International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 2012, Volume 24, Number 3, 359-375

http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/ ISSN 1812-9129

Google Docs in an Out-of-Class Collaborative Writing Activity

Wenyi Zhou Elizabeth Simpson Denise Pinette Domizi
Indiana University National Institute of Child Health and University of Georgia
Human Development

Google Docs, an online word processing application, is a promising tool for collaborative learning.
However, many college instructors and students lack knowledge to effectively use Google Docs to
enhance teaching and learning. Goals of this study include (1) assessing the effectiveness of using
Google Docs in an out-of-class collaborative writing activity through measuring the assignment’s
influence on students’ learning experiences, (2) teaching students to work collaboratively, and (3)
teaching students to successfully communicate their understanding and application of concepts
through writing. Undergraduate students (N = 35) were randomly assigned to small groups to
complete two out-of-class assignments. We compared students’ collaborative performance and
learning across two assignments, one with Google Docs and one without. We found (1) most
students were unfamiliar with Google Docs prior to the study, (2) Google Docs changed the means
of communication used in collaborative writing, (3) 93% of students considered Google Docs a
useful tool for group work, (4) using Google Docs had no effect on students’ paper grades, and (5)
half of the students reported they would like to use Google Docs in the future. Our results suggest
that Google Docs was a useful tool for collaborative writing and influenced student learning.

The present study evaluated the effectiveness of 2010; Vodanovich & Piotrowski, 2001). For example,
using Google Docs in an out-of-class collaborative researchers have found that in-class use of a wiki (an
writing activity for an introductory psychology course. essential component of Web 2.0) fosters collaborative
Our goals for this assignment were to teach students to learning among students in a quick and flexible way
work collaboratively and to successfully communicate (Lamb, 2004). Research has shown that many web-
their understanding and application of concepts through based collaborative activities facilitate the development
writing. We were interested in assessing: (1) students’ of three skills among college students: teamwork (Blair,
knowledge and experiences with Google Docs prior to 2006), social skills (Apple et al., 2011), and basic
the study, (2) whether and how Google Docs changes computing skills (Bottge, Rueda, Kwon, Grant, &
the means of communication used in collaborative LaRoque, 2009). The effectiveness of using online
writing, (3) the effects of Google Docs in collaborative applications has also been evaluated from diverse
writing, (4) the effects of Google Docs on students’ disciplines, including foreign languages (e.g., Guerra &
assignment grades, and (5) students’ likelihood of using Bota, 2011), education (e.g., Brodahl, Hadjerrouit, &
Google Docs in their future learning. Hansen, 2011), mathematics (e.g., Cardoso & Coutinho,
Collaborative learning has been regarded as a 2011), information management (Chu, Kennedy, &
necessary contributor to active learning (Kieser & Mak, 2009), and management (Rienzo & Han, 2009).
Golden, 2009). For example, collaborative tasks can Among newly developed online applications,
maximize learning inside and outside of the classroom Google Docs is an especially promising tool for
by allowing students to go beyond what they would collaboration (Gralla, 2010; Morales & Collins, 2007).
have learned alone, to share perspectives, and to Google Docs allows individuals to work on a common
accomplish tasks more effectively (Chang & Simpson, task without restrictions often imposed by traditional
1997; Jones, 2007). Collaboration is also desirable for face-to-face contacts (Conner, 2008; Holliman &
the development of problem-solving and decision- Scanlon, 2006; Perron & Sellers, 2011; Thompson &
making skills (Kieser & Golden, 2009; Smith, 2005), as Coovert, 2003). Google Docs reduces the demands for
well as information-seeking skills (Lazonder, 2005). In interaction abilities (Educause Learning Initiative,
order for collaboration to be successful, participants 2008). Additionally, Google Docs is accessible to the
must be engaged in “a mutually beneficial relationship general public, regardless of location, as long as the
to meet pre-defined goals” (Vallance, Towndrow, & internet is available (Oishi, 2007).
Wiz, 2010, p. 20). However, some research has shown In higher education, educators have begun to
that collaborations are often prevented due to the explore the educational merits of Google Docs. One
challenges of time and space (Bower & Richards, study reported that students found Google Docs more
2006). enjoyable to use when compared to Microsoft Word
In recent decades, there has been an increasing (Apple et al., 2011). Additionally, when editing papers
interest in developing new collaborative technology, and writing a concluding paragraph, students wrote
such as online applications, to enhance collaboration longer essays and were able to work on collaborative
(Apple, Reis-Bergan, Adams, & Saunders, 2011; Koch, writing more efficiently, finishing more quickly when
Zhou, Simpson, and Domizi Google Docs in Collaborative Writing 360

