Kahoot!-Supported Descriptive-Text Instruction: Effects on Higher-Order Thinking and Learning Interest among Vocational EFL Students

Ardhaniah Dwi Erlinah; Hariyanto; Kustyowati

doi:10.29408/veles.v10i2.34584

Authors

Ardhaniah Dwi Erlinah Universitas PGRI Argopuro Jember, Indonesia
Hariyanto Universitas PGRI Argopuro Jember, Indonesia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2198-4091
Kustyowati Universitas PGRI Argopuro Jember, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29408/veles.v10i2.34584

Keywords:

Kahoot!, English Learning Outcomes, Higher-order thinking skill, EFL learning

Abstract

The pedagogical value of gamified student-response systems for developing higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) remains underexplored, particularly in English as a foreign language (EFL) vocational education. This study examined whether Kahoot!-based instruction improved students’ HOTS-oriented learning outcomes and interest in learning English during descriptive-text instruction. A quasi-experimental pretest–posttest control-group design involved 72 tenth-grade students from an Indonesian vocational high school. Two intact classes formed an experimental group (n = 36), which received Kahoot!-based instruction, and a control group (n = 36), which received conventional teaching. Data were collected using a 15-item essay test targeting analysis, evaluation, and creation (C4–C6) and a 20-item questionnaire measuring attention, enjoyment, and engagement. Independent-samples t-tests assessed group differences, and Cohen’s d estimated effect magnitude. The groups did not differ significantly at pretest in HOTS-oriented outcomes (p = .179) or learning interest (p = .097). At posttest, the experimental group outperformed the control group in cognitive outcomes (M = 84.08 vs. 78.03), t(70) = 5.276, p < .001, d = 1.244, and reported greater learning interest (M = 85.44 vs. 79.72), t(70) = 5.217, p < .001, d = 1.230. These findings indicate that Kahoot!-based instruction was associated with statistically significant and educationally meaningful improvements in both outcomes. The study extends research on gamified EFL learning by demonstrating Kahoot!’s potential to support learning interest and performance on cognitively demanding descriptive-text tasks in vocational classrooms. Nevertheless, the single-school, non-randomized design warrants cautious generalization.

References

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D. I., Wade, C. A., & Persson, T. (2015). Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(2), 275–314. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314551063

Adams, N. E. (2015). Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 103(3), 152–153. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.103.3.010

Aiken, L. R. (1980). Content validity and reliability of single items or questionnaires. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 40(4), 955–959. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448004000419

Al Hilali, T. S., & McKinley, J. (2021). Exploring the socio-contextual nature of workplace writing: Towards preparing learners for the complexities of English L2 writing in the workplace. English for Specific Purposes, 63, 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.03.003

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.

Assaly, I., & Jabarin, A. (2024). Arab Israeli EFL teachers’ perceptions and practices vis-à-vis teaching higher-order thinking skills: A complicated relationship. Language Teaching Research, 28(4), 1635–1655. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211032426

Avcı, N., & Engin-Demir, C. (2021). Promoting the vocational English language competences of students in an English for specific purposes context: A needs assessment. Psycho-Educational Research Reviews, 10(3), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.52963/PERR_Biruni_V10.N3.08

Bai, S. T., Hew, K. F., & Huang, B. (2020). Does gamification improve student learning outcome? Evidence from a meta-analysis and synthesis of qualitative data in educational contexts. Educational Research Review, 30, Article 100322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100322

Bernacki, M. L., & Walkington, C. (2018). The role of situational interest in personalized learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(6), 864–881. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000250

Braun, H. I., Shavelson, R. J., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., & Borowiec, K. (2020). Performance assessment of critical thinking: Conceptualization, design, and implementation. Frontiers in Education, 5, Article 156. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00156

Çal, A., Admiraal, W., & Mearns, T. (2022). The what–how–why of English in the workplace: Perspectives from Turkish engineers. European Journal of Engineering Education, 47(2), 333–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2021.1946014

Cameron, K. E., & Bizo, L. A. (2019). Use of the game-based learning platform Kahoot! to facilitate learner engagement in animal science students. Research in Learning Technology, 27, Article 2225. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v27.2225

Chan, C. S. C. (2019). Long-term workplace communication needs of business professionals: Stories from Hong Kong senior executives and their implications for ESP and higher education. English for Specific Purposes, 56, 68–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2019.07.003

