Key takeaways:
- Whether students loved or avoided competition, they all benefited equally from Kahoot! – in learning, motivation, and enjoyment.
- Both groups reported enjoying the activities throughout the entire semester, with no wear-out effect.
- The key is constructive competition: low stakes, clear rules, and a focus on feedback over winning.
- Educators can confidently use competitive activities without disadvantaging students who “don’t like competition.”
There’s a common worry among educators who use game-based learning tools: What about the students who don’t like competition?
It’s a fair question. We’ve all seen students who light up the moment a leaderboard appears, and others who seem to shrink back. If competitive activities energize some learners while alienating others, are we inadvertently creating winners and losers before the learning even begins?
New research from Penn State and North Carolina State University offers a reassuring answer: when competition is designed the right way, it doesn’t leave anyone behind.
The myth of the “competitive student”
We often assume that classrooms divide neatly into two camps: students who thrive on competition and students who avoid it. The logic follows that competitive tools like Kahoot! must therefore favor one group at the expense of the other.
But a semester-long study published in Instructional Science (2025) tells a different story. Researchers Daniell DiFrancesca and Dan Spencer followed over 100 undergraduate students who completed weekly Kahoot! review sessions throughout their educational psychology course. Students were grouped based on their self-reported preference for competition: some identified as highly competitive, others as low competitive.
The key finding? There were no meaningful differences in learning outcomes, metacognitive monitoring, or motivation between the two groups.
Both high and low competitive students performed similarly on the Kahoot! activities. Both groups reported similar levels of interest and self-efficacy. And perhaps most importantly, both groups reported enjoying the Kahoot! sessions throughout the entire semester, with no wear-out effect over time.
What makes competition “constructive”?
This finding might seem surprising, but it aligns with an important distinction in the research literature: not all competition is created equal.
Social Interdependence Theory, developed by David and Roger Johnson, originally viewed competition as “negative interdependence” because of its potential to undermine motivation. But updated views have evolved to recognize that competition can be constructive when three conditions are met:
- Winning is relatively unimportant. The outcome doesn’t define a student’s grade, worth, or ability.
- Everyone has a reasonable chance to succeed. The activity isn’t designed to sort students into winners and losers.
- Rules are clear, fair, and transparent. Students understand what’s expected and how to participate.
In the Penn State study, the Kahoot! sessions met all three criteria. The activities were low-stakes, ungraded check-ins designed to help students review material and identify knowledge gaps, not to rank them against their peers. The competition energized the experience without defining students’ outcomes.
As the researchers put it: “Winning or losing the quiz competition is relatively unimportant as it does not have an impact on their course grade, but the activity itself does provide some positive outcomes.”
The power of the low-stakes environment
This points to something important about how Kahoot! works in practice. Yes, there’s a leaderboard. Yes, there’s a timer (though both can be turned off if you prefer). Yes, students see how they compare to their classmates. But the purpose of the activity isn’t to crown a champion; it’s to create an Engaging Learning Moment that gives every student valuable feedback about their own understanding.
When students know that mistakes won’t hurt them, the psychological dynamics shift. The competitive element becomes a source of energy and engagement rather than anxiety. Students who might otherwise disengage from traditional review activities find themselves leaning in.
This is consistent with broader research showing that Kahoot! reduces academic stress and anxiety when used as a formative assessment tool. The playful format transforms assessment from a judgment into an opportunity.
What this means for educators
For instructors wondering whether competitive classroom activities might disadvantage certain students, the current research offers reassurance. Teachers’ pedagogical decision to incorporate constructive competition does not appear to disadvantage students who report low competitive tendencies.
The key is how the competition is framed and designed. When competitive activities are used for feedback and engagement rather than high-stakes evaluation, they can be beneficial for all learners, regardless of individual differences in competitive preference.
Tips for introducing constructive competition in the classroom:
- Keep the stakes low. Use competitive activities for formative assessment and review, not summative evaluation. When students know their grade isn’t on the line, they can engage with the content rather than worry about the outcome.
- Frame it as practice, not performance. Emphasize that the purpose is to check understanding and identify areas for improvement, not to determine who the “best” students are.
- Focus on the feedback. The real value of a Kahoot! session isn’t the final ranking; it’s the immediate feedback students receive about what they know and what they need to study further.
- Don’t assume preference predicts experience. Students who describe themselves as “not competitive” may still find value and enjoyment in well-designed competitive activities. The research suggests that competitive preference doesn’t determine outcomes when the activity is constructive.
The bigger picture
Competition is deeply embedded in education, from kindergarten to graduate school. Grades, class rank, college admissions, scholarships, all involve some form of comparison and competition. Given this reality, it’s worth asking: how can we design competitive experiences that energize rather than discourage?
The answer isn’t to eliminate competition entirely. Instead, it’s to be thoughtful about the kind of competition we create. Constructive competition, where the goal is to engage with the task rather than defeat others, can be a powerful tool for learning.
As the researchers conclude: “Students reported enjoying the format of the Kahoots throughout the semester, supporting prior literature evidencing Kahoot activities to be resistant to wear-out effects.”
That’s perhaps the most encouraging finding of all. When competition is designed to support learning rather than sort students, everyone can benefit and the experience stays fresh, even after weeks of regular use.