using Google Docs as compared to Microsoft Word completed the questionnaire for Assignment 1, and 28
(Apple et al., 2011). Brodahl et al. (2011) found students completed the questionnaire for Assignment 2.
students’ attitudes and competence using online writing Upon completion of the assignments, students were
applications (i.e., Google Docs and EtherPad) played informed of the purpose of the study and given the
more important roles in students’ perceptions of opportunity to consent to their data being used for this
collaborative writing as compared to other research project. The university’s Institutional Review
demographics characteristics (e.g., students’ gender or Board (IRB) approved this study.
age). Students reported positive experiences with
collaborative writing using these tools. However, this Materials and Procedure
study did not compare students’ perception of their
collaborative writing experiences with and without Over a six-week period, students completed two
these technological tools, so it is unknown whether and assignments, which involved listening to a lecture,
how much the tools improved students’ learning reading about a topic, and then answering questions
experiences. about a topic (Table 1). The first assignment was
Despite Google Docs’ potential, many college completed without Google Docs (Assignment 1), and
students and instructors lack knowledge of effective the second assignment was completed with Google
ways of using Google Docs to enhance teaching and Docs (Assignment 2). Each student was randomly
learning. There has been reluctance in adopting online assigned to two different groups, one for each
applications in higher education because online assignment. Each group had three to four classmates,
collaboration can lead to both positive and negative with the constraint that no two classmates would be in
educational outcomes. Although a number of studies the same group in both assignments.
have found that the use of online technology in the First, students completed an in-class questionnaire
classroom can facilitate collaborative learning among to survey their knowledge and experience with Google
students and promote learning outcomes (Chou & Docs (see Appendix A for a copy of the questionnaire).
Chen, 2008; Raman, Ryan, & Olfman, 2005; Vaughan, This questionnaire consisted of two questions: “Do you
2008), online collaborations might also lead to use Gmail (have a Gmail account)?”, and, “Have you
unpleasant learning experiences and outcomes in used Google Docs before?” If students used Google
traditional face-to-face classrooms (Blau & Caspi, Docs previously, they were asked two more questions:
2008). For example, students and instructors might feel “Have you used Google Docs to complete a course
uncomfortable in sharing knowledge (Rick & Guzdial, assignment?”, and, “Did you find Google Docs
2006), or students may not all contribute equally to the helpful?” Students were asked to describe their use of
assignment. Google Docs and in what ways they did or did not find
The present study is novel in two ways. While it helpful.
most previous studies have used web-based applications Students also were surveyed to determine which
in the classroom, in the present study we explored the upcoming topics were most interesting to them and to
effectiveness of web-based applications on an out-of- choose two topics that were comparable in the amount
class assignment. Given that collaborative out-of-class of student interest. This was done to ensure that both
assignments require more coordination from students as assignments would be on topics that the students found
compared to in-class assignments, we predicted Google equally interesting. Students were asked to
Docs might be especially useful for making anonymously rank four topics, with the one they wish
collaboration easier. Furthermore, little is known about to work on the most in the number one position, and the
the difference in students’ performance—as measured one they wish to work on the least in the number four
by grades or self-reports—with and without Google position. “Emotion and the brain” received the highest
Docs. vote (70% preferred, as first choice) and was used as
the topic for the first assignment. “Addiction and the
Method brain” received the second highest vote (69% preferred
as first choice) and was used as the topic for the second
Participants assignment. “Memory” and “Language” topics received
the lowest ratings (50% and and 37% preferred as first
Participants were 35 students (21 women, 14 men, choice, respectively), and so they were not used for the
age range: 18-22 years), enrolled in Introductory assignments in this study.
Psychology (PSYC 1101) in the spring 2010 semester We created two assignments, which consisted of
at the University of Georgia. All students participated three short-essay questions with three to four sub-
in two assignments (described below) as a requirement questions each (see Appendices B and C for assignment
of their class. Seven students did not complete all instructions). Students were asked to design their own
aspects of the study due to class absences, 31 students experiment, answer a theoretical question, and apply
Zhou, Simpson, and Domizi Google Docs in Collaborative Writing 361

Table 1
Procedure for Data Collection and Course Assignments
Week Procedure
Week One 1. Google Docs Familiarity Questionnaire: surveyed students’ knowledge and experience
with Google Docs.
2. Preferred Topic Questionnaire: selected two comparably interesting topics for Assignment
1 and 2.
3. Group Membership Assignment: divided students into groups for both assignments.
Week Two 1. Lecture “Emotion and the brain”: presented in class.
2. Assignment 1 (non-Google-Docs condition): distributed to groups in class, allowing a one-
week time to complete.
Week Three 1. Assignment 1: turned in by each group.
2. Group Evaluation Form: reported each group member’s performance
3. Questionnaire for Assignment 1: surveyed learning and collaboration experience
Week Four 1. Gmail accounts: created by students and shared with the instructor.
2. Blank Google Docs word documents: created for each group and shared between group
members.
Week Five 1. Lecture “Addiction and the Brain”: presented in class.
2. Google Docs: introduced via a video (Lefever, 2007) and step-by-step introduction.
3. Assignment 2 (Google-Docs condition): distributed to groups in class with a requirement
of using Google-Docs for completion.
Week Six 1. Assignment 2: turned in by each group.
2. Group Evaluation Form: reported each group member’s performance
3. Questionnaire for Assignment 2: surveyed learning and collaboration experience
4. Informed consent: students were given the opportunity to consent to their data being used
for this research project
5. Debriefing: the purpose of the study was shared with the students

their scientific knowledge to solve a real-life problem. instructions about which communication methods to
Students used information from an in-class use for their collaboration. A week later—after turning
presentation, related material in the textbook, and other in Assignment 1—students evaluated their group
resources (e.g., articles, personal experiences) to members’ performance (see Appendix E for the
complete the assignments. evaluation form). The components of the evaluation
We also created a customized rubric to score included questions on whether each group member
students’ responses (Appendix D). Students earned up assumed a role in the project, took responsibility, and
to 15 points in total, with up to three points for made contributions.
presentation of a clear ideas; three points for well- Each student also reported his or her collaborative
organized responses; three points for proper uses of experience on the group project (Appendix F) with
psychology terminology; three points for proper Likert-scale and open-ended questions such as, “How
grammar, style, and mechanics; and three points for collaborative was the group work?” on a scale ranging
overall work quality. from 1 (completely independent) to 5 (complete
Assignment 1: Collaborative writing without collaboration). We also asked, “How did you
Google Docs. The following week, the first author (not communicate with group members?” and “How
the course instructor) gave a 15-minute guest effective were the communications in accomplishing
presentation on the first topic, “Emotion and the brain.” the assignment?” on a scale ranging from 1 (very
Then students were assigned to groups (11 groups total, effective) to 5 (very ineffective).
consisting of three to four students each) and given After the class, the grading rubric was used to
Assignment 1, which they had one week to complete grade Assignment 1. The experimenters and a third
outside of class. The students were not given any party graded assignment 1; the latter was blind to the
Zhou, Simpson, and Domizi Google Docs in Collaborative Writing 362

experimental conditions. One grade was given to each experiences with Google Docs. Five students’
group for each assignment. Inter-reliability between experiences with Google Docs were academic-related
graders was assessed with a Pearson correlation, r = activities, of which four students used Google Docs in
.92, p < .001. Each student received an individual grade some kind of collaborative task such as to complete a
based upon evaluations from their group members, research paper, to create a study guide in a class group
which were used to weigh the group score. Students’ for an exam, or to complete a group assignment in a
assignment grades contributed 4% to their final course technology class. After the second assignment, 28
grade. students completed the questionnaire to report their
Assignment 2: Collaborative writing with experience with Google Docs; seven students did not
Google Docs. In preparation for Assignment 2, students complete the questionnaire due to class absence. For
were taught to use Google Docs in class, and they were Assignment 2, 26 of the 28 students reported using
asked to use Google Docs to complete the assignment. Google Docs, among whom 85% rated their experience
Meanwhile, students were given one week to create as either positive or very positive. For example,
Gmail accounts (if they did not already have one), and students commented that “Google Docs helped keep
were asked to share their Gmail e-mail address with the everyone’s work together,” “provided an effective way
instructor. The experimenters created a blank Google for sharing and editing among group members,” and “is
doc for each group, and they shared each Google doc an easy and interesting method for communication.”
with its respective group members. A short video Not all comments were positive, however. Two
introducing Google Docs (LeFever, 2010) was shown students reported negative experiences with Google
in class, accompanied by the instructor providing step- Docs, explaining that “Google Docs made group work
by-step instructions on how to use Google Docs. In more difficult due to its lack of accurate tracking of
class, the first author again gave a 15-minute guest each member’s contribution” and reporting “a number
presentation on the second topic, “Addiction and the of flaws in the formatting.” The remaining four students
brain.” Assignment 2 was given in the same manner as reported no preference.
Assignment 1, except students were instructed to use After students completed each assignment, they
Google Docs. Students were given one week outside of reported the methods they used for communication
class to complete the assignment. After turning in (e.g., face-to-face, e-mail) during the activity (Figure
Assignment 2, students were asked to evaluate their 1). There were differences in the communication
group members’ performance, just as they had for their methods used in Assignment 1 (no Google Docs
previous group for Assignment 1. To evaluate their mentioned) and Assignment 2 (Google Docs required).
overall collaborative writing experiences in Assignment Of the 31 students who completed Assignment 1, 84%
2, students used the same questionnaire as Assignment students used e-mail, 35% used Facebook, 29% used
1, but we included additional questions to directly Blackboard Vista, 16% used text messaging, and 13%
access students’ experiences using Google Docs on the used face-to-face meeting(s). Interestingly, no students
project (see Appendix G for the list of additional reported using Google Docs for Assignment 1, even
questions). Questions included, “How did Google Docs though they were free to use whatever communication
influence your group’s collaborative writing tools they wanted. A two-tailed z approximation test
experience?” on a scale ranging from 1 (very positive) revealed that the proportion of students using Google
to 5 (very negative). We asked students to describe their Docs was greater in Assignment 2 (93%) as compared
experiences using Google Docs, whether they thought it to Assignment 1 (0%), p < .001. A two-tailed z
was a useful tool for learning, and whether they would approximation test revealed that the proportion of
be likely to use it in the future. Assignment 2 was students who reported using Facebook and text
graded in the same way as Assignment 1. Inter- messages in Assignment 2 (35.5% and 16.1%,
reliability between graders was assessed with a Pearson respectively) was significantly less than those reported
correlation, r =.94, p < 0.001. in Assignment 1 (10.7% and 0%, respectively), p <
0.05. There were no other changes in communication
Results methods between assignments, p > .05. E-mail
remained the most popular communication method for
We assessed students’ knowledge of, and both assignments, and it continued to be used more
experiences with, Google Docs before and after the often than Google Docs, even in the second assignment
assignments with three types of questions: open-ended, (78.6%).
Likert-Scaled, and “yes” or “no.” Before the first After completing the second assignment, we asked
assignment, 31 students completed the questionnaire, students who reported using Google Docs whether
and four students did not due to being absent from Google Docs was a useful tool (Figure 2). Responses
class. Six of the 31 students reported some knowledge were categorized as positive (i.e., a useful tool),
of Google Docs; these six students all reported pleasant negative (i.e., not a useful tool), and neutral. Out of 28
Zhou, Simpson, and Domizi Google Docs in Collaborative Writing 363

Figure 1
Means of Communication Used During Collaborative Writing

Note. Google Docs changed the means of communication used during collaborative writing. A two-tailed z
approximation test assessed whether the proportions of students who used each method of communication varied
between Assignment 1 and Assignment 2. *p < 0.05.

