Google Docs, as a collaborative online writing tool in Higher Education, facilitates and enhances the Composition pedagogical practices in face-to-face and virtual classes. The purpose of this quantitative study is to investigate the students’ learning styles’ impact on their Peer Assessment using Google Docs. Participants included 149 Composition students in a Public Health College of a private university in New York City.

The statistical findings of this study revealed that students’ learning skills in online writing classes could drive their perceptions of using Google Docs as a Peer Assessment Writing tool. These findings highlight the high correlation between students’ desire to interact after writing in English and their perceptions of using Google Docs as a collaborative writing tool. The findings also revealed statistically significant relationships between students’ perceptions of using Google Docs and their preferences of receiving feedback in different language areas. An increase in students’ perception of receiving feedback on their grammar, the flow of ideas, mechanics, quality of ideas, and Vocabulary, in that order, strongly led to an increase in their perceptions of using Google Docs. However, the findings indicate that there was no statistically significant linear relationship between students’ perceptions of their technical skills and their perceptions of using Google Docs in their online writing classes. Median Google Docs’s perceptions of males and females were not statistically different. There were no statistically significant differences in students’ Perceptions of Using Google Docs across the various age groups.


Peer Assessment, Google Docs, Collaborative Online Writing, Online Learning Styles,


Metrics Loading ...


  1. Abdul Rabu, Siti Nazleen, & Badlishah, Nor Shahida. (2020). Levels of Students’ Reflective Thinking Skills in a Collaborative Learning Environment Using Google Docs. TechTrends, 64(3), 533-541. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00504-5
  2. Banerjee, R. (2000). The benefits of collaborative learning. Retrieved October 8, 2011, from http://www.brighthub.com/education/k-12/articles/70619.aspx
  3. Bruffee, Kenneth A. (1995). Collaborative Learning: Some Practical Methods. College English v34 n5 (1973): 634-643.
  4. Calvo, R. A., Stephen, T. O. R., Jones, J., Yacef, K., & Reimann, P. (2011). Collaborative writing support tools on the cloud. IEEE Transaction on Learning Technologies, 4(1), 88–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2010.43
  5. Chao, Y.-C. J., & Lo, H.-C. (2009). Students’ perceptions of Wiki-based collaborative writing for learners of English as a foreign language. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(4), 395–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820903298662
  6. Chinnery, G. (2008). ON THE NET You’ve Got some GALL: Google-Assisted Language Learning. Language Learning and Technology,12(1), 3-11. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/44126
  7. Corgan, R., Hammer, V., Margolies, M., & Crossley, C. (2004). Making your online course successful. Business Education Forum, 58(3), 51-53.
  8. Dekeyser, S. and Watson, R. (2006), “Extending Google docs to collaborate on research papers”, Technical Report, The University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, available at: www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/dekeyser/googledocs.pdf
  9. Ellis, R., (2009), Corrective Feedback and Teacher Development, L2 Journal, 1, 3-18.
  10. Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 51–71. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2010/elolaoskoz.pdf
  11. Foote, E. (2009). Collaborative Learning in Community College. Retrieved April 20, 2011, from http://www.ericdigests.org/1998-1/colleges.htm
  12. Ge, Z.-g. (2011). Exploring e-learners’ perceptions of net-based peer-reviewed English writing. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-010- 9103-7
  13. