IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rbs/ijbrss/v14y2025i5p411-419.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparative analysis of interactive tools in higher education’s teaching and learning: The strengths and weaknesses of Mentimeter, Google forms, Socrative, and Kahoot for playful learning

Author

Listed:
  • Ayansola Ayandibu

Abstract

This study presents a comprehensive comparative analysis of four popular educational technology tools Mentimeter, Google Forms, Socrative, and Kahoot within the context of higher education. The aim is to critically evaluate their respective strengths and weaknesses, focusing on their utility, functionality, and effectiveness in enhancing the learning experience and engagement among college and university students. Mentimeter is a dynamic presentation tool allowing real-time audience engagement through live polls, quizzes, and interactive presentations. Its strengths lie in its user-friendly interface, diverse question types, and real-time feedback capabilities, fostering active participation and knowledge retention. However, limitations include its potential dependency on stable internet connectivity and limited complex assessment features. Google Forms, a versatile survey tool integrated with the Google ecosystem, offers flexibility in creating surveys, quizzes, and assessments. Its strengths include ease of use, data management through Google Sheets, and customizable question formats. However, while suitable for basic assessments, it may lack some advanced features required for complex evaluations and interactive learning. Socrative provides a platform for formative assessment, enabling teachers to create quizzes, assessments, and exit tickets. Its strengths lie in its instant grading, diverse question types, and the ability to track individual student progress. However, its interface might be less intuitive for some users, and its interactive features may be limited compared to other tools. Kahoot is a game-based learning platform that gamifies quizzes and assessments, promoting engagement and motivation among students. Its strengths include its gamified approach, competitive atmosphere, and ease of use. However, its design might favor rote memorization over deeper learning, and it may not be suitable for all types of educational content or assessment formats. This comparative analysis highlights the distinct advantages and limitations of each tool, offering insights for educators and institutions seeking to leverage technology for effective teaching and learning strategies in higher education. Understanding these strengths and weaknesses can aid educators in making informed decisions about selecting and integrating appropriate educational technologies to enhance student engagement, participation, and learning outcomes. Further research and practical implementations can delve deeper into optimizing the use of these tools to cater to diverse educational needs and contexts in higher education. Key Words:Educational Technology, Higher Education, Mentimeter, Google Forms, Socrative, Kahoot, Student Engagement, Formative Assessment

Suggested Citation

  • Ayansola Ayandibu, 2025. "A comparative analysis of interactive tools in higher education’s teaching and learning: The strengths and weaknesses of Mentimeter, Google forms, Socrative, and Kahoot for playful learning," International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance, vol. 14(5), pages 411-419, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:rbs:ijbrss:v:14:y:2025:i:5:p:411-419
    DOI: 10.20525/ijrbs.v14i5.3821
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ssbfnet.com/ojs/index.php/ijrbs/article/view/3821/2888
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v14i5.3821
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.20525/ijrbs.v14i5.3821?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rbs:ijbrss:v:14:y:2025:i:5:p:411-419. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Umit Hacioglu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ssbffea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.