Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujrt20
Download by: [University of Florida] Date: 11 June 2017, At: 22:39

Collaborative Online Teamwork: Exploring Students'

Satisfaction and Attitudes with Google Hangouts as a
Supplementary Communication Tool
Jinxia He & Xiaoxia Huang
To cite this article: Jinxia He & Xiaoxia Huang (2017): Collaborative Online Teamwork: Exploring Students'
Satisfaction and Attitudes with Google Hangouts as a Supplementary Communication Tool, Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2017.1327334
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2017.1327334

Journal of Research on Technology in Education

ISSN: 1539-1523 (Print) 1945-0818 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrt20
Published online: 01 Jun 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 11
View related articles
View Crossmark data
JRTE | Vol. 0, No. 0, pp. 1–12 | © 2017 ISTE | iste.org/jrte DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2017.1327334

Collaborative Online Teamwork: Exploring Students’ Satisfaction and Attitudes

with Google Hangouts as a Supplementary Communication Tool
Jinxia He Montclair State University
Xiaoxia Huang Western Kentucky University

Abstract
This study examined differences in student satisfaction and perceptions of online teamwork in two cohorts of an
undergraduate educational technology course: one delivered fully asynchronously and the other incorporating
synchronous Google Hangouts sessions in student online teamwork. Participants included 50 undergraduate
students at a large university in the northeastern United States. Results indicated that the cohort that used
synchronous Google Hangouts as a tool supplementary to the asynchronous communication components such as
discussion boards and e-mails had a higher level of satisfaction with online teamwork when compared with the
cohort that used only asynchronous communication tools. In addition, students reported that synchronous
communication using Google Hangouts helped them develop a sense of community. Implications of the results are
discussed. (Keywords: online teamwork, Google Hangouts, synchronous communication) O
nline 2007). for their teamwork More online and courses. is more becoming instructors In an increasingly online
have team, adopted popular people online for in online a teamwork group courses each as work an (Bonk,
instructional at a Lee, different Liu strategy & geo- Su,
graphic site on a shared purpose using technology (Lipnack & Stamps, 2000). In order to work or learn together,
team members need to share knowledge on what they are working on, how they are working, and with whom they
need to work. Online team participants communicate via computer- mediated technology, which makes it more
challenging, as compared to face-to-face communica- tion, to transmit nonverbal information, especially with
text-based online communication (Graham, 2002; Taylor, 2005). Furthermore, the potentially ambiguous and
isolated nature of working virtu- ally makes it more likely for participants to feel frustrated during their learning
process.
Communication in an online learning environment can be classified as synchronous or asynchro- nous.
Videoconferencing as a synchronous communication tool has been identified as an effective way to communicate
because it adds a human perspective to distance learning and helps to decrease the psychological space among the
participants (Huang, Chandra, DePaolo, & Simmons, 2016; Lim, Cha, Park, Lee, & Kim, 2012; Moore, 1993).
Communicating through live video can facilitate online teamwork by promoting student–student interactions
(Smyth, 2011).
In order to understand how online teams build and progress, researchers have focused on different perspectives of
online teamwork, such as team dynamics (Johnson & Johnson, 2003), as well as team cohesion, trust, and conflict
(Greenlee & Karanxha, 2010; He & Glenda, 2015). Woerner, Orlikowski, and Yates (2004) argued that synchronous
communication might help create a deep conversation in an online learning environment. Mason (1998) argued that
synchronous communication could motivate
Volume 0 Number 0

l
Journal of Research on Technology in Education

l
1
He & Huang

online students to collaborate with each other. Researchers have also recommended that it would be valuable to
examine team interaction in online learning environments in order to promote effective interaction (Driver, 2002).
However, few studies have examined whether using different modes of communication, such as synchronous and
asynchronous tools for communication, can impact student satisfaction on their online teamwork or their perceived
challenges and attitudes for their online team- work. Additionally, few studies have examined how technologies may
help improve students’ online interaction for their teamwork. This study aims to investigate these gaps.
Literature Review The theoretical framework of this study was built on two
related theories: social constructivist theory (Vygotsky, 1978) and communities of practice (Wenger, 1998). Social
constructivist theory emphasizes that learners co-construct knowledge through social interaction. Learners develop
their skills through problem solving in collaboration with their peers. In an online learning environment, students
build their knowledge through various activities, such as reading, self-reflection, and, perhaps more impor- tantly,
interaction with the instructor and their peers using various technologies. Similarly, communities of practice research
stresses learning through social participation. Two critical components to commu- nity development include
interaction and collaboration, and teamwork plays an important role in this aspect, considering its deliberate
promotion of collaboration (Palloff & Pratt, 2007). One of the key factors to achieve successful online learning
experience is to build an online learning community (Swan et al., 2000), and the growth of synchronous
communication technology has influenced the way we view online community (Palloff & Pratt, 2007). If online
communication is synchronous, stu- dents are able to interact with their peers and the instructor in real time, rather
than waiting for a right time, which may enhance the interaction and help collaborative learning.
Synchronous Versus Asynchronous Communication Scholars have reported that students working collaboratively
online may perceive more challenges than those working in face-to-face settings (Graham, 2002; Taylor, 2005). For
example, Kim, Liu, and Bonk (2005) reported that communication was one of the key barriers in online learning due
to time-zone dif- ferences and absence of face-to-face interaction. Students in online teams lack some of the social
inter- action that occurs in face-to-face teams (Kreijns & Kirschner, 2004). In addition, online students indicated that
an asynchronous environment could delay team developmental stages and the building of social relationships (Fung,
2004). These challenges should be addressed to improve the quality of learning and increase students’satisfaction
with online teamwork and the overall online course. Student satisfaction is an important measure of the quality of
online education (Mayadas, Bourne, & Moore, 2003). The uses of online teamwork and other learner-centered
activities enhanced with synchronous communications have been reported to foster social interaction and promote
engagement, which in turn help to build an online learning community. For example, it has been documented that
using syn- chronous communications, such as video conferencing, allows students to see nonverbal cues (LeBlanc &
Lindgren, 2013) and develop group cohesion (Little, Passmore, & Schullo, 2006), enhancing a sense of online
learning community. Hrastinski (2008) found that synchronous communication provided more social support than
asynchronous discussion. In other studies, using synchronous communica- tions such as videoconferencing helps to
foster social presence (Kear, Chetwynd, Williams, & Donelan, 2012) and social bonding (Cornelius, 2014). Moisey
and Hughes (2008) claimed that synchronous communications support online interactions by providing students a
sense of shared understanding.
Student Online Learning Experience and Team Satisfaction In an online environment, social interaction and
collaboration impact student satisfaction with online learning. Student satisfaction is important to consider as it
influences student motivation—a crucial factor in academic success (Chute, Thompson, & Hancock, 1999). In order
to understand team satisfaction, researchers have examined several factors that may impact it. For example, the
research conducted by Tallent-Runnels et al. (2006) examined student interactions and
2

l
Journal of Research on Technology in Education

l
Volume 0 Number 0
Exploring Students’ Satisfaction and Attitudes with Google Hangouts

team-building process from the students’ perspectives. The study showed that student interaction in team discussion
was often quite shallow and rarely developed into a higher level of communication where negotiation,
co-construction, and consensus would occur.
Tseng, Wang, Ku, and Sun (2009) examined the relationship between online participation and teamwork
satisfaction. They found that trust and the organization practices were the critical factors that impact teamwork
satisfaction. Communication technology is another factor that impacts stu- dents’ satisfaction with online teamwork.
Communication technology provides an environment that enables virtual knowledge sharing and collaborative work
(Stacey, 1999). In addition, Jonassen (1999) argued that students were more likely to become satisfied with their
online experiences when the technology used was transparent and convenient. Collaborative learning tools can
improve student satisfaction in an online environment (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998).
Findings from previous studies have indicated that incorporating synchronous activities into online courses can
impact student participation and satisfaction. Hrastinski, Keller, and Carlsson (2010) found that synchronous
activities can promote student participation in online group projects. Falloon (2011) indicated that synchronous
communications allow students to communicate effec- tively and might help to build trust in an online environment;
however, the study also found that stu- dents did not have enough time to reflect deeply on the content when they
worked in a synchronous discussion. Hrastinski (2008) stated that students could use asynchronous activities for
“cognitive participation,” whereas synchronous activities could be used to promote “personal participation” (p. 54)
that might increase student commitment and motivation.
Google Hangouts and Online Teamwork Synchronous communication tools such as Google Hangouts can provide
visual experience in which students can meet actual people instead of the text on a screen. Previous research
indicates that students’ performance could be improved when they were provided with synchronous video-
conferencing when compared with students who only adopted text-based communications (Skylar, 2009). Google
Hangouts, like other social media networks, has gained tremendous traction for both business and academic
environments. Google Hangouts is a free videoconferencing and instant messaging tool. Users who have a Google
account such as Gmail can join Google Hangouts by using their Google login. Google Hangouts provides a
synchronous video, audio, and online chat platform that can support students to communicate online (Teras & Teras,
2012) or work together simultaneously, regardless of their geographic distributions. Some instructors have
implemented Google Hangouts in their online and hybrid courses (Isaason, 2013; Roseth, Akcaoglu, & Zellner,
2013). Unlike other videoconferencing tools, Google Hangouts has some unique features. For example, students can
record a conference and store it to YouTube for later review. Students can share the video publicly or privately with
others.
Research Goal and Questions The purpose of this study was to explore whether the
integration of synchronous communication using Google Hangouts as a supplement to the asynchronous
communication components such as text, e-mails, and discussion boards would increase student satisfaction with
online teamwork when compared with those who used only asynchronous communication tools. In addition,
students’ atti- tudes and experience in using Google Hangouts for their online teamwork were investigated. We
selected Google Hangouts for this study considering its functionality and ease of use. In addi- tion, Google Hangouts
was a synchronous addition to asynchronous Google Applications such as Google Docs, Google spreadsheet,
Google Presentations, and YouTube already adopted for student online teamwork in the participating course. The
following research questions were addressed:
1. Is there any difference in teamwork satisfaction between the students using supplementary synchronous
communication via Google Hangouts and those using only asynchronous communication?
Volume 0 Number 0
l
Journal of Research on Technology in Education

l
3
He & Huang

2. What are students’ attitudes toward using Google Hangouts for their online teamwork? 3. What recommendations
do students have for using Google Hangouts for online teamwork?
Methods
Participants An invitation outlining the purpose of the study was sent via e-mail to two cohorts of the undergrad-
uate students enrolled in the course titled “Integrate Technologies into Curriculum” (fall 2015 and spring 2016,
respectively) at a large university in the northeastern United States. The e-mail made it clear that students’
participation was voluntary and anonymous. Fifty students from the two cohorts agreed to participate, including 31
students from fall 2015 and 19 students from spring 2016. See Table 1 for the demographics information of the
participants in terms of gender and age.
Context “Integrate Technologies into Curriculum” was a 15-week online course. The assignments included online
discussions, five continuous individual assignments, two team projects, and a final ePortfo- lio. The two team
projects for this course were a team presentation and a team video project. Each project required students to do
research, collect information, share with team members, engage in online discussions, and produce the project. For
example, for the team presentation project, each team was required to create a team presentation on integrating
technologies into a lesson plan. They were asked to analyze a lesson plan and identify the learning objectives,
learning activities, and technologies. This involved five tasks, including searching, collecting information and
sharing it with team members, engaging in online discussions, and delivering the team presentations through Google
Slides. The instructor created groups in Canvas, a course management system, where stu- dents in each team had
their own team space to share resources and communicate and collaborate with other team members. Teamwork
started in the fifth week of the semester. All students were required to use Google Docs and Canvas group discussion
board to collect and share information. In addition, for the spring 2016 cohort, students were asked to use Google
Hangouts to collaborate on their team projects. They received a video tutorial training on Google Handouts before
they started working on the group projects.
Students formed 12 teams based on their subject areas, including English, Math, Music, Art, Foreign Language,
History, and Biology teams. There were five or seven members in each team. Each team developed its presentations
to demonstrate how it integrated technolo- gies into a lesson plan. To do this, they needed to select a lesson plan
from the Web resources that the instructor provided, and they were required to identify the Common Core Standards,
teaching strategies, and technologies that were used in the lesson plan. In addition, they needed to identify whether
there were any gaps between the learning objectives, the teaching strategies, and the technologies used. Based on the
analysis, they developed their team presen- tations. The instructor asked the team members to discuss and assign
roles within teams. Dur- ing the teamwork process, some teams chose a team leader to facilitate the team project,
and the team leaders allocated their members to specific roles.
Table 1. Demographics of the Participants (N D 50)
Gender Age (years)
Female Male 19–24 25–29 30
Fall 2015 (n D 31) 24 (77.4%) 7 (22.6%) 30 (96.8%) 0 1 (3.2%) Spring 2016 (n D 19) 11 (57.9%) 8 (42.1%) 17 (89.5%) 2
(10.5%) 0 Total 35 (70%) 15 (30%) 47 (94%) 2 (4%) 1 (2%)
Note. A chi-squared test indicated there was no statistical significance in terms of gender between the two cohorts: x2(1, n D 50)
D 3.024, p D 0.082.
4

l
Journal of Research on Technology in Education
l
Volume 0 Number 0
Exploring Students’ Satisfaction and Attitudes with Google Hangouts

Outcome Measures
Teamwork satisfaction measure. The teamwork satisfaction scale developed by Tseng et al. (2009) was adopted to
assess students’ satisfaction in their online teamwork. The instrument was a 10-item, 5-point Likert scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree)to5(strongly agree). Tseng et al. (2009) evaluated the instrument through an exploratory
factor analysis and a reliability test, both indicating satisfactory results. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability for the
teamwork satisfaction with the current sample was .97, which exceeds the acceptable level of 0.7 (Nunnaly, 1978).
Student attitudes measure. Kobayashi’s (2015) perceived ease of use and usefulness of Goo- gle Hangouts scale
that was developed based on Davis’s (1989) research was used to assess stu- dents’ attitudes toward using Google
Hangouts. The scale was a nine-item, 5-point Likert scale. Validity and reliability of the original scale were
established (Davis, 1989). The Cronbach’s alpha reliability for the measure with the current sample was .91.
Open-ended questions. In addition to measuring the teamwork satisfaction and attitudes, the questionnaire for the
2016 spring cohort includes three open-ended questions dealing with students’ perceptions of adopting Google
Hangouts for their online teamwork. These three questions were: (a) What benefits do you have when you use
Google Hangouts for your online teamwork? (b) What challenges do you have when you use Google Hangouts for
your online teamwork? (c) What recom- mendations do you have for future use of Google Hangouts in online
teamwork?
Data Collection and Analysis Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected at the end of the course through
an electronic questionnaire including the instruments described in the previous section. The instructor invited all
students enrolled in the course in the fall 2015 (n D 43) and spring 2016 (n D 30) cohorts. The first invitation was
sent out 3 weeks before the end of the course, and two reminders followed within 2 weeks after the first invitation. In
total, 50 students completed the questionnaire, with a return rate of 68.5%. Descriptive statistics and
independent-samples t-tests were used for the quantitative data collected for the study. Participant responses to the
open-ended questions were carefully examined, coded, and compared for thematic analysis by using grounded
theory methods (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). More specifically, the data were coded by examining and identifying the
recurring patterns through assigning categories, and lower level categories were merged whenever necessary. Then
the categorized responses were analyzed and tabulated for calculating percentages. The next session discusses the
results of this study in relation to the research questions.
Results
Teamwork Satisfaction Table 2 displays means and standard deviations for each item of the Tseng et al. (2009)
measure on teamwork satisfaction. An independent-samples t-test detected a significant difference with the overall
means on student online teamwork satisfaction between the Google Hangouts adopter cohort (M D 4.07, SD D 1.09)
and the non-adopter cohort who only adopted asynchronous communication tools (M D 3.43, SD D 0.94), t D ¡2.09,
p < 0.05.
The three highest rated statements on the questionnaire were “I like solving problems with my team- mates in
group project” (M D 4.26, SD D .87), “I gain online collaboration skills from the teamwork pro- cesses” (M D 4.21,
SD D .98), and “I have benefited from interacting with my teammates” (M D 4.21, SD D 1.03), all of which
associated with the Google Hangouts cohort. A series of t-tests was then con- ducted on each individual item in the
team satisfaction scale. The results showed significant differences for the following items. The first one is “I like
solving problems with my teammates in a group project” (M
non-adopters

D 3.40, SD D 1.37; M
Google Hangouts
 D 4.26, SD D 0.87), t(48) D ¡2.586, p D 0.013. The second item is “I
like working in a collaborative group with my teammates” (M
non-adopters

D 3.28, SD D 1.22; M
Google Hangouts

D 4.05, SD D 1.18), t(48) D ¡2.146, p D 0.037. The third item is “Online team- work promotes
creativity” (M
non-adopters

D 3.19, SD D 1.26; M
Google Hangouts

D 3.95, SD D 1.03), t(48) D ¡2.067, p

D 0.044 (see Table 2).
Volume 0 Number 0

l
Journal of Research on Technology in Education

l
5
He & Huang
Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations of the Teamwork Satisfaction Scale
Google Hangouts Non-Adopters Google Hangouts Adopters
Item Mean SD Mean SD
I have benefited from my teammates’ feedback. 3.44 1.24 3.90 1.24 My team members are sharing knowledge during the
teamwork processes.
3.68 1.17 4.12 1.01
I gain online collaboration skills from the teamwork processes. 3.63 1.29 4.21 0.98 I have benefited from interacting with my
teammates. 3.50 1.27 4.21 1.03 Interacting with the other members can increase my
motivation to learn.
3.53 1.44 4.00 1.15
I enjoy the experience of collaborative learning with my
teammates.
3.47 1.40 4.11 1.05
I like solving problems with my teammates in group project. 3.40* 1.37 4.26* 0.87 I like working in a collaborative group with
my teammates. 3.28* 1.22 4.05* 1.18 Working with my team helps me produce better project quality
than working individually.
3.16 1.35 3.90 0.99
Online teamwork promotes creativity. 3.19* 1.26 3.95* 1.03 Overall 3.43 1.30 4.07 1.05
Note. Responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree)to5(strongly agree). Therefore, the higher score, the more positive was the
response. *p < 0.05.

Attitudes Toward Using Google Hangouts Since only members of the fall 2016 cohort were required to use Google
Hangouts for their online teamwork, 19 participants in this cohort completed the Attitudes Toward Using Google
Hangouts survey. The mean scores and standard deviations of the student attitudes on using Google Hangouts are
displayed in Table 3. The overall mean score was 3.95. The three highest rated statements on the survey were
“interaction with synchronous small group discussions using Google Hangouts is clear and understandable” (M D
4.24; SD D .72), “I find Google Hangouts to be easy to use” (M D 4.21; SD D .88), and “Synchronous small group
discussions using Google Hangouts is effective to develop a sense of community among students” (M D 4.04; SD D
.72).
Responses to the Open-Ended Questions With regard to the open-ended questions, the 19 participants from the fall
2016 cohort expressed their opinions on the benefits and challenges of using Google Hangouts for their online
teamwork,
Table 3. Student Attitudes on Using Google Hangouts for Their Online Teamwork
Survey Items Mean SD Rank
1 Interaction with Synchronous small group discussions using
Google Hangouts is clear and understandable.
6
4.24 .723 1
3 I find Google Hangouts to be easy to use. 4.21 .884 2 2 Synchronous small group discussions using Google Hangouts is
effective to develop a sense of community among students.
4.04 .723 3
5 Learning how to perform group project using Synchronous small
group discussions on Google Hangouts is easy.
4.00 .866 4
9 Interaction with Synchronous small group discussions through
Google Hangouts does not require a lot of mental efforts.
3.92 .776 5
4 I find Google Hangouts to be flexible to interact with. 3.88 1.13 6 8 Synchronous small group discussions using Google
Hangouts makes online communication effective.
3.83 .868 7
7 Synchronous small group discussions using Google Hangouts
makes online group work productive.
3.79 1.103 8
6 Synchronous small group discussions using Google Hangouts
increase interactions with my group.
3.68 1.030 9
Overall 3.95 .929
Note. Responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree)to5(strongly agree). Therefore, the higher score, the more positive was the
response.

