The Impact of Using Google Docs in the Collaborative ...€¦ · The Impact of Using Google Docs in the Collaborative Course Design Process May 3, 2014 Betsy Guala University of Colorado

The Impact of Using Google Docs in the Collaborative Course Design Process

May 3, 2014

Betsy Guala

University of Colorado Denver

IT6720 – Research in Information and Learning Technologies

IMPACT OF GOOGLE DOCS ON COLLABORATIVE COURSE DESIGN

2

Introduction and Problem Statement I work as an instructional designer at a large public university in the Northeast region of the

United States. Our team, which consists of seven instructional designers and two eLearning

developers, supports faculty who design and develop online courses at both the undergraduate

and graduate level. The instructional designers have typically used a template developed in

Microsoft Word for collaboration on the course design and development process with faculty and

eLearning developers. This document was then emailed back and forth, using track changes and

comments. One of the main problems staff identified with this type of collaboration is the

development of multiple versions of the same document. This often led to confusion for both

faculty and instructional designers, trying to determine which file had the most recent changes.

In the summer of 2013, the university adopted the use of Google Applications for faculty, staff

and students. In August of 2013, two of the instructional designers, working together on a

graduate degree program, started to use the Google Docs tool for collaboration on course design

with faculty. Over the course of three to six months, the other team members began to adopt

Google Docs in their own course design practice. In addition to providing a consistent process

for working with multiple faculty within academic programs, the instructional design team

wanted to find out if hosting the course design document in one place and sharing with others

would be more efficient than previous methods of collaboration.

Purpose and Intended Audience The purpose of this research was to determine the impact of using Google Docs on the

collaborative course design process. The intended audience and participants of this research

were the instructional design and development team and the university faculty who collaborate

on course design documents. In addition, the students and instructor in the INTE 6720 course

may benefit from learning about the outcomes of this research. This report will also reside in my

Instructional Learning Technologies program portfolio and will be reviewed for meeting at least

one primary competency or professional standard set forth by the Association for Educational

Communications and Technology (AECT).


3

Research Questions In order to understand the impact that using Google Docs has on our collaborative course design

process, I posed the following research questions:

§ In terms of efficiency, how does using Google Docs for collaborative course design

compare to previous methods?

The results of this question were intended to address the issue of whether or not Google

Docs is a more efficient application to use when collaborating on course design

documents.

§ What practices make using Google Docs to manage course design successful or

unsuccessful? In order to fully understand the impact of using Google Docs in the course design process

and to propose best practices, it was important to find out which practices have been

working well, and which have not.

§ How have faculty responded to using Google Docs in the course design process?

Using Google Docs for the purpose of course design is a new practice for many of the

faculty that we work with. I thought it necessary to include the experiences of faculty

who are using Google Docs in the process.

§ What training gaps exist and how do those gaps impact the use of Google Docs to

collaborate on instructional design projects?

This question was used to identify gaps in knowledge and address training needs.

After reviewing the literature on adoption of web 2.0 applications in higher education, I added

the third research question above to this study. This allowed for greater participation by faculty

and was intended to address issues that prevent faculty collaboration using a new tool.

Context of Study In 2012, the Distance Education unit at the university merged with the Instructional Design and

Development (IDD) group. The combined team now consists of seven instructional designers,

two eLearning developers and one manager. Initially, the instructional designers from the

distance education group used a more formal approach to collaborate on course design


4

documents with faculty. As the two groups merged, they began to share processes and borrow

template elements from each other to add to their course design documents. In 2013, the number

of online graduate level programs began to increase significantly. With two or more

instructional designers working within each program, the need for a more consistent approach

became apparent. When the university adopted the use of Google Applications for faculty,

students and staff, two team members decided to try incorporating a course design template into

Google Docs. Within a few months, the other instructional designers began to experiment with

course design collaboration using Google Docs.

Another consideration for adopting Google Docs was the need to create a more efficient means

of sharing course design documents. With tight deadlines in place for the implementation of

courses, the group decided to see if collaboration with Google Docs would be more efficient than

emailing documents back and forth or using a drop box.

Literature Review The purpose of this literature review was to establish a theoretical framework by which I could

address my initial research questions. By reviewing primary sources of literature related to my

research topic, I was able to make connections and identify gaps that could be filled by my

research findings.

Literature Review Questions To help address my research question about the impact of collaborating on course design

documents using Google Docs on both staff and faculty, my literature review focused on the

following questions:

1. In what ways are web 2.0 tools effective for collaboration?

2. What are the positive and negative features of collaboration using web 2.0 tools?

3. What issues effect the adoption of new cloud-based tools?

Connections to Research Questions By looking at studies related to effectiveness of using web2.0 collaboration tools for

collaboration, I intended to draw parallels to the effectiveness of using Google Docs in our


5

course design process. In searching the literature related to positive and negative features of

using collaborative web 2.0 tools, I intended to address my second research question and help

shape a set of best practices for using Google Docs. My third literature review question connects

to both research questions 2, 3 and 4 by attempting to find studies that address best practices and

the conditions that affect adoption of a new collaborative tool.

Literature Search Procedures I started my search by using the Auraria Library database. I initially used the keyword search

“Google Docs” + “instructional design”, which yielded no articles related to either my search

questions or my research questions. I used additional search terms such as “project

management” + “Google Docs” and “web 2.0” + “project management”. I narrowed the search

results by selecting only full-text and peer reviewed articles. Most searches produced between

approximately 20 and 44 articles and some produced more. There were no articles that

specifically addressed the collaboration of course design using Google Docs, instead, many of

the articles addressed the use of Google Docs within classrooms for student collaboration on

assignments. I decided to contact a librarian through the chat tool for assistance. Using all of the

library’s databases, the librarian’s search produced similar results.

In reviewing Thomas’s chapter “The Literature Review”, I came to realize that I might not find

articles that specifically addressed my research topic and that I would need to search for related

articles and find the relevance to my own research context (Thomas, 2009.) I continued to

broaden the keyword search terms to “course design” + “web 2.0”, “web 2.0” + “project

management”, “web 2.0” + collaboration”, and “Google Apps + course design”. By continually

broadening the search terms, I was eventually able to find seven articles that had relevance to my

literature review questions.

Literature Review Findings

There is a great deal of literature supporting the idea that students have typically been the early

adopters of collaborative technologies in both social and educational settings. Therefore, much

of the research I found focused on the use of these tools for shared learning activities. However,

as I focused more on the broader topics of collaboration and adoption of web 2.0 tools, three

major themes began to emerge in the available literature; factors influencing effective


6

collaboration, factors influencing the adoption of collaborative tools, and factors influencing

collaboration in the design of online courses.

Collaboration

Collaboration and knowledge sharing is considered successful when participants are able to use a

set of pre-defined goals to accomplish a task that has benefits to all involved (Vallance, 2010).

A number of factors influence the motivation to collaborate using web 2.0 tools including ease of

use, effectiveness for communication and the ability to receive help or feedback. In addition,

motivation for future use of a collaboration tool is highly influenced by the relationship that

develops between participants. A positive experience in which there is mutual respect and

perceived mutual benefits may extend the collaborative relationship to future projects (Vallance,

2009). This is an important factor to consider when assigning course designers to work with

faculty developers as the process of course design is iterative and often results in a long-term

working relationship.

Online Document Collaboration in Educational Settings Universities and colleges are now beginning to appreciate the benefits of web 2.0 tools and many

institutions are implementing the Google Apps Education Edition. This suite of applications is

free and both faculty and staff are beginning to realize how these tools can be applied not just to

the classroom, but to collaborative projects and research as well.

Features Features of good online collaboration tools include the ability to facilitate communication and

interaction, an intuitive interface, and clear expectations of the participants (Lomas, 2008). In

addition, collaboration tools should allow for multiple participants and synchronous

collaboration.

Benefits of using Google Docs for Online Collaboration Asynchronous methods of document collaboration typically rely on taking turns to edit and apply

content, which can be time consuming. Google Docs moves away from this tedious process by

allowing users to collaborate on one document in real-time (Lomas, 2008). Google Documents

are stored on a Google server and are accessible at anytime from a browser window, provided

that one can connect to the internet. Google Docs are easy to create, share and maintain. Google


7

Docs provide an interface that is common to many desktop word processing applications and

now includes similar features such as track changes and revision history. In addition, Google

Docs can be exported to a number of commonly used formats including Microsoft Word, Excel,

PowerPoint, PDF, Rich Text, HTML or plain text (Herrick, 2009). Google Docs is accessible on

all platforms and provides a simple and easy to use interface.

Barriers to using Web 2.0 Tools for Online Collaboration Barriers to using web 2.0 tools in general include a lack of knowledge about how to use the tool

and a perception that the tool has no benefits (Paroutis, 2009). Some users also have difficulty

abandoning old tools and ways of approaching document collaboration. In addition, a lack of

training will prevent users from adopting a new online collaboration tool. New collaboration

tools must be easier to use, provide a better experience than other tools and be more cost

effective to overcome barriers (Lomas, 2008). In general, negative experiences using

collaborative tools, poor communication and a poor relationship appear to have the most

negative impact on online document collaboration.

Adoption of Web 2.0 Collaborative Tools in Higher Education Adoption of collaborative tools into a practice is influenced both by the specific technologies

being introduced and human factors such as individual preferences and attitudes towards

adopting new technologies. Early adopters in an organization are often responsible for

introducing new technologies. A number of factors have been proposed to explain how these

early adopters influence the adoption of technologies in higher education. Quiñones (2014) uses

an ecological framework for describing these “savvy technical experts who experiment with

technology, introduce it to their colleagues, walk them through technology usage, and create new

practices” (p.312). His research emphasizes the need for early adopters to experiment with

technology and help peers to understand the values and benefits of adopting the new technology

in their practice. Two other models have been used to explain technology adoption within

organizations, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and the Actor-Network Theory (ANT).

TAM focuses on the ease of use and perceived usefulness of the tool as influencing adoption,

while ANT focuses on both human and non-human factors equally influencing the decision to

adopt a new technology. Additional human factors influencing technology adoption include

motivation, exposure and self-efficacy (Gohary, 2013). Similar to the factors influencing


8

collaboration, ANT points out that “the perceptions of the usefulness of the technology, the ease

of use, relationships between actors in terms of communication, power distribution, levels of

trust, resource control and influence also need to be considered” (Gohary, 2013, p. 94). The final

factor to consider is the training provided when considering the adoption of collaborative web

2.0 tools. Successful adoption requires that users are able to understand and use a new

technology. These needs can be met through experimentation, peer experts or formal training.

Collaboration in Online Course Development

The growth of online courses and programs in higher education has led to an increased interest in

using research-based standards of quality. While many faculty continue to transfer their content

from face-to-face classrooms into the online environment, a growing body of research suggests

that a transformative approach leads to better outcomes. Instructional designers have been at the

forefront of this movement to educate faculty on best practices for online course design, focusing

on the use of measurable objectives aligned with assessments and learning activities.

Roles in Collaboration The collaborative approach to course design is often a new experience for faculty. Research in

the area of online course development suggests that communicating expectations, assigning

specific roles and responsibilities to each member and respect for each member’s expertise leads

to a more successful collaboration (Xu, 2007). Faculty are typically responsible for the design

and development of content, while the instructional designer provides the faculty member with

the pedagogical tools needed for implementing quality standards into the course design.

Faculty Perceptions of Collaboration Faculty members who design courses on their own typically use a less formal approach, focusing

on the development of learning activities first and completing tasks as their schedule permits. In

contrast, the more formal process of a collaborative instructional design model is often time

consuming for faculty (Xu, 2007). In addition, relationships can be complex and this factor

should be a taken into consideration when managing collaborative efforts.

Overall, The factors leading to successful collaboration between faculty and instructional

designers include a positive working relationship, faculty development, and a design process

grounded in research.


9

Quality of Literature

Overall, I found the literature to be of a high quality. I used seven peer-reviewed articles from

academic journals found through the Auraria Library database. The research articles focused on

qualitative data collected primarily from case studies, direct observation and interviews. While

the research literature focusing on course design using online collaboration tools was extremely

limited, I was able to find quality articles focused on the general use and adoption of web 2.0

collaboration tools in higher education.

Gap in Literature The majority of available literature focused on student collaboration of web 2.0 tools for group

assignments and the co-construction of knowledge. Research specifically addressing

collaboration of course design documents using web 2.0 tools in general and Google Docs

specifically is limited. However, enough research exists to provide suggestions for best practices

in collaboration and the use of collaborative web 2.0 tools. A gap in the literature regarding the

specific use of Google Docs for course design collaboration has been addressed by my data

collection methods and analysis.

Methods This research project focused on the collection and analysis of qualitative data. The personal

interviews and survey questionnaire were used to obtain and analyze the key experiences of the

participants who are using Google Docs in their practice, while the literature review focused on

qualitative data collected primarily from case studies, direct observation and interviews.

Site Selection and Sampling I conducted my research within the Instructional Design and Development (IDD) department at

the university. Participants included five of the seven instructional designers on the team and

two eLearning developers. One of the instructional designers does not use Google Docs in her

practice, so I chose not interview her. I also interviewed the manager of the group because he is

currently collaborating on a course design using Google Docs. All members of the team were

expressed an interest in the analysis of the data.


10

Each team member has a different comfort level and experience with the use of Google Docs in

the design process, so including all experiences was essential to understanding the impact. I

contacted all team members and requested that they participate by means of a personal interview.

In addition, each of the instructional designers contacted faculty and requested that they

voluntarily participate in the research by filling out an online survey created through Google

Forms.

Ethical Procedures

I was careful to ensure that this action research project was ethical and that no harm came to any

participants. I made sure that all participants understood the purpose of the research and my role

as the facilitator. I also made it clear that participation was voluntary and that participants could

leave the study at any time. Data collected from surveys was anonymous and transcripts of

interviews contained no identifying information.

Data Collection Methods I used interviews and surveys to collect data from the instructional design staff and faculty.

Interviews Stringer states that interviews allow participants to “describe the situation in their own terms”

(Stringer, 2014, p. 105). Therefore, I conducted personal interviews with eight of the ten staff

members on the IDD team, providing an opportunity to reflect on how this process affected each

participant directly. Interviews were held in the participants’ office and at times that were

convenient to each. I reiterated the purpose of this research project and asked permission to

record the interview, which was granted in each case. Each interview lasted approximately

fifteen minutes and was comprised of eleven open-ended questions and two multiple select

questions. See Appendix A for the interview questionnaire.

Survey/Questionnaires I asked each instructional designer to forward an email to the instructors they work with,

requesting their participation in an online survey about their experience using Google Docs in the

course design process. The purpose of the survey was explained both at the time of the request

for participation and on the survey itself. Questions focused on the qualitative experience of

using Google Docs and perceived knowledge gaps. I used a combination of multiple select and


11

open response questions. The survey was both short and anonymous. See Appendix B for survey

questionnaire.

Table 1: The table below aligns each research question with the methods of data collection.

Research Question Data Collection Methods

1. In terms of efficiency, how does using

Google Docs for collaborative course design

compare to previous methods?

A. Interviews with members of the

instructional design and development team.

2. What practices make using Google Docs to

manage course design successful or

unsuccessful?



B. Faculty survey/questionnaire

3. How have faculty responded to using

Google Docs in the course design process?

A. Faculty survey/questionnaire

4. What training gaps exist and how do those

gaps impact the use of Google Docs to

collaborate on instructional design projects?



B. Faculty survey/questionnaire

Data Analysis Methods I used qualitative analysis of the data I collected from both staff interviews and the faculty

survey. Stringer recommends a two-phase method of analyzing and interpreting the data from a

study (Stringer, 2014). In the first phase, the researcher distills the data. For interview questions

designed to obtain data measuring the efficiency of using Google Docs in comparison to other

applications, I first reviewed and unitized the data. I then categorized and coded the experiences

and perceptions of the instructional design and development staff and the faculty. Finally, I

identified common themes, organized a category system using Google Spreadsheets and then

developed a framework to report the outcomes of phase one. In the second phase of Stringers

two phase method, enriching the analysis, I used interpretive questions to further understand the

experience of using Google Docs in our course design process. For interview questions designed


12

to obtain information about best practices, I analyzed key experiences of the target audience by

identifying the main features, elements and themes described. In phase two, I used interpretive

questions to identify concerns and address issues. For survey and interview questions designed

to obtain information regarding training gaps, I reviewed and unitized the data and then

categorized and coded areas identified for gaps in knowledge. Using interpretive questions, I can

now make recommendations for further instruction.

Schedule

Table 2: Summary of timeframe for completing the action research project.

Task Time Frame

Review Literature February 24 – March 8

Write Draft of Literature Review March 9 – March 14

Submit Final Literature Review March 15, 2014

Develop Interview Questions February 24 – March 14

Develop Survey Questions February 24 – March 14

Conduct Interviews March 17 – March 28

Release Survey March 24 – April 4

Interpret Interview & Survey Responses April 4 – April 12

Draft Research Findings April 12 – April 18

Submit Final Research Findings April 19, 2014

Write Draft Action Research Report April 20 – April 29

Submit Final Action Research Report May 3, 2014

Checks for Rigor To ensure that the outcomes of the research were reliable and valid, I assessed the following

attributes of the study:

Credibility – Interviews were not limited in time and allowed all participants to express their

experiences using Google Docs in the course design process. The data collected came from a

variety of sources and is available for any participant to review. Terminology and language

reflected the perspective of the participants and was understood.


13

Transferability – While the outcomes of this study reflect the specific context and perspectives

of the target audience, the outcomes can also be applied to other contexts.

Dependability – Research procedures were clearly defined and are available for audit if

requested.

Confirmability – All literature, interview transcripts, and survey results will be made available

upon request to confirm that the data was actually collected, analyzed and used appropriately

within the action research report.

Findings As I analyzed the data collected from interviews and the faculty survey, I placed the findings into

the following categories; collaboration, versioning, practices and knowledge. These categories

addressed my research questions regarding the efficiency of using Google Docs on course

design, best practices, perception of adoption and use by faculty, and knowledge gaps.

Efficiency of Google Docs in Course Design My findings show that versioning and the built-in collaborative nature of Google Docs were the

features most often cited as leading to a more efficient course design process. An unexpected

result was the possibility of improving productivity in online collaboration, leading to more in

depth conversations in face-to-face meetings.

Collaboration The positive collaborative feature of Google Docs was a common theme across the interviews

conducted with instructional design staff. In particular, “real-time collaboration” was mentioned

as being a useful feature when participating in meetings where the faculty might not be

physically located in the same meeting space. Staff found that all participants could work

together on the same document and see each others work, which they found to be an efficient use

of their scheduled meeting time. One faculty member who participated in the survey cited the

feature of “instant and tracked feedback through sharing” to be a useful feature for collaborating

on course design through Google Docs.


14

The IDD staff who have worked within online course programs have found that using Google

Docs to store specific course and programmatic instructional materials provides a more efficient

means of accessing material. One designer noted that this method provides “more continuity

across a program because we can see what others are doing and keep everything consistent”. By

viewing each other’s course design templates, instructional designers can provide “a more

parallel structure” between courses. In addition, program managers are able to access all

instructional material, which was not possible when documents were being emailed back and

forth between faculty and instructional designers.

Versioning All staff members who participated in the interview stressed the fact that having one version of a

document was far more efficient and easier to manage than the previous method of emailing

documents back and forth with faculty members. As one participant commented, “So, where I

used to have multiple versions of documents for course designs, it really turns into one document

that’s automatically versioned”. While both members of the instructional design staff and

faculty mentioned that they would like further training on understanding version history in

Google Docs, they all agreed that being able to access the same version of a course document

from anywhere was an important feature.

While collaboration and versioning were the features most often cited in staff interviews,

accessibility from any place with an internet connection and the ability to turn on email

notifications when a change is made to a document were also mentioned as being more efficient

than previous tools used for collaborative course design.

Instructional Design Practices While most instructional designers who participated in the interview process found no significant

difference or change to their instructional design model, one person expressed an unexpected

outcome that Google Docs has had on his practice: “The face-to-face meetings we have now

seem to be more efficient as a result of being able to collaborate ahead of time in Google Docs

and take care of the lower order, simpler processes and conversations and it actually allows us

more time to talk about the big picture stuff.” Another staff member mentioned that the process


15

is simply “more transparent”, with both staff and faculty being able to see who has or has not

done their work.

Best Practices for Course Design using Google Docs

One of the major outcomes that I was hoping to take away from this research project was a list of

best practices that could be shared and implemented by the instructional design and development

team. The interview participants shared the following practices that they found to be successful

when using Google Docs for collaborative course design:

§ Introduce and explain how to use the various features to faculty early on in the process of

course design.

§ Use folders and organize or label everything in a meaningful way.

§ Use the comments tool for feedback rather than changing text in the document and use

the ‘+ email’ feature so that faculty are notified of your feedback.

§ Use an agreed upon method for faculty to let you know that they’ve made changes to

content.

§ Add items to the course design folder incrementally so as not to overwhelm faculty.

Knowledge Gaps

While most of the instructional designers stated that they felt fairly comfortable using Google

Docs, a number of interviewees said that they would like more training on the versioning and

formatting features. There were only three faculty members who participated in the survey, so

the data was very limited. However, the three participants all stated that they would like more

training using the versioning, formatting, and sharing/permissions features of Google Docs.

Based on data collected in the interviews, it would be to each instructional designers benefit to

adequately cover these features in their initial meetings with faculty.

Less Efficient Features of Collaboration with Google Docs Each instructional designer mentioned that the lack of a track changes feature, similar to one

used in MS Word, was the most difficult adjustment to make. The lack of a more robust

formatting feature was also a problem for some users. One faculty member mentioned that “cut

and paste without formatting issues, ability to create a viable template and styles” were issues

he/she was currently having when using the application for course design. While the simplicity


16

of Google Docs makes it easier to adopt and collaborate, it also limits users who are looking for

more advanced features. One staff member mentioned that these less efficient features

sometimes force him to use a different tool, such as MS Word, to achieve desired formatting

results.

Comparison of Research to the Literature Review The results of the literature review conducted for this research project focused on three major

themes: factors influencing effective collaboration, factors influencing the adoption of

collaborative tools, and factors influencing collaboration in the design of online courses. In

general, I found that the literature review overlapped with and drew similar conclusions to the

research data collected. In addition, the literature review included information specific to the

subject of collaboration on the design of online courses, which will influence the final

recommendations for action.

Factors Influencing Effective Collaboration with Web 2.0 Tools The results of the data collected regarding efficient and effective collaboration for the design of

online courses using Google Docs mirrors the literature review on the factors influencing

effective collaboration using 2.0 tools. The ability to maintain one version of a document is a

major contributing factor to a more efficient course design process. Asynchronous methods of

document collaboration typically rely on taking turns to edit and apply content, which can be

time consuming. Google Docs moves away from this tedious process by allowing users to

collaborate on one document in real-time (Lomas, 2008). Google Documents are stored on a

Google server and are accessible at anytime from a browser window, provided that one can

connect to the Internet. In general, negative experiences using collaborative tools, a lack of

adequate training, poor communication and a poor relationship between collaborators appear to

have the most negative impact on online document collaboration.

Instructional designers corroborated with the above literature by talking about how important it

is to introduce the tool early on and provide enough training that faculty will continue to use it.

The instructional design participants who stated that they used the first meeting or two with

faculty to train them on using Google Docs seemed to have a higher rate of success in faculty

adoption compared to the instructional designers who stated that they spent very little time


17

explaining how to use the tool. In addition, one participant stressed how important it is to make

sure that faculty can see the benefit of using Google Docs for online course collaboration.

Adoption of Web 2.0 Tools

While the data collection methods focused specifically on using Google Docs in course design,

Google Docs is a web 2.0 tool and so the focus of the literature review on the adoption of web

2.0 tools for collaboration draws similar conclusions. Barriers to using web 2.0 tools in general

include a lack of knowledge about how to use the tool and a perception that the tool has no

benefits (Paroutis, 2009). At least one instructional designer picked up on this theme and noted

“faculty need to see the benefit of using Google Docs to collaborate on course design”. Some

users also have difficulty abandoning old tools and ways of approaching document collaboration.

In addition, a lack of training will prevent users from adopting a new online collaboration tool.

New collaboration tools must be easier to use, provide a better experience than other tools and be

more cost effective to overcome barriers (Lomas, 2008).

Factors Influencing Collaboration in the Design of Online Courses

In general, negative experiences using collaborative tools, poor communication and a poor

relationship appear to have the most negative impact on online document collaboration. A

faculty member who participated in the survey validated these findings when commenting that

there was indeed “a much greater learning curve compared to MS Word.” Instructional

designers corroborated with the above literature by talking about how important it is to introduce

the tool early on and provide enough training that faculty will continue to use it. The

instructional design participants who stated that they used the first meeting or two with faculty to

train them on using Google Docs seemed to have a higher rate of success in faculty adoption of

Google Docs compared to the instructional designers who stated that they spent very little time

explaining how to use the tool. Interviews with instructional design staff offered similar

conclusions, citing the need for “training at the first or second meeting with faculty”. In addition,

one participant noted that it was important to make sure that faculty can see the benefit of using

Google Docs for online course collaboration.


18

Limitations

The main limitations in the data collection for this research are with regards to the lack of

participation by the faculty members who were collaborating on course designs with

instructional designers. However, participants in the interviews had a very good understanding

of the features that make it difficult for faculty to adopt Google Docs and many had important

information to share about how to improve the rate of adoption. This research study is still

valuable in that it addresses best practices and provides other instructional designers with

information on how they can improve both the collaborative process and the rate of adoption of

Google Docs.

Implications for Practice One of the main findings of my research is that faculty need to be adequately trained to use

Google Docs early on in the course design process. In addition they need to see a benefit to

adopting this "new" tool. Therefore, I will recommend that instructional designers who decide to

use Google Docs for collaboration on course design make a concerted effort to provide training

to their faculty in the first few face-to-face meetings and really take the time to explain the

benefits of using this tools in our process. A set of best practices has also emerged as a result of

this research, so I intend to share these practices with the instructional design and development

team in a collaborative format so that we can continue to document what works well in our

practice. After the IDD staff have had a chance to reflect on the research findings and implement

the recommendations, I would like to survey them again and find out if the outcomes have

changed. I would also like to conduct a follow up survey to determine the effectiveness of these

changes to our practice. In addition, I would like to continue to survey faculty, both formally

and informally, and continue to gather information that will improve our collaborative process.

Conclusion The impact of using collaborative web 2.0 tools such as Google Docs on course design is

influenced by a number of factors including interpersonal relationships, attitudes toward the

adoption of new web 2.0 technologies and the perception of added value through collaboration.


19

Collaboration has been shown to be successful when participants are assigned specific tasks,

have a clear understanding of what their roles are within the process and have been given

adequate training on how to use a tool. The adoption of new collaborative tools for practice is

influenced by ease of use and human factors such as the ability of an early adopter to promote

the use of these tools to benefit a practice. In general, a new tool for collaboration should only

be implemented if it provides users with a better or more efficient practice.

The research and literature review for this study indicate that using Google Docs for course

design is an efficient means of collaboration. Both Instructional designers and faculty appreciate

being able to access Google Docs from any location as well as having one version of a document

to work in. While the lack of a feature to track changes is challenging to all instructional

designers, the overall feeling expressed is that using Google Docs is a more efficient method of

collaborating on course design documents than previous methods used.


20

References Gohary, M. M., Hussin, A. R., Abdollahzadehgan, A. (2013) Human factors’ impact leveraging

cloud based applications adoption. Journal of Information Systems Research and

Innovation, 87-97.

Herrick, D. R. (2009, October). Google this!: using Google apps for collaboration and

productivity. In Proceedings of the 37th annual ACM SIGUCCS fall conference. ACM,

55-63. 10.1145/1629501.1629513

Lomas, C., Burke, M., Page, C. L. (2008). Collaboration tools. Educause Learning Initiative.

Paroutis, S., & Al Saleh, A. (2009). Determinants of knowledge sharing using Web 2.0

technologies. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4), 52-63.

Quinones, P. (2014). Cultivating practice & shepherding technology Use: Supporting

appropriation among unanticipated users. ACM, 305-318. 10.1145/2531602.2531698.

Stringer, E. T. (2014). Action research. (4th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Thomas, G., (2009). How to do your research project. A Guide for Students in Education and

Applied Social Sciences. (2nd Ed.). SAGE Publications.

Vallance, M., Towndrow, P., Wiz C. (2009). Conditions for successful online document

collaboration. TechTrends, 54 (1), 20-23.

Xu, H., Morris, L. V. (2207). Collaborative course development for online courses. Innovative

Higher Education, 31 (1), 35-47.


21

Appendices

Appendix A Interview Questions for Instructional Design Team:

As a course designer, your input is invaluable in helping to determine the impact of using Google

Docs on the course design process. With your permission, I would like to record this interview.

No identifying information will be used in the transcripts made from this recording and you can

choose to stop participating in this interview at any time.

1. Could you please describe any features of Google Docs that make the collaborative

course design process more efficient than the previous method you used?

2. Could you please describe any features of Google Docs that make the collaborative

course design process less efficient than the previous method you used?

3. Overall, do you find that using Google Docs in your course design process is more or less

efficient than the previous method you used?

4. When working within a program with another ID, how does the use of Google Docs on

course design affect efficiency?

5. When collaborating with faculty members who are new to Google Docs, how much time

do you spend explaining how to use the application?

6. In your experience, what specific practices do you find useful when collaborating on

course design using Google Docs?


22

7. What specific features are missing from Google Docs that you found useful when

collaborating on course design in your previous application?

8. In what ways has using Google Docs changed your instructional design practice, if at all?

9. Did you use Google Docs before working on course design projects with faculty?

10. How long have you been using Google Docs on course design projects?

11. What specific features of Google Docs do you find difficult to use? Select all that apply.

☐ Comments & Notifications

☐ Downloading Documents

☐ Formatting Text or Tables

☐ Highlighting Text

☐ Permissions

☐ Sharing

☐ Uploading Documents

☐ Versioning

Other___________________________________________

12. What features of Google Docs would you like to learn more about?





☐ Permissions

☐ Sharing


☐ Versioning


23

Other____________________________________________

13. In what ways does your lack of knowledge affect how you use Google Docs in the course

design process?

Appendix B

Use of Google Docs in the Collaborative Course Design Process - Faculty Survey: As a course developer, your input is needed to help us to determine the impact of using Google

Docs in the course design process. Please answer each question to the best of your ability and

note that this survey is completely anonymous.

1. Did you use Google Docs prior to using the application in the course design process?

�Yes �No

2. How long have you been using Google Docs in your course design process?

3. What concerns, if any, did you have about using Google Docs before starting the course

design process?

4. Did your instructional designer provide enough information about how to use Google Docs in the course design process?

5. What concerns or issues, if any, do you have now that you’re using Google Docs in the

course design process?

6. What aspects of using Google Docs for collaboration do you find useful?

7. What specific features of Google Docs do you find difficult to use? Select all that apply.



24




☐ Permissions

☐ Sharing


☐ Versioning

Other____________________________________________

8. What features of Google Docs would you like to learn more about?





☐ Permissions

☐ Sharing


☐ Versioning

Other____________________________________________

9. Would you consider using Google Docs again on future course design projects? Why or

why not?