Beyond Clickers: An AI-Powered Student Response System for Capturing Mathematical Reasoning in Indonesian Mathematics Classrooms
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33394/jp.v13i4.22758Keywords:
Artificial intelligence, Formative assessment, Mathematical reasoning, Student response systemsAbstract
This study aims to examine the design and pedagogical logic of the Si•Xiang•Hui AI Interactive Classroom, an AI-powered student response system developed at Zhejiang Normal University, China, and to explore its potential implications for Indonesian mathematics education. The study employed a qualitative descriptive-analytic case study design. The case involved a hands-on demonstration of the system during a seminar for education administrators from Southeast Asia held at Zhejiang Normal University in September 2026. The system developer served as the key informant, while 34 adult participants, including the two authors, participated as participant observers. Data were collected through participant observation, an audio recording of the session, the developer’s presentation slides, the delegation’s activity report, and relevant policy documents. The data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis with a deductive orientation informed by the ICAP framework, formative assessment, and knowledge building, with triangulation conducted across data sources. The findings indicate that the system extends beyond conventional clickers in four ways: it pairs answer choices with spoken explanations; enables every student to pose questions that can be addressed through human–AI collaboration; assigns higher scores to explanations based on their quality (up to ten points, compared with one point for an answer choice); and provides analytics intended to classify responses according to Bloom’s Taxonomy and SOLO taxonomy levels. Two areas for further development were identified: enabling students to revise their recorded arguments and making teacher verification of AI-generated answers and scores an explicit step in the assessment process. The findings suggest that the pedagogical logic underlying the system, rather than the technology itself, can be adapted to Indonesian mathematics classrooms using low-cost tools, provided that teachers receive adequate preparation, scoring criteria incorporate mathematical correctness, and student data are appropriately protected.
References
Almarashdi, H. S., Jarrah, A. M., Abu Khurma, O., & Gningue, S. M. (2024). Unveiling the potential: A systematic review of ChatGPT in transforming mathematics teaching and learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 20(12), em2555. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/15739
Awang, L. A., Yusop, F. D., & Danaee, M. (2025). Current practices and future direction of artificial intelligence in mathematics education: A systematic review. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 20(2), em0823. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/16006
Bai, S., Hew, K. F., & Huang, B. (2020). Does gamification improve student learning outcome? Evidence from a meta-analysis and synthesis of qualitative data in educational contexts. Educational Research Review, 30, 100322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100322
Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). Academic Press.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2018). Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(6), 551–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2018.1441807
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J. (2014). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(5), 545–547. https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.545-547
Chen, B., & Hong, H.-Y. (2016). Schools as knowledge-building organizations: Thirty years of design research. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 266–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1175306
Chi, M. T. H., Adams, J., Bogusch, E. B., Bruchok, C., Kang, S., Lancaster, M., Levy, R., Li, N., McEldoon, K. L., Stump, G. S., Wylie, R., Xu, D., & Yaghmourian, D. L. (2018). Translating the ICAP theory of cognitive engagement into practice. Cognitive Science, 42(6), 1777–1832. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12626
Holstein, K., McLaren, B. M., & Aleven, V. (2019). Co-designing a real-time classroom orchestration tool to support teacher–AI complementarity. Journal of Learning Analytics, 6(2), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2019.62.3
Järvelä, S., Nguyen, A., & Hadwin, A. F. (2023). Human and artificial intelligence collaboration for socially shared regulation in learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(5), 1057–1076. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13325
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., … Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Knox, J. (2020). Artificial intelligence and education in China. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(3), 298–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1754236
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
Nguyen, A., Ngo, H. N., Hong, Y., Dang, B., & Nguyen, B.-P. T. (2023). Ethical principles for artificial intelligence in education. Education and Information Technologies, 28(4), 4221–4241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11316-w
OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
Opesemowo, O. A. G., & Adewuyi, H. O. (2024). A systematic review of artificial intelligence in mathematics education: The emergence of 4IR. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 20(7), em2478. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/14762
Republic of Indonesia. (2022). Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 27 Tahun 2022 tentang Pelindungan Data Pribadi [Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 27 of 2022 on Personal Data Protection]. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/229798
Rittle-Johnson, B., Loehr, A. M., & Durkin, K. (2017). Promoting self-explanation to improve mathematics learning: A meta-analysis and instructional design principles. ZDM, 49(4), 599–611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0834-z
Roell, M., Viarouge, A., Houdé, O., & Borst, G. (2017). Inhibitory control and decimal number comparison in school-aged children. PLOS ONE, 12(11), e0188276. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188276
Schell, J. A., & Butler, A. C. (2018). Insights from the science of learning can inform evidence-based implementation of peer instruction. Frontiers in Education, 3, 33. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00033
Selwyn, N. (2019). What’s the problem with learning analytics? Journal of Learning Analytics, 6(3), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2019.63.3
Serrada-Sotil, J., Huertas Martínez, J. A., & Granado-Peinado, M. (2025). Do audience response systems truly enhance learning and motivation in higher education? A systematic review. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 1767. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-06042-w
Sutrisno AB, J., Pratama, E. Y., Putra R, A., Nasution, S. H., & Lestyanto, L. M. (2025). Students’ mathematical justification abilities in analyzing ChatGPT’s answers. Infinity Journal, 14(2), 445–460. https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v14i2.p445-460
Turmuzi, M., Azmi, S., & Kertiyani, N. M. I. (2026). ChatGPT in school mathematics education: A systematic review of opportunities, challenges, and pedagogical implications. Teaching and Teacher Education, 170, 105286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2025.105286
Wardat, Y., Tashtoush, M. A., AlAli, R., & Jarrah, A. M. (2023). ChatGPT: A revolutionary tool for teaching and learning mathematics. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(7), em2286. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13272
Wood, R., & Shirazi, S. (2020). A systematic review of audience response systems for teaching and learning in higher education: The student experience. Computers & Education, 153, 103896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103896
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
Zhai, X., Yin, Y., Pellegrino, J. W., Haudek, K. C., & Shi, L. (2020). Applying machine learning in science assessment: A systematic review. Studies in Science Education, 56(1), 111–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2020.1735757
Zhang, L. (2026, September 20). AI-empowered optimization and innovation in classroom teaching: A new model of “Teacher–AI–Student” human–machine collaborative teaching and learning [Conference presentation]. Seminar for Education Administrators from Southeast Asia, Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua, China.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Citation Check
License
Copyright (c) 2026 The Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
License and Publishing Agreement
In submitting the manuscript to the journal, the authors certify that:
- They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
- The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
- That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
- That its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities tacitly or explicitly of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
- They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
- They agree to the following license and publishing agreement.
Copyright
Authors who publish with Jurnal Paedagogy agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
Licensing for Data Publication
-
Open Data Commons Attribution License, http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ (default)
