Binti Lathifaturrohmah AJ(1*), Nur Anita Yunikawati(2)
(1) Pendidikan Ekonomi, Fakultas Ekonomi dan Bisnis, Universitas Negeri Malang
(2) Pendidikan Ekonomi, Fakultas Ekonomi dan Bisnis, Universitas Negeri Malang
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract viewed : 1600 | PDF downloaded : 437


Low student engagement can be indicated by students who are passive during learning, are not interested in learning and lack of focus on learning. This can be addressed by the use of OSRS(Socrative and Clickers) to increase student engagement. The purpose of this study was to determine the influence and differences in student engagement between classes that use Socrative and classes that use Clickers. The "Pretest-Posttest Nonequivalent Multiple Group Design" design was used in this study, with data collection using questionnaires and data analysis using the ANCOVA test. The results of this study inform that the Socrative and Clickers platforms have a positive influence on student engagement. Although, student engagement between the Socrative class and the Clickers class did not differ significantly, student engagement in the Socrative class was 6.4% higher than the Clickers class which was 6.1%. Based on the results of the study, it can be concluded that the use of Socrative and Clickers can encourage student interaction and participation which leads to increased student engagement and has the potential to improve student learning assessment. Suggestions for future research are to be able to use larger samples and longer treatment times.



Keterlibatan siswa yang rendah dapat terindikasi dari siswa yang pasif saat pembelajaran, tidak tertarik dengan pembelajaran serta kurangnya focus pada pembelajaran. Hal tersebut dapat diatasi dengan penggunaan OSRS(Socrative dan Clickers) untuk dapat meningkatkan keterlibatan siswa. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui pengaruh  serta perbedaan  keterlibatan siswa antara kelas yang menggunakan Socrative dan kelas yang menggunakan Clickers. Rancangan “Pretest-Posttest Nonequivalent Multiple Group Design” digunakan dalam penelitian ini, dengan pengumpulan data menggunakan kuesioner dan analisis data menggunakan uji ANCOVA. Hasil dari penelitian ini menginformasikan bahwa platform Socrative dan Clickers memiliki pengaruh positif terhadap keterlibatan siswa. Meskipun, keterlibatan siswa antara kelas Socrative dan kelas Clickers tidak berbeda secara signifikan, namun keterlibatan siswa di kelas Socrative sebesar 6,4% lebih tinggi dibandingkan dengan kelas Clickers yang sebesar 6,1%.  Berdasarkan hasil penelitian, dapat disimpulkan bahwa penggunaan Socrative dan Clickers dapat mendorong interaksi dan partisipasi siswa yang mengarah pada peningkatan keterlibatan siswa serta memiliki potensi untuk meningkatkan penilaian pembelajaran siswa. Saran untuk penelitian selanjutnya yaitu dapat menggunakan sampel yang lebih besar dan waktu perlakuan yang lebih panjang. 


Keterlibatan Siswa; OSRS; Socrative; Clickers;Student Engagement; OSRS; Socrative; Clickers

Full Text:

PDF ***


Abdulla, M. H. (2018). The use of an online student response system to support learning of Physiology during lectures to medical students. Education and Information Technologies, 23(6), 2931–2946.

Abdullah, M. C., Teoh, H. C., Roslan, S., & Uli, J. (2015). Student Engagement: Concepts, Development and Application in Malaysian Universities. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 5(2), 275–284.

Al Sunni, A., & Latif, R. (2020). Determining the effectiveness of a cell phone-based student response system. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, 15(1), 59–65.

Ali, M. M., & Hassan, N. (2018). Defining Concepts of Student Engagement and Factors Contributing to Their Engagement in Schools. Creative Education, 09(14), 2161–2170.

Awedh, M., Mueen, A., Zafar, B., & Manzoor, U. (2014). Using Socrative and Smartphones for the support of collaborative learning. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education, 3(4), 17–24.

Baloran, E. T., Hernan, J. T., & Taoy, J. S. (2021). Course Satisfaction and Student Engagement in Online Learning Amid Covid-19 Pandemic: a Structural Equation Model. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 22(4), 1–12.

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.

Barr, M. L. (2014). Encouraging College Student Active Engagement in Learning: The Influence of Response Methods. Innovative Higher Education, 39(4), 307–319.

Barreiro-Gen, M. (2020). Evaluating the effects of mobile applications on course assessment: A quasi-experiment on a macroeconomics course. International Review of Economics Education, 34(April).