Chan, C. S. C. (2021). Helping university students discover their workplace communication needs: An eclectic and interdisciplinary approach to facilitating on-the-job learning of workplace communication. English for Specific Purposes, 64, 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.07.002

Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25(1), 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613504966

Dawson, P., Henderson, M., Mahoney, P., Phillips, M., Ryan, T., Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2019). What makes for effective feedback: Staff and student perspectives. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1467877

Denny, M., Denieffe, S., & O’Sullivan, K. (2023). Non-equivalent control group pretest–posttest design in social and behavioral research. In A. L. Nichols & J. E. Edlund (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of research methods and statistics for the social and behavioral sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 314–332). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009010054.016

Derakhshan, A., Kruk, M., & Mehdizadeh, M. (2021). Boredom in online classes in the Iranian EFL context: Sources and solutions. System, 101, Article 102556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102556

Dichev, C., & Dicheva, D. (2017). Gamifying education: What is known, what is believed and what remains uncertain—A critical review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14, Article 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0042-5

Driscoll, D. L., Paszek, J., Gorzelsky, G., Hayes, C. L., & Jones, E. (2020). Genre knowledge and writing development: Results from the Writing Transfer Project. Written Communication, 37(1), 69–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088319882313

Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2018). An exploration into the impact of WebQuest-based classroom on EFL learners’ critical thinking and academic writing skills: A mixed-methods study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(5–6), 617–651. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1449757

Erdiana, N., & Panjaitan, S. (2023). How is HOTS integrated into the Indonesian high school English textbook? Studies in English Language and Education, 10(1), 60–77. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v10i1.26052

Frear, M. W., & Bitchener, J. (2015). The effects of cognitive task complexity on writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.009

Fryer, L. K., Ainley, M., Thompson, A., Gibson, A., & Sherlock, Z. (2017). Stimulating and sustaining interest in a language course: An experimental comparison of chatbot and human task partners. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 461–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.045

Gastwirth, J. L., Gel, Y. R., & Miao, W. (2009). The impact of Levene’s test of equality of variances on statistical theory and practice. Statistical Science, 24(3), 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1214/09-STS301

Gopalan, M., Rosinger, K., & Ahn, J. B. (2020). Use of quasi-experimental research designs in education research: Growth, promise, and challenges. Review of Research in Education, 44(1), 218–243. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20903302

Guo, J., & An, F. (2025). Exploring the categories of students’ interest and their relationships with deep learning in technology-supported environments. Scientific Reports, 15, Article 10370. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-95294-2

Haataja, E. S. H., Tolvanen, A., Vilppu, H., Kallio, M., Peltonen, J., & Metsäpelto, R.-L. (2023). Measuring higher-order cognitive skills with multiple-choice questions: Potentials and pitfalls of Finnish teacher-education entrance. Teaching and Teacher Education, 122, Article 103943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103943

Hajar, I., & Triastuti, A. (2021). A need analysis of ESP materials for agriculture students at Indonesian vocational school in West Sulawesi. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.21093/ijeltal.v6i1.840

Hallgren, K. A. (2012). Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p023

Harackiewicz, J. M., Smith, J. L., & Priniski, S. J. (2016). Interest matters: The importance of promoting interest in education. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(2), 220–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732216655542

Henry, A., & Thorsen, C. (2020). Disaffection and agentic engagement: “Redesigning” activities to enable authentic self-expression. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 456–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818795976

Hoang, T. N., Tran, D. T., Hoang, G. T. H., & Tran, T. T. T. (2024). English communication needs of professional engineers and the relevance of English language training in higher education. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 21(2), 33–64. https://doi.org/10.30397/TJTESOL.202410_21(2).0002

Huber, C. R., & Kuncel, N. R. (2016). Does college teach critical thinking? A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 431–468. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315605917

Hunsu, N. J., Adesope, O. O., & Bayly, D. J. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of audience-response systems on cognition and affect. Computers & Education, 94, 102–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.013

Ismail, M. A.-A., Ahmad, A., Mohammad, J. A.-M., Fakri, N. M. R. M., Nor, M. Z. M., & Pa, M. N. M. (2019). Using Kahoot! as a formative-assessment tool in medical education: A phenomenological study. BMC Medical Education, 19, Article 230. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1658-z

Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2007.05.002

Kamil, M. A., & Muhammad, A. M. (2021). Professional communication competence in English for occupational purposes courses: A systematic literature review and proposal of a framework. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 12(2), 260–278. https://doi.org/10.21153/jtlge2021vol12no2art1075

Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12000

Kartika-Ningsih, H., & Gunawan, W. (2019). Recontextualisation of genre-based pedagogy: The case of Indonesian EFL classrooms. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 335–347. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v9i2.20231

Kim, S.-H. (2021). Analyzing workplace English communication use and needs: Insights from Korean corporate employees. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.25256/PAAL.25.1.1

Knight, J. K., & Brame, C. J. (2018). Peer instruction. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(2), Article fe5. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-02-0025

Knogler, M., Harackiewicz, J. M., Gegenfurtner, A., & Lewalter, D. (2015). How situational is situational interest? Investigating the longitudinal structure of situational interest. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 43, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.08.004

Kruk, M., Pawlak, M., & Zawodniak, J. (2021). Another look at boredom in language instruction: The role of the predictable and the unexpected. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 15–40. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2021.11.1.2

Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863

Lakens, D. (2017). Equivalence tests: A practical primer for t tests, correlations, and meta-analyses. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 355–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617697177

Larsen, T. M., Endo, B. H., Yee, A. T., Do, T., & Lo, S. M. (2022). Probing internal assumptions of the revised Bloom’s taxonomy. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 21(4), Article ar66. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-08-0170

Lee, I., & Mak, P. (2018). Metacognition and metacognitive instruction in second-language writing classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 52(4), 1085–1097. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.436

Lenchuk, I., & Ahmed, A. (2021). Tapping into Bloom taxonomy’s higher-order cognitive processes: The case for multiple-choice questions as a valid assessment tool in the ESP classroom. Arab World English Journal, Special Issue on COVID-19 Challenges, 1, 160–171. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/covid.12

Liang, Z. (2024). More haste, less speed? Relationship between response time and response accuracy in gamified online quizzes in an undergraduate engineering course. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1412954. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1412954

Licorish, S. A., Owen, H. E., Daniel, B., & George, J. L. (2018). Students’ perceptions of Kahoot!’s influence on teaching and learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 13, Article 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-018-0078-8

Liu, C., & Chen, M. (2022). A genre-based approach in the secondary-school English writing class: Voices from student-teachers in the teaching practicum. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 992360. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.992360

Loyens, S. M. M., van Meerten, J. E., Schaap, L., & Wijnia, L. (2023). Situating higher-order, critical, and critical-analytic thinking in problem- and project-based learning environments: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 35(2), Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09757-x

Lüdtke, O., & Robitzsch, A. (2025). ANCOVA versus change score for the analysis of two-wave data. The Journal of Experimental Education, 93(2), 363–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2023.2246187

Maryani, I., Prasetyo, Z. K., Wilujeng, I., Purwanti, S., & Fitrianawati, M. (2021). HOTS multiple-choice and essay questions: A validated instrument to measure higher-order thinking skills of prospective teachers. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 18(4), 674–690. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2021.97

McIntyre, M. M., Gundlach, J. L., & Graziano, W. G. (2021). Liking guides learning: The role of interest in memory for STEM topics. Learning and Individual Differences, 85, Article 101960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101960

Molin, F., Haelermans, C., Cabus, S. J., & Groot, W. (2021). Do feedback strategies improve students’ learning gain? Results of a randomized experiment using polling technology in physics classrooms. Computers & Education, 175, Article 104339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104339

Moore, T., & Morton, J. (2017). The myth of job readiness? Written communication, employability, and the “skills gap” in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 42(3), 591–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1067602

Morillas Barrio, C., Muñoz-Organero, M., & Sánchez Soriano, J. (2016). Can gamification improve the benefits of student-response systems in learning? An experimental study. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing, 4(3), 429–438. https://doi.org/10.1109/TETC.2015.2497459

Murayama, K., FitzGibbon, L., & Sakaki, M. (2019). Process account of curiosity and interest: A reward-learning perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 31(4), 875–895. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09499-9

