Education and Information Technologies

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10163-x

Google classroom: insights from Malaysian higher

education students’ and instructors’ experiences

Jeya Amantha Kumar 1 & Brandford Bervell 2 & Sharifah Osman 3

Received: 14 December 2019 / Accepted: 13 March 2020/

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
Google Classroom (GC) has provided affordances for blended learning in higher
education. Given this, most institutions, including Malaysian higher educational insti-
tutions, are adopting this learning management system (LMS) technology for
supporting out of classroom pedagogical. Even though quantitative evidence exists to
confirm the usefulness of GC usage, there is the need to also have qualitative narratives
from students and instructors to obtain details on actual experiences. In view of this, the
study attempted to fill this gap by way of a qualitative approach with data collected
from seventeen students and three instructors from a Malaysian higher education
institution. The study revealed usefulness and easiness were the main factors influenc-
ing the use of GC from both perspectives. However, concerns raised by students were
based on privacy issues, peer interaction, and interface design, whereas instructors,
while supported some of these concerns, added challenges in access to GC learning
analytics and cloud storage. Recommendations from this study may offer some impli-
cations for the adaptation of GC in higher education.

Keywords Google classroom . LMS . Blended learning . Mobile learning . E-learning .

Malaysian higher education . Usability . Utilization

* Jeya Amantha Kumar

jeya.amantha@gmail.com; amantha@usm.my

Brandford Bervell
b.bervell@ucc.edu.gh
Sharifah Osman
sharifah.o@utm.my

1
Centre for Instructional Technology & Multimedia, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia
2
Maths, Science & ICT Department, College of Distance Education, University of Cape Coast,
Cape Coast, Ghana
3
School of Education, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
 Education and Information Technologies

1 Introduction

The growth of education technology has facilitated a need to support digital learning
and simultaneously introduce the concept of digital classroom. Today’s learners are
interested in exploring learning through technology (Subandi et al. 2018), and this has
urged educational institutes to innovate their teaching methods by integrating digital
learning. For that reason, institutions require a stable system that is cutting edge, cost-
effective (Al-Maroof and Al-Emran 2018), and adaptable (Bhat et al. 2018). Hence, a
solution was found in the introduction of Learning Management Systems (LMS)
(Bervell and Umar 2017; Cigdem and Ozturk 2016). The LMS which is sometimes
referred as Virtual Learning Environments (VLE) or Course Management Systems
(CMS), are fundamentally tasked to support digital teaching and learning (El Bahsh and
Daoud 2016) and has been touted as one of the most widely used learning technology
in higher education (Abazi-Bexheti et al. 2018). LMS utilizes various pedagogical
technologies while offering an infrastructure to enable administration and management
of learning contents, communication, assessment, and collaboration (Washington
2019). Some of the prominent LMS used by educational institutions are Moodle,
Edmodo, Desire2Learn, Blendspace, Blackboard, Google Classroom, Sakai, Fronter,
etc.
In Malaysian, the most common LMS platform used by higher education has been
Moodle (Kasuma et al. 2018; Rahim et al. 2018). Moodle has been widely known due
to its flexibility and open-source nature (Rahim et al. 2018). Kasuma et al. (2018)
claimed that one of the key benefits of Moodle lies in its capabilities to be integrated
with the institutes’ databases by which, if the students enrolled in a course, they are
automatically enrolled in the LMS platform. Nevertheless, as promising as Moodle is as
an LMS, El Bahsh and Daoud (2016) found that it has been mainly used as a learning
repository with underutilized adaptation of its interactive learning tools. On the other
hand, Thoms and Eryilmaz (2014) claimed that traditional LMS systems were not
satisfying the millennials who thrived on user-generated content relating to social
media platforms (e.g., Youtube, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter) as these apps
afforded personalization and learning community. Concurrently, Kasuma et al. (2018)
also found Malaysian undergraduates to favor LMS platforms, which has embedded
interaction similar to social media platforms than university-subscribed platforms. As
such, this has been one of the key selling points of Google Classroom (GC) as it has
similar interaction with social media and a stable free mobile application (Jordan and
Duckett 2018).
In view of the above, there has been a wide adaption of Google Classroom. As an
LMS, GC was found to be cost-effective, easily accessible, and user-friendly
(Rajaendram 2019). GC part of the Google Apps for Education (GAFE) Suite targeted
to develop online learning platforms or courses for anyone with a Google account
(Kumar and Bervell 2019). The benefits of GC varies from providing quick and easy
access to learning contents, secure cloud storage, collaboration, management, and
communication platform that facilitate an effective paperless online classroom
(Apriyanti et al. 2019; Sudarsana et al. 2019). GC also has vast possibilities to cater
for the “Google Generation” (Al-Maroof and Al-Emran 2018; de Campos Filho et al.
2019; Heggart and Yoo 2018; Iftakhar 2016; Jakkaew and Hemrungrote 2017) and
those with limited recollection of a time without internet and mobile devices (Nicholas
Education and Information Technologies

et al. 2011). GC designed to promote learnability (Dash 2019) through the integration
of attention-attracting applications (de Campos Filho et al. 2019) and its flexibility to
support small to large course participation (Brown 2018) has made it one of the most
rapidly adopted online learning platforms (Jakkaew and Hemrungrote 2017). In addi-
tion, Rejón-Guardia et al. (2019) found that undergraduates have positive intentions of
Google applications as a personal learning environment.
Next, institutions and individuals also adopt GC most eminently due to cost
(Ventayen et al. 2018), followed by the adaptiveness, interactive features and collabo-
rative features (Dash 2019) that supports face-to-face teaching (Subandi et al. 2018).
One of the key benefits of using GC is how it is supported by other Google applications
such as Google Docs, Drive Sheets, Gmail, and YouTube (Brown 2018). The flexibility
and control provided through GC to manage learning contents are not only beneficial for
the instructors but also towards the completion of any task or assignment (Madhavi and
Mohan 2018). In addition, GC has good learnability, assignment submitting facilities,
grading facilities, easy navigation (Ventayen et al. 2018) and communication platform
(Sudarsana et al. 2019) and due to its simple and easy interface, it facilitates interaction
(Heggart and Yoo 2018). Its application corresponds towards facilitating both blended
and flipped learning, and the benefits extend towards being open-source, mobile-
friendly, ease to use, time-saving, flexible, cloud-based and paperless (Apriyanti et al.
2019; Bhat et al. 2018; Iftakhar 2016; Sudarsana et al. 2019; Ventayen et al.
2018). However, there has been limited research related to Google Classroom as an
online learning platform (Al-Maroof and Al-Emran 2018; Heggart and Yoo 2018),
especially in terms of identifying the challenges and benefits of adopting this system
(Heggart and Yoo 2018). While focusing on GC application in the Malaysian context,
Kumar and Bervell (2019) suggested exploring how GC is perceived and adopted in
higher education. Therefore, we aimed to explore the use of GC as an LMS, mainly from
the students’ perspective, while complementing it with the instructors’ perspective. This
was supported by Bervell and Umar (2017), Kasuma et al. (2018), and Washington
(2019) as it is highly crucial to explore students’-teachers’ perceptions when using an
LMS. Hence, this study sought to explore the perception and challenges involved in
using GC and gather recommendations from the end-user perspective. Nevertheless, to
obtain an in-depth view of factors that influence the adoption and acceptance of a new
LMS, we targeted novel users. We focused this study on novice users because they are
usually the largest users of an online application (Clarkson et al. 2013) and the success of
adopting a system is significantly dependent on the initial perception and beliefs of its
benefits. Concurrently, exploring novice users would provide insight on user experience
(UX) gaps usually overlooked while designing a system (Walker and Prytherch 2008).