Benlahcene, A., Kaur, A., & Awang-Hashim, R. (2020). Basic psychological needs satisfaction and student engagement: the importance of novelty satisfaction. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 13(5), 1290–1304.

Benson, J. D., Szucs, K. A., & Taylor, M. (2016). Student Response Systems and Learning: Perceptions of the Student. Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 30(4), 406–414.

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 and Education, 62, 102–110.

Burch, G. F., Heller, N. A., Burch, J. J., Freed, R., & Steed, S. A. (2015). Student Engagement: Developing a Conceptual Framework and Survey Instrument. Journal of Education for Business, 90(4), 224–229.

Cakiroglu, U., Erdogdu, F., & Gokoglu, S. (2018). Clickers in EFL classrooms: Evidence from two different uses. Contemporary Educational Technology, 9(2), 171–185.

Caserta, S., Tomaiuolo, G., & Guido, S. (2021). Use of a smartphone-based Student Response System in large active-learning Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics classrooms. Education for Chemical Engineers, 36, 46–52.

Cerqueiro, F. F., & Harrison, A. M. M. (2019). Socrative in higher education: Game vs. other uses. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 3(3).

Cheung, J. M. W., Wong, A. N. L., & Chan, E. Y. H. (2014). Engaging students with clickers in language lessons. SpringerPlus, 3(1), 2–3.

Chien, Y. T., Chang, Y. H., & Chang, C. Y. (2016). Do we click in the right way? A meta-analytic review of clicker-integrated instruction. Educational Research Review, 17, 1–18.

Chou, P. N., Chang, C. C., & Lin, C. H. (2017). BYOD or not: A comparison of two assessment strategies for student learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 74, 63–71.

D’Souza, D. E., Daspit, J. J., & Sigdyal, P. (2019). Identifying Cognitive Processing Events during Clicker Exercises and Exploring Their Relationship with Student Learning. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 17(3), 274–296.

Dabbour, E. (2016). Quantifying the Effects of Using Online Student Response Systems in an Engineering Ethics Course. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 142(2), 1–9.

Dabbour, E. (2017). Assessing the Effects of Implementing an Online Student-Response System in a Transportation Engineering Course. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 143(1), 1–6.

DeCicco, R. C. (2019). Clickers in Small Undergraduate Organic Chemistry Courses: Increasing Student Engagement while Improving Perception [Chapter]. ACS Symposium Series, 1336, 57–68.

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).

Egelandsdal, K., & Krumsvik, R. J. (2017). Clickers and formative feedback at university lectures. Education and Information Technologies, 22(1), 55–74.

Fitriyani, E., & E. Guspiranto. (2021). Teacher Support and Student Engagement : Correlation Study on Students of SMPN 4 Rengat Barat. JPAI (Journal of Psychology and Instruction), 5(1), 26–32.

Gardner, G. E., Dutta, S., Mulcahy, K., Tabakova, V., Majewski, D., Reid, J. W., & Jia, Z. (2018). A Comparative Analysis of the Use of Student Response Devices (“Clickers”) in University Learning Environments at a Large Southeastern University. Journal for STEM Education Research, 1(1–2), 85–102.

Ghanaat Pisheh, E. A. Z., NejatyJahromy, Y., Gargari, R. B., Hashemi, T., & Fathi-Azar, E. (2019). Effectiveness of clicker-assisted teaching in improving the critical thinking of adolescent learners. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(1), 82–88.

Guarascio, A. J., Nemecek, B. D., & Zimmerman, D. E. (2017). Evaluation of students’ perceptions of the Socrative application versus a traditional student response system and its impact on classroom engagement. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 9(5), 808–812.

Herrada, R. I., Baños, R., & Alcayde, A. (2020). Student response systems: A multidisciplinary analysis using visual analytics. Education Sciences, 10(12), 1–23.

Hoekstra, A. (2015). Because You Don’t Realize How Many People Have Different Experiences Than You: Effects of Clicker Use for Class Discussions in Sociology. Teaching Sociology, 43(1), 53–60.

Hospel, V., Galand, B., & Janosz, M. (2016). Multidimensionality of behavioural engagement: Empirical support and implications. International Journal of Educational Research, 77, 37–49.

Hunsu, N. J., Adesope, O., & Bayly, D. J. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of audience response systems (clicker-based technologies) on cognition and affect. Computers and Education, 94, 102–119.

Ingalls, V. (2020). Students Vote: A Comparative Study of Student Perceptions of Three Popular Web-Based Student Response Systems. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25(3), 557–567.

