International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1949-4270   |  e-ISSN: 1949-4289

Original article | Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 2019, Vol. 14(4) 31-46

A Study on Kahoot and Socrative in Line with Preservice Teachers’ Views

Gülçin Saraçoğlu & Handan Kocabatmaz

pp. 31 - 46   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2019.220.2   |  Manu. Number: MANU-1908-06-0004.R2

Published online: December 29, 2019  |   Number of Views: 226  |  Number of Download: 483


Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine preservice teachers’ views of using Kahoot and Socrative. Qualitative research method was applied in the collection, analysis and discussion of the data of the study which is a descriptive one. The study was carried out with the participation of 36 preservice teachers studying in 6 different departments namely special education, elementary mathematics teaching, science teaching, music teaching, art teaching and Turkish Language teaching. Interview form was used as the data collection tool. Findings of the study reveal that following the application process preservice teachers’ views were mostly positive. Preservice teachers stated that their attention and motivation increased, applications enhanced permanence, made classes more fun and encouraged active participation. They also mentioned that they thought of using these applications in their classes in the future. On the other hand, some preservice teachers stated that competitive aspect of Kahoot affected them negatively during the practice of the application. Some other preservice teachers pointed out that they found the introduction part of the application more complicated and boring. The most important drawback stated is that internet facilities are not equally convenient for both applications.

Keywords: kahoot, socrative, preservice teacher, educational technology, formative assessment


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Saracoglu, G. & Kocabatmaz, H. (2019). A Study on Kahoot and Socrative in Line with Preservice Teachers’ Views . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 14(4), 31-46. doi: 10.29329/epasr.2019.220.2

Harvard
Saracoglu, G. and Kocabatmaz, H. (2019). A Study on Kahoot and Socrative in Line with Preservice Teachers’ Views . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 14(4), pp. 31-46.

Chicago 16th edition
Saracoglu, Gulcin and Handan Kocabatmaz (2019). "A Study on Kahoot and Socrative in Line with Preservice Teachers’ Views ". Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 14 (4):31-46. doi:10.29329/epasr.2019.220.2.