Figure 2
Distribution of Responses to the Open-Ended prompt: “Describe Your Experience Using
Google Docs for this Group Collaboration.” (Appendix G, Question 3)

Note. Neutral responses were those in which students for or against the use of Google Docs provided no specific
reasons.
Zhou, Simpson, and Domizi Google Docs in Collaborative Writing 364

students, 64% considered Google Docs a useful tool for responses were overwhelmingly positive: 79% of
working in a group. Typical student statements were students said either “very positive” or “positive”
that Google Docs “made collaboration much easier,” (Figure 3). Fourteen percent of students rated Google
“was simple to use,” and “encouraged editing and Doc’s influence on their group work as “neutral,” and
sharing among peers.” In contrast, 7% of students did no students made any negative ratings.
not think Google Docs was useful. These students We measured students’ learning with their grades
claimed that Google Docs was not as effective as either on the two assignments. The first author and a third
face-to-face communication or other word processing party—who was blind to the experimental conditions—
software. The remaining 28% of students listed neither graded each assignment. A 2×2 analysis of variance
positive nor negative comments describing their (ANOVA) examined whether students’ grades varied as
experience using Google Docs. a function of the Grader (first author, third party) or the
We assessed the amount of collaboration within Assignment (Assignment 1, Assignment 2). There was
groups by calculating the average group evaluation no main effect of Grader, F(1,34) = .14, p = .711, nor
score for each student. Students evaluated group was there a main effect of Assignment, F(1,34) = 1.61,
members’ role in the project, responsibility, and p = .213. No interaction between grader and assignment
contribution, on a scale from 5 (excellent) to 0 was found, F(34) = .14, p = .711. The grades between
(failing), for a maximum score of 15, as shown in Assignment 1 (M = 12.95, SD = 2.368) and Assignment
Appendix E. Ratings for the evaluation of group 2 (M = 13.67, SD = 1.359) did not differ, t(34) = 1.52, p
members did not differ between the Google Docs = .137.
assignment (M = 14.34, SD = 2.65) and the non- Half of the students indicated that they were
Google-Docs assignment (M = 13.10, SD = 4.52), willing to use Google Docs in the future. The majority
t(34) = 1.40, p = .172. of these students (approximately 43%) preferred to use
Google Docs did influence students’ perceptions of Google Docs only for group projects. Students also
group work, as revealed by the question, “How did valued Google Docs as an “easy means of
Google Docs influence your group’s collaborative communication,” since it is “accessible,” and “makes
experience?” (Appendix G, question 2). Students’ sharing and editing among peers easier.”

Figure 3
The Effect of Google Docs on Students’ Perception of Group Work

Note. Students were asked, “How did Google Docs influence your group’s collaborative experience?” (Appendix G,
question 2).
Zhou, Simpson, and Domizi Google Docs in Collaborative Writing 365

Discussion Docs had formatting which was incompatible with

certain non-web-based word-processing applications,
In our study, students learned to use Google Docs, making it difficult to go back and forth between two
a web-based digital collaborative writing tool. Although documents. Challenges using Google Docs may
web-based technologies’ effects on learning have been additionally result from other factors, including: (1)
controversial (McInnerney, 2002; Raman, et al., 2005; students may not fully understand the features or
Vaughan, 2008), our results suggest that Google Docs operations in Google Docs; (2) students might be
holds potential for collaboration in an out-of-class deterred from using Google Docs due to the problems
collaborative writing activity. Specifically, we found they encountered; and (3) problems encountered during
Google Docs altered the ways students communicated online collaboration may not be the consequence of the
during out-of-class collaboration. Students were less tool itself, but may be a consequence of the social skills
dependent on Facebook and text messaging for of the users (Vallance et al., 2010). To prevent these
communication after Google Docs was introduced. problems from precluding successful use of Google
Though students remained dependent on e-mail as their Docs, instructors can provide detailed in-class
primary communication method, Google Docs was demonstrations with specific examples, as we did in the
used nearly as much as e-mail in the second present study. Demonstration in a computer lab would
assignment. The majority of students rated their be especially effective because it would allow students
experience with Google Docs positively, and half of the to directly interact with the software.
students were willing to use Google Docs in future
academic activities. Benefits of Using Google Docs

Does the Use of Google Docs Influence Students’ In spite of these limitations, we demonstrated the
Learning? potential benefits of using Google Docs in an
educational setting, which was consistent with others’
There was no significant effect of using Google findings (e.g., Cardoso & Coutinho, 2011). Despite the
Docs on students’ learning, as measured by students’ fact that most students were unfamiliar with Google
assignment grades. Several factors may have Docs prior to the study, students successfully utilized
contributed to this result. First, students’ assignment this new technology in their group collaborative
grades may not have accurately reflected the richness of writing. When the use of Google Docs was required,
their learning experiences. Second, we assessed students showed enriched learning experiences
learning in student groups, which may have masked compared to the assignment without Google Docs.
learning at the individual level. Further tests are Additionally, introducing Google Docs changed the
necessary to determine whether learning is influenced means by which students communicated during their
by online collaborative writing tools. However, Google collaborative writing. Even though some students had
Docs did influence students’ learning experiences, such experience with Google Docs prior to the study, no
as changing the ways that students collaborated. For students used Google Docs on their own in the first
example, in our study, students claimed that, “Work can assignment, though students responded well when
be done simultaneously by multiple people in Google encouraged to use Google Docs for the second
Docs” and “Information can be traded easily in Google assignment. This suggests that instructors may need to
Docs.” Google Docs can be a useful collaborative tool prompt students to use this technology, as students may
that allows sharing and editing in a more simple and not yet see its potential for improving their
flexible way as compared to traditional communication collaborative experiences. While using Google Docs,
methods (Morales & Collins, 2007). students decreased their use of traditional
communicative tools (e.g., Facebook and text
Challenges Encountered While Using Google Docs messaging) and increased their use of Google Docs.
With Google Docs, students showed trends of relying
To achieve better educational outcomes, it is less on e-mail, the course management system, and
important for educators to acknowledge both the face-to-face meetings. Students adjusted their means of
benefits and limitations of using Google Docs as a communication to utilize the tools they found most
teaching tool. In the questionnaire, student also reported effective for collaboration, and there was a need to use
problems using Google Docs. For example, one student fewer tools when using Google Docs. Also, while
reported that Google Docs made the collaboration more employing Google Docs, no students met outside of
complicated, because it was difficult to keep track of class; less face-to-face meeting has obvious benefits for
each group members’ contributions. Other students students with busy schedules.
mentioned problems in formatting the document, which Last, students reported interest in using Google
made their work less efficient. Specifically, Google Docs for future assignments, suggesting that Google
Zhou, Simpson, and Domizi Google Docs in Collaborative Writing 366

Docs is, and will continue to be, a useful tool for Google Docs for teaching (Gehringer, 2010; Green,
collaborative writing. 2010), and other web-based applications for
In summary, the positive perception of using collaboration will become available (for a summary see
Google Docs among students in the study revealed the Vallance et al., 2010). It is important for instructors to
potential merits of using Google Docs for out-of-class educate both themselves and their students on the latest
writing activities, in addition to traditional in-class features. Perhaps most importantly, instructors should
assignments. Today’s students rarely meet face-to-face carefully examine their course learning goals to
for group projects, but rather they find effective ways to determine whether any new technologies would better
collaborate through e-mails, instant messaging, video prepare students to meet their specific learning
conferencing, and various web-based tools (Koch, outcomes.
2010). Thus, Google Docs is well-suited as a tool for
out-of-class collaborative assignments. References

Limitations and Future Directions Apple, K. J., Reis-Bergan, M., Adams, A. H., &
Saunders, G. (2011). Online tools to promote
There are some limitations in the present study, and student collaboration. In D. S. Dunn, J. H. Wilson,
below we suggest future research to address these J. Freeman, & J. R. Stowell (Eds.), Getting
limitations. First, though students were told to use connected: Best practices for technology enhanced
Google Docs in the second assignment, there was no teaching and learning in high education (pp. 239-
measurement of how much students actually used 252). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Google Docs. In future work we would like to monitor Blair, R. M. (2006). Beyond crossroads: Implementing
groups’ actual usage of Google Docs and measure the mathematics standards in the first two years of
contribution of each individual. Second, the evaluation college. Memphis, TN: American Mathematical
of group members may have failed to reflect the Association of Two-Year Colleges.
contribution of each group member to the collaborative Blau, I., & Caspi, A. (2008). Don’t edit, discuss! The
project. Though students evaluated their group influence of Wiki editing on learning experience
members’ performance, students’ overall ratings were and achievement. In D. Ben-Zvi (Ed.), Innovative
quite high, and therefore they may not have allowed for e-learning in higher education (pp. 19-23). Haifa,
differentiating different students’ contributions. One Israel: University of Haifa.
potential way to solve this problem is to evaluate the Bottge, B., Rueda, E., Kwon, J., Grant, T., & LaRoque,
editing comments made by each student over the course P. (2009). Assessing and tracking students’
of the assignment. Google Docs has the function that problem solving performances in anchored learning
individual comments and changes can be tracked on the environments. Educational Technology Research
paper. In each assignment, students would be asked to and Development, 57(4), 529-552.
submit their drafts with comments at several points doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9069-y
before the final paper. Instructors could evaluate their Bower, M., & Richards, D. (2006). Collaborative
contributions more directly. learning: Some possibilities and limitations for
Google continues to update and improve their students and teachers. Paper presented at the 23rd
applications. Many problems that students had with Annual Ascilite Conference: Who’s Learning?
Google Docs have since been corrected. For example, Whose Technology?, Sydney, Australia.
each online collaborator is now identifiable with his or Brodahl, C., Hadjerrouit, S., & Hansen, N. K. (2011).
her name above a different-colored cursor moving on Collaborative writing with web 2.0 technologies:
the screen. In addition, students can now view the Education students’ perceptions. Journal of
contributions of each group member in real time Information Technology Education: Innovations in
(Gralla, 2010). In the future this will allow students to Practice, 10, 73-103.
more effectively evaluate the contributions of their Cardoso, L., & Coutinho, C. P. (2011). Web 2.0 learning
group members. environments in vocational education: A study on the
As Google continues to improve and add new use of collaborative online tools in the Statistics
functions, new opportunities will be available for module. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.),
instructors and educational institutions to incorporate Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology
them into their curriculum (Morales & Collins, 2007). & Teacher Education International Conference 2011
For example, another useful feature is that all (pp. 3155-3164). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
collaborators are able to chat with each other Chou, P. N., & Chen, H. H. (2008). Engagement in
simultaneously in a chat sidebar as they are editing the online collaborative learning: A case study using a
Google document (Gralla, 2010). In addition, more web 2.0 tool. Journal of Online Learning and
instructors will share creative ideas for the use of Teaching, 4(4), 574-582.
Zhou, Simpson, and Domizi Google Docs in Collaborative Writing 367