Inman, R. A., Moreira, P. A. S., Cunha, D., & Castro, J. (2020). Assessing the dimensionality of the Student School Engagement Survey: Support for a multidimensional bifactor model. Revista de Psicodidáctica (English Ed.), 25(2), 109–118.

Kandiko Howson, C., & Matos, F. (2021). Student surveys: Measuring the relationship between satisfaction and engagement. Education Sciences, 11(6).

Kaya, Ayhan & Balta, N. (2016). Using Socrative in English Language Teaching Classes. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, 2(3), 4–12.

Kim, K. J. (2019). Enhancing students’ active learning and self-efficacy using mobile technology in medical English classes. Korean Journal of Medical Education, 31(1), 51–60.

Kulatunga, U., & Rameezdeen, R. (2014). Use of Clickers to Improve Student Engagement in Learning: Observations from the Built Environment Discipline. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 10(1), 3–18.

Lei, H., Cui, Y., & Zhou, W. (2018). Relationships between student engagement and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Social Behavior and Personality, 46(3), 517–528.

Lim, W. N. (2017). Improving student engagement in higher education through mobile-based interactive teaching model using socrative. IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, EDUCON, April, 404–412.

Lucey, S., Mcelroy, B., & Mcinally, L. (2021). Enhancing Student Engagement and Self-Evaluation Using Student Response Systems. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 21(12), 84–93.

M Dakka, S. (2015). Using Socrative to Enhance In-Class Student Engagement and Collaboration. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education, 4(3), 13–19.

Maroco, J., Maroco, A. L., Bonini Campos, J. A. D., & Fredricks, J. A. (2016). University student’s engagement: Development of the University Student Engagement Inventory (USEI). Psicologia: Reflexao e Critica, 29(1).

McKenzie, M., & Ziemann, M. (2020). Assessment of the web-based audience response system socrative for biomedical science revision classes. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 1(July), 100008.

Mendez, D., & 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), n/a.

Mentari, W. N., & Syarifuddin, H. (2020). Improving student engagement by mathematics learning based on contextual teaching and learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1554(1).

Mishra, D., Chew, E., Ostrovska, S., & Wong, J. (2020). Personal response systems through the prism of students’ experiences. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 28(5), 1232–1246.

Mohamad, M., Lestari, D. D., Zahidi, A. M., & Matore, M. E. M. (2019). Socrative in Teaching Tenses: Indonesian Students and Lecturers’ Perceptions. Creative Education, 10(01), 140–150.

Molin, F., Haelermans, C., Cabus, S., & Groot, W. (2021). Do feedback strategies improve students’ learning gain?-Results of a randomized experiment using polling technology in physics classrooms. Computers and Education, 175(July), 104339.

Muir, S., Tirlea, L., Elphinstone, B., & Huynh, M. (2020). Promoting Classroom Engagement Through the Use of an Online Student Response System: A Mixed Methods Analysis. Journal of Statistics Education, 28(1), 25–31.

Mustika, R. A., & Kusdiyati, S. (2015). Studi Deskriptif Student Engagement pada Siswa Kelas XI IPS di SMA Pasundan 1 Bandung. Prosiding Psikologi, 244–251.

Nguyen, T. D., Cannata, M., & Miller, J. (2018). Understanding student behavioral engagement: Importance of student interaction with peers and teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 111(2), 163–174.

O’Connor, C., Michaels, S., Chapin, S., & Harbaugh, A. G. (2017). The silent and the vocal: Participation and learning in whole-class discussion. Learning and Instruction, 48, 5–13.

Ogunsakin, R. E., Moyo, S., Oludayo, Olugbara, O., & Israel, C. (2021). Relating Student Engagement Indicators to Academic Performance Using Multiple Correspondence Analysis. Cybernetics and Information Technologies, 21(1), 87–102.

Pearson, R. J. (2020). Clickers versus Plickers: Comparing Two Audience Response Systems in a Smartphone-Free Teaching Environment. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(8), 2342–2346.

Perera, V. H., & Hervás-Gómez, C. (2021). University students’ perceptions toward the use of an online student response system in game-based learning experiences with mobile technology. European Journal of Educational Research, 10(2), 1009–1022.

Pryke, S. (2020). The use of Socrative in university social science teaching. Learning and Teaching, 13(1), 67–86.

Quin, D. (2017). Longitudinal and Contextual Associations Between Teacher–Student Relationships and Student Engagement: A Systematic Review. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 345–387.

Remón, J., Sebastián, V., Romero, E., & Arauzo, J. (2017). Effect of using smartphones as clickers and tablets as digital whiteboards on students’ engagement and learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 18(2), 173–187.

