Google Apps for Online Collaborative Learning

Blackboard.com

With the rising popularity of online collaborative learning (OCL) theory, many educators are currently looking for online resources to incorporate into their 21st Century pedagogies, and there are an overwhelming number of both Web 2.0 tools and environments to choose from. Harasim differentiates between the two thusly: “Some online technologies facilitate learning tasks while others facilitate learning processes. The former are referred to as online tools, the latter as online environments” (p. 98). One such paid option is Blackboard, a popular online learning environment —more commonly referred to as a learning management system (LMS) or a course management system (CMS)—used by many schools and colleges to host their online courses.



Brief Demonstration

A free, open source alternative to Blackboard, and also popular in many academic circles, is Moodle. Both offer an online environment with a host of tools to engage students, support learning, and track progress; however, the use of one or the other is usually mandated by school district, college, or university administration and, thus, beyond the control of most educators. But other fee-based and free options are available and more readily controllable by individual teachers.



Edmodo.com

Edmodo offers a free LMS platform that teachers can easily control and implement without administration approval or oversight, in which the teacher and students interact in a closed-group environment that is similar in layout and function to Facebook. Teachers can create multiple class groups in Edmodo, in which only the students assigned to the group can post comments, read other students’ posts, upload files, and post links. Teachers can also send alerts, give assignments, create quizzes and surveys, and give preset Common Core assessments based on grade and subject. And there is an e-store where teachers can purchase educational games and apps for use on Edmodo. But, regardless of which LMS a teacher is using, students usually still have to create most of their assignments offline and then upload those assignments to the proper place on the course LMS or email them to the teacher, and the teacher does not get to see the work in progress but only the finished products. Using Google apps, however, offers solutions to those very problems.

Brief Demonstration

The standard suite of free Google apps includes Google Drive, Google Docs, Google Slides, Google Sheets, Google Forms, Google Drawings, and others. There are also many additional free and paid apps available for use via users’ Google accounts—as well as free add-ons for in-app use, such as a thesaurus, rhyming dictionary, or citation builder. Drive is Google’s free cloud-based storage service, which grants account holders fifteen gigabytes of storage space and allows users to access their personal files stored on Drive from any computer with Internet access in the world. Also, users can easily share their files and even whole folders with others. 


Docs is Google’s answer to Microsoft Word—just as Slides is to PowerPoint, Sheets is to Excel, and Drawings is to Paint. Google Forms doesn’t have a direct Microsoft counterpart, but it allows you to quickly build a survey or quiz and then monitor and compile responses in a spreadsheet using Google Sheets. And all of these web-based apps are available for free with no download required, virtually making the Microsoft Office suite obsolete. For the purposes of this discussion, however, we will be focusing on how Google Drive, Google Docs, and Google Slides support immediate teacher feedback, peer tutoring, and online collaborative learning.


For people unfamiliar with cloud- or web-based storage services—commonly referred to as simply "the Cloud”—such as Google Drive, it might be beneficial to think of this type of service as an online version of your computer’s desktop, where you can create folders and folders within folders in which to store your files. Where Drive differs from other cloud storage services is in the user’s ability to not only store files created offline but also to create files online via apps such as Docs, Slides, and others—a process commonly referred to as cloud computing.

Furthermore, Google Drive and by extension Google Docs, Google Slides, and the other aforementioned apps allow users to share their folders and files with others through the use of a “Share” button. But this share function is more than a mere email tool for sending a copy of a file or folder to another user. The Google share function gives multiple users access to the same file or folder. Of course, the originator of the shared item has the option to adjust permission settings when sharing—and to change permission settings at any time in the future—the options being “can edit,” “can comment,” or “can view.” 

The “can view” setting allows users with whom the item is shared to only view the item,without the abilities to comment, edit, or share the item with others. The “can comment” setting allows users with whom the item is shared to view and comment on the document, slideshow, spreadsheet, etc. The “can edit” setting allows the users with whom the item is shared to view, edit, and share the item with others. And, if multiple users have a shared document open at the same time, they can see each other’s edits and comments in real time and chat in a sidebar window. Thus, it is the share function that makes the Google apps, specifically Google Docs and Google Slides, so valuable a tool for facilitating immediate teacher feedback, peer tutoring, and online collaborative learning.

Historically, the standard cycle of assignment completion, submission, grading, feedback, and revision has been a lengthy process. In the traditional English classroom, students might get one week to complete an essay, during which time the students may want peer feedback throughout the writing process but be unable to meet with fellow classmates due to time constraints. After the students submit their essays for grading, it may take the teacher several days or even a week to get the class’s essays graded and returned with feedback to the students. Then the students may get another week for revisions, during which time, again, they may be unable to meet with their classmates for peer feedback. And thus, the process has become a weeks-long cycle—with the students unsure, because of a lack of real-time or just-in-time feedback, how exactly to proceed. 

However, the share function in Google Docs solves the problem of delayed teacher feedback by allowing teachers to leave notes, make comments, and even chat with students individually as they work on their essays throughout the week. Furthermore, the share function solves the peer feedback problems that arise from conflicting student schedules by allowing them to leave each other feedback remotely; they never have to meet in person. And both teacher-to-student and student-to-student feedback can be provided synchronously or asynchronously, even further alleviating the problem of scheduling conflicts.

