Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 307–323 | Cite as

Using Socrative software for instant formative feedback in physics courses

  • Nuri BaltaEmail author
  • Katerina Tzafilkou


The aim of this study was to understand how students’ attitudes were connected to the web based software Socrative. The study was conducted with 50 students taking first year physics courses in a university. The survey dimensions were based on four previous research works and the survey instrument was extended to better reflect the current study needs. Quantitative results showed that there was no difference between attitudes of male and female students. Moreover results indicated that students in the civil engineering major had significantly more positive attitudes than molecular biology and genetic major students. For the results of the qualitative question students generally mentioned the practical use, time saving, immediate feedback and enabling many question types as the advantages of Socrative. Based on these results, it can be noted that Socrative serves an important role in student engagement and attitudes toward physics.


Student response system Socrative software Formative feedback Students’ attitude 



  1. Aljaloud, A., Gromik, N., Billingsley, W., & Kwan, P. (2015). Research trends in student response systems: a literature review. International Journal of Learning Technology, 10, 313. Scholar
  2. Awedh, M., Mueen, A., Zafar, B., & Manzoor, U. (2015). Using Socrative and Smartphones for the support of collaborative learning. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education, 3(4), 17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balta, N., & Kaya, A. (2015) Taking advantages of technologies: using the Socrative program in English language teaching classes. The fifth international research conference, Tbilisi, Georgia.Google Scholar
  4. Balta, N., & Güvercin, S. (2016). Increasing undergraduate students’ exam performances in statistics course using software Socrative. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, Special Issue of July, 314–321. Retrieved from Accessed 23 Dec 2017.
  5. Balta, N., Perera-Rodríguez, V. H., & Hervás-Gómez, C. (2018). Using socrative as an online homework platform to increase students’ exam scores. Education and Information Technologies, 23(2), 837–850.Google Scholar
  6. Beatty, I. D. (2004). Transforming student learning with classroom communication systems. EDUCAUSE center for applied research: Research bulletin, Volume 2004, issue 3, 1–13.Google Scholar
  7. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at University. McGraw-Hill, International.Google Scholar
  8. Blasco-Arcas, L., Buil, I., Hernández-Ortega, B., & Sese, F. J. (2013). Using clickers in class. The role of interactivity, active collaborative learning and engagement in learning performance. Computers & Education, 62(3), 102–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bligh, D. A. (1972). What is the use of lectures? Harmondsworth, Mdx.: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  10. Bojinova, E. D., & Oigara, J. N. (2011). Teaching and learning with clickers : are clickers good for students ? Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 7.Google Scholar
  11. Burnstein, R. A., & Lederman, L. M. (2003). Comparison of different commercial wireless keypad systems. The Physics Teacher, 41, 272–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coca, D. M., & Slisko, J. (2013). Software Socrative and smartphones as tools for implementation of basic processes of active physics learning in classroom: an initial feasibility study with prospective teachers. European Journal of Physics Education, 4(2), 17–24.Google Scholar
  13. Dakka, M. S. (2015). Using Socrative to enhance in-class student engagement and collaboration. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education, 4, 1319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dervan, P. (2014). Increasing in-class student engagement using Socrative (an online Student Response System). AISHE-J: The All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 6(3).Google Scholar
  15. Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., Mestre, J. P., & Leonard, W. J. (2000). ASK-IT/A2L: Assessing student knowledge with instructional technology. Retrieved June 2015 from
  16. Duncan, D. K., Hoekstra, A. R., & Wilcox, B. R. (2012). Digital devices, distraction, and student performance: does in-class cell phone use reduce learning. Astronomy Education Review, 11(1), 1–4.Google Scholar
  17. English, D. (2003). Audiences talk back: response systems fill your meeting media with instant data. AV Video Multimedia Producer, 25(12), 22–24.Google Scholar
  18. Georgiev, T., Georgieva, E., & Smrikarov, A. (2004). M-learning-a New Stage of Е-Learning. In International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies-CompSysTech, 4(28), 1-4.Google Scholar
  19. Godzicki, L., Godzicki, N., Krofel, M., & Michaels, R. (2013). Increasing Motivation and Engagement in Elementary and Middle School Students through Technology-Supported Learning Environments. (Master’s thesis, University of Saint Xavier, Chicago, Illinois). Retrieved May 2015 from
  20. Green, A. (2014) ‘Significant returns in engagement and performance with a free clicker app’, Social Science Research Network [online] (Accessed 14 June 2018).
  21. Hadiri, Y. (2015). Instructional Design project: Click it to Check it. Socrative for student assessment in higher education. PowerPoint presented at the Technology, Colleges, and Community Worldwide Online Conference, March, 19.Google Scholar
  22. Heaslip, G., Donovan, P., & Cullen, J. G. (2014). Student response systems and learner engagement in large classes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(1), 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Juwah, C., Macfarlane-Dick, D., Matthew, B., Nicol, D. Ross, D. & Smith, B. (2004). Enhancing student learning through effective formative feedback. The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from Accessed 11 May 2018.
  24. Kolb, L. (2011). Adventures with cell phones. Educational Leadership, 68(5), 39–43.Google Scholar
  25. Liu, D. Y., & Taylor, C. E. (2013). Engaging students in large lectures of introductory biology and molecular biology service courses using student response systems. In Proceedings of The Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education (formerly UniServe Science Conference).Google Scholar
  26. Luu, K., & Freeman, J. G. (2011). An analysis of the relationship between information and communication technology (ICT) and scientific literacy in Canada and Australia. Computers & Education, 56(4), 1072–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Manuguerra, M., & Petocz, P. (2011). Promoting student engagement by integrating new technology into tertiary education: the role of the iPad. Asian Social Science, 7(11), 61–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Molloy, E. K., & Boud, D. (2014). Feedback models for learning, teaching and performance. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (p. 413-424). Springer New York.Google Scholar
  29. Piatek, R. (2014). Student Response System: Student Activation towards Better Learning in Large Classes A Practical Guide. Retrieved June 2015 from
  30. Roblyer, M. D., & Wiencke, W. R. (2003). Design and use of a rubric to assess and encourage interactive qualities in distance courses. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17(2), 77–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wang, A. I., Aanesl, A. E., & Gamnes, V. (2014). Three Social Classroom Applications to Improve Student Attitudes. Education Research International, 2014, 259128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Windschitl, M. (2009). Cultivating 21st century skills in science learners: How systems of teacher preparation and professional development will have to evolve. In Presentation given at the National Academies of Science Workshop on 21st Century Skills, Washington, DC (Vol. 15).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of International BusinessAlmatyKazakhstan
  2. 2.University of MacedonicaThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations