Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 7 (2015) 85–96

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lcsi

Full length article

The impact of Google Docs on student collaboration: A UAE

case study
Fawzi Fayez Ishtaiwa a,⁎, Ibtehal Mahmoud Aburezeq b
a
Deputy Dean of College of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences, Al Ain University of Science and Technology, United Arab Emirates
b
Dean of Scientific Research and Graduate Studies, Al Ain University of Science and Technology, United Arab Emirates

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study had a two-fold aim; (i) to investigate the impact of Google Docs on enhancing four
Received 21 April 2015 types of collaboration, and (ii) to identify the factors limiting student collaboration via Google
Received in revised form 25 July 2015 Docs. Data collected through questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. The findings
Accepted 27 July 2015
revealed that Google Docs is a valuable application to promote student–student and student–
Available online 23 August 2015
instructor interactions. In addition, it was found that Google Docs has the power to improve
student–content and student–interface interactions through the resources and features offered
Keywords: by the application. Finally, the findings revealed a number of factors limiting the use of Google
Collaboration
Docs for collaborative purposes.
Google Docs
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Interaction
Technology
Learning

1. Introduction

The use of collaborative technology to enhance constructive teaching approaches and support collaborative and socially oriented
theories of learning is a major trend in higher education (Thorsteinsson, Page, & Niculescu, 2010). According to Lipponen and Lallimo
(2004), collaborative technology “enables and scaffolds the construction of communal ways of seeing, acting and knowing, and
production of shared knowledge and new practices for successful future action” (p. 436). It is widely believed that the use of these
tools in education improves students' academic achievement and performance. Collaboration tools have the power to promote
students' active participation and engagement, improve knowledge construction, and enrich the learning process (Oblinger, 2005;
Parker & Chao, 2007; Ravid, Kalman, & Rafaeli, 2008; Zorko, 2009).
Nevertheless, it is essential to realize that technological applications themselves do not assure developing a collaborative learning
environment that leads to good educational outcomes (Sikkel, Gommer, & van der Veen, 2002). Effective students' collaboration
requires more than introducing students to a particular type of technology because they may not use it (Brook & Oliver, 2003).
Therefore, it is important for teachers to understand how students perceive, react and actually use this technology. In addition, the
successful use of collaborative technology requires teachers to design virtual learning tasks that correspond to activities for students
to perform in the authentic environment (Chapelle, 2001). Since very limited research studies have been conducted about the poten-
tiality of Google Docs, as an example of collaborative technologies, in facilitating collaborative learning environment, this study aimed
at examining the impact of Google Docs on enhancing collaboration with peers, instructor, content and interface, and to identify the
factors that limit student collaboration via this application.

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: fawzif2000@gmail.com (F.F. Ishtaiwa).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.07.004
2210-6561/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
86 F.F. Ishtaiwa, I.M. Aburezeq / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 7 (2015) 85–96

2. Literature review

2.1. Collaborative technology and education

Numerous studies have reported positive impacts of the use of collaborative technology in the educational context (Ishtaiwa &
Abulibdeh, 2012; Oblinger, 2005; Parker & Chao, 2007; Ravid et al., 2008; Zorko, 2009). For instance, Zorko (2009) reported that
the Wiki as a collaborative technology stimulated several collaborative behaviors, such as enhancing the opportunity of students'
learning from each other and interacting with the instructor. More recently, Ishtaiwa and Abulibdeh (2012) found that collaborative
technologies (asynchronous discussion board, blog and email) improved students' interaction with peers, instructor and content. The
strengths of collaborative technology include its potentiality to provide an interesting and motivating learning environment that is
suitable for the characteristics of today students, provide a practical and flexible platform for thinking, reflection and discussion
that allows students to participate anytime and anywhere, and minimize obstacles of learning which include deficiency of communi-
cation skills, cultural limitations, or shyness (Arnold & Ducate, 2006; Ishtaiwa & Abulibdeh, 2012; Oblinger, 2005; Zorko, 2009).
However, the usage of collaborative technology is not without a number of challenges. Students who used collaborative technol-
ogy have complained of lack of immediate feedback, low quality of conducting a discussion, lack of opportunities for intellectual
conflict and higher order skills, deficiency of some students' commitment for effective participation, and inadequacy of involvement
and guidelines from the instructor (Arnold & Ducate, 2006; Ishtaiwa & Abulibdeh, 2012; Johnson & Johnson, 2004).
Despite the fact that these challenges of collaborative technology deserve attention, it is still a powerful tool that could be used to
support instructional collaboration. The research literature documented that several authors attempted to define the elements of
collaborative learning. For example, Moore (1989) has defined three main elements of collaborative learning explicitly: interaction
with students, instructor and content. Later on, Hillman, Willis and Gunawerdena added the interaction of both the teacher and the
learner with an interface as a new element of interaction. Building on that, Curtis and Lawson, (2001) argue that the effective online
collaboration requires four types of effective interaction: interaction with classmates; with teachers; with learning resources; and
with the technology interface.

2.1.1. Student–student interaction

Student–student interaction is defined as an interaction between students that can occur between a student and another, between
a student and several other students, or between several students as a group. It could be with or without the actual presence of
the instructor (Thurmond, 2003). Several studies highlighted the characteristics of student–student interaction in the effective collab-
oration. Burge (1994) notes that for effective online collaboration, four types of peer behaviors are required, namely: participation,
such as giving alternative perspectives and attending to the experiences of others, response, such as answering questions, providing
effective feedback, and focused messaging.
According to Johnson and Johnson (1998), major types of behaviors in collaborative learning situations should include work-
ing in small groups, observing each other's works and efforts, helping each other to achieve their group goal, giving and receiv-
ing constructive feedback, sharing learning resources, information and insights, peer tutoring, and discussing and challenging
each other's contributions. In addition, Curtis and Lawson (2001) emphasize the importance of the synchronous and interactive
response to a goal, problem, or need that is jointly shared by all the members, organizing group work, initiating further collab-
orative activities, and explaining and elaborating information. In terms of online collaboration, Curtis and Lawson (2001) add
the presence of social elements to supplement face to face interactions and commenting and reflecting on the medium and
its features.
Other behaviors are also anticipated. For example, autonomous learning (Arnold & Ducate, 2006), a willingness to listen to others
(Beatty & Nunan, 2004) and critical thinking (Arnold & Ducate, 2006) were considered as necessary behaviors for effective learning
collaboration.

2.1.2. Student–instructor interaction

Student–instructor interaction means interaction that takes place between students and their instructor. This type of interaction is
aimed at increasing students' understanding of the learning content or getting clarifications (Thurmond, 2003). Moreover, it improves
students' motivation to learn and maintains their interest in the learned content (Moore, 1989). Berge (2002), Gunawardena (1995)
and Swan (2001) agree that student–instructor interaction is a multifaceted relationship of numerous variables including instructor's
level of social presence, quality and value of feedback, and depth of engagement in intellectual dialogues.
Successful teachers strive to organize and facilitate learning to help learners do and manage things in the right order (Schneider,
Synteta, Frété, Girardin, & Morand, 2003). Apparently, the amount of instructor's contribution may differ from one learning situation
to another because learning would be a flexible process that would go beyond any particular plan. According to Collis (1998), the
communication forms between students and their teacher should be flexible and dynamic. All students need to ask questions and
receive answers from the instructor immediately or shortly. Moreover, students should have opportunities for one to one interactions
and communications with the instructor to meet their individual needs (Curtis & Lawson, 2001). Instructor's timely feedback and
intellectual and emotional support in the form of supervision, assistance, encouragement and advice were also considered as key
factors for effective students–instructor interaction in the effective collaboration (Alonso, López, Manrique, & Viñes, 2005; Curtis &
Lawson, 2001).
 F.F. Ishtaiwa, I.M. Aburezeq / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 7 (2015) 85–96 87

2.1.3. Student–content interaction

Moore (1989) defines student–content interaction as “the process of intellectually interacting with the content that results in
changes in the learner's understanding, the learner's perspective, or the cognitive structures of the learner's mind” (p. 2). Content
resources should aid student thinking and problem solving skills (Arnold & Ducate, 2006; Curtis & Lawson, 2001). Prompts, hints,
explanations, questions and suggestions are examples of mechanisms that can be used to do so (Arnold & Ducate, 2006). Another im-
portant factor that may enhance the effectiveness of student–content interaction is providing students with ‘script’ for each learning
phase that specify the tasks students have to accomplish, the forming of small groups, distribution tasks within and among groups
members, the approach of communication and collaboration, timing schedule, etc. (Schneider et al., 2003).

2.1.4. Student–interface interaction

Student–interface interaction is the interaction that occurs between the student and technology used for education. It is a process
of operating applications to complete a task (Hillman, Willis, & Gunawerdena, 1994). Generally speaking, the interface is the first tool
that students need to deal with in the online collaboration. It is common that users could quickly become unsatisfied and simply
abandon a confusing tool (Jafari, 2004). Therefore, instructional designers and teachers need to select a technically problem-free
and a user-friendly interface in order to enhance students' engagement (Lindblom-Ylänne & Pihlajamäki, 2003). Miller and Miller
(1999) list two more characteristics of interfaces to support effective collaboration. They conclude that the interface should provide
students with a degree of freedom to control access and sequence of contents; and include some instructional elements that help
students to perform tasks in an easy and meaningful way.

2.2. Google Docs

In July 2009, Google officially introduced Google Docs as a free browser based productivity and web storage suite. In April 2012,
Google Drive became the new home for Google Docs. The software includes word processing, spreadsheet, a presentation editor
and a form designer. In addition, the site offers a space on the server for storing the created documents. Google has also made it
possible for users to upload files of any type in the storage area as an effective tool of online file backup. The shift from PC/LAN to
cloud computing allows users to access their files from any computer with Internet connection. This makes Google Docs a more
flexible tool for content creation and sharing (Firth & Mesureur, 2010).
After registering with the service, users have the ability to create documents and can also invite collaborators to edit the created
documents. In addition, there is a “viewer” category of users who can only read the existed documents. Collaborators can modify doc-
uments which makes Google Docs highly attractive when teamwork occurs online. All changes to a document are automatically saved
and transmitted to the server instantly. With the extensive revision history that is maintained, users could view the entire document
as it appeared at any time past. There are also tools to compare any two versions of a document. Authors can save documents on their
computers in a variety of formats, such as PDF, HTML, and Microsoft Word (Dekeyser & Watson, 2006; Taylor & Hunsinger, 2011).
Dekeyser and Watson (2006) recommend that Google Docs is an outstanding application for document creation and online
collaboration. They point out the following Google Docs characteristics that make it usable, effective, and efficient collaborative
technology:

• The light weight of the application: Users needs only an installed browser application, and then they can simply register a login
identity with Google.
• The user friendliness: Google Docs application is user-friendly and does not require high technical knowledge. In addition, setting up
collaboration with others is exceedingly simple.
• The efficiency of the online editing system: The applications support multiple editors which make update conflicts are extremely
rare.

However, there are some shortcomings of Google Docs as a collaborative technology. Most notably are (Dekeyser & Watson, 2006;
Firth & Mesureur, 2010):

• Limited formatting ability: This shortcoming clearly appears during the conversion of files created in Microsoft Office into Google
Docs. Microsoft documents lose many of their formatted elements when they are converted into Google Docs because Google
Docs' limitation of font tools, converting complex charts and tables, and slide transitions and animations.
• The simultaneous editing/syncing of shared documents. The application allows more than one user to work on a document at any
given time. This in turn makes the document subject to the potential speed and accessibility issues that may lead to some update
conflicts.
• Text-based only: The Google Docs collaboration protocol can be used for collaborating on text documents only. The application does
not support collaborating on graphics or other content.
• Off-line support: Like other online collaboration technologies, Google Docs application currently does not support offline working
which limits the opportunity of editing/sharing while traveling or in a place with no Internet connection.

Based on the previous literature review, it can comfortably be argued that the use of new technology in education helps facilitate
collaborative learning. However, the use of new technologies encompasses a risk that these applications may be ineffectively operated
or utilized (Adiguzel, Capraro, & Willson, 2011). The effective use of technology depends on several factors such as its usefulness, ease
of use, the type of available resources, and design of the user interface (Barnes, 2000; Davis, 1989; Jafari, 2004; Legris, Ingham, &
88 F.F. Ishtaiwa, I.M. Aburezeq / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 7 (2015) 85–96

Collerette, 2003). Given the fact that there is a dearth of research regarding the use of Google Docs to facilitate a collaborative learning
environment especially in the Arab World, this study was designed to answer the following two questions:

1. What is the impact of Google Docs on enhancing student–student, student–instructor, student–content, and student–interface
interactions?
2. What are the factors limiting students' use of Google Docs as a collaborative learning tool?