Chang, E., & Simpson, D. (1997). The circle of learning: Lazonder, A. W. (2005). Do two heads search better
Individual and group processes. Education Policy than one? Effects of student collaboration on
Analysis Archives, 5(7). Retrieved from web search behaviour and search outcomes.
http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/608</div> British Journal of Educational Technology,
Chu, S., Kennedy, D., & Mak, M. (2009, December). 36(3), 465-475. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005
MediaWiki and Google Docs as online .00478.x
collaborative tools for group project co- LeFever, L. (Producer). (2007, September 10). Google
construction [CDROM]. Proceedings of the 2009 Docs in plain English [Video file]. Retrieved from
International Conference on Knowledge http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRqUE6IHTEA
Management, Hong Kong, China. &feature=player_embedded
Conner, N. (2008). Google Apps: The missing manual. McInnerney, J. M. (2002). Online collaborative
Sebastopol, CA: O’Relly Media. learning: Have we overcome the obstacles?
Educause Learning Initiative. (2008). 7 things you Paper presented at the International Conference
should know about Google Apps (ID No. on Computers in Education, Auckland, New
ELI7035). Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu Zealand.
/ ir/library/pdf/ELI7035.pdf Morales, C. R., & Collins, S. (2007). Google Suite
Gehringer, E. (2010). Teaching interactively with for higher education (ID No. DEC0703).
Google Docs. Proceedings of the 2010 American Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir
Society for Engineering Education Annual /library/pdf/DEC0703.pdf
Conference & Exposition, Louisville, KY, 117. Oishi, L. (2007). Working together: Google Apps goes
Retrieved from https://www.asee.org/conferences- to school. Technology & Learning, 27(9), 46-47.
and-events/conferences/annual-conference/past- Perron, B. E., & Sellers, J. (2011). A review of the
conferences/2010 collaborative and sharing aspects of Google Docs.
Gralla, P. (2010, April 23). Google Docs better; Ready Research on Social Work Practice, 21, 489-490.
to take on Office. Computerworld. Retrieved from doi:10.1177/1049731510391676
http://www.cio.com.au/article/344145/google_docs Raman, M., Ryan, T., & Olfman, L. (2005).
_better_ready_take_office_/ Designing knowledge management systems for
Green, T. (2010). TechSpotting: Observations of teaching and learning with wiki technology.
technology integration and application. Tech Journal of Information Systems Education,
Trends, 54, 24-26. 16(3), 311-320.
Guerra, A., & Bota, J. (2011). Collaborative writing Rick, J., & Guzdial, M. (2006). Situating CoWeb: A
using Google Docs: Insights from writing projects scholarship of application. International Journal of
in intermediate French classes. Proceedings of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1),
3rd International Conference on Education and 89-115. doi:10.1007/s11412-006-6842-6
New Learning Technologies, Barcelona, Spain, Rienzo, T., & Han, B. (2009). Microsoft or Google
6147-6154. Web 2.0 tools for course management. Journal of
Holliman, R., & Scanlon, E. (2006). Investigating Information Systems Education, 20, 123-128.
cooperation and collaboration in near Smith, R. O. (2005). Working with difference in online
synchronous computer mediated conferences. collaborative groups. Adult Education Quarterly,
Computers & Education, 46(3), 322-335. 55(3), 182-199.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.002 Thompson, L. F., & Coovert, M. D. (2003). Teamwork
Jones, R. W. (2007). Learning and teaching in small groups: online: The effects of computer conferencing on
Characteristics, benefits, problems and approaches. perceived confusion, satisfaction and
Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, 35(4), 587-592. postdiscussion accuracy. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Kieser, A. L., & Golden, F. O. (2009). Using online Research, and Practice, 7(2), 135-151.
office applications. Distance Learning, 6(1), 41-46. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.7.2.135
Koch, M. (2010). Utilizing emergent web-based Vallance, M., Towndrow, P. A., & Wiz, C. (2010).
software tools as an effective method for increasing Conditions for successful online document
collaboration and knowledge sharing in collocated collaboration. TechTrends, 54(1), 20-24.
student design teams (Unpublished master’s doi:10.1007/s11528-009-0359-6
thesis). University of Oregon, Eugene, OR. Vaughan, N. (2008, March). Supporting deep
Lamb, B. (2004). Wide open spaces: Wikis, ready or not. approaches to learning through the use of
EDUCAUSE Review, 39(5), 36-48. Retrieved from wikis and weblogs. Paper presented at the
http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/E Society for Information Technology and
DUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume39/WideOpen Teacher Education International Conference,
SpacesWikisReadyorNot/157925 Las Vegas, NV.
Zhou, Simpson, and Domizi Google Docs in Collaborative Writing 368