Lin and Yang (2013) conducted a study at a college in southern Taiwan to test the effectiveness of peer tutoring via Google Docs on freshman English students, because, according to Lin and Yang, “A new model for learning that integrates information technology and English writing is largely taking place collaboratively online…a new form of social interaction that is both learner-empowered and facilitated and includes techniques such as peer feedback” (p. 79). The researchers intended to explore the value of Vygotsky’s sociocultural learning theory paired with online collaborative learning theory in the English classroom by following the progress of forty-four students and eleven peer tutors. Lin and Yang argued that

Online peer tutoring, an aspect of peer feedback among cross-age students, allows students to engage in online writing activities using the tools and resources of their cultural community. The research literature has widely agreed that this new learning model has been effective in generating meaningful social interactions that facilitate learning and development. (p. 80)

And they chose Google Docs as their research instrument for its functionality—which we have already noted in an earlier section. Lin and Yang further argued that “following Vygotsky’s [sociocultural learning] theory…the support of online collaborative learning and peer tutoring activities may add social meaning to the writing process and thus enhance students’ progress” (p. 81). The study ran over the course of two semesters, and the researchers found that both tutors and tutees improved in the following areas: “English grammatical concepts, confidence, interpersonal skills, patience, and a sense of achievement” (p. 85). This study is just one example of the value of incorporating Google apps into 21st Century classrooms. Many others have had similar success in recent years (see “Implementation of Google Apps,” 2013; Statucki, 2012; and Miller, 2013). Lin and



On Amazon

Yang’s implementation and our proposed implementation of Google apps in education is firmly grounded in online collaborative learning theory, which Harasim (2012) describes as based on “educational applications that emphasize collaborative discourse and knowledge building mediated by the Internet” (p. 88). Via Google Docs and the other apps, students can engage in collaborative discourse with an online community of their peers in an effort to, according to Harasim, “contribute to the growth of understanding and knowledge in a cyclical or spiral manner (not linear), progressing and improving through experience, discussion and new information over time” (98), much like the students experienced in Lin and Yang’s year-long study.
 

The single most important aspect of online collaborative learning is academic discourse, which usually takes place asynchronously on some type of discussion board or synchronously in a chat room or video conference. As Harasim (2012) tells us, “OCL refers to educational applications that emphasize collaborative discourse and knowledge building mediated by the Internet” where “learners work together online to identify and advance issues of understanding” (p. 88). She also outlines five attributes of meaningful discourse in OCL environments:

1. Place-independent discourse
2. Time-independent discourse
3. Many-to-many discourse (and one-to-many and one-to-one)
4. Text-based (with multimedia) discourse
5. Internet-mediated discourse (p. 102)

 

As we noted earlier in our overview of Google Drive, Docs, and Slides, and as Lin and Yang (2013) found in their study, the share function of these apps proves to meet Harasim’s attributes by offering teachers and students a means to engage in meaningful discourse that is independent of place and time; one-to-one, one-to-many, and many-to-many; text based with multimedia capabilities; and mediated by the Internet.
 

Furthermore, the collaborative discourse that occurs throughout the writing process via Google Docs—or, more generally, the creation process via Slides, Sheets, Drawings, or the numerous other apps—promotes the concepts of divergent and convergent thinking that lead to a final consensus or further discussion. Harasim (2012) lists three intellectual phases, or stages, of collaborative discourse: idea generating, idea organizing, and intellectual convergence (p. 93). A student’s or a group’s initial discussion and rough draft of an essay or project may be seen to represent the idea generating phase, when students are taking new concepts, applying them, and generating a variety of ideas for and about the project. Then subsequent drafts, as well as the further student discussion that accompanies and follows each draft, fall into the idea organizing phase, where students are working toward a consensus. And finally, intellectual convergence is reached when the student or group produces a final product.
 

In conclusion, Google Docs allows students to collaborate on essays and offer peer tutoring and
feedback synchronously or asynchronously. With Google Slides, students can do the same for multimedia projects. Both offer the teacher the ability to provide real-time and just-in-time feedback while following students’ progress throughout the creation cycle, instead of having to wait days or weeks to receive student work and then longer to grade and provide feedback. Every teacher’s primary goal must be to engage his or her students in meaningful discourse to facilitate active learning. As Harasim (2012) points out, “Knowledge is generated by speech and conversation with one another, a construct of the community’s form of discourse, negotiated and maintained by local consensus and subject to endless conversation” (p. 90). In the 21st Century classroom, it has become apparent that online collaborative learning via Web 2.0 resources is one of the most efficient ways teachers can make use of their time while promoting this form of social constructivism. Though Google apps like Docs and Slides may blur the fine line between tool and environment because of their ability to facilitate both learning tasks and learning processes, the nature of the collaboration is more important than the categories to which we assign to the resources. Google apps like Docs and Slides are both creation tools and shared discourse spaces. And, as Harasim states, “a shared discourse space remains key to OCL” (Harasim, p. 101).

References

Harasim, L. (2012). Learning theory and online technology. New York, NY: Routledge.

“Implementation of Google Apps for Education Pushes DoDDS-Europe Closer to 21st Century.” Targeted News ServiceDec 17 2013. ProQuest. Web. 12 Sep. 2014 .

Lin, W., & Yang, S. C. (2013). Exploring the roles of google.doc and peer e-tutors in english writing. English Teaching, 12(1), 79-n/a. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1438732969?accountid=7278

Miller, S. M. (2013). We have gOnE GoOgLe at our school with google apps for education. School Library Monthly, 30(3), 40-42. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1509198325?accountid=7278

Statucki, C. (2012). There's an app for that - google apps for education. Techniques, 87(5), 8-9. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1017546873?accountid=7278