et al., 2007).In formal education, learning outcomes play an important role and are related to the formal education period that has been set (Souto-Otero, 2012).The urgency of learning outcomes in formal education is to measure skills and competencies to be equivalent to those produced in the prevailing education system (Date et al., 2000).As such, learning outcomes can be thought of as the building blocks of basic education, with impacts at local, national, and international levels (Adam, 2004).
Learning outcomes are widely used in higher education, especially for all degree programs (Hussey & Smith, 2008).One indicator of the success of a research http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id or academic program is its learning outcomes.Learning outcomes provide a clear Figure of what can be achieved by following a particular program.Whether it is a short course or a degree program, both must include and write down the learning outcomes.The purpose of this is to measure before the start of the course and after it has been completed (Mahajan & Singh, 2017).Wisdom defines learning outcomes as not a 'once and for all' activity but an iterative process (Hussey & Smith, 2003).Learning outcomes are explicit statements of learning outcomes consisting of knowledge, skills, abilities, attitudes, and understanding that will be achieved by a person as a result of his or her successful engagement in a series of higher education experiences (Adam, n.d.).Otter defines learning outcomes as 'what learners know and can do as a result of learning' (Allan, 1996).Education expert Sara Brooks states that learning outcomes remain a central part of their learning experience as well as helping students learn more effectively (Brooks et al., 2014).They make connection between curriculum, assessment, and learning outcomes.The curriculum describes the objectives of an activity to be achieved and the appropriate teaching strategies and assessments.Assessment determines exams based on the material that has been delivered, and learning outcomes clarify what students gain from having attended a particular course or lecture (Jenkins, Alan & Unwin, 2001).
Extensive reading involves rather long texts.Journal articles, technical reports, long essays, short stories, and books fall into this category.This type of reading almost always involves a focus on meaning.Another complication of assessing extensive reading is that the expected response from the reader is likely to involve as much written or oral performance as possible (Brown H. Douglas & Abeywickrama Priyanvada, 2018).Theory and practice of extensive reading as an approach to teaching foreign languages in general and foreign language reading in particular.Unique assignments for extensive reading are Responding to reading, skimming, summarizing, and notetaking.
Recently, a new type of strategy for language learning and teaching has been used, namely gamification-based learning.The main goal of gamification for language learning and teaching is to motivate and increase activity and retention.Gamification for teaching and learning in the classroom promotes independent and collaborative learning and enhances critical thinking and problem-solving skills, increasing student response and participation in the learning process and resulting in positive learning outcomes.
Taking data from the 2018 LMS Talent Gamification Survey, the percentage resulting from this data shows that 87% of gamification has a very large effect on the progress of students' learning desires.Student learning interests will certainly affect student learning outcomes.Therefore, several universities in Indonesia are actively looking for learning methods that are not boring but also allow students to obtain maximum learning results.Several research trials have proven that gamification has succeeded in increasing enthusiasm and student learning outcomes (Aini et al., 2020).
There are several previous studies that are comparable to this research.First, Derya Orhan Göksüna, Gülden Gürsoyb, entitled " Explored gamified learning experiences using Kahoot and Quizizz.It focused on gamification tools' success and engagement using mixed design principles and compared it to an experimental design for reading comprehension.(Orhan Göksün & Gürsoy, 2019).Second, Can Mese, and Ozcan Ozgur Dursun conducted research with the title "Effectivity of Gamification Elements in Blended Learning Environments".Investigated the effectiveness of gamification elements in a blended learning environment using a mixed design.This study differs from others as it used quantitative methods and a true experimental design (Mese & Dursun, 2019).Third, Desy Safitri, entitled ""Improvement of Student Learning Motivation through Word-Wall-based Digital Game Media".This research was Examined the use of digital game-based media for improving student learning motivation.The study's focus was on learning outcomes using one-way ANOVA analysis, which differs from previous research that used qualitative t-tests and focused solely on motivation (Safitri et al., 2022).Fourth, Tika Wahyu Lestari has conducted a research entitled " Kahoot and Quizizz: a comparative research on the implementation of e-learning application toward students' motivation".This research Explored the effects of Quizizz and Kahoot on student motivation.This study used qualitative methods and focused on learning outcomes rather than motivation, unlike prior research (Lestari, 2019).
Fifth, Suwarto, conducted a research titled "Using Quizizz to Improve Learning Achievement".This research Investigated using Quizizz to improve learning achievement, applying classroom action research with two cycles.The study was distinct due to its use of an experimental design, unlike the previous classroom action research (M.Pd, 2021).Sixth, Nurul Halimah conducted research the title " The Effect of Quizizz-Based Formative Assessment on Student Learning Outcomes".This research Focused on the effect of Quizizz-based formative assessment on learning outcomes.The research compared the effectiveness of different gamification tools (Kahoot, Quizizz, and Wordwall) on learning outcomes, using ANOVA for analysis (Airlanda, 2021).
Seventh, Yanawut Chaiyo, conducted research the title " The Effect of Kahoot, Quizizz and Google forms on the Student's Perception in the Classrooms Response System".This paper Compared Kahoot, Quizizz, and Google Forms on students' perceptions in the classroom.While previous studies focused on comparing perceptions, this research concentrated on learning outcomes (Chaiyo & Nokham, 2017).
Eighth, Syafiqah Hasram conducted research the title "The Effects of Wordwall Online Games (WOW) on English Language Vocabulary Learning Among Year 5 Pupils".This research Studied the effects of Wordwall (WOW) on English vocabulary learning among pupils, comparing it to reading skills.Unlike prior research on vocabulary, this study used ANOVA analysis for reading skills (Hasram et al., 2021).
Ninth, Agus Suharsono conducted research the title " The use of Quizizz dan Kahoot in the training for millennial generation".This research Explored the use of Quizizz and Kahoot in training for the millennial generation.While prior studies compared students' perceptions of gamification tools, this research focused on comparing student learning outcomes (Suharsono, 2020).
In short the research gap between this and previous research, in this research does not only describe the phenomenon of technology use in the classroom.However, this research explains that even though technology is abundant, the real http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id challenge lies with educators in choosing the right technology platform to use in their classes, namely, the Kahoot, Quizizz, and Wordwall game platforms that can effectively motivate students to learn and encourage continuous learning.The confirmation of the next difference is that this research does not only measure learning outcomes based on one platform but also describes significant differences in results among Kahoot, Quizizz, and Word Wall as the selection of the most effective technology platforms for student learning outcomes in the EFL reading context.
Based on the situation and problems described above and supported by previous research on the advantages of gamification technology in the learning process, the researcher is interested in conducting a research with the title " Comparing kahoot, Quizizz, and Wordwall on learning outcome in EFL reading class"