Vodanovich, S. J., & Piotrowski, C. (2001). Internet- interests include the study of collaborative learning and
based instruction: A national survey of research mentoring.
psychology faculty. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 28(4), 253-255. DENISE PINETTE DOMIZI works in Teaching
____________________________ Assistant and Faculty Development at the Center for
Teaching and Learning at the University of Georgia.
WENYI ZHOU is currently a doctoral candidate in the She holds a PhD in Instructional Technology, is
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences at involved in teaching advanced pedagogy classes to
Indiana University, Bloomington. She is actively graduate students, and supports both TAs and faculty
involved in teaching and mentoring undergraduate in their Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL)
students. Her research focuses on the effects of work. Her research interests include contextual
technology on teaching and learning in college influences on learning, learning in informal learning
classrooms and individual assessments of students’ environments, and learner-centered instructional
learning experience. strategies in both face-to-face and online
environments.
ELIZABETH SIMPSON recently graduated with a PhD
in Psychology from the University of Georgia, where she Acknowledgments
taught Introduction to Psychology, Research Methods
and Statistics, and Human Growth and Development. We thank Dr. Irwin Bernstein and Dr. Krisztina
She is currently a Postdoctoral Researcher in the Varga Jakobsen for insightful comments on an
Department of Neurosciences of the University of Parma, earlier version of the manuscript, and Dr. Allison
Italy, located at the National Institute of Child Health and Foote for being the third party to grade students’
Human Development in Poolesville, MD. Her research assignments.
Zhou, Simpson, and Domizi Google Docs in Collaborative Writing 369

Appendix A
Questionnaire to Survey Students’ Knowledge and Experience with Google Docs

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you use Gmail (have a Gmail account)? Circle one: Yes/No

2. Have you used Google Docs before? Circle one: Yes/No

If yes:
a) Have you used Google Docs to complete a course assignment? Circle one: Yes/No
Please describe what you did:

b) Did you find Google Docs helpful? Circle one: Yes/No

Please describe:

Zhou, Simpson, and Domizi Google Docs in Collaborative Writing 370

Appendix B
Assignment 1 Instructions

Group Project 1: Examining Emotion

Worth: up to 15 points
Due: Mon., Feb. 1st (turn in one hard copy, per group, at beginning of class)

Directions: Please answer the following questions with your group. See the grading rubric for information about
grading criteria. You will evaluate (and be evaluated by) your group members, which will influence your grade for
this project. Keep in mind that different group members made earn different grades, depending on these evaluations.

Resources: Use your textbook, class lectures/activities (Ch. 1-3), guest lecture (by Wenyi Zhou), and videos shown
in class, to help you answer these questions.

Questions:

1. Design a simple experiment to study some aspect of emotion. Pick something that interests you! For example, you
might be interested in whether there’s a change in a child’s heart rate when you steal a toy from them. (Please come
up with your own experiment.)
a) Briefly describe your experiment.
b) What is the research question?
c) What is your group’s hypothesis, or what are you predicting?
d) What are your independent variables (IV), and dependent variable(s) (DV)?
e) Are there any extraneous (confounding) variables that you need to control? How might you do this?

2. Describe an example of a situation that triggers a “fight-or-flight” response. For example, a rat receiving an
electric shock on his tail might trigger this response. (Please come up with your own example.)
a) Briefly describe the situation.
b) What is happening in the body as a consequence of the sympathetic nervous system?
c) Please describe the part(s) of the brain that is/are responsible for this emotional reaction.

3. You should now be familiar with Darwin’s concept of natural selection. Think about how this applies to the
emotion system(s) in the brain.
a) In your own words, summarize Darwin’s concept of natural selection. (Hint: See page 87 of your text.)
b) Based upon evolutionary theory, how do emotional responses improve your reproductive success
(chances of surviving and reproducing)?

Zhou, Simpson, and Domizi Google Docs in Collaborative Writing 371

Appendix C
Assignment 2 Instructions


Group Project 2: Examining Addiction
Worth: up to 15 points
Due: Mon., Feb. 10th (turn in one hard copy, per group, at beginning of class)

Directions: Please answer the following questions with your group. See the grading rubric for information about
grading criteria. You will evaluate (and be evaluated by) your group members, which will influence your grade for
this project. Keep in mind that different group members may earn different grades, depending on these evaluations.

Resources: Use your textbook, class lectures/activities (Ch. 1-5, specifically: pages 156-161, 164-165, 382), guest
lecture (by Wenyi Zhou), and videos shown in class, to help you answer these questions.

Questions:
1. Think about the causes of addiction.
a) Please give an example of a way in which genes might influence addictive behavior.
b) Give an example of a way in which environmental factors might contribute to addiction.
c) How might these genetic and non-genetic factors interact? For example, could the presence of one
amplify/reduce the effects of the other?

2. Design an experiment to explore the consequences of addiction on the brain and behavior.
a) What type of addiction would you explore? For example, drugs (be specific!), internet, gambling, sex,
shopping, smoking, alcohol, etc.
b) Briefly describe your study, including your hypothesis, method, variables (IV and DV) and predicted
results.
c) What are the limitations of this study (for example, ethical or experimental)?