3. Methodology

3.1. Research context and participants

Research literature indicates that teaching in traditional classrooms has several problems, such as lack of students' effective par-
ticipation in group learning, deficiency of communications opportunities with instructors, lack of immediate feedback on progress
from peers or the instructors, dearth of knowledge sharing among students, lack of motivation to collaborate with others or to create
quality products, and difficulty of assessing students' contributions in group assignments (Arnold & Ducate, 2006; Ishtaiwa &
Abulibdeh, 2012; Oblinger, 2005; Zorko, 2009). In addition and based on personal experience, pre-service teachers lack enough op-
portunity for getting involved in deep and thoughtful instructional dialogue and discussion, and lack adequate preparation for creat-
ing high quality teaching materials such as lesson plans, multimedia presentations, and assessment tools.
As an attempt to address these problems, the Google Docs application was introduced to support the teaching of the Instructional
Technology course at the Department of Professional Diploma in Teaching which is one of the graduate programs offered by the
College of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences at Al Ain University of Science and Technology. The application was mainly
used to increase collaboration and to provide students with an example of how technology can be utilized to improve teaching and
learning. Research literature has stated that students have positive perceptions towards the potential pedagogical functions of Google
Docs (Kongchan, 2013; Zhou, Simpson, & Domizi, 2012). For example, it was reported by Kongchan (2013) that students enjoyed
using Google Docs to submit their work, work online in real time with peers in small groups, and utilize teacher's feedback to write
and edit work and assignments online. The positive perceptions towards Google Docs could be attributed to the valuable functions
of the application. It is a promising learning tool that allows teachers and students to work collaboratively in learner-centered learning
environment (Suwantarathip & Wichadee, 2014). With Google Docs, students can work individually and collaboratively on their
learning tasks without constraints often associated with traditional face to face teaching (Conner, 2008; Perron & Sellers, 2011).
The document sharing and leaving comments functions provide students with ample chances to receive instant feedback to improve
their learning (Oxnevad, 2013). The opportunities provided by the application to work together help students to construct knowledge
and create quality learning materials. In addition, with Google Docs being accessible from any computer device with an Internet
connection, students can work or edit their work whenever and wherever (Kongchan, 2013; Oxnevad, 2013; Suwantarathip &
Wichadee, 2014).
In this study, Google Docs was used with 178 pre-service teachers registered in seven sections. Those students who already have a
bachelor's degree in various majors were registered in the diploma program to obtain professional preparation. The majority of those
participants are international female students who live in dorms that have lots of restrictions on their movement. Students residing in
those dorms are responsible for staying and carrying out their academic assignments inside the dorms as this is controlled by the
dorms' supervisors who are usually assigned by the dorms' owners. Even transportation to the university is scheduled only for the
time of classes taken at the university. Leaving the dorms can only be done in specific circumstances and with the parents or
guardian's approval. This situation puts restrictions on female students' on meeting their classmates outside the classroom. While
none of students have taken an online course, only five students indicated that they have taken a blended course before taking this
course.
The instructional technology course included a variety of assignments. Students were asked to write reflective writing reports, de-
sign a lesson plan reinforced with technology, create flowcharts and storyboards for design instructional programs, evaluate online
learning resources, and design multimedia presentations. They were trained and motivated to use Google Docs as a collaborative
learning tool. In each section, small groups of 4–5 students were randomly formed. Groups were encouraged to create a specific online
page for each assignment of the class. The leader of each group was responsible to add the members of the group as collaborators who
can edit the created documents. In addition, the instructor and the rest of the class were added as viewers with an opportunity to
comment. The Google Docs application was utilized to provide a virtual platform in a blended learning course where students can
create materials, discuss, reflect, share knowledge, and provide and receive feedback in a collaborative and new environment that
they most likely have not experienced before.

3.2. Instruments

In this study, a mixed methods approach was adopted. It is an approach in which the researcher tends to base knowledge claims on
pragmatic grounds (e.g., consequence-oriented, problem-centered, and pluralistic). The mixed method approach employs strategies
of inquiry that include collecting data either simultaneously or sequentially to understand the research problem (Creswell, 2003). The
study initiates with a quantitative survey to generalize results to a population and then emphasizes, in a second phase, on detailed
qualitative, open–ended interviews to collect detailed views from participants. Following this approach, the researcher bases the
 F.F. Ishtaiwa, I.M. Aburezeq / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 7 (2015) 85–96 89

investigation on the assumption that collecting diverse types of data best provides an understanding of the examined issues (Creswell,
2003).
Modified versions of Zorko's (2009) questionnaire and semi-structured interview were used for data collection. The modified
questionnaire comprised of six parts: (1) demographic information; (2) the impact of Google Docs on student–student interaction,
(3) the impact of Google Docs on student–instructor interaction, (4) the usefulness of Google Docs resources, (5) the usefulness of
Google Docs features, and (6) the factors limiting students' use of Google Docs. Students were asked to evaluate the 46 items of
the questionnaire using a five-type Likert scale which includes ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’ and ‘very useful’ to ‘not at all
useful’.
The modified questionnaire was validated by ten experts holding knowledge and expertise of using collaborative technology in the
UAE. Those experts were asked to assess the adequacy of items to cover the research questions, and to recommend adding or deleting
items. After responding to the experts' comments, the reliability of the questionnaire was addressed by calculating the Cronbach's
Alpha coefficient with the data collected from 40 students' responses to the questionnaires. The produced value of Cronbach Alpha
was 0.89, which is considered a very good value.
The semi-structured interview questions as a second data collection method was used to obtain in-depth, personalized and
non-standardized data about students' views on the use of Google Docs. Questions of the interview concentrated on the impact
of Google Docs on enhancing the four types of interaction. In addition the questions focused on factors that prevent students
from using Google Docs as a collaborative learning tool. The validity of the interview questions was addressed by the ten experts
as well. Experts reviewed and refereed the questions in terms of their value and sufficiency to match the questionnaire items
and their ability to produce supportive data. To make sure that all questions are understandable, and could produce valued
and thoughtful information, three students were interviewed. Based on experts' and students' comments, few changes were
made.

3.3. Data collection

Before collecting data, the researchers met with participants at the end of the first and second semester of 2013/2014 to explain
the purpose of the study and familiarize them with the type of the questions they will be asked to answer. In addition, the researchers
stressed the anonymity of participants' responses to assure privacy, confidentiality and comfort. The questionnaire was posted on the
Moodle CMS. Moreover, the instructor sets a specific amount of time in each section to encourage and allow students to respond to the
questionnaires. The majority of registered students (n = 142) completed the questionnaire representing a 79.7% response rate. A
summary of participants is presented in Table 1.
Then 14 students from different specializations were selected randomly for the interview process. The number and specialization
of those selected participants are displayed in Table 2.
Participants were interviewed individually to reassure anonymity, confidentiality and comfort (Zorko, 2009). A significant phase
of data collection was audio-taping and transcribing all interviews.

3.4. Data analysis

In terms of analyzing the questionnaires data, SPSS was employed to attain related descriptive statistics including means, standard
deviations, and frequencies. Furthermore, participants' responses to the questionnaire items were segmented into three sets, includ-
ing low (1–2.339), moderate (2.34–3.66), and high (3.67–5).
To analyze the data collected from the responses to the interview questions, the framework of the verbal analysis method for
coding and analyzing spoken and written data (Chi, 1997) was utilized. The data analysis started with reducing the big amount of
the qualitative data. This was done by creating some primary coding on the whole set of data and then more specific coding on a cer-
tain subsections. After that, as cited in Ishtaiwa and Dukmak (2013), the data was divided into suitable sections based on semantic
features. Afterwards, the researchers developed a coding system. Subsequently, the coding system was implemented to ascertain
the main themes. Finally, the recognized themes in the depicted data were interpreted and presented exclusively according to the re-
search questions.

Table 1
Number of participants by specialization.

Specialization Number Percentage

Information technology 49 34.5%

English language 42 29.5%
Arabic language 35 24.6%
Islamic studies 10 7.0%
Science 6 4.2%
Total 142 100%
90 F.F. Ishtaiwa, I.M. Aburezeq / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 7 (2015) 85–96

Table 2
Number of interviewed participants by specialization.

Specialization Number Percentage

Information technology 4 28.6%

English language 3 21.5%
Arabic language 3 21.5%
Islamic studies 2 14.2%
Science 2 14.2%
Total 14 100%

4. Results

4.1. The impact of Google Docs on student–student interaction

The impact of Google Docs on student–student interaction was examined by asking participants to evaluate the influence of
Google Docs on promoting 19 collaborative behaviors. Using mean and standard deviation for the total scores revealed that students
held positive views towards Google Docs as a tool to enhance student–student interaction (M = 67.16, SD = 13.41). More specifical-
ly, the overall mean of participants' responses for each behavior ranged from 2.38 to 4.19. This shows that the level of impact of Google
Docs on student–student interaction fell in the moderate to high categories. Eleven items in this section were rated above 3.71 (high
category). The eight remaining items were rated in the moderate category with mean scores ranging from 2.38 to 3.63. This finding
indicates that the application has the power to promote some collaborative learning behaviors and it was less efficient in facilitating
other behaviors. Acquiring knowledge and skills in an interesting way, comparing work with others and checking progress, learning
from one another, and giving and receiving feedback were among the pedagogical activities most promoted by the application. These
findings are shown in Table 3.
Consistently, and as presented in Table 4, the qualitative data revealed that Google Docs has the power to enhance student–student
interaction through its various pedagogical functions.
However, participant reported that the way of implementing Google Docs and its nature hindered their student–student interac-
tion. Six participants indicated that they were not satisfied with distribution of the collaborative work. For example a participant said:
“There were no clear criteria for group members participating. Participation was on voluntary base. It was difficult to define each member's
effort and contribution.” Another participant stated: “It was easy for some members to depend on other members. In the assignment of
creating lesson plans, we got 9 out of 10. Honestly, some of the group members didn't deserve this mark.”
In addition, five participants indicated that the nature of Google Docs did not promote their effective student–student interaction.
This view is explained by a participant as follows: “Allowing everyone to edit the created product on her own and the big number of
provided views complicated our job.”
Another participant concluded:
I was a member of an organized group. We agreed on everything. No one was allowed to edit the original document before discussing
and approving the suggested change. It was not easy to always reach that goal. Some of us still lack teamwork skills, especially those
who insist on their opinions.

Table 3
The impact of Google Docs on student–student interaction (N = 142).

N Behavior Mean SD

1 Acquiring knowledge and skills in an interesting way 4.19 0.79

2 Comparing our work with others and checking our progress 4.05 0.85
3 Learning from one another 4.02 0.85
4 Giving and receiving constructive feedback 4.00 0.93
5 Exchanging information and ideas more easily 3.98 0.91
6 Being more connected with our peers 3.92 0.95
7 Assisting each other in a better way 3.92 0.87
8 Promoting my critical thinking 3.86 0.89
9 Achieving our goals more easily 3.73 0.84
10 Working more autonomously as a group 3.71 0.87
11 Becoming more strongly defined as a group 3.71 0.95
12 Developing small group skills needed for the teamwork 3.63 0.91
13 Defining my self-identity in relation to the group 3.53 0.87
14 Initiating further activities 3.38 0.82
15 Working more autonomously as an individual 3.10 0.90
16 Co-constructing shared perspectives more easily 2.89 0.82
17 Jointly reflecting on the progress of work 2.67 0.81
18 Distributing the collaborative work better and more fairly 2.41 0.80
19 Monitoring each other's efforts and contributions more easily 2.38 0.80
 F.F. Ishtaiwa, I.M. Aburezeq / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 7 (2015) 85–96 91

Table 4
The impact of Google Docs on student–student interaction (N = 14).

Function Number of Sample comment

comments

Benefit from the experiences
of others.
Creating attractive and motivating
opportunities to learn.
Providing a free and flexible
platform for chat and discussion.
Promoting critical thinking and
creativity.
13 “It is very helpful to have an opportunity to see the other groups' work before submitting ours. To
be honest, many times we had to change things based on comparing our works with others' work.”
“I learned a lot from reviewing my peers' material. For example, I wouldn't be able to produce a
reflective written report without first seeing many examples. Google Docs provided me with this opportunity.”
11 “Doing things online is very desirable to me. This tool made me more motivated by making my
learning easier, more interesting, fun and beneficial.”
“Getting help from friends has now been faster and easier. You post your contribution and someone
will help you in editing it to be better, I like that.”
9 “Leaving comments feature in Google Docs has a positive benefit that advanced my learning. It is a valuable
avenue for exchanging ideas and getting assistance to improve my products. I also helped others by providing
some advices.”
“In many cases, peers' comments provided us with an analysis of our strengths and weaknesses that were
utilized to get better work.”
“It is a good way to supplement face to face discussion.”
“There is an opportunity to participate in a discussion without the need to leave your room in the student
house. There is no need to take permission to go out to meet classmates.”
7 “By Google Docs, thinking and expressing opinions are accessible for everyone without restrictions.
Sometime you get inspired by a single thought that stimulate your thinking and creativity.”
“It taught me how I see things from different sides, and to count to 10 before judging others' ideas.”

4.2. The impact of Google Docs on student–instructor interaction

The impact of Google Docs on student–instructor interaction was investigated by asking participants to evaluate the influence of
Google Docs on promoting three collaborative behavior statements. By using mean and standard deviation for the total scores, the
results revealed that Google Docs has the power to promote student–instructor interaction (M = 11.95, SD = 2.07). Table 5 shows
that the overall mean of students' responses for each behavior ranged from 3.78 to 4.14. This indicates that the level of the impact
of Google Docs on student–instructor interaction fell in the high category. Getting more support and advice from the instructor
was the pedagogical function most promoted by the application.
Correspondingly, interviewees reported that Google Docs improved their interaction with their instructor. Table 6 summarizes the
major pedagogical functions that were improved by the application.

4.3. The usefulness of Google Docs resources

Participants were asked to evaluate to what extent the three resources that are available in the Google Docs contributed to improve
their collaboration. By using the total scores, the results indicated that the resources of Google Docs were useful and helpful to
promote instructional collaboration (M = 11.67, SD = 2.14). As indicated in Table 7, the general mean of participants' responses
for each resource ranged from 3.63 to 4.09. This suggests that the impact of Google Docs resources on improving collaboration fell
in the moderate to high categories. The comments from the instructor were the most beneficial resource to improve student
collaboration.
With regard to the interview responses, it was concluded that the resources of Google Docs are not as many resources as are
available in other collaborative technologies. Nevertheless, the available resources were highly valued as tools to encourage their
collaboration. Significant themes identified in participants' perceptions of the usefulness of Google Docs resources are presented in
Table 8.

4.4. The usefulness of Google Docs features

Participants were also asked to evaluate to what extent the nine features of Google Docs contributed to improve their collab-
oration. The results indicated that the features of Google Docs has the potentiality to improve students' collaboration (M = 33.35,
SD = 5.40). As indicated in Table 9, the general mean of participants' responses for each feature ranged from 2.83 to 4.09. This
demonstrates that the usefulness of Google Docs features as a tool for collaboration fell in the moderate to high categories. Six
items in this section were rated above 3.72 (high category). The three remaining items were rated in the moderate category with

Table 5
The impact of Google Docs on student–instructor interaction (N = 142).

N Behavior Mean SD

1 Getting more support and advice from the instructor 4.14 0.77
2 Communicating more with the instructor 4.02 0.74
3 Communicating more efficiently with the instructor 3.78 0.70
92 F.F. Ishtaiwa, I.M. Aburezeq / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 7 (2015) 85–96

Table 6
The impact of Google Docs on student–instructor interaction (N = 14).

Function N. of Sample comment

comments

Immediate support and
assistance
Enhancing the extent of
communication.
Improving the efficacy of
communication.
12 “He was always there to help us. If you ask, a fast response will come. It is wonderful to always find someone
when you need him.”
“When we had to design a rubric for assessing students' performance, we had no clue from where we can start.
Our instructor quickly provided us with needed help.”
11 “Instructor's comments were a strong motivator for me to ask additional questions. With Google Docs, I have never
hesitated to ask any question.”
8 “It gave me plenty of time to think before asking or participating in a discussion. My questions, ideas and thoughts
became more focused and significant. It is better than face to face interaction.”
“Interacting with the instructor using Google Docs is like swimming in a pool of thoughtful ideas.”

mean scores ranging from 2.38 to 3.61. The leaving comment, the easy use of Google Docs, and controlling access were the most useful
feature to improve collaboration.
In terms of the qualitative data, the interviewees concluded that the Google Docs was easy to use and it has a combination of
features that enriched their collaboration. However, they reported that they were uncomfortable with the tool editing features.
These findings were evident in the following participants' responses as presented in Table 10.

4.5. The factors limiting students' use of Google Docs

Students' perceived limiting factors of Google Docs were investigated in responding to 12 challenge-related statements. The
general mean of participants' responses for each possible challenge ranged between 1.83 and 4.17. The most obvious challenges
are: lack of teamwork skills, lack of technological skills, preference for other collaborative tools, and the requirement of extra work
and load. Other factors, such as lack of teacher's timely feedback, availability of face to face meetings, and the public nature of the
tool were not considered as potential challenges. Table 11 displays these limiting factors in descending order.
Similarly, students during the interviews raised several issues that inhibited or limited their collaboration in Google Docs. Table 12
highlights the significant themes identified in participants' responses to the interview questions.

5. Discussion

This study intended to gain insights into the impact of Google Docs on improving student–student and student–instructor inter-
actions. In addition, it aimed to evaluate the Google Docs resources and features in terms of their capability to support collaboration.
Finally, the study explored the factors limiting student collaboration via Google Docs. This section discusses the major notable themes
that emerged from the quantitative and qualitative data collected.
Google Docs has generally the power to promote student–student interaction. The application as perceived by the participants was
an interesting and beneficial tool to collaborate with their peers. Participants reported that the tool was effective in promoting several
collaborative learning behaviors, such as acquiring knowledge and skills in an exciting way, comparing their work with others and
learning from them, ease of giving and receiving feedback, sharing information, and being more connected with others. The positive
impact of Google Docs on enhancing interaction with peers is a result of the applications' pedagogical functions which include
allowing students to learn in a new, different and convenient way that is so different from what students are used to having. Moreover,
the availability, accessibility and ease of use of the application allow students to effectively share information, participate in construct-
ing knowledge, and get engaged in discussions regardless of any limitations, such as deficiency of communication skills, shortage
of time, absence of face to face meeting, and shyness. For instance, most of the Diploma female students live in dorms with highly
restricted rules. They are not allowed to leave the dorms after certain hours of the day. Google Docs provides such students with a
way to work with peers without breaking the dorm rules.
However, the tool was less successful in promoting other collaborative learning behaviors, such as constructing shared perspec-
tives, joint reflecting on the work progress, fair collaborative work distribution, and monitoring each other's contribution. Participants'
minimal implementations of these learning activities could be explained by two reasons. The first is the absence of clear participation
and contribution criteria as reported by participants during interviews. Since the nature of the tool permits each member to edit the
shared document on his own, there is a critical need for providing students with strict, clear and detailed criteria for effective partic-
ipation. Secondly, the deficiency of expertise in conducting such activities discouraged students from implementing them. This tool is

Table 7
The usefulness of Google Docs resources (N = 142).