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

A. FINDING
This research was carried out in the English II course at IAI Al-Khoziny Sidoarjo.The urgency of this research was to answer the problem that had been formulated in Chapter I.In chapter 4, the author presented the answers to the formulation of the problem contained in chapter I.The results of the research show the following data: 1. Recapitulation of learning outcomes from the experimental group  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Explanation from Table 4.1: The learning outcomes in the table were calculated based on the Guttman scale, with the provision that if the score was correct, it was worth 1 and if it was wrong, it was worth 0. Researcher used the Guttman scale in data analysis because she wanted better learning outcomes.really emphatic kind of answer.Like right or wrong answers.The number of questions was 12, and the number of samples was 19.
Explanation from Table 4.3: The learning outcomes in the table were calculated based on the Guttman scale, with the provision that if the score was correct, it was worth 1 and if it was wrong, it was worth 0. Researcher used the Guttman scale in data analysis because she wanted better learning outcomes.really emphatic kind of answer.Like right or wrong answers.The number of questions was 12, and the number of samples was 19.Explanation from Table 4.7 As explained above, the provisions that must be taken into account when carrying out a homogeneity test are that if the significance value is < 0.05, then the data comes from a population that has unequal variance.Meanwhile, if the significance value is > 0.05, the data comes from a population that has the same variance.From the results of the analysis in the table, it can be concluded that the data has the same variance (homogeneity).

Recapitulation of learning outcomes from the control group
c. ANOVA test: Decision : Because in the probability column (Sig), the value was 0.013 <0.05, meaning there was a difference in student learning outcomes gamified via Kahoot, Quizizz, and Wordwall.
5. Comparative analysis of learning outcomes to test which concentration is higher using a post hoc test Explanation from Table 4.9: In the Tukey HSD Mean Difference column, the mean group differences are: (1) The Kahoot group compared to the Quizizz group had a mean difference of -.211.The Kahoot group compared to the Wordwall group had a mean difference of 1,684*.The Kahoot group compared to the conventional group has a mean difference of 0.474.(2) The Quizizz group compared to the Kahoot group has a mean difference of 0.211.The Quizizz group compared to the Wordwall group had a mean difference of 1.895*.The Quizizz group compared to the conventional group had a mean difference of 0.684.(3) The Wordwall group compared to the Kahoot group had a mean difference of -1,684*.The Wordwall group compared to the Quizizz group had a mean difference of -1.895*.The wordwall group compared to the conventional group has a mean difference of -1.211.(4) The conventional group compared to the Kahoot group has a mean difference of -.474.The conventional group compared to the quiz group had a mean difference of -.684.The conventional group compared to the wordwall group had a mean difference of 1.21.
The meaning of the sign *) was that the difference in concentration between the four groups was significant; this condition was clarified in the probability column (Sig), whose value was ( < 0.05), which means significant, thus there were differences in student learning outcomes gamified via Kahoot, Quizizz, Wordwall, and conventional groups.Explanation from Table 4.10: From the post-hoc homogeneous subset concentration table, it could be seen that the fourth group In the Wordwall group, the average learning outcome was 7.11.In the conventional group, the average learning outcome was 8.32.In the Kahoot group, the average learning result was 8.79.In the Quizizz group, the average learning result was 9.00.From the results above, the group with the highest concentration was the Quizizz group, which was 9.00 higher than the other groups.It was concluded that Quizizz was the most effective among gamified student learning outcomes via Kahoot, Quizizz, and Wordwall.

B. DISCUSSION
This section presents a discussion of research findings.There are two research questions asked in this research.The discussion focuses on the findings of the two research questions posed.
The first discussion concerns differences in student learning outcomes that were gamified via Kahoot, Quizizz, and Wordwall.From the research results, it was concluded that there were differences in student learning outcomes that were gamified via Kahoot, Quizizz, and Wordwall.This was proven by the analysis of the ANOVA test results, which had a significance value of 0.013 < 0.05.So the conclusion that can be drawn is that there were differences in student learning outcomes that are gamified via Kahoot, Quizizz, and Wordwall.These differences were detailed as follows: (1) The Kahoot group compared to the Quizizz group had a mean difference of -0.211.The Kahoot group compared to the Wordwall group had an average difference of 1.684*.The Kahoot group compared to the conventional group had an average difference of 0.474.(2) The Quizizz group compared to the Kahoot group had an average difference of 0.211.The Quizizz group compared to the Wordwall group had an average difference of 1.895*.The Quizizz group compared to the conventional group has an average difference of 0.684.(3) The Wordwall group compared to the Kahoot group had an average difference of -1.684*.The Wordwall group compared to the Quizizz group had an average difference of -1.895*.The wordwall group compared to the conventional group had an average difference of -1.211.(4) The conventional group compared to the Kahoot group had an average difference of -0.474.The conventional group compared to the quiz group had an average difference of -0.684.The conventional group compared to the wordwall group had an average difference of 1.21.
The second discussion focuses on which was the most effective among student learning outcomes that were gamified via Kahoot, Quizizz, and Wordwall.From the research results, it was concluded that Quizizz was the most effective among student learning outcomes that were gamified via Kahoot, Quizizz, and Wordwall.This is reinforced by the theory, which states that Quizizz is more interactive than the others.Quizizz has advantages that can be used as learning evaluation material; for example, there is data and statistics.Apart from that, when using Quizizz, students are very enthusiastic about working on the questions; they concentrate more on answering and managing their time.One of the advantages of the Guttman-based scale in this application is that it is automatic.Quizizz has an attractive appearance and is equipped with children's animation features as well as musical accompaniment, time limits for each question, and accurate results when all students have finished (Zarkasi et al., 2023).
Using Quizizz, teachers do not need to project questions on the board or screen because each student has access to their question and answer gameplay.Another advantage of using Quizizz is that it can also be integrated into Google Classroom.The questions on Quizizz are automatically randomized for each student so that students cannot copy one another.From the results of observations made by observers via previous research, it was stated that the implementation of formative assessment based on the Quizizz application was more effective than other applications.One of Tika Wahyu Lestari's studies states that Quizizz also has several features that are more prominent than Kahoot.Quizizz is very useful for both students and teachers because the questions that will be given to students appear on each student's screen, so they can answer the questions at their own pace and review the answers at the end (Tulungagung, 2019).
The results of other studies also show that Quizizz is more preferable to Kahoot for participants because in Quizizz, the questions and answers appear on the screen of each participant's cellphone or laptop.Plus, the answer is in Kahoot and word walls are just symbols, whereas on Quizizz the answers are actually words, numbers, or combinations of words.After the quiz is over, the questions that have been answered can be checked to find out which ones were answered incorrectly and which ones were not mastered by the participants (Retnawati, 2019).
The results of the discussion in this research stated that Quizizz could be a reference for educators in choosing the right technology platform to use in their classes because, via this scientific research process, it is concluded that Quizizz was not only effective in motivating students but also effective as a tool in conducting formative assessments to measure student learning outcomes in class.

CONCLUSION
Based on the problem formulation, hypothesis, and research results, it could be concluded that: 1.There is a difference in student learning outcomes gamified through Kahoot, Quizizz, and Wordwall.This hypothesis is taken because the analysis results in the ANOVA table show a significance value of 0.013 <0.05, meaning that there are differences in student learning outcomes that are gamified via Kahoot, Quizizz, and Wordwall.In conclusion, H1 is accepted and H0 is rejected.2. Quizizz is more effective in improving student learning outcomes compared to the group gamified through Kahoot and Wordwall.This is evidenced by the results of the post hoc test analysis, which is a further test of the ANOVA test.In the Wordwall group, the average student learning outcome was 7.11.In the conventional group, the average student's learning outcome was 8.32.In the Kahoot group, the average student learning outcomes were 8.79.In the Quizizz group, the average learning outcome was 9.00, so it can be concluded that the group that has the highest concentration is the Quizizz group, which is 9.00 higher than Kahoot and Wordwall.

Table 4
As explained above, the provisions that must be taken into account when carrying out a normality test are that if the sample size is 50, then use "Shapiro Wilk" and if the sample size is >50, then use "Kolmogorov Smirnov".Based on these provisions, this research used "Kolmogorov Smirnov" because the sample size was >50.Kahoot's significance value was 0.139 > 0.05.The Quizizz significance value was 0.157 > 0.05.The wordwall significance value was 0.089 > 0.05, and the conventional significance value was 0.063 > 0.05.Meaning that all experimental and control group data were normally distributed.b.Homogeneity test:

Table 4
The interpretation of this table is: (1) If the significant value in the table is > 0.05, then there is no difference in student learning outcomes gamified via Kahoot, Quizizz, or Wordwall.(2) If the significant value in the table is < 0.05, then there is a difference in student learning outcomes gamified via Kahoot, Quizizz, and Wordwall. http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id

Table 4 .
The group sizes are unequal.The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used.Type I error levels are not guaranteed.