l
Journal of Research on Technology in Education

l
Volume 0 Number 0
Exploring Students’ Satisfaction and Attitudes with Google Hangouts

as well as recommendations of how to use this tool for their future online teamwork. The themes and the frequency
of each theme and the sample comments are discussed next.
The benefits identified include the following themes: (a) communicate effectively with real-time verbal
communication (52%) (e.g., “you do get to see everyone’s face in real time and ask questions verbally. There’s no
confusion with meaning in the verbal communication”); (b) communicate effi- ciently (40%) (“once we, as a group,
decided on a time, a setting did not matter as long as everyone was in front of their computer ... this was a flexible
way to interact without having to meet up in person, which in return, saved all of us time”); (c) adds a human
perspective to online teamwork (21%) (e.g., “With the use of video chat you feel like you’re working with actual
people and get to know your group members better”); (d) mobile friendly and support in learning (16%) (e.g., “I
downloaded the app onto my phone, and turned on my notification function, which was really help- ful because
everyone in my group had different schedules and times to be free to work on the proj- ect, and the notifications that
would continually pop up on my phone helped me keep track of what was happening with the project”; “Also it
helps greatly with organization with the group as you can connect between Google Docs and PowerPoint as well”).
Students shared the challenges they had as well when using Google Hangouts for their online teamwork. The
challenges commonly identified include (a) schedule difficulty (48%) (e.g., “It was very challenging finding a time in
which all members could get online at the same time”) and (b) inactive team members (16%) (e.g., “No matter how
much you communicate, it still relies on people being responsible. If they do not respond to the messages, I do not
have any other way to contact them”; “The only issue that might be encountered is when using chat, some people
may not see or check the messages regularly so they may fall out of the loop”).
Students provided the following recommendations on using Google Hangouts for future online teamwork.
1. Practice using the tool before starting online team collaboration (32%) (e.g., “I would recom- mend trying it out
on your own and getting to know it before you start using it. It took us a while to get everyone in the hangout and
that was a little bit of wasted time we could have used for actually working together”). 2. Plan ahead to identify the
group discussion topics, tasks need to be done, or questions need to be clarified for synchronous communication
(12%) (e.g., “It can be used effectively for group work when a group is setting up initial information or simply
discussing ideas. I think meeting together when doing the bulk of the project would be more effective”). 3. Use
smaller groups with three or four people for online group work (24%) (e.g., “I would recom- mend for the groups to
be created with 3–4 people rather than 6–7. The Google Hangouts was a good idea, but it was difficult to work with
large groups of people”). 4. Provide different opportunities for students to communicate (12%) (e.g., “A
recommendation I have is to allow students to use any form of group communication. The science group already
know each other and we already had a group discussion going in another app called group Me and we use that more.
However, Google Hangouts is great because it can be used online and on your phone”).
Discussions and Conclusions This study explored student satisfaction and attitudes
toward online teamwork with two cohorts of students. One cohort used only asynchronous communication tools,
such as e-mails and online dis- cussion board, to collaborate. The other cohort adopted synchronous communication
using Google Hangouts, in addition to the asynchronous tools used by the first cohort.
Overall, the results indicate that Google Hangouts used in combination with asynchronous tools can enhance
student overall satisfaction with their online teamwork. Students who adopted synchro- nous Google Hangouts had a
significantly higher level of satisfaction with their online teamwork compared to those students who only adopted
asynchronous communication tools. For example,
Volume 0 Number 0