N Resource Mean SD

1 The usefulness of the instructors' comments 4.09 0.74

2 The usefulness of access to the work of others 3.95 0.79
3 The usefulness of peers' comments 3.63 0.83
 F.F. Ishtaiwa, I.M. Aburezeq / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 7 (2015) 85–96 93

Table 8
The usefulness of Google Docs resources (N = 14).

Theme Number of Sample comment

comments

Valuing the usefulness of the
instructors' comments
Valuing the usefulness of
access to the work of others.
Valuing the usefulness of
peers' comments.
Discomfort with the nature
of some comments.
14 “Although the software doesn't have many resources, it was very beneficial for me and for the whole group.
Instructors' comments helped us to create better products.”
“Instructor's comments presented us a comprehensive overview of the course.”
12 “We have made sure to have a look at the work of others before handing our assignments. Sometimes we learnt
from them by doing things like them, or sometimes we learnt from their mistakes.”
“Creating flow chart for our project was a challenging assignment to us. However, seeing some examples of peers'
flow charts simplified our job.”
8 “It is an open resource to express your opinion. It is very nice to find a way to get assistance from others or to help
them. Some comments included really positive feedback.”
7 “Specific criteria for commenting are needed. We don't want to waste our time reading redundant, repeated and
useless comments.”
“I think the culture of commenting for the sake of commenting needs to be stopped. We need comprehensive and
insightful comments rather than unperceptive ones that waste our time and effort.”

new for students as a collaborative technology. Thus, they might lack skills of using some of its functions for effective collaboration.
This explanation was supported by another finding of this study. Students in the study indicated that lack of technological knowledge
and skills was one of the factors that limited their Google Docs usage. This in turn suggests the necessity of teaching students the
different functions of the tool before using it. It is expected that students will use the tool better if they know how they effectively
use it (Zorko, 2009).
In terms of student–instructor interaction, this study has found that Google Docs has a positive impact on improving students'
interaction with the instructor. Google Docs not only helped students to communicate more with their instructor, but also improved
the efficiency of their communication. Participants reported that the instructor's quick responses to their questions and the support,
advice and encouragement included in his comments were the key factors that motivated them to use Google Docs for collaboration.
One strength of Google Docs as a collaborative technology lies in its capability to equip teaching and learning with an additional
medium for communication, especially when the instructor and students do not have adequate time for collaboration during the
class. This finding was supported by another finding of the study where the students evaluated the instructor's comments resource
as the most valuable resource among the ones that are available in the Google Docs.
Another issue related to student–content interaction is the value of the access to the work of others. As perceived by participants,
viewing others' work is an important source to learn from each other. The power of this source lies in providing students with an ad-
ditional way to learn or to review their products by comparing it with other's products. This process could be considered as a second
look before submitting their assignments. In addition, participants valued the peers' comments as a mean for exchanging ideas.
However, they complained about the huge amount of repeated and irrelevant peers' comments that wasted their time and effort.
This once again shows the importance of providing students with specific and restricted commenting criteria for improving the
quality of the posted comments.
With regard to student–interface interaction, the results indicated that the features of Google Docs contributed to improve collab-
oration. The ease and simplicity of using the tool, the leaving comment, controlling access, availability of revision history, availability of
a variety of documents and saving formats are some features that motivated students to use the tool for collaboration. On the other
hand, the limited editing features were considered by participants as a drawback of Google Docs that limited their collaboration.
Students these days have access to many different types of technologies and applications with wide and various editing features
and options. The comparison between the features of these available tools may not be in the favor of Google Docs.
Finally, the study clarified some of the factors that limited the effective use of Google Docs for collaboration. The most noticeable
factor that inhibited students from using Google Docs for collaboration was students' lack of teamwork skills. This includes irrespon-
sibility to get things done at the right time, hitchhiking on others, posting irrelevant or repeated comments. Students differ in their
commitment for participation. Thus, teachers need to create well designed online activities that motivate students to effectively
participate. The advantages of online collaboration could not be attained by only using new technology to post materials on the

Table 9
The usefulness of Google Docs features (N = 142).

N Feature Mean SD

1 The leaving comment 4.09 0.71

2 The easy use of Google Docs 4.01 0.76
3 Controlling access 3.96 0.81
4 Accessibility of revision history 3.92 0.84
5 Documents variety and saving formats 3.77 0.81
6 Availability of HELP instructions 3.72 0.76
7 Absence of update conflicts 3.61 0.82
8 Absence of technical problems 3.40 0.89
9 The editing features 2.83 0.84
94 F.F. Ishtaiwa, I.M. Aburezeq / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 7 (2015) 85–96

Table 10
The usefulness of Google Docs features (N = 14).

Theme Number of Sample comment

comments

The ease and simplicity of using
the tool
Valuing the leaving comment
feature.
Valuing the controlling access to
create documents.
Valuing the availability of revision
history.
Valuing the variety of documents
and saving formats.
Valuing the absence of update
conflicts.
Valuing the HELP instructions
Discomfort with the editing
features
Discomfort with the technical
problems
12 “I extensively used the tool during the class because it is very simple to use, easy to edit, and easy to comment.
It is different from many things I already know.”
“Although I'm not a technology knowledgeable, I had no problem using Google Docs. It is an interesting tool
that can be used to improve your future teaching career.”
12 “Leaving comment is an interesting and helpful feature that enhances my collaboration with peers, instructor
and content.”
“This feature provided us with an open platform for discussion and exchanging thoughts.”
11 “Accessing documents are only open for class members who can either edit it or leave comments based on his
role as a collaborator or a viewer. This feature is amazing one.”
10 “You can trace the entire development process of the collaborative work from the initial product to the final
format.”
9 “The tool allowed us to create different forms of products including docs, sheets and slides with the ability to
save them in various types such as MS Word, PDF, HTML, and RTF.”
8 “We haven't experienced update conflicts.”
“We used to simultaneously work on documents with no serious problem.”
7 “My technology skills are modest. However, I learned a lot by myself from the available help instructions.”
“Although the instructor taught us how to use the tool, I learned more from the tool itself. Page setup,
converting files to Google Docs, editing tables are some examples. The only problem was the English language
by providing instructions. My English is poor.”
9 “I prefer to use a technology that provides me with rich editing options or at least similar to software I already
use. When we converted our PowerPoint presentation into Google Docs, we lost a lot of formatted features. We
have got disappointed at that moment.”
“Editing documents that included complex tables like some rubrics was challenging.”
4 “Slow network or shutdown is frustrating.”