2 Method and design

According to Washington (2019), a qualitative research method will gather a deeper

understanding of how an LMS is used for teaching and learning. This study was
conducted as a qualitative study to capture how undergraduates and instructors in a
university in Malaysia experienced GC in a blended learning environment. The student
respondents who are between the ages of 19 to 22 years old are currently enrolled in an
instructional technology course and are from social science backgrounds. It was made
 Education and Information Technologies

compulsory for all students to participate in the GC developed for this course by the
three instructors based on a blended learning approach. All three instructors were also
interviewed for this study. Concerning experience, all three instructors had experience
using GC, the same background in teaching education technology, and were between
the ages of 35 to 45 years old.

2.1 Preparation of the themes for the interview

To facilitate the main research goal, a general question, “What do you think about
Google Classroom?” was posted on the platform after one month of using GC. Out of
the 68 students, 32 responded with brief statements on their perceptions. We collected
these comments and performed a thematic analysis using Nvivo12 to identify the main
themes emerging from their feedback. We observed and summarised the five most
frequent words obtained, which were “good” (N = 16), “easy” (N = 13), “use” (N = 12),
“apps” (N = 11) and “learning” (N = 10). From these themes, we were able to build on
research questions to identify the perception of GC as we aligned satisfaction from
good, ease of use from easy, usefulness from use, application from apps, and benefits
from learning. The study also was designed to explore if they were challenges faced in
using GC, their future intends, and recommendations to further improve their experi-
ences with GC. We also recognized that any prior experience with other LMS would be
a subject for comparison; therefore, the study also explored their perceptions in this
regard. The interview questions were aligned based on Question 1: Prior experience;
Question 2: Use/application; Question 3: Perception of usability; Question 4: Future
intend; Question 5: Challenges and recommendation. The following main questions
were formulated:

1. What were the respondents’ previous experiences in using other Learning Man-
agement Systems?
2. In what ways did the respondents use Google Classroom?
3. How the usefulness, ease of use, and satisfaction of using Google Classroom?
4. How do they perceive they have benefited from using Google Classroom, and what
are their future intentions of using Google Classroom as an LMS?
5. What are their challenges and recommendations to improve their experiences in
using Google Classroom?

2.2 Preparation of the interview

In the initial phase of the study, researchers focused on identifying themes for the
research questions. In view of this, a question was posted on the GC platform, as
described previously. The respondents in the initial phase were not offered any
incentives, and their participations were voluntary. However, for the second phase,
which was conducted after ten weeks of using GC, we sought voluntary participation
with initiatives. It was clarified to the students that their participation would not affect
any of their assessments, and all feedbacks will be private and confidential. Henceforth,
seventeen out of 68 students volunteered to be part of the study, and all three (3)
instructors agreed to be part of the study.
Education and Information Technologies

2.3 Data collection

All respondents were interviewed in person, and the interviews were audio-
recorded by the researchers using a digital device. The seventeen student
respondents were asked to schedule the day and time for their interviews, and
the duration of the interviews varied between 30 min to an hour. Similar
protocol and interview questions were observed with the instructors. The inter-
views for both students and instructors were conducted throughout six weeks.
Interview data from these semi-structured questions were audio-recorded and
transcribed using O-transcribe.com. Data was approached with an open mind
and analyzed using QSR Nvivo12 to identify the emerging codes without any
pre-existing interpretations.

3 Findings

The findings of the study are presented based on two perspectives: Students’ experi-
ences and instructors’ experiences of using GC.

3.1 How do students perceive their prior LMS experiences?

In light of the first research question, we explored the respondents’ experience with
using LMS in general. All the students claimed that this was their first-time using GC,
and some indicated they were initially skeptical about using the application and were
not aware of such a tool. Further inquiries were made on the reason for being skeptical,
and it was found that it related to their negative experience of using the university’s
LMS, which was a Moodle-based platform. Nevertheless, some respondents questioned
the motive of using the university’s LMS as an online learning platform:

I don’t see the purpose of the university LMS as most lecturers are not actively
using it, the only thing we do here is answer a teaching assessment at the end of
the semester or to download notes (Interviewee S16).

Besides, they also indicated that even if the university LMS system had a mobile
version (application), the app was slow, void notifications features, and required the
students to log in every time to access the system. In addition, they reported the mobile
application as redundant as the interface was similar to the web access of the LMS:

The LMS needs us to login and is dependent on the speed of the internet. I find it
too slow, and I prefer to use Chrome to access the LMS website than using the
mobile application. (Interviewee S6)

3.2 How do students perceive their Google Classroom experiences?

Based on the second research question, we probed them on their experiences with using
GC. It was found that GC was mostly used during class to access notes, activity, and
 Education and Information Technologies

provide feedback as and when directed by the instructor. To facilitate these interactions,
the most common method of accessing the learning contents in the class was through
their mobile phones using the mobile application due to versatility and easy access.
Outside of class, respondents indicated that they only used GC when there is a need to
submit assignments or when there are notifications. Such behavior indicated the need
for an external stimulus to influence their interaction. Extracts from students’ responses
are as follows:

Mostly, I use it in class using my mobile phone to view notes or access links
provided by our lecturer for activities such as Kahoot and Quizlet. Our lecturers
also use it as a platform for us to give comments during class. (Interviewee S4)
I usually open Google Classroom when I received the notification through my
email. That's how I know that there are notes and assignments. I also use it for
revision. (Interviewee S1)

3.3 How do students perceive the usability of Google Classroom?

Next, the study sought to explore the perceived usability, which relates to usefulness,
ease of use, and satisfaction of using GC. It was observed that these three factors were
directly influencing each other, and intentions to use GC. As for usefulness, it was
found that the most common nodes were “assignment”, “notes”, “notification”, and
“accessibility”. We observed that the common aspects found useful were; assignment
submission, notifications, reminders, and convenient accessibility through the mobile
application.

By using the Google Classroom mobile application, I received notifications if the

lecturer has uploaded new notes through my mobile phone. I will also receive
reminders through the app and email if there is a deadline for assignment
submission. I believe that through this, it has encouraged me to access the notes,
be more aware of learning activities, and not miss a deadline. (Interviewee S1)

Subsequently, the ease of use also played a vital role in determining the respondents’
perception. “Easy” which reflected on the effortless nature of using GC to facilitate
learning activities were linked to activities relating to downloading notes, assignment
submission, navigation, and accessibility to the learning contents. Ease of use also
refers to the simplicity of learning and utilizing GC to perform learning activities.
Example of students’ response included:

First, I thought it is going to be troublesome to download the Google Classroom

application and use it. I thought it was as complicated as the university LMS
application. However, when I started using the Google Classroom application, I
felt it was so easy. The interface and the navigation options are simple as the
words used are simple too such as To-Do. (Interviewee S2)
Education and Information Technologies

Accordingly, students were questioned on their overall satisfaction and intention in

using GC. It was gathered that the respondents were satisfied with using GC when
compared to the current university’s LMS. It was further observed that due to the ease
of use of GC and the simplicity of facilitating learning, respondents had a positive
intent of using GC in the future and recommended other courses also to implement GC.
Narratives to this effect included:

Yes, I am very satisfied. I hope my other courses adapt to Google Classroom than
using the LMS now. With Google Classroom, I don’t need to log in every time,
and the apps make it a whole lot easier. The university LMS has an app, but it
doesn’t work, I can’t access anything. So, I uninstall and use the web method to
access the LMS. Too much buffering, and it’s so slow. We can only access the
LMS at midnight or early morning when the usage is at minimum. With Google
Classroom we don’t have this problem. (Interviewee S2)

3.4 How do students perceive they have benefited from using Google Classroom?

Furthermore, students were questioned if there were other benefits or advantages

gained by using GC besides being useful and easy. It was realized from the interview
that by using GC, respondents achieved more confidence in using technology for
learning. Referring to the term ‘practice makes perfect’, the need to use GC every
week for various learning activities improved their self–efficacy, and mastery of using
the tool. Respondents also claimed that GC has changed their perspective on informa-
tion and communication technology (ICT) for learning and are much more aware of
twenty-first-century learning skills:

By using Google Classroom this semester, I feel like I am more open to Infor-
mation Technology. This is coming from someone that is not from a technology
background. I always thought that IT is difficult, but when I started with Google
Classroom, I have changed my view. (Interviewee S2)

In addition, respondents also claimed that they were able to effectively see the
associations and advantages of using other Google products (e.g., Google Drive,
Gmail, and Google Doc) other applications such as Flipgrid and Buncee. Therefore,
being able to use GC effectively provided them with a sense of having the competence
and skills to use and learn other technologies:

This is my first time with Google Classroom, and now I am intrigued on other
products by Google that I can use for learning like Google Maps, Forms, and
other learning application such as Flipgrid, StoryJumper and Buncee. (Inter-
viewee S4)

Concurrently, it was realized from the respondents that they felt they were gaining an
authentic online learning management experience. From the users’ perspective, they
were able to access learning content remotely and had much more awareness of updates
in their learning environment, such as new notes, assignments, and due dates,
 Education and Information Technologies

communicate with instructors and peers. As an example, they found that by using GC,
all the contents were automatically saved to their Google Drive, which was beneficial
as it provided easy and secure access and save keeping of their learning contents. Such
facilities have reduced their burden associated with learning and provided them with a
clear learning goal. In addition, respondents’ usage of GC was mostly through their
mobile application, and this provided easy access and interaction to their learning
activities:

It is easy because I don't have to write notes in the class as everything is in the
app of the phone. We have to refer to our mobile phone, downloads notes to our
Google Drive, share links, and submit assignments.

GC also creates possibilities for autonomous learning due to the ease of accessing
learning contents. For instance, one student retorted that:

All learning process can be delivered without meeting between lecturer and
student. So, if lecturers or students are not able to attend classes for unavoidable
reasons, learning can still happen through the lecture notes and activities posted
through Google Classroom. (Interviewee S17)

Next, students also perceived that using GC was more practical for today’s classroom
due to the paperless concept. Hence, when the assignments are submitted online,
printed hard copies and CDs are not a necessity. They also reported that online
submission was more cost and time effective due to the void of printing cost and
logistics:

Google Classroom enables a paperless classroom. Students don’t have to pay to

access study materials and don’t need to print our assignments to submit as
hardcopy. We need to send the softcopy, not even CDs. Its saves money from
printing, buying CDs and lining up at a printer shop. (Interviewee S6)

3.5 What are the challenges of using Google Classroom?

Next, students’ views about their challenges in using GC were solicited. The most
common aspects identified were with regard to the user interaction and interface. Most
students found it hard to acquire information from the older post as they had to scroll,
which were based on the concept of ‘streaming’ similar to Facebook. One respondent
stated:

The lecturer uploads and post lots of information and classroom activities.
Therefore, it’s based on when it is posted. Sometimes, if I want to find something,
I need to scroll down and keep on scrolling until I can find for it. I don’t like this
at it takes too much time (Interviewee S2)

In addition, respondents did take some time to familiarise themselves with the user
interface of GC and how to submit assignments. Interviewee S10 and Interviewee S13
Education and Information Technologies

did mention difficulties in the initial stages, especially as they did not have much
experience in using learning systems or interacting through a mobile LMS. Next,
respondents also frequently commented about how boring the user interface was as
everything was too simple and unattractive to them:

I found the interface boring a bit. The colors used are a bit plain, and I don’t see
much an option for us to maybe personal message (PM) a classmate because I
don’t know who is online. So, for me the interaction is a bit boring as it is only
one-way communication with teachers. (Interviewee S2)

Based on their initial submissions, students also indicated challenges in communication

and interaction. According to Interviewee S13, there seems to be a lack of two-way
physical communication with instructors and between peers as communication was
mostly online. In addition, Interviewee S5 also claimed a lack of interaction with the
learning contents as there is a void of writing activities as notes, learning materials, and
communication were facilitated online. They reported a lack of privacy on their
feedbacks, and class works as it was accessible to anyone to view and comment.

My classmates in the Google Classroom can access or view others' work. Some
students do not like it when their work is viewed by others for no reason.
(Interviewee S2)

Lastly, the respondents claimed that there were setbacks in using GC in class due to
inadequate internet facilities. Therefore, they were unable to give full co-operation in
online activities as it affected their engagement and participation. Interviewee S4
claimed this as a challenge as students are required to use their personal internet data
to access these activities, which in return was taxing towards their finance.

3.6 What are the recommendations to improve Google Classroom experience?

Lastly, respondents were questioned on their recommendations to improve their expe-

rience with GC further. The most common suggestion was concerning user interface
and having more control of the graphical user interface in terms of selecting their
personal themes and fonts. It was deduced that most respondents would like to
personalize their learning space.

I would recommend that users be given a chance to select interfaces like color
and font. I would like to have choices as I feel the design is too simple. I think it is
important for students to be more engaged. (Interviewee S1)

Next, some respondents suggested the use of icons and buttons to represent and
differentiate interactions like for notes, assignments, and comments. In terms of
assignments, a button function will ease the submission process, and icons will be
instrumental in differencing the learning contents. Furthermore, a few respondents also
suggested an option for them to navigate learning contents based on weeks or topics.
 Education and Information Technologies

Concurrently, respondents also suggested a private section to show the status of their
assignments that indicates if the assessment was submitted, viewed, returned,
commented marked, and the scoring achieved so that the students are more aware of
their learning outcomes.
In regard to additional applications to be integrated into GC, Interviewee S11
suggested text messaging, voice, and video features to be able to communicate with
their peers. However, there was no request for a discussion forum hence indicating they
prioritize their privacy in their learning community. Interviewee S8 recommended
inbuilt features that enable random selection of group members, especially for activities
in class that will allow them to socialize. Lastly, a few respondents suggested the use of
GC application without internet connectivity. It was deduced that these recommenda-
tions were related to connectivity issues and the consequential financial burden im-
posed on the students to purchase internet data to enable online participation in these
learning activities.

3.7 How do instructors perceive their experience with Google Classroom, their
challenges, and recommendations?

The three instructors involved in the course were also interviewed to elicit some
perspectives on how they viewed GC. We are well aware that all instructors have
experience with the Moodle-based LMS platform, yet we were triggered by their
motives of adapting GC and not the university’s LMS for teaching their course. All
three instructors claimed that the Moodle-based LMS by the university is complex,
slow, and did not motivate them to innovate their teaching. As the system was used
basically for blended learning activities, it was challenging to gain online interaction
from students synchronously as the system had a poor design to facilitate mobile
learning active learning. Consequently, when compared, GC was more flexible, free,
and had an excellent mobile application.
In regard to ease of use and satisfaction, instructors found easy adaptation and
navigating as GC as systematic and straight forward. However, they also found the
design of the interface lacked in aesthetics factors, and the concept of Keep It Simple
Stupid (KISS) may have been overused. An example of instructors’ responses was that:

The interface was basic, and I wouldn’t say it was appealing, attractive or
interesting. Maybe the developers wanted to follow the KISS method (Keep it
simple stupid) method, but I felt this concept was overused. Nevertheless, navi-
gating the system was simple, and I like that. There are pro and cons, I guess.
(Interviewee T2)

According to the instructors, GC provided the basic needs for any LMS as it was easy
to access, fast, free, and user-friendly. One of the instructors claimed that the institutes
LMS platform did provide additional functionalities like badges and analytics; howev-
er, there were too many options to choose from, and as the system was not user-
friendly, it demotivated the instructors from applying these tools. In addition, the
mobile application was not as effective as GC mobile app. Nonetheless, all three
Education and Information Technologies

instructors claimed they preferred to use the desktop version of GC, and the mobile
version is only used out of necessity.

I have used other LMS which were Moodle base for about ten years now, and I
found Google Classroom faster, user –friendly and provided easy assignment
submission and monitoring. I understand that the Moodle LMS has more options
like badges and analytics, but I don’t bother with it, I like the basics. (Interviewee
T2)

Next, the instructors were asked about the advantages of GC for teaching, and all three
agreed that ease of sharing and managing learning contents was the main benefit.
Comparably, the following aspects were also deemed beneficial:

i. Managing and creating assignments (submission, deadlines, and critique).

ii. Options to schedule the distribution of learning contents in the classroom stream.
iii. Automatic storage of learning contents and assignments through Google Drive.
iv. Real-time feedback during class that facilitates engagement.
v. Ease of integrating other application such as YouTube, Google Drive, Google
Forms, Flipgrid and StoryJumper
vi. Ease of receiving, grading, documenting, and returning assignments without the
need of virtually (paperless).
vii. GC mobile app eases communication and management.
viii. Ease of adding co-teachers.
ix. Stimulates innovation and creativity in teaching

With regard to challenges, the instructors claimed that limited Google Drive data
storage, boring interface, and absence of learning analytics an issue. Due to the
institutes’ policies, the G-suite option is not available for the instructors. Hence, absent
of an administrator to access the analytics. Next, the instructors were faced with issues
validating students in the GC course as anyone with the class code may join the
classroom. Instructors also commented that it was difficult to get feedback from
students in class when comments were streamed. Furthermore, the students did not
respond to private comments posted to the students. With these challenges, we request-
ed recommendations to improve their experience with GC, and the suggestions were:

i. Simple learning analytics without the need for an administrator.

ii. Include more icons to enhance interface design for natural interaction.
iii. Provide different methods of navigating the contents which are currently ‘stream’
and ‘feed’ based.
iv. More real-time engagement, such as integrating Google Hangout to facilitates real-
time video interaction through live streaming in class.
v. Short video tutorials that are always accessible for students to grasp how to perform
some tasks such as assignment submission (students).
vi. Additional control over the students joining the class by integrating two-level
validation.
vii. Able to view the online status of students, especially during class.
 Education and Information Technologies

viii. Improve internet bandwidth and facilities (WIFI) on campus

All three instructors agreed that they would recommend GC to other instruc-
tors because it facilitated better engagement while being simple and effective in
managing and communicating learning contents. They claimed GC as an au-
thentic online LMS that was easily adaptable to even to novice users.

Google Classroom is stable, systematic, and easy to use. Even for beginners,
when it comes to technology adaptation, Google Classroom is an innovative tool
that created to open the doors to educational technology. (Interviewee T1)

4 Discussion

4.1 Students perception of Google Classroom

Most respondents initially indicated they were unaware of GC as an LMS and had a
negative perception towards using such systems. Nevertheless, we deciphered that the
initial unenthusiastic nature observed may have been triggered by anxiety associated
with new experience (e.g., teacher, course, peer, and technology) or previous experi-
ence with other LMS. From the interview, we determined that all respondents were
novice users of GC but not of Moodle-based LMS. When questioned about their
experience of using the Moodle-based LMS, none of the respondents provided positive
feedback and questioned the rationale of using the system. The LMS was viewed as a
platform to download notes and on some occasions, to answer quiz questions; hence
they do not see the importance as these interactions could be implemented through
easily accessible technologies such as WhatsApp, Kahoot, and Facebook. At the same
time, we noticed their suggestions were focused on mobile applications as a tool for
learning.
Next, we found respondents positively viewed GC due to its usefulness and
simplicity in managing their learning activities. GC was designed to be mobile-friendly,
and this has been an important aspect of its success to date (Bayarmaa and Lee 2018).
Usefulness and perceived ease of use are two main factors that influenced the use of a
system (Cigdem and Ozturk 2016) and similarly for GC (Al-Maroof and Al-Emran
2018). On the other hand, we also presume that the easy adaptation to GC may have
been due to their familiarity with other Google applications (Izenstark and Leahy
2015). We observed that the value of usefulness and ease of use were interlinked and
can be traced to activities pertaining to assignment submission, notification and
reminders, and accessibility.
In reference to assignment submission, all respondents found the submission func-
tion to be the most useful and effortless yet requiring time to master. The assignment
submission eliminated issues such as surpass deadlines or missing assignments
(Bhat et al. 2018). We gathered that the assignment submission process was aided
by notification and reminder features and documentation through cloud storage
(e.g. Google Drive). Jordan and Duckett (2018) claimed that notifications that are
Education and Information Technologies