l
Journal of Research on Technology in Education
l
7
He & Huang

students perceived Google Hangouts as a stimulator of participation. Some students downloaded the Google
Hangouts app to their smart phones. They received notifications that helped them keep track of what was happening
with the project. This seemed to promote student collaboration and active learning. This finding is consistent with
Hrastinski’s study, which found that synchronous commu- nication promoted student participation in an online
group project (Hrastinski, 2006). The finding is also partly supported by Falloon (2011), who found that
synchronous communication allowed stu- dents to communicate effectively and might help to build trust in an online
environment. In terms of students’ attitudes toward using Google Hangouts for their online teamwork, the results
revealed that students favored working collaboratively using the tool. Overall, they found that using Google
Hangouts was clear, understandable, easy to use, and helped to develop a sense of community. This finding is
consistent with the previous research on using synchronous communication tools (Nicholson, 2002), which reported
that students in an online course who used synchronous commu- nication tools felt a stronger sense of community
(Nicholson, 2002). In this study, two out of the three highest rated items on Google Hangouts concern its ease of use,
indicating the importance of this characteristic of technology tools to facilitate the process of online community
building.
The participants’ responses from the open-ended questions provided a better understanding of their online
teamwork experiences using Google Hangouts. With the use of video chat, students felt like they were working with
an actual person and got to know each other better. Similar findings have been reported in other studies. For
example, Moallem, Pastore, and Martin (2013) found that a blend of both synchronous and asynchronous
communication might result in increased outcomes over either format alone. Synchronous video discussion allows
students to experience each other as actual humans rather than as text on a screen, and therefore has the benefit of
promoting student engagement (Giesbers, Rienties, Tempelaar & Gijselaers, 2014) or increasing social presence as it
provides the visual social cues that are essential to online learning environments, especially for online teamwork
(Ryman, Burrell, Hardham, Richardson, & Ross, 2009). Compared with other videoconferencing tools, another
benefit of using Google Hangouts for online teamwork is that students can connect with Google Docs, Google
Slides, and other Google applications as well.
In addition, synchronous team collaboration using tools such as Google Hangouts makes com- municating with
team members easier and faster. Instead of waiting for an e-mail or a text reply, which may take hours on end and
thus affect how and when the project will be completed, students can just speak with the team members instantly in a
video chat. Direct communication with all team members at once makes it easier to organize roles and to ask for
each other’s help while they are working on their individual sections of the project. The finding is consistent with a
previous study with 85 graduate students, which found that synchronous communication allowed students to build
connections with their instructor and peers more efficiently (Schullo et al., 2005).
Google Hangouts also presents challenges, though these were not specific to the application. As mentioned in
students’ open-ended responses, it was very challenging to find a time when all mem- bers could meet online at the
same time due to their different schedules; however, once they set up the meeting and assigned the roles, they were
good to go. In addition, even though students indi- cated no technical issues to set up Google Hangouts, they
mentioned the difficulty of reaching out to some nonactive team members who did not take responsibilities for their
portions of the team- work even though they had agreed on the project plan and assigned individual roles. They did
not respond to the messages and others had to carry on their work in order to complete the teamwork successfully. In
terms of the recommendations for future students using Google Hangouts for their online teamwork, students
suggested smaller group size and practice using the technology before the teamwork. Instructors adopting tools such
as Google Hangouts for student online teamwork may consider these factors.
Study Limitations There are some limitations to this study. Findings presented in this study cannot be generalized to
all contexts since the results are based on a small number of students in a specific course in a university
8

l
Journal of Research on Technology in Education

l
Volume 0 Number 0
Exploring Students’ Satisfaction and Attitudes with Google Hangouts

setting. Second, the team dynamics may lie in the specific learning activities for online teamwork. In addition,
students’ satisfaction on online teamwork may be associated with other factors, such as instructor facilitation, the
course design, and student motivation. Moreover, Google Hangouts is just one of the synchronous communication
tools, and it has its own limitations in terms of the functional- ity it provides; thus, it cannot represent all
synchronous communication tools. In addition, the nature and the purpose of student collaboration via Google
Hangouts could be very different from those interactions with different subject areas. Finding sound pedagogical
practice for promoting student online collaboration and satisfaction on online teamwork will benefit online education
greatly.
Implications and Future Studies Despite the limitations, the study provided pedagogical implications for designing
collaborative online teamwork. The recommendations to develop a collaborative online teamwork are listed here:
1. Introduce groups early in the online course. In online environments, it takes time for students to collaborate with
each other. Students need time to get to know each other, and to build the trust to work together. It is recommended
that the instructor introduce online teamwork at the begin- ning of the semester. 2. Create clear instructions for
online teamwork. In order to let online students access the instruction of online teamwork, the instructor should
provide clear instructions in multiple places, such as the syllabus, the related assignments in the course site, and the
weekly announcements. In this study, the instructor provided clear instructions and video tutorials on how to use
Google Hangouts. 3. Limit group size. Team size of three or four students is recommended for easier schedule of
syn-
chronous meetings and managing individual contributions. 4. Provide scaffolding for online teamwork. In this
study, the instructor attempted to provide scaffolding by encouraging individual roles for online teamwork. This can
help students better understand how to distribute the responsibilities among team members and ensure accountability
for each group mem- ber. The recommended procedure to assign the roles is to (a) identify the roles for the
teamwork, (b) provide clear expectations for each role, and (c) peer evaluate each other’s contribution. 5. Provide
different opportunities for students to communicate. For online teamwork, it could be beneficial for each student to
construct his or her own thoughts before the team collaboration process. One of the nice features that many course
management systems provide is to ask stu- dents to submit their own post before viewing their peers’ posts. In a
synchronous Google Hang- outs session, students can share their reflections in an effective way and they can get
immediately feedback from their peers.
Nevertheless, we should recognize that technology itself does not take the sole responsibility for the quality of
collaborative online teamwork. The facilitation of the online instructor, the quality of the online course design, and
the trust, cohesion, and leadership all can impact student satisfaction with online teamwork. Future studies could
examine what types of online teamwork could be best supported by synchronous and asynchronous communication
tools and how technology can be used effectively to enhance online teamwork. It would also be interesting to
examine whether one of the delivery or both delivery modes (synchronous and asynchronous) would improve
student crit- ical thinking and problem solving.
Received 27 January 2017 Revised 26 April 2017 Accepted 3 May 2017