Salleh, A. M., Desa, M. M., & Tuit, R. M. (2013). The relationship between the learning ecology system and students’ engagement: A case study in Selangor. Asian Social Science, 9(12 SPL ISSUE), 110–117.

Santos, J., Parody, L., Ceballos, M., Alfaro, M. C., & Trujillo-Cayado, L. A. (2019). Effectiveness of mobile devices as audience response systems in the chemistry laboratory classroom. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 27(3), 572–579.

Saprudin, S., Liliasari, L., Setiawan, A., & Prihatmanto, A. S. (2020). Optical gamification (OG); Serial versus random model to improve pre-service physics teachers’ concept mastery. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 15(9), 39–59.

Schmidt, J. A., Rosenberg, J. M., & Beymer, P. N. (2018). A person-in-context approach to student engagement in science: Examining learning activities and choice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(1), 19–43.

Schnitzler, K., Holzberger, D., & Seidel, T. (2021). All better than being disengaged: Student engagement patterns and their relations to academic self-concept and achievement. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 36(3), 627–652.

Stevens, D. P., & Fontenot, G. (2017). Measuring clicker impact on student perceptions of course and instructor. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 21(1), 21–34.

Stevens, N. T., McDermott, H., Boland, F., Pawlikowska, T., & Humphreys, H. (2017). A comparative study: Do “clickers” increase student engagement in multidisciplinary clinical microbiology teaching? BMC Medical Education, 17(1), 1–8.

Subramainan, L., & Mahmoud, M. A. (2020). A systematic review on students’ engagement in classroom: Indicators, challenges and computational techniques. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 11(1), 105–115.

Tan, E., Small, A., & Lewis, P. (2020). Have a question? Just ask it: Using an anonymous mobile discussion platform for student engagement and peer interaction to support large group teaching. Research in Learning Technology, 28(1063519), 1–17.

Terrion, J. L., & Aceti, V. (2012). Perceptions of the effects of clicker technology on student learning and engagement: A study of freshmen Chemistry students. Research in Learning Technology, 20(2), 1–11.


Tretinjak, M. F., Bednjanec, A., & Tretinjak, M. (2015). Interactive teaching with Socrative. 2015 38th International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics, MIPRO 2015 - Proceedings, May, 848–851.

Velasco, M., & Çavdar, G. (2013). Teaching large classes with clickers: Results from a teaching experiment in comparative politics. PS - Political Science and Politics, 46(4), 823–829.

Wahyuni, S., Mujiyanto, J., Rukmini, D., & Wuli, S. (2019). Persepsi Guru Terhadap Penggunaan Socrative Sebagai Media Penilaian Interaktif. Jurnal Seminar Nasional Pascasarjana, 1(March), 309–314.

Wahyuningsih, D., Muchson, M., Saefi, M., Muntholib, M., & Suryadharma, I. B. (2021). The integration effects of socrative online game in cooperative - Teams games tournament (TGT) models to student learning outcomes and learning motivation on salt hydrolysis topic. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2330.

Walker, R. J., Spangler, B. R., Lloyd, E. P., Walker, B. L., Wessels, P. M., & Summerville, A. (2018). Comparing active learning techniques: The effect of clickers and discussion groups on student perceptions and performance. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 74–87.

Welch, S. (2012). Effectiveness of clickers as a pedagogical tool in improving nursing student’s examination performance. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 7(4), 133–139.

Wuthisatian, R., & Thanetsunthorn, N. (2019). Teaching macroeconomics with data: Materials for enhancing students’ quantitative skills. International Review of Economics Education, 30(October 2018), 100151.

Zou, D., & Lambert, J. (2017). Feedback methods for student voice in the digital age. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(5), 1081–1091.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2022 Binti Lathifaturrohmah AJ, Nur Anita Yunikawati

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.


Kwangsan Indexed By

Sinta 2 (S2) Google Scholar ISJD Neliti Indonesia One SearchCrossref base-searchGarda Rujukan DigitalPKP IndexRoad # # # # # citefactor # # # # # # Zotero

Kwangsan: Jurnal Teknologi Pendidikan diterbitkan oleh Balai Besar Guru Penggerak (BBGP) Prov. Jawa Timur.
Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan

Alamat Redaksi:
Jl. Mangkurejo, Ds. Kwangsan, Sedati - Sidoarjo.
Telp 0318911373 Fax. 0318911392
Email: &


web statistics View My Stats