apparent via mobile apps have an influencing factor on students’ engagement and has
been found to motivate students to be more committed to a course. They also added that
the notification pop-up through the app satisfies users aged between 18 and 24 years
old natural habit of checking their mobile phones regularly. Concomitantly, GC has
taken advantage of these user characteristics. However, Budu (2018) claimed that
frequent notifications in GC have been found to demotivate users in responding to
these notifications. We observe the same findings as some respondents were unenthu-
siastic about receiving too many notifications, especially when the notifications were
received via email and GC app. In tandem to the documentation of online submission
of assignments and cloud storage, respondents echoed the idea as useful as the
submission process was fast, secure, and cost-effective due to GC’s paperless classroom
concept. We found respondents supportive of such goals for not only personal reasons
but also how such ventures have an impact on the environment. The paperless concept
was also supported online assessment and interactions through various media platforms
such as online quizzes, Google Forms, video, and audio responses. Such dynamics has
the potential to expose instructors and students to new learning technologies and
simultaneously improve their competencies, creativity, and technology self-efficacy.
Concurrently, respondents claimed to have good exposure to other online applications
such as Google Suits, Flipgrid, StoryJumper and Quizlet, which were used as part of
their assessments. These ‘associated application’ known as API (application program
interface) are capable of sharing information with GC and Heggart and Yoo (2018)
claimed that due to the general structure and openness of GC, these APIs has widened
GCs’ potential as an LMS. Hence, we agree with Heggart and Yoo (2018) that GC
improves online participation and classroom dynamics.
Subsequently, de Campos Filho et al. (2019) also noted that GC manages to reduce
the complexity of online learning, and we believe that this influenced the perception of
ease of use. GCs’ ease of use in this study was mainly perceived as ease of navigating,
learning, and access to learning contents. We observe these characteristics were
primarily contributed by the user-friendliness, a short learning curve (Jordan and
Duckett 2018), easy access and navigation of learning contents (Apriyanti et al.
2019; Sudarsana et al. 2019) through their mobile devices. We also agree with Kumar
and Bervell (2019), specifying that habit formed by continuous use of GC (14 weeks)
altered their perception of interaction as effortless and improved their technology self-
efficacy. Even if Cigdem and Ozturk (2016) claimed that self-efficacy was not per-
ceived as a contributing factor towards perceived ease of use for digital natives, we
differ in this opinion as respondents claimed a positive change in their perception when
they found themselves more skillful in how they interacted with the system. We also
agree that these characteristics have a significant impact on autonomous learning and
was supported by Apriyanti et al. (2019). All the same, we observed all respondents
were overall satisfied with GC as an LMS and showed definite intent to use GC in the
future. Similar finding was also reported by Dash (2019). Satisfaction was also noted
based on their perceived benefits as they claimed improvement in terms of confidence
and motivation to use technology for learning. We found that usefulness, ease of use,
and satisfaction as three factors that are interdependent, which influences their use
of GC.
Nevertheless, as beneficial as GC is, improvements are still necessary to facilitate the
demands of teaching and learning in the twenty-first-century classroom. Improvement
 Education and Information Technologies

ensures that the platform is relevant to the learning process and provides feedback in
terms of effectiveness (de Campos Filho et al. 2019). Hence, for challenges and
recommendations, the study deduced five aspects; user-interface, communication,
habit, privacy, and internet facilities. As for user-interface design, two issues were
highlighted (i) stream or feed like navigation (ii) monotonous graphical user interface
without options for personalization. Firstly, stream like chronology, which displays the
learning content based on when contents are posted online, lacks in the intuitive nature
of navigation (Brown 2018) and has been found to infuriate how user interact with GC
(Heggart and Yoo 2018). With stream navigation, accessing information stored at the
beginning of the course would require the user to scroll through weeks of activities to
extract the information they require. Respondents indicated that such navigating is
suitable for social media, but as GC is a learning platform, more diverse navigational
option should be introduced. We are critical of this outcome as it shows contradiction to
Jakob’s Law and findings from Kasuma et al. (2018) and Thoms and Eryilmaz (2014)
indicated preference for social media like navigation, yet this outlines the need for
distinction and more detailed navigational options.
Next, the monotonous feel of GC. We observed the ‘googlish’ nature of GC despite
having benefits of ease of adaptation may have a detrimental effect. GC has been
positively viewed due to its understandability, attractiveness, and operability (Joy and
Ventayen 2018), yet this study indicated these aspects have led to perceived ‘boring-
ness’ towards the user interface. Respondents indicated the need to personalize their
learning space, which they noted as a necessity to improve their satisfaction. The
aspects that were recommended are additional navigational options that were based
on topics, activities, or months and opportunities to personalize their interface through
themes, colors, widgets, and fonts. In addition, respondents recommended the use of
attractive icons to represent features such as notes, assignments, videos, and comments.
As the hedonic quality of a learning system motivates and satisfies learners (de Campos
Filho et al. 2019), icons as an example are crucial as it is independent of language,
facilitates easy understanding and improves the aesthetic value of the interface. Given
this, respondents did indicate that such alteration would improve how the users
navigate, adapt, and perceive GC.
Furthermore, the students indicated challenges in communicating with peers and
teammates and recommended built-in video or voice features to facilitate these inter-
actions. GC had not integrated such an application into its platform when this study was
conducted. As an example, one of the respondents mentioned that they were not able to
view peers that were online to facilitate synchronous communication. According to
Pheeney (2019), using such an application will facilitate online community-building as
there is limitless accessibility for active learning. Nonetheless, such interaction and
control would require a personal online space and privacy setting, which was lacking in
LMS (Kasuma et al. 2018). Another aspect pertaining to privacy relates to explicit
information on their learning progress. Respondents suggested additional tools that will
help them monitor their assignment submission, such as if and when the assignment
was received, viewed and assessed, and subsequently view their grade book. Similarly,
Jordan and Duckett (2018) reported the same findings. These recommendations were
made as a means to self-assess their learning progress privately.
Additionally, respondents also mentioned the need for privacy when interacting with
their instructors, especially when the communication involves their grades. They
Education and Information Technologies

