Game-based student response system: Revisiting its potentials and criticalities in large-size classes
Abstract
Instructor–student interaction and regular feedback are seen as teaching strategies designed to support effective learning. These days, there is increasing reliance on technology to support this in the classroom; one such technology is a student response system or its more recent development of this, that is, a game-based one. This study investigates the potential of using game-based student response systems for formative assessment through the analysis of learning outcomes and students’ perceptions of the gamified experience in terms of engagement and pleasantness. A quasi-experiment was conducted within an undergraduate course on educational technologies, involving about 400 students. Learning improvements were measured through a pre- and posttest, and students’ perceptions were elicited through a questionnaire. Data analysis showed a high level of student satisfaction and an overall improvement of learning outcomes due to the use of game-based student response systems. However, differences in terms of effectiveness were found according to the nature of the topics dealt with in the course, that is, whether or not they were used in the development of theoretical knowledge rather than the use of that knowledge in a more practical context.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cites
What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy
Gee, J. P. (2003) · Computers in Entertainment · doi:10.1145/950566.950595 · Cited by 5,735 · see citing works
Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design
Sweller, J. (1994) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5 · Cited by 3,801 · cited 1× · see citing works
“As is well known, instructor–student interaction and feedback are crucial for educational quality, particularly to activate prior knowledge (Hattie, 2009), to reduce cognitive overload (Sweller, 1994), and the risk of misconceptions (Hattie and Yates, 2013).”
BackgroundPapastergiou, M. (2009) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.004 · Cited by 1,689 · see citing works
Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature
Kay, R. H., & LeSage, A. (2009) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.001 · Cited by 705 · cited 7× · see citing works
“A systematic review by Kay and LeSage (2009) identified three types of student response system benefits: classroom environment benefits (increased frequency, level of attention, participation and engagement), learning benefits (interaction, discussion, contingent teaching, learning outcomes, and…”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialHunsu, N. J., Adesope, O., & Bayly, D. J. (2016) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.013 · Cited by 272 · cited 4× · see citing works
“A meta-analysis of the literature comparing clicker-facilitated to non-clicker classrooms was carried out (Castillo-Manzano et al., 2016; Hunsu et al., 2016).”
BackgroundInfluential
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The effect of using Kahoot! for learning – A literature review
Wang, A. I., & Tahir, R. (2020) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103818 · Cited by 883 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ranieri, M., Raffaghelli, J. E., & Bruni, I.
- Affiliations
- University of Florence (IT)
- Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (ES)
- Corresponding author
- Ranieri, Maria
- Venue
- Active Learning in Higher Education
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2018-11-19
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 129-142
- ISSN
- 1469-7874 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-2625
- OpenAlex
- W2900702858
- Cited by
- 41
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 5.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Active Learning in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
- Florence Research (University of Florence) (submittedVersion)
- Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
- Keywords
- gamification, large classes, formative assessment, instructor-student interaction, student engagement, student satisfaction, learning outcomes, educational technology course
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review