Acknowledgments. We thank Dr. Tony Spanakos from Montclair State University for review- ing the article. He
provided valuable recommendations, which enhanced the article. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their
helpful comments and feedback.
Volume 0 Number 0

l
Journal of Research on Technology in Education
l
9
He & Huang

Declaration of Conflicting Interests. The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding. The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica- tion of this
article.
Author Note Jinxia He, Ph.D., is an Instructional Designer at Montclair
State University. Her research interests focus on building online learning communities and team based learning
especially virtual teams, as well as integrating emerging technologies in education. Please address correspondence
regarding this article to Jinxia He, Montclair State University, 1 Normal Avenue, Montclair, NJ 07043, USA. E-mail:
hej@mail.montclair.edu
Xiaoxia Huang, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in instructional design in the School of Teacher Edu- cation at
Western Kentucky University. Her research focuses on designing optimum learning envi- ronments with
research-based learning strategies and technologies in various formal and informal settings.
References Bonk, C. J., & Cunningham, D. J. (1998). Searching for
learner-centered, constructivist, and sociocultural components of col- laborative educational learning tools. In C. J. Bonk & K. S.
King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered tech- nologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 25–50).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bonk, C. J., Lee, S. H., Liu, X., & Su, B. (2007). Awareness design in online
collaborative learning: A pedagogical perspec- tive. In F. M. M. Neto & F. V. Brasileiro (Eds.), Advances in computer-supported
learning (pp. 251–273). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. Chute, A., Thompson, M., & Hancock, B. (1999).
McGraw-Hill handbook of distance learning: An implementation guide for
trainers and human resource professionals. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Cornelius, S. (2014). Facilitating in a demanding
environment: Experiences of teaching in virtual classrooms using web con-
ferencing. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(2), 260–271. Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of
use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly,
13(3), 319–339. Driver, M. (2002). Exploring student perceptions of group interaction and class satisfaction in the
web-enhanced classroom.
Internet and Higher Education, 5(1), 35–45. Falloon, G. (2011). Making the connection: Moore’s theory of transactional
distance and its relevance to the use of a virtual
classroom in postgraduate online teacher education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 187–209. Fung, Y.
H. (2004). Collaborative online learning: Interaction patterns and limiting factors. Open Learning, 19(2), 135–149. Giesbers, B.,
Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D., & Gijselaers, W. (2014). A dynamic analysis of the interplay between asynchronous and synchronous
communication in online learning: The impact of motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 30–50. Graham, C.
R. (2002). Factors effective learning groups in face-to-face and virtual environments. Quarterly Review of Dis-
tance Education, 3(3), 307–319. Greenlee, B. J., & Karanxha, Z. (2010). A study of group dynamics in educational leadership.
Cohort and non-cohort groups.
Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 5(11), 357–382. He, J., & Glenda, G. (2015). Examining factors that affect
students’ knowledge sharing within virtual teams. Journal of Inter-
active Learning Research, 26(2), 169–187. Hrastinski, S. (2008). The potential of synchronous communication to enhance
participation in online discussions: A case
study of two e-learning courses. Information & Management, 45(7), 499–506. Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and
synchronous e-learning. A study of asynchronous and synchronous e-learning meth-
ods discovered that each supports different purposes. Educause Quarterly, 4, 51–55. Hrastinski, S. (2006). The relationship
between adopting a synchronous medium and participation in online group work: An
explorative study. Interactive Learning Environments, 14(2), 137–152. Hrastinski, S., Keller, C., & Carlsson, S. A. (2010).
Design exemplars for synchronous e-learning: A design theory approach.
Computers & Education, 55(2), 652–662. Huang, X., Chandra, A., DePaolo, C. A., & Simmons, L. L. (2016). Understanding
transactional distance in web-based learn- ing environments: An empirical study. British Journal of Educational Technology,
47(4), 734–747. http://doi.org/10.1111/ bjet.12263 Isaacson, K. (2013, June). An investigation into the affordances of Google
Hangouts for possible use in synchronous online learning environments. In J. Herrington, A. Couros, & V. Irvine (Eds.),
Proceedings of EdMedia: World conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications (Vol. 2013, No. 1,
pp. 2461–2465). Victoria, BC, Canada: Association for Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
10