welcomed the privacy facilitated by GC where grades and comments are privately
communicated through their email and app; however, they were a bit unwilling to share
and allow other course mates to view their graded assignments. By this, instructors also
mentioned that the respondents who are millennials were true to their generation
showing traits of being ‘keyboard warriors’ but were reserved in nature, portraying
minimum visibility as per when verbal feedbacks were required.
We would also like to report that that the inclination for online learning community
and to experience social-learning are only targeted towards creating learning space with
their course mates and not with their instructors. Subsequently, it was not a surprise
when student respondents highlighted the need for more physical interaction with
instructors in the classroom but not through GC. According to MacLeod et al.
(2019), due to the decline in face-to-face contact between students and their instructors
in a traditional classroom due to online and blended learning, it is highly important to
look into peer to peer connectedness which can be mediated by technology. It is clear
that to build an effective learning community in a twenty-first-century classroom would
require establishing online learning communities. However, study habits developed
through years of being exposed to monotonous teaching and learning practices have
defined the roles and relationship between teacher, student, and learning contents. The
study also deduced that even if the respondents have adapted to the concepts of online
learning to access and explore learning contents, they have strongly defined how and
why they should interact with their instructors. Similarly, Iftakhar (2016) also reported
that students preferred teachers to have a passive role in online communities while
retaining an active role in class. It was furthered gathered that culture might have an
influencing factor as in the Asian context, there is a lack in the openness of commu-
nicating with instructors in a non-formal context.
With regard to the barriers between physical and online learning, another
challenge was mentioned pertaining to the quality of learning. Respondents
indicated that the nature of their classes to date had trained them to write
information based on their lecture, however in the current course, they were not
required to perform such acts as the notes were already uploaded on the GC prior
to the class. We agree that some students would still prefer printed materials than
digital ones (Olivier 2016), and as Parodi et al. (2019) claims, there are millennial
known as the ‘Gutenberg-Google Generation’ that recognize the benefits of the
paper medium. Then again, in this study, all the respondents are from social
science courses, and being void of writing activity had a changing influence on
them. Next, due to having all the learning accessible online, some respondents
claimed that the peers found it acceptable to miss classes as all the information
may be obtained through GC and this findings were also reported by Fisher et al.
(2019). Nevertheless, with large or small class sizes, these scenarios are some-
times unavoidable even with or without the use of online learning platforms as
lecture notes can also be obtained from course mates. Lastly, we were surprised
when few respondents suggested GC adapt a non-online approach. However,
when questioned further we synthesis that these requests were based on inade-
quate internet facilities in their learning premises and the need to use personal
internet data to access GC. Irrespective of this, as GC is an online learning tool we
deem this suggestion as unachievable but exposes other insights into the chal-
lenges faced by the respondents.
 Education and Information Technologies

4.2 Instructors perception of Google Classroom

Instructors play a crucial role in developing a well-structured course plan, scaffolding

activities (Bayarmaa and Lee 2018), which, in our opinion, influences usefulness and
ease of use of any online learning system. Based on the interview of three instructors
that were involved in GC, the deduction was that they positively viewed their interac-
tion with this LMS. The key benefits narrated besides distributing and managing
learning contents were ease of managing, accessing and grading assessment, ease of
online storage of learning materials and assignments, ease of communicating, innovat-
ing online teaching and learning strategies, paperless classroom, and mobile applica-
tion. In terms of the satisfaction of using GC, all instructors were content with the user
interface, navigation, and functionality. GC was found to facilitate the basic needs of an
LMS, user-friendly, systematic, and was easy to learn.
In comparison to the institution’s LMS, GC was uncomplicated, since the system
allowed the instructors to innovate their learning platform with other tools. The
innovativeness of GC provided significant support to teaching and learning in higher
education (de Campos Filho et al. 2019). They also welcomed the ‘basicness’ of the
interface and functionality as too many choices created decision paralysis and dissat-
isfaction while adapting to these variables. Nevertheless, it was also reported that GC
was perceived as not visually appealing yet acceptable and warranting enhancement in
the form of better icons. One of the main concerns of the instructors was focused on
policies by Google for the free GC account, which limits access to analytical tools and
cloud storage capacity of 15GB. Therefore, to enable instructors to access these
facilities, higher education learning institutions are required to sign up for G Suite for
Education for full access (Bayarmaa and Lee 2018), and the instructor must be a G
Suite Administrator. Lack of analytical tools prevented the instructors from monitoring
the learning trends of their GC (Dash 2019). In addition, we deduced that they
insufficient control of their class in terms of identifying participation and online
presence.
Hence, instructors recommended for real-time video conferencing was justified.
Rahmad et al. (2019) claims that in the Asian context, students may be reluctant to
provide feedback and discuss issues via an online learning platform and this can
be mapped to their lack of confidence. They added that students tend only to
question and express opinions when the instructor directly points to them. In the
case of large classrooms, pinpointing students and getting feedback would be
complicated. Therefore, imitating such activity using technology would be a
benefit for instructors. One of the instructors suggested that as the students are
already using their mobile phones, video response in class through live streaming
may improve engagement in large classrooms and has the potential to create the
element of fun in teaching and learning. Pheeney (2019) suggested integrating
Google Hangout with GC for this purpose as it also supports communication and
engagement in and out of the classroom. Nevertheless, active participation through
GC depends on the creativity of the instructor (Apriyanti et al. 2019) in providing
interaction stimuli and resources (Abazi-Bexheti et al. 2018)which Japar et al.
(2019) suggested have possibilities to increase students creativity and critical
thinking. According to Baragash and Al-Samarraie (2018), instructors are the
main driving force of the LMS success, and as Google Classroom is used to
Education and Information Technologies

facilitate a blended learning environment, regular face to face sessions motivates

engagement in learning activities through these platforms. It was not assuming
that instructors wanted to view online presence of the students only during class as
Hillman et al. (2019) claimed that instructors prefer to have a social divide and
personal boundaries when interacting with students. Instructors were also con-
cerned on how these online tools are linked to their personal information which
may have tendency to expose their private lives.