References
  1. Baki, A. (2008). Kuramdan uygulamaya matematik eğitimi (4. bs.). Ankara: Harf Eğitim Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  2. Baylor, A. L. & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers & Education, 39(4), 395-414. [Google Scholar]
  3. Beaty, L., Gibbs, G. and Morgan, A. (1997). Learning Orientations and Study Contracts. The Experıence of Learnıng, Chapter 5, 72-86. [Google Scholar]
  4. Chou, C.C. (2017). An analysis of the 3d video and interactive response approach effects on the science remedial teaching for fourth grade underachieving students. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(4), 1059-1073.  [Google Scholar]
  5. Çokluk, Ö, Yılmaz, K. & Oğuz, E. (2011). Nitel Bir Görüşme Yöntemi: Odak Grup Görüşmesi, Kuramsal Eğitim Bilim, 4 (1), 95-107. [Google Scholar]
  6. Dellos, R. (2015). Kahoot! A digital game resource for learning. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 12(4), 49-52. [Google Scholar]
  7. Dervan, P. (2014). Enhancing in-class student engagement using socrative (an online student response system): a report. All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (AISHE-J), 6(3), 1801-1813. [Google Scholar]
  8. Ersoy, Y. (2005). Matematik eğitimini yenileme yönünde ileri hareketler-I: Teknoloji destekli matematik öğretimi. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(2), 51-63. [Google Scholar]
  9. Freeman, C. L. (2015). Technologies for formative assessment: Can web based applications transform the allied health science classroom and improve summative assessment outcomes.http://www.candicelfreeman.com/uploads/3/7/9/2/37925553/technologiesforformativeassessment.pdf  [Google Scholar]
  10. Gelbal, S. & Kelecioğlu, H. (2007). Öğretmenlerin ölçme ve değerlendirme yöntemleri hakkındaki yeterlik algıları ve karşılaştıkları sorunlar. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 33, 135-145. [Google Scholar]
  11. Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries.  Educational Technology Research and Development, 29(2), 75-91.  [Google Scholar]
  12. Gürışık, A., & Demirkan, Ö. (2019). Opınıons of hıgh school students about plıckers: one of the onlıne formatıve assessment tools. International Journal of Scientific Research and Innovative Technology, 6(1), 11-25. [Google Scholar]
  13. Heritage, M. (2007). What do teachers need to know and do?. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 140 – 145. [Google Scholar]
  14. Icard, S. B. (2014). Educational technology best practices. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. 11(3), 37-41. Retrieved from http://itdl.org/Journal/Mar_14/Mar14.pdf#page=41  [Google Scholar]
  15. Iwamoto, D., Hargis, J., Taitano, E. J., & Vuong, K. (2017). Analyzing the efficacy of the testing effect using Kahoot™ on student performance. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18(2), 80-93. [Google Scholar]
  16. International Societyfor Technology in Education (ISTE) (2015). ISTE standards teachers, Retrieved August 19, 2015, from. https://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/2014_ISTE_Standards-T_PDF.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  17. Johns, K. (2015). Engaging and Assessing Students with Technology: A Review of Kahoot! Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 81(4), 89. https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-3787386771/engaging-and-assessing-students-with-technology-a.  [Google Scholar]
  18. Kangalgi, M. (2013). Beden eğitimi ve spor derslerinde dönüt kullanımının öğretmen boyutuyla değerlendirilmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 38 (170), 384-400.  [Google Scholar]
  19. Keeley, P.,Eberle, F., & Farrin, L.(2005). Uncovering student ideas in science, 25 form ativeassessmentprobes. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative Research: Introducing focus groups. Education And Debate, BMJ 1995; 311, doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299 311:299.  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  21. Kuriakose, R. B., & Luwes, N. (2016). Student perceptions to the use of paperless technology in assessments–a case study using clickers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 228, 78-85.  [Google Scholar]
  22. Lee, J. & Hammer, J. (2011). Gamification in education: What, how, why bother? Academic Exchange Quarterly, 15 (2), 1-5. [Google Scholar]
  23. McCargo, M. G. (2017). The effects of Plickers as response cards on academic engagement behavior in high school students. (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from https://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com.tr/&httpsredir=1&article=1347&context=masters_theses. [Google Scholar]
  24. MacIntosh J. (1981) ‘Focus groups in distance nursing education’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18, 81-85. [Google Scholar]
  25. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  26. Omar, N. N., (2017). The Effectiveness of Kahoot applıcatıon towards students’ good feedback practıce. International Journal of Social Sciences, 3(2), 2551-2562.  [Google Scholar]
  27. Özçelik, D. A. (2010). Ölçme ve Değerlendirme (3. bs.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  28. Richardson, A. M., Dunn, P. K., McDonald, C. & Oprescu, F. (2015). Crisp: an instrument for assessing student perceptions of classroom response systems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(4), 432-447. [Google Scholar]
  29. Rouse, K. E. (2013). Gamification in science education: The relationship of educational games to motivation and achievement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Southern Mississippi, Ann Arbor. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1370800410?accountid=15958  [Google Scholar]
  30. Semerci, Ç. (2007). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme. E. Karip (Ed.) Ölçme ve değerlendirme içinde (s.1-15). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  31. Siegle, D. (2015). Technology: Learning can be funand games. Gifted Child Today, 38(3), 192-197. [Google Scholar]
  32. Susilowati, E. (2017). The effectıveness of kahoot in supportıng grammar class on class a year students academıc year 2016/2017 of dıploma of nursıng Ngudı Waluyo Unıversıty. 2th Unnes–Teflın National Seminar 136-139. [Google Scholar]
  33. Şahin, M.(2015). Öğrenme ve öğretme sürecinde uygulanan dönüt etkinliği ile ilgili öğretmen adaylarının görüşlerinin incelenmesi. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi,15(USBES Özel Sayısı I), 247-264. [Google Scholar]
  34. Şahin, Ç. & Karaman, P. (2013). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının ölçme ve değerlendirmeye ilişkin inançları. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(2), 394-407. [Google Scholar]
  35. Tekin, E. G. (2010). Matematik Eğitiminde Biçimlendirici Değerlendirmenin Etkisi (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Marmara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul. [Google Scholar]
  36. Tetik, A. & Korkmaz, Ö. (2018). Örgün ve uzaktan eğitim öğrencilerinin derslerde kahoot ile oyunlaştırmaya dönük görüşleri. Journal of Instructional Technologies & Teacher Education, 7(2), 46-55. [Google Scholar]
  37. Tok, Ş. (2014). Öğrenme-Öğretme Strateji ve Modelleri. (Ed. Ahmet Doğanay). Öğretim İlke ve Yöntemleri içinde (s. 142-171). Ankara PegemA Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  38. Tutgun-Ünal, A. (2012). A study on characteristics of internet use of ceit students and their preferences. Online Academic Journal of Information Technology, 3(6), DOI: 10.5824/1309‐1581.2012.1.002.x http://www.ajit‐e.org/?menu=pages&p=details_of_article&id=28  [Google Scholar]
  39. Wang, A. I. (2015). The wear out effect of a game-based student response system. Computers in Education., 82, 217–227. [Google Scholar]
  40. Yapıcı, İ. Ü. & Karakoyun, F. (2017). Biyoloji Öğretiminde Oyunlaştırma: Kahoot Uygulaması Örneği. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry (TOJQI) 8(4), 396-414. DOI: 10.17569/tojqi.335956 [Google Scholar]
  41. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri, (6.Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  42. Yılmaz, B. (2017). Dijital değerlendirme araçlarının ortaokul öğrencilerinin derse bağlılıklarına etkisi: İki farklı okulda durum. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17 (3), 1606-1620. [Google Scholar]
  43. Zengin, Y., Bars, M. & Şimşek, Ö. (2017). Matematik öğretiminin biçimlendirici değerlendirme sürecinde kahoot ve plickers uygulamalarının incelenmesi. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 18(2), 602-629.  [Google Scholar]