Student Response Systems: a rationale for their use and a comparison of some cloud based tools


  • Martin Compton University of Greenwich
  • Jason Allen University of Greenwich



technology, voting tools, Student response, voting, software, cloud, lectures, seminars, interactive, engagement


Student Response Systems (SRS) take many forms but we argue that there are compelling reasons to use some form of SRS in lectures and seminars at some points in the year, irrespective of subject taught and setting. Deciding which tool to use can be a challenge which is why we have selected a range of cloud based SRS types with varying functions and levels of difficulty and offer reviews of each here using the 'SCORE' analysis system enabling the reader to compare the perspectives of experienced users of each tool before trialling one or more of them. The tools we review here are:  Todaysmeet, Slido, Polleverywhere, Mentimeter, Socrative, Kahoot and Zeetings.** Note from Authors 17th May 2018: Since publication we have received notice that Todaysmeet will cease operating in June 2018

Author Biographies

Martin Compton, University of Greenwich

Senior Lecturer in Teaching, Learning and Professional Development

Jason Allen, University of Greenwich

Jason Allen until recently worked in the Educational Development University at the University of Greenwich. He had joined the team as a Trainee Video Producer intern and then went on to be a junior creative assistant, where he worked on taster courses. His main responsibilities were developing the visual assets for the taster course. With a background in digital media technologies, he has a particular interest in the usage of web based tools to enhance student engagement within teaching and learning.


Balakrishnan, V. and Lay, G. C. (2013) ‘Mobile wireless technology and its use in lecture room environment: An observation in Malaysian Institutes of higher learning.’ International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 3(6), 634.

Beetham, H. and Sharpe, R. (2013) Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing for 21st century learning. Oxon: Routledge.

Blasco-Arcas, L., Buil, I., Hernandez-Ortega, B. and 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.

Bojinova, E.D. and Oigara, J.N. (2011) ‘Teaching and learning with clickers: are clickers good for students?’ Interdisciplinary Journal of E-learning and Learning Objects, 7(1), 169-184.

Brenner, T. (2015) The use of Mobile Devices in the College Classroom. Harvard University: The Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning. Available at: (Accessed: 20 November 2017).

Caldwell, J.E. (2007) ‘Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips.’ Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9-20.

Graves, T. (2008) Semper and Score: Enhancing enterprise effectiveness. Colchester: Tetradian Books.

Hedgcock, W. H. and Rouwenhorst, R. M. (2014) ‘Clicking their way to success: using student response systems as a tool for feedback.’ Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 22(2), 16-25.

Kay, R. H. and LeSage, A. (2009) ‘Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature.’ Computers & Education, 53(3), 819-827.

Keough, S. M. (2012) ‘Clickers in the Classroom: A Review and a Replication.’ Journal of Management Education, 36(6), 822-847.

Nielsen, K. L., Hansen, G. and Stav, J. B. (2013) ‘Teaching with student response systems (SRS): lecturer-centric aspects that can negatively affect students’ experience of using SRS.’ Research in Learning Technology, 21.

Sana, F., Weston, T. and Cepeda, N. J. (2013) ‘Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers.’ Computers & Education, 62, 24-31.

Traxler, J. (2010) Students and mobile devices. Alt-j, 18(2), 149-160.