4.3 What we can align from the students and instructors

To conclude, the researcher noted an overall positive acceptance and experience

towards Google Classroom for teaching and learning. As this study focuses on
novice users, we found that the core strength of GC is in terms of adaptability,
ease of use, benefits, and mobile access. We deduced that both instructors and
students chose to use an alternative LMS to the official institutes LMS due to
ease of use and mobile access. Overall, these users were satisfied with GC, and
both parties mutually gained from the use of GC as an LMS platform. Against
this backdrop, the study further cataloged the alignment of the perceptions of
both students and instructors. These findings are categorized and presented in
Table 1.
Based on Table 1, it can be concluded that both instructors and students are
partial to interact with GC similar to how they interact with social media
platforms due to recommendations to personalize themes, built-in video applica-
tion, and viewing online status. They mutually found GC to provide easy access
to learning contents; however, the preference of access varied between these two
groups. We also observed that students preferred using their mobile application,
whereas the instructors preferred the desktop version and used the mobile app
only when it is required. Overall, they found the interface lacking in aesthetics
(boring) and recommended the addition of icons to improve user interaction.
They also recommended additional navigational options than only using the
stream option. The respondents also found that the automatic documentation of
learning contents in the cloud storage as beneficial in promoting a paperless
classroom while simultaneously providing secure documentation and access to
their learning contents. Again, both groups found the assessment process sim-
plified, systematic, and transparent. The openness to integrate API was also a big
boon to the strength and quality of GC, bringing innovation to teaching and
learning. In hindsight, some of the suggestions would require better internet
facilities on campus to promote the application of more advance learning tech-
nologies in the classroom.
Conclusively, the success of an LMS relies on its capability and flexibility in
satisfying the students and instructor (Awang et al. 2018). The deductive made
was that students fancied GC to be a social media platform for learning and
showed the tendency to create a peer-based online learning community. They
also would like more control over their user interface by recommending person-
alization of their online learning space and privacy options in terms of
 Education and Information Technologies

Table 1 Aligning perception, challenges and recommendations between students and instructors

Factors Students Instructors

Usefulness •Assignment submission •Online management of teaching and learning

•Notification and reminders
•Mobile accessibility of
learning contents
•Facilitates exposure to other
learning tools
Ease of use •Easy to navigate
•Learnability
•Easy access to learning contents
•Google Classroom mobile app
Perceived benefits •Improves confidence and
motivation
to use technology for learning
•Improved technology competence
and skills
•Improved autonomous learning
•Paperless classroom that
is economical
Challenges •Non-personalised user-interface,
•Lack of aesthetics value (boring)
•Lack of communication platform
with peers
•Privacy for assignment
•Personal learning habit
•Lack of reliable internet facilities in
the institution
Recommendations •Customizable themes and widgets,
•Use icons to improve learnability
and improve aesthetics
•Built-in video or voice features
•Students grade book
•Add different navigational method
of course work
•Increase privacy
•Creating online assignment, scheduling
deadlines and grading
•All learning contents and assignments are
automatically saved in Google Drive
•Real-time feedback during class that
facilitates engagement
•Assignment management and administration
(receiving, grading, documenting,
critique and returning)
•Integrating other application
•Collaboration with other instructors
•Google Classroom (mobile version)
•Critique and communication
•Promotes innovative and creative teaching
•Paperless classroom where everything is
stored virtually (No physical documentation)
•Limited Google Drive data storage
•Boring interface
•Lacking of learning analytics
•Security challenges as any student can
join the classroom if they the class code
•Difficult to get feedback from students when
comments were streamed
•Integrating real-time video interaction through
live streaming in class
•Short video tutorials to improve learnability
•Dual-level permission for joining
the classroom
•Basic learning analytics without the
need of an administrator
•Icons to enhance interface design for
natural interaction
•Additional navigating methods
•Able to view the online status of the students
•Improve the internet facilities

collaborating, communicating, and access to their submitted assignments. From

the instructors’ point of view, they would prefer more control of their classroom
but with regard to access, participation, analytics, and cloud capacity. Such
modernization will promote productive, constructive, and engaging learning
experiences with Google Classroom LMS in higher education pedagogy.
Education and Information Technologies

5 Limitation and recommendation

This study centered on student instructors’ perception and experience of using Google
Classroom in higher education. Seventeen out of the total number of students were used
in this study. Thus, the views of others were not captured. These views could reveal
additional information complementing or contrasting ones. Additionally, this study
focused on novice users and may not be generalized for all GC users, especially
experienced ones. The findings are also concentrated in a cultural context and so
may not adequately reflect the perception of other cultures. We also did not lay in-
depth emphasis on usability heuristics evaluation of Google Classroom. Moreover, it is
suggested that future research focus on experienced users to gain better depth of UX
and UI of GC. We would also like to propose research in other countries to reveal
complementary or contrasting findings.

Acknowledgements We wish to acknowledge and thank personals for their efforts in data collection.
Availability of data and material This work contains confidential data.

References

Abazi-Bexheti, L., Kadriu, A., Apostolova-Trpkovska, M., Jajaga, E., & Abazi-Alili, H. (2018). LMS
solution: Evidence of Google classroom usage in higher education. Business Systems Research, 9(1),
31–43. https://doi.org/10.2478/bsrj-2018-0003.
Al-Maroof, R. A. S., & Al-Emran, M. (2018). Students acceptance of Google classroom: An exploratory study
using PLS-SEM approach. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 13(06),
112. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v13i06.8275.
Apriyanti, D., Syarif, H., Ramadhan, S., Zaim, M., & Agustina, A. (2019). Technology-based Google
classroom in English business writing class. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on
Languages and Arts (ICLA 2018) (Vol. 301, pp. 689–694). Paris, France: Atlantis press. https://doi.
org/10.2991/icla-18.2019.113.
Awang, H., Osman, W. R. S., & Aji, Z. M. (2018). A conceptual model to evaluate virtual learning
environment among malaysian teachers. Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer
Engineering, 10(2–4), 59–63.
Bahsh, R. El, & Daoud, M. I. (2016). Evaluating the use of Moodle to achieve effective and interactive
learning : A case study at the German Jordanian University. In Proceedings of the 2nd international
conference on open source software computing (OSSCOM 2016). (pp. 16–20). Beirut, Lebanon: IEEE.
Baragash, R. S., & Al-Samarraie, H. (2018). Blended learning: Investigating the influence of engagement in
multiple learning delivery modes on students’ performance. Telematics and Informatics. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.07.010.
Bayarmaa, N., & Lee, K. (2018). A study on the application of Google classroom for problem based learning.
Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial Cooperation Society, 19(7), 81–87. https://doi.org/10.5762
/KAIS.2018.19.7.81.
Bervell, B., & Umar, I. N. (2017). A decade of LMS acceptance and adoption research in sub-Sahara African
higher education: A systematic review of models, methodologies, milestones and main challenges.
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(11), 7269–7286. https://doi.
org/10.12973/ejmste/79444.
Bhat, S., Raju, R., Bikramjit, A., & Souza, R. D. (2018). Leveraging e-learning through Google classroom: A
usability study. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 31(3), 1–7.
Brown, M. C. (2018). Google classroom for the online classroom: An assessment. Distance Learning, 15(3),
51–56.
Budu, J. (2018). What makes learners share feedback or not in an online community for education.
International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 14(2), 48–59.
https://doi.org/10.4018/ijicte.2018040104.
 Education and Information Technologies