website. Online collaboration is a way to improve learning through implementing a collection of tools to meet students' needs and
objectives.
Although participants indicated that Google Docs is an easy application to use, students' technological skills were reported as one
of the major limitations of using the application for collaboration. Participants indicated that they do not have sufficient skills to effec-
tively utilize the tool. This finding suggests the necessity for providing pre-service teachers with enough preparation and training
programs for the effective use of technology. Online collaboration will not succeed if it is hampered by a lack of instructor or student
proficiency in technology use. The third significant limiting factor was the availability of variety of faster and more accessible commu-
nication applications. Applications such as text messages, instant messages, email and phone calls facilitate more immediate, easier
and quicker communication with peers and the instructor. The requirement of extra work and load is presenting another inhibitor
for online collaboration. Students in the online collaboration environment need to read, think, participate, discuss, and type answers
or comments which require a huge amount of time and effort. Students who prefer getting faster responses by asking their instructor
or peers face to face or by phones may not be willing to collaborate using collaborative technologies such as Google Docs. Teachers
need to find ways to motivate students to effectively participate in the online collaboration environment. The limited features
of Google Docs compared with other collaborative technology present another important inhibiting factor. The software supports
collaboration on text based materials only with the restricted formatting ability. This challenge may lead to students' preference for
other collaborative tools such as blogs, shared folders, forums, and wikis.

Table 11
Factors limiting students' collaboration in Google Docs (N = 142).

N Factor Mean SD

1 Lack of teamwork skills 4.17 0.87

2 Lack of technological skills 4.04 0.94
3 Preference for messenger, email and mobile phone communications 3.99 0.83
4 The requirement of extra work and load 3.97 0.86
5 Limited editing features 3.84 0.78
6 Preference for other collaborative tools 3.17 0.84
7 Technical problems 2.88 0.91
8 The assessment of the work and products 2.86 0.91
9 The quality of the available resources 2.60 0.93
10 Lack of teacher's timely feedback and encouragement 2.34 0.77
11 Availability of face to face meetings 2.08 0.77
12 The public nature of the tool 1.83 0.69
 F.F. Ishtaiwa, I.M. Aburezeq / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 7 (2015) 85–96 95

Table 12
Factors limiting students' collaboration in Google Docs (N = 14).

Theme Number of Sample comment

comments

Lack of students' teamwork skills
The availability of faster and more
accessible communication applications.
Discomfort with the tool editing features.
Discomfort with using the tool.
Increasing work and load vs. lack of time.
Preference for other collaborative tools with
more features.
Preference for face to face interaction.
11 “There were no specific criteria to divide the work between the members of the group. Distribution
was on voluntary base. Thus, there was a possibility for some members to just hitchhike on others
with no actual contribution.”
“We had to spend too long time trying to convince some members to change their opinion.
Unfortunately, some of us don't respect others opinion. They always think that they are right.”
“Too many comments with little benefit. Reading stolen ideas or non-related comments are unpleasant.”
11 “The software is a good one, but there are many other options that are faster and easier to use.
With my phone in my hand, WhatsApp allows me to contact anyone from anywhere and anytime.”
“The email for contacting my instructor and phone calls for contacting peers are a better option.”
9 “I used to create all my documents using one of the MS program, then post it on the used collaborative
tool. This process hasn't gone smoothly with Google Docs. Poor formatted elements of the tool created
problems for me.”
8 “I haven't used Google Docs before. I want some time to comfortably implement it.”
“Although the instructor taught us how we use the tool, I still have difficulty in employing its features.
I tried to use the Help instructions, but instructions are in English which I don't have enough command
to understand it.”
8 “Participating in effective online collaboration requires more time and effort. Time and effort are
needed for reading material, participation in discussion, deep thinking, providing and receiving
feedback and learning how to use technology. Actually, we don't have time for all of these things.”
“We have many things to do beside the requirement of this course.”
5 “I like the tool. However, I prefer to use the course Blog that enables us to share all types of educational
resources.”
“As future teachers, documents are only one type of resources we need to create. Graphics and movies
are other examples. This tool doesn't allow us to collaborate on such things.”
4 “Asking face to face questions is my favorite type of interaction. It is the fastest way to get direct
answers rather than you get lost in a pool of comments.”

6. Conclusion and recommendations

This study has presented an example of how Google Docs can be used to improve teaching and learning, and it provided evidence
that this application has the power to improve learning by enhancing student–student, student–instructor, student–content, and
student–interface interactions.
However, the extent of the success and usefulness of the tool in prompting learning depends on how the challenges of Google Docs'
implementation can be addressed. Based on the revealed results of this study, the following recommendations are offered to increase
the effectiveness use of Google Docs as a collaborative learning application:

1. Utilize Google Docs as a collaborative technology: It is a user friendly software with applicable features that support the teaching
and learning process by adding extra space for learning from others, discussion, reflection and exchanging knowledge. In addition,
the software has the power to eliminate the obstacles of face to face teaching such as lack of communication skills, lack of time or
shyness.
2. Create well designed online activities that motivate students to participate in this new learning environment.
3. Outline the criteria of Google Docs usage: Detailed, specific and restricted criteria for the online content, distribution the collabo-
rative work, monitoring students' efforts and contributions, and guidelines for evaluating products and participation. Such criteria
may contribute to improve collaboration among students and increase the quality of their contributions.
4. Allow and motivate students to comment on each others' work. Comment feature in the Google Docs is a useful platform for giving
and receiving feedback, and exchanging ideas with others which ultimately leads to enhance learning.
5. Teach the tool features: Providing students with an effective training program for technology usage is needed. The students will
most likely use the software better if they have the knowledge and skills of what they can do with it (Zorko, 2009).
6. Allow students to access each others' work. This strategy will give them a chance to learn from each other by comparing their work
with others. They will also learn from the strengths and weaknesses of others.
7. Constantly monitor students' progress and immediately offer them encouragement, advice or feedback. This will benefit the
targeted group and other groups who read the offered comments. Moreover, the prompt feedback from the instructor is a key
factor that will motivate them to use Google Docs for collaboration.
8. Encourage students to use the tool to ask for help, comment, discuss, reflect and propose new ideas and thoughts. This will contrib-
ute to taking advantage of the platform and enhance collaborative behaviors.