l
Journal of Research on Technology in Education

l
Volume 0 Number 0
Exploring Students’ Satisfaction and Attitudes with Google Hangouts
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (2003). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon. Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional theories
and
models (2nd ed.; pp. 215–239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kear, K., Chetwynd, F., Williams, J., & Donelan,
H. (2012). Web conferencing for synchronous online tutorials: Perspectives
of tutors using a new medium. Computers & Education, 58(3), 953–963. Kim, K. J., Liu, S., & Bonk, C. J. (2005). Online
MBA students’ perceptions of online learning: Benefits, challenges and sug-
gestions. Internet and Higher Education, 8(4), 335–344. Kobayashi, M. (2015). Students’ evaluation of Google Hangouts
through a cross-cultural group discussion activity. Turkish
Online Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 28–36. Krejins, K., & Kirschner, P. (2004). Designing social CSCL environments:
Applying interaction design principles. In J. W. Strijbos, P. A. Kirschner, & R. L. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL
and implementing it in higher education (pp. 221–243). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. LeBlanc, A., & Lindgren, C.
(2013). Development of on-line courses focusing on quality. In European Association of Dis- tance Teaching Universities (Eds).
The Open and Flexible Higher Education Conference 2013 Proceedings: Transition to open and on-line education in European
universities (pp. 220–228). Heerlen, The Netherlands: European Association of Distance Teaching Universities. Lim, S., Cha, Y.
S., Park, C., Lee, I., & Kim, J. (2012). Getting closer and experiencing together: Antecedents and consequen- ces of
psychological distance in social media enhanced real-time streaming video. Computer in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1365–1378.
Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (2000). Virtual teams: People working across boundaries with technology. New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc. Little, B. B., Passmore, D., & Schullo, S. (2006). Using synchronous software in web-based nursing courses. CIN:
Com-
puters, Informatics, Nursing, 24(6), 317–325. Mason, R. (1998). Globalising education: Trends and applications. London, UK:
Routledge. Mayadas, F., Bourne, J., & Moore, J. C. (2003). Introduction. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality
online
education: Practice and direction (Vol. 4, pp. 7–12). Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium. Moallem, M., Pastore, R., &
Martin, M. (2013). Interaction in online learning: A comparative study on the impact of commu- nication tools on student
learning, motivation, self-regulation, and satisfaction. In R. McBride & M. Searson (Eds.), Pro- ceedings of Society for
Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2013 (pp. 2286–2306). Chesapeake, VA: Association for
the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Moisey, S. D., & Hughes, J. A. (2008). Supporting the online learner. In
T. Anderson (Ed.), Theory and practice of online
learning (pp. 419–439). Edmonton, AB, Canada: AU Press. Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D.
Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp.
22–38). New York, NY: Routledge. Nicholson, S. (2002). Socialization in the ‘virtual hallway’: Instant Messaging in the
asynchronous web-based distance edu-
cation classroom. Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 363–372. Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual
classroom. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Roseth, C., Akcaoglu, M., & Zellner, A. (2013). Blending synchronous face-to-face and
computer-supported cooperative
learning in a hybrid doctoral Seminar. TechTrends, 57(3), 54–59. Ryman, S. E., Burrell, L., Hardham, G., Richardson, B., &
Ross, J. (2009). Creating and sustaining online learning communi-
ties: Designing for transformative learning. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 5(3), 32–45. Schullo, S.,
Venable, M., Barron, A. E., Kromrey, J. D., Hilbelink, A., & Hohlfeld, T. (2005, June). Enhancing online courses with
synchronous software: an analysis of strategies and interactions. Paper presented at the National Educational Com- puting
Conference, Philadelphia, PA. http://sirocco.coedu.usf.edu/itt/website/pdf/AERA_05/AERA__STARS_final_pa per_v5.pdf.
Skylar, A. (2009). A comparison of asynchronous online text-based lectures and synchronous interactive Web conferencing
lectures. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(2), 69–84. Smyth, R. (2011). Enhancing learner-learner interaction using video
communications in higher education: Implications from
theorizing about a new model. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(1), 113–127. Stacey, E. (1999). Collaborative
learning in an online environment. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 14–33. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of
qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage. Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., & Maher, G. (2000). Building knowledge building
communities: Consistencies, contact and communication in the virtual classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
23(4), 359–383. Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J., Lan, W., Cooper, S., Ahern, T., Shaw, S., & Lieu, X. (2006). Teaching
courses online: A
review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93–135. Taylor, V. (2005). Online group projects: Preparing the
instructors to prepare the students. In T. S. Roberts (Ed.), Computer-
supported collaborative learning in higher education (pp. 19–50). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Volume 0 Number 0

l
Journal of Research on Technology in Education

l
11
He & Huang
Teras, H., & Teras, M. (2012). Using Google tools for authentic learning and progressive inquiry in 21st century faculty
development. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International
Conference 2012 (pp. 1267–1270). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Tseng, H., Wang, C. H., Ku, H. Y., & Sun, L. (2009). Key factors in online collaboration and their relationship to teamwork
satisfaction. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(2), 195–206. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The
development of higher psychological processes, eds. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S.
Scribner, & E. Souberman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning,
meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Woerner, S. L., Orlikowski, W. J. & Yates, J. (2004). The
media toolbox: Combining media in organizational communication.
Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Academy of Management, Orlando, FL.
12

l
Journal of Research on Technology in Education

l
Volume 0 Number 0