Nadjib, N., & Triastuti, A. (2023). Indonesian EFL teachers’ portrayal of genre-based teaching practices: Perceptions, implementation, and challenges. Journal on English as a Foreign Language, 13(2), 475–498. https://doi.org/10.23971/jefl.v13i2.6501

Natsir, M., Purba, A. S., Ellyana, E., Saragih, A. T., & Amal, B. K. (2022). English teaching in an Indonesian vocational high school majoring in industrial machinery engineering. AL-ISHLAH: Jurnal Pendidikan, 14(2), 1743–1754. https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v14i2.1221

Negretti, R., & McGrath, L. (2018). Scaffolding genre knowledge and metacognition: Insights from an L2 doctoral research-writing course. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 12–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.12.002

Nuralisaputri, V. V., & Megawati, F. (2023). Writing descriptive texts: What makes this difficult for lower-secondary-school learners? Indonesian TESOL Journal, 5(2), 120–133. https://doi.org/10.24256/itj.v5i2.2718

Nuutila, K., Tapola, A., Tuominen, H., Molnár, G., & Niemivirta, M. (2021). Mutual relationships between the levels of and changes in interest, self-efficacy, and perceived difficulty during task engagement. Learning and Individual Differences, 92, Article 102090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021.102090

O’Donnell, C. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K–12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 33–84. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313793

Oga-Baldwin, W. L. Q. (2019). Acting, thinking, feeling, making, collaborating: The engagement process in foreign language learning. System, 86, Article 102128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102128

Oga-Baldwin, W. L. Q., & Nakata, Y. (2017). Engagement, gender, and motivation: A predictive model for Japanese young language learners. System, 65, 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.01.011

Oga-Baldwin, W. L. Q., Nakata, Y., Parker, P. D., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Motivating young language learners: A longitudinal model of self-determined motivation in elementary-school foreign-language classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 140–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.01.010

Owen, H. E., & Licorish, S. A. (2020). Game-based student-response system: The effectiveness of Kahoot! on junior and senior information-science students’ learning. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 19, 511–553. https://doi.org/10.28945/4608

Özdemir, O. (2025). Kahoot! Game-based digital learning platform: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 41(1), Article e13084. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.13084

Page, L. C., Lenard, M. A., & Keele, L. (2020). The design of clustered observational studies in education. AERA Open, 6(3), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420954401

Pawlak, M., Kruk, M., Zawodniak, J., & Pasikowski, S. (2020). Investigating factors responsible for boredom in English classes: The case of advanced learners. System, 91, Article 102259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102259

Philp, J., & Duchesne, S. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 50–72. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190515000094

Poblaciones, M. J., Garcia-White, T., & Marin, C. (2021). Students’ perceptions of real-time quiz Kahoot! as a review tool in higher education: A case study. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 11(4), 165–174. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v11i4.21359

Purnamasari, D., Hidayat, D. N., & Kurniawati, L. (2021). An analysis of students’ writing skill on English descriptive text. English Education: Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris, 14(1), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.24042/ee-jtbi.v14i1.7943

Ramamuruthy, V., Alias, N., & DeWitt, D. (2021). The need for technical communication for 21st century learning in TVET institutions: Perceptions of industry experts. Journal of Technical Education and Training, 13(1), 148–158. https://doi.org/10.30880/jtet.2021.13.01.017

Ranieri, M., Raffaghelli, J. E., & Bruni, I. (2021). Game-based student-response system: Revisiting its potentials and criticalities in large-size classes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 22(2), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787418812667

Ratnaningsih, S., & Azizah, A. (2019). Error analysis in the descriptive-text writing of vocational-high-school students. Dinamika Ilmu, 19(1), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.21093/di.v19i1.1364

Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. E. (2020). To level the playing field, develop interest. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7(1), 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732219864705

Renninger, K. A., Bachrach, J. E., & Hidi, S. E. (2019). Triggering and maintaining interest in early phases of interest development. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 23, Article 100260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.11.007

Révész, A., Kourtali, N.-E., & Mazgutova, D. (2017). Effects of task complexity on L2 writing behaviors and linguistic complexity. Language Learning, 67(1), 208–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12205

Rieger, S., Göllner, R., Spengler, M., Trautwein, U., Nagengast, B., & Roberts, B. W. (2022). The persistence of students’ academic effort: The unique and combined effects of conscientiousness and individual interest. Learning and Instruction, 80, Article 101613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101613