Cigdem, H., & Ozturk, M. (2016). Factors affecting students’ behavioral intention to use LMS at a Turkish
post-secondary vocational school. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,
17(3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i3.2253.
Clarkson, J. J., Janiszewski, C., Cinelli, M. D., & Cinelli, M. D. (2013). The desire for consumption
knowledge. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(6), 1313–1329. https://doi.org/10.1086/668535.
Dash, S. (2019). Google classroom as a learning management system to teach biochemistry in a medical
school. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 47(4), 404–407. https://doi.org/10.1002
/bmb.21246.
de Campos Filho, A. S., de Souza Fantini, W., Ciriaco, M. A., dos Santos, J., Moreira, F., & Gomes, A. S.
(2019). Health student using Google classroom: Satisfaction analysis. In L. Uden, D. Liberona, G.
Sanchez, & S. Rodríguez-González (Eds.), Learning Technology for Education Challenges (LTEC
2019): Communications in Computer and Information Science (pp. 58–66). Cham: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20798-4_6.
Fisher, R. L., LaFerriere, R., & Rixon, A. (2019). Flipped learning: An effective pedagogy with an Achilles’
heel. Inovations in Education and Teaching International, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080
/14703297.2019.1635904.
Heggart, K., & Yoo, J. (2018). Getting the most from Google classroom: A pedagogical framework for tertiary
educators. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 140–153. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018
v43n3.9.
Hillman, S., Hillman, A., Neustaedter, C., & Pang, C. (2019). “I have a life”: Teacher communication &
management outside the classroom. In 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems -
CHI EA ‘19 (pp. 1–6). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145
/3290607.3312943.
Iftakhar, S. (2016). Google classroom: What works and how?. Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 3(1),
12–18.
Izenstark, A., & Leahy, K. L. (2015). Google classroom for librarians: Features and opportunities. Library Hi
Tech News, 32(9), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-05-2015-0039.
Jakkaew, P., & Hemrungrote, S. (2017). The use of UTAUT2 model for understanding student perceptions
using Google classroom: A case study of introduction to information technology course. In Proceedings
of 2017 International Conference on Digital Arts, Media and Technology (ICDAMT), 205–209.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDAMT.2017.7904962.
Japar, M., Fadhillah, D. N., & Syarifa, S. (2019). Civic education through e-learning in higher education.
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 335(ICESSHum), 505–511.
Jordan, M. M., & Duckett, N. D. (2018). Universities confront ‘tech disruption’: Perceptions of student
engagement online using two learning management systems. The Journal of Public and Professional
Sociology, 10(1).
Joy, R., & Ventayen, M. (2018). Usability evaluation of Google classroom: Basis for the adaptation of GSuite
e-learning platform. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, Arts and Sciences, 5(1), 47–51.
Kasuma, S. A. A., Saleh, M. S. M., Akhiar, A., & Ismail, Y. M. B. (2018). Malaysian university students’
preferences of social media and LMS in academia. International Journal of Virtual and Personal
Learning Environments, 8(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJVPLE.2018010104.
Kumar, J. A., & Bervell, B. (2019). Google classroom for mobile learning in higher education: Modelling the
initial perceptions of students. Education and Information Technologies., 24, 1793–1817. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10639-018-09858-z.
MacLeod, J., Yang, H. H., & Shi, Y. (2019). Student-to-student connectedness in higher education: A
systematic literature review. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 31(2), 426–448. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12528-019-09214-1.
Madhavi, B. K., & Mohan, V. (2018). Improving attainment of graduate attributes using Google classroom.
Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 31(3), 1–6.
Nicholas, D., Rowlands, I., Clark, D., & Williams, P. (2011). Google generation II : Web behaviour
experiments with the BBC. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 63(1), 28–45. https://doi.
org/10.1108/00012531111103768.
Olivier, J. (2016). Blended learning in a first-year language class: Evaluating the acceptance of an interactive
learning environment. Literator - Journal of Literary Criticism, Comparative Linguistics and Literary
Studies, 37(2). https://doi.org/10.4102/lit.v37i2.1288.
Parodi, G., Moreno-de-león, T., Julio, C., & Burdiles, G. (2019). Google or Gutenberg generation: Chilean
university students’ reading habits and reading purposes (pp. 85–94). XXVII: Comunicar. https://doi.
org/10.3916/C58-2019-08.
Education and Information Technologies

Pheeney, C. E. (2019). Harnessing digital tools in collaborative inquiry for contemporary interpretation of the
Pancasila. In Proceedings of the 5th international ACM in-cooperation HCI and UX conference on -
CHIuXiD’19 (pp. 128–136). New York: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328243.3328259.
Rahim, Y. A., Mohd, O., Sahari, M. A., Safie, N., & Rahim, Z. B. A. (2018). A study on the effects of learning
material handling procedures towards information integrity in Moodle learning management system (
LMS ). In 2nd International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics (ICon EEI 2018) (pp.
81–85). Batam - Indonesia.
Rahmad, R., Adria Wirda, M., Berutu, N., Lumbantoruan, W., & Sintong, M. (2019). Google classroom
implementation in Indonesian higher education. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1175(1), 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1175/1/012153.
Rajaendram, R. (2019 29). Google classroom gets nod. The Star. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com.
my/news/nation/2019/06/29/google-classroom-gets-nod
Rejón-Guardia, F., Polo-Peña, A. I., & Maraver-Tarifa, G. (2019). The acceptance of a personal learning
environment based on Google apps: The role of subjective norms and social image. Journal of Computing
in Higher Education., 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-019-09206-1.
Subandi, S., Choirudin, C., Mahmudi, M., Nizaruddin, N., & Hermanita, H. (2018). Building interactive
communication with Google classroom. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(2.13),
460. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i2.13.18141.
Sudarsana, I. K., Putra, I. B. M. A., Astawa, I. N. T., & Yogantara, I. W. L. (2019). The use of Google
classroom in the learning process. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1175(1). https://doi.org/10.1088
/1742-6596/1175/1/012165.
Thoms, B., & Eryilmaz, E. (2014). How media choice affects learner interactions in distance learning classes.
Computers & Education, 75(November 2017), 112–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.002.
Ventayen, R. J. M., Estira, K. L. A., De Guzman, M. J., Cabaluna, C. M., & Espinosa, N. N. (2018). Usability
evaluation of Google classroom: Basis for the adaptation of GSuite e-learning platform. Asia Pacific
Journal of Education, Arts and Sciences, 5(51), 47–51.
Walker, S., & Prytherch, D. (2008). How is it for you? (a case for recognising user motivation in the design
process). In C. Peter & R. Beale (Eds.), Affect and emotion in human-computer interaction from theory to
applications. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Washington, G. Y. (2019). The learning management system matters in face-to-face higher education courses.
Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239519874037.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.