References

Adiguzel, T., Capraro, R., & Willson, V. (2011). An examination of teacher acceptance of handheld computers. International Journal of Special Education, 26(3), 1–16.
Alonso, F., López, G., Manrique, D., & Viñes, J. M. (2005). An instructional model for web-based e-learning education with a blended learning process approach. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 217–235.
96 F.F. Ishtaiwa, I.M. Aburezeq / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 7 (2015) 85–96

Arnold, N., & Ducate, L. (2006). Future foreign language teachers' social and cognitive collaboration in an online environment collaboration in an online environment.
Language, Learning and Technology, 10(1), 42–66.
Barnes, S. (2000). What does electronic conferencing afford distance education? Distance Education, 21(2), 236–247.
Beatty, K., & Nunan, D. (2004). Computer-mediated collaborative learning. System, 32(2), 165–183 (Retrieved from http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/Alhassan/2503/CMC%
20learning%202005.pdf).
Berge, Z. L. (2002). Active, interactive, and reflective E-learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3, 181–190.
Brook, C., & Oliver, R. (2003). Online learning communities: Investigating a design framework. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(2), 139–160.
Burge, E. J. (1994). Learning in computer conferenced context: the learners' perspective. Journal of Distance Education, 9(1), 19–43.
Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chi, M. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.
Collis, B. (1998). New didactics for university instruction: Why and how. Computers and Education, 31(4), 373–393.
Conner, N. (2008). Google Apps: The missing manual. Sebastopol, CA: O'Relly Media (Retrieved from: http://cdn.oreillystatic.com/oreilly/booksamplers/5_Google_Apps_
TMM_Sampler.pdf).
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Curtis, D. D., & Lawson, M. J. (2001). Exploring collaborative online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(1), 21–34.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Dekeyser, S., & Watson, R. (2006). Extending Google Docs to collaborate on research papers. Technical report, Australia No. 2 (Retrieved from http://www.sci.usq.edu.au/
staff/dekeyser/googledocs.pdf).
Firth, M., & Mesureur, G. (2010). Innovative uses for Google Docs in a university language program. The JALT CALL Journal, 6(1), 3–16.
Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of
Educational Telecommunications, 1(2), 147–166.
Hillman, D. C. A., Willis, D. J., & Gunawerdena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for
practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30–43.
Ishtaiwa, F., & Abulibdeh, E. (2012). The impact of asynchronous e-Learning tools on interaction and learning in a blended course. International Journal of Instructional
Media, 39(2), 141–160.
Ishtaiwa, F., & Dukmak, S. (2013). Do web 2.0 applications enhance learning in teacher education in the UAE? An exploratory study. International Journal for Research in
Education, 33, 1–27.
Jafari, A. (2004). The “sticky” ePortfolio system: Tackling challenges and identifying attributes. DUCAUSE Review, 39(4), 38–49.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1998). Cooperative learning and social interdependence theory. Retrieved from http://www.co-operation.org/pages/SIT.html
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2004). Cooperation and the use of technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and
technology. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kongchan, C. (2013). How Edmodo and Google Docs can change traditional classrooms. The European Conference on Language Learning 2013.
Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information and
Management, 40, 191–204.
Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Pihlajamäki, H. (2003). Can a collaborative network environment enhance essay-writing processes? British Journal of Educational Technology,
34(1), 17–30.
Lipponen, L., & Lallimo, J. (2004). Assessing applications for collaboration: From collaboratively usable applications to collaborative technology. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 35(4), 433–442.
Miller, S. M., & Miller, K. L. (1999). Using instructional theory to facilitate communication in web-based courses. Educational Technology and Society, 2(3), 106–114.
Moore, M. (1989). Three types of interactions. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7.
Oblinger, D. (2005). Learners, learning and technology: The Educause learning initiative. EDUCAUSE Review, 40(5), 67–75.
Oxnevad, S. (2013). 6 powerful Google Docs features to support the collaborative writing process. Retrieved from: http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/
volume14/ej55/ej55m1/
Parker, K. R., & Chao, J. T. (2007). Wiki as a teaching tool. Interdisciplinary. Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, 57–72.
Perron, B. E., & Sellers, J. (2011). A review of the collaborative and sharing aspects of Google Docs. Research on Social Work Practice, 21, 489–490. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1177/1049731510391676.
Ravid, G., Kalman, Y. M., & Rafaeli, S. (2008). Wiki books in higher education: Empowerment through online distributed collaboration. Computers in Human Behavior,
24(5), 1913–1928.
Schneider, D. K., Synteta, P., Frété, C., Girardin, F., & Morand, S. (2003). Conception and implementation of rich pedagogical scenarios through collaborative portal sites:
Clear focus and fuzzy edges. Keynote address for ICOOL (International Conference on Open and Online Learning), University of Mauritius (Retrieved from http://tecfa.
unige.ch/proj/seed/catalog/docs/icool03-schneider.pdf).
Sikkel, K., Gommer, L., & van der Veen, J. (2002). Using shared workspaces in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(1), 26–45.
Suwantarathip, O., & Wichadee, S. (2014). The effects of collaborative writing activity using Google Docs on students' writing abilities. Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology, 13(2), 148–156.
Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22,
306–331.
Taylor, C. W., & Hunsinger, A. (2011). A study of student use of cloud computing applications. Journal of Information Technology Management, XXII(3), 36–50.
Thorsteinsson, G., Page, T., & Niculescu, A. (2010). Using virtual reality for developing design communication. Studies in Informatics and Control, 19(1), 93–106.
Thurmond, V. (2003). Defining interaction and strategies to enhance interactions in web-based courses. Nurse Educator, 28(5), 237.
Zhou, W., Simpson, E., & Domizi, D. P. (2012). Google docs in an out-of-class collaborative writing activity. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education, 24(3), 359–375.
Zorko, V. (2009). Factors affecting the way students collaborate in a wiki for English language learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(5), 645–665.