Sailer, M., & Homner, L. (2020). The gamification of learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 77–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09498-w

Sailer, M., Hense, J. U., Mayr, S. K., & Mandl, H. (2017). How gamification motivates: An experimental 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

Scully, D. (2017). Constructing multiple-choice items to measure higher-order thinking. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 22(1), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.7275/ca7y-mm27

Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3–4), 591–611. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591

Simonovic, B., Correa Vione, K., Stupple, E., & Doherty, A. (2023). It is not what you think it is how you think: A critical thinking intervention enhances argumentation, analytic thinking and metacognitive sensitivity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 49, 101362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101362

Sireci, S., & Faulkner-Bond, M. (2014). Validity evidence based on test content. Psicothema, 26(1), 100–107. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2013.256

Skarpaas, K. G. (2024). The importance of relevance: Factors influencing upper-secondary vocational students’ engagement in L2 English-language teaching. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 68(7), 1395–1409. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2023.2250360

Skarpaas, K. G., & Hellekjær, G. O. (2021). Vocational orientation—A supportive approach to teaching L2 English in upper-secondary-school vocational programmes. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 2, 100064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2021.100064

Stanny, C. J. (2016). Reevaluating Bloom’s taxonomy: What measurable verbs can and cannot say about student learning. Education Sciences, 6(4), Article 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci6040037

Suharyadi, & Basthomi, Y. (2020). Patterns of the teaching and learning cycle of GBA by EFL teachers in Indonesia. Journal of Education and E-Learning Research, 7(1), 34–41. https://doi.org/10.20448/journal.509.2020.71.34.41

Sureeyatanapas, P., Srisawasdi, N., & Sureeyatanapas, P. (2024). A need analysis of English proficiency in engineering graduates: Perspectives of the world’s leading companies in Thailand. European Journal of Engineering Education, 49(6), 1179–1202. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2024.2377314

Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2

Tardy, C. M., Sommer-Farias, B., & Gevers, J. (2020). Teaching and researching genre knowledge: Toward an enhanced theoretical framework. Written Communication, 37(3), 287–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088320916554

Tiruneh, D. T., De Cock, M., & Elen, J. (2018). Designing learning environments for critical thinking: Examining effective instructional approaches. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(6), 1065–1089. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9829-z

Tullis, J. G., & Goldstone, R. L. (2020). Why does peer instruction benefit student learning? Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 5, Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00218-5

Turan, Z., & Meral, E. (2018). Game-based versus non-game-based: The impact of student-response systems on students’ achievement, engagement, and test anxiety. Informatics in Education, 17(1), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2018.07

Tyas, M. A., Nurkamto, J., & Marmanto, S. (2020). Cultivating students’ higher-order thinking skills in EFL classes: The role of the teacher and the textbook. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 7(1), 267–276. https://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/773

Vickrey, T., Rosploch, K., Rahmanian, R., Pilarz, M., & Stains, M. (2015). Research-based implementation of peer instruction: A literature review. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(1), Article es3. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-11-0198

Wang, A. I., & Tahir, R. (2020). The effect of using Kahoot! for learning: A literature review. Computers & Education, 149, Article 103818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103818

Wasserstein, R. L., Schirm, A. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2019). Moving to a world beyond “p < .05.” The American Statistician, 73(sup1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2019.1583913

What Works Clearinghouse. (2017). WWC standards brief: Confounding factors. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresources/wwc_brief_confounds_101117.pdf

Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017). Supporting learners’ agentic engagement with feedback: A systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience processes. Educational Psychologist, 52(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538

Wu, T.-T., Silitonga, L. M., & Murti, A. T. (2024). Enhancing English writing and higher-order thinking skills through computational thinking. Computers & Education, 213, 105012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105012

Xu, T. S., Zhang, L. J., & Gaffney, J. S. (2022). Examining the relative effects of task complexity and cognitive demands on students’ writing in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44(2), 483–506. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263121000310

Yin, X., Saad, M. R. B. M., & Halim, H. B. A. (2023). A systematic review of critical-thinking instructional pedagogies in EFL writing: What do we know from a decade of research? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 49, Article 101363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101363

Zhang, Z., & Hyland, K. (2022). Fostering student engagement with feedback: An integrated approach. Assessing Writing, 51, Article 100586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100586