3. Based on what you know about the consequences of addiction, think about what behaviors are healthy and
unhealthy, both for the individual and society.
a) Do you think that the government should restrict an individual’s ability to engage in addictive behaviors
(for example, drug use, pornography, alcohol abuse, etc.)? Explain.
b) Do the members of your group agree on this topic?
c) What might influence these different perspectives?
Zhou, Simpson, and Domizi Google Docs in Collaborative Writing 372

Appendix D
Grading Rubric for Assignments 1 and 2

Student received the following grading rubric prior to completing Assignments 1 and 2:

3 2 1 0

Writing and ideas Writing and ideas Writing and ideas Writing and ideas
Ideas are clear, focused, are somewhat hard are difficult to are unclear and
and easy to follow to follow identify and follow unfocused

Lacks sufficient
Sentences and
Structure is present, structure or Little to no structure
Organization/ paragraphs are clear,
but order and transitions in and transitions are
Structure well structured, and
writing are unclear sentences and/or apparent
well-organized
paragraphs

Little attempt to
Accurate, specific, Inadequate use of
Adequate use of choose words
Word choice and powerful words are word choice; Three
word choice; One or wisely or carefully;
spelling used; No spelling or four spelling
two spelling errors Numerous spelling
errors errors
errors

Mechanics
(Punctuation,
One or two Three or four Five or more
capitalization, No errors
mechanics errors mechanics errors mechanics errors
grammar, sentence
structure)

Detailed discussion Fairly detailed Undeveloped Superficial

of personal discussion of discussion of discussion of
Personal Review or
reactions, lessons personal reactions, personal reactions, personal reactions,
Evaluation
learned, and lessons learned, and lessons learned, and lessons learned, and
application application application application
 Zhou, Simpson, and Domizi Google Docs in Collaborative Writing 373

Appendix E
Evaluation Form for Students to Evaluate Their Group Members

The following Evaluation form was completed after each assignment, for each group member:

You are responsible for grading every other person in your group using this rubric. Assign a score (0-5) for each of the
criteria below. Note: Your evaluation will be kept confidential.

Criteria Excellent (4-5) Average (2-3) Poor (1) Failing (0)

Student requires some

Student suggests an Student requires much
Assuming a role in guidance to define
appropriate role for direction and guidance to
the project his/her role and Student never
him/herself and accepts determine his/her role
requires guidance to accepted a role.
their role and duties and requires help in
___ / 5 complete his/her
without question. completing the tasks.
duties
Student rarely
Student usually Student sometimes
Student always completed his/her
Responsibility completed tasks on completed tasks on time
completed tasks on time tasks on time and
time and usually and occasionally arrived
and arrived on time to rarely arrived on
___ / 5 arrived on time to on time to group
group meetings. time to group
group meetings. meetings.
meetings.
Student definitely
contributed to the
Student completed Student did not complete The student did very
Contribution project by completing
his/her his/her responsibilities little and required a
the responsibilities
responsibilities, but and required help to lot of help from the
___ / 5 associated with their
helped nobody else. finish. group.
role and helped others
with their tasks.

Person you are evaluating: _________________________________

Total ___/15
Zhou, Simpson, and Domizi Google Docs in Collaborative Writing 374

Appendix F
Students’ Evaluation of Assignment 1

Feedback Group Project on Emotion & the Brain

Please answer the following questions as honestly as possible. Your feedback is anonymous, so please do not put
your name on this sheet. Responses will be typed by Wenyi Zhou, so your instructor will not be able to identify you
by your handwriting.

1. How difficult was this assignment? Circle one:

1 2 3 4 5
(not difficult) (difficult) (neither difficult, (easy) (very easy)
nor easy)

2. How would you evaluate your group performance? Circle one:

1 2 3 4 5
(very good) (good) (neither good, (bad) (very bad)
nor bad)

3. How collaborative was the group work? Circle one:

1 2 3 4 5
(completely (neither (independent) (lots of (complete
independent) independent, nor collaboration) collaboration)
collaborative)

4. How did you communicate with group members? Please list all methods of communication (eLC [course
management system], e-mail, etc.):
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

5. How effective are the communication in accomplishing the assignment? Circle one:
1 2 3 4 5
(very effective) (effective) (neutral) (not effective) (very ineffective)

6. Did you enjoy the assignment? Circle one: Yes / No – Please explain why or why not.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

7. Would you like to do similar assignments again in the future? Circle one: Yes / No – Please explain why or
why not.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________


Zhou, Simpson, and Domizi Google Docs in Collaborative Writing 375

Appendix G
Students’ Evaluation of Assignment 2

The same questions for the evaluation of Assignment 1 were asked (Appendix F) in addition to the following
questions:

1. Did you use Google Docs to complete the assignment? Circle one: Yes / No.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

2. How did Google Docs influence your group’s collaborative experience?

1 2 3 4 5
(very positive) (positive) (neutral) (negative) (very negative)

3. Describe your experience using Google Docs for this group collaboration.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

4. Do you think Google Docs is a useful tool for learning? Circle one: Yes / No – Please explain why or why
not.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

5. Will you be using Google Docs for your study in the future? Circle one: Yes / No – Please explain why or
why not.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

6. Did you enjoy the assignment? Circle one: Yes / No – Please explain why or why not.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

7. Would you like to do similar assignments again in the future? Circle one: Yes / No – Please explain why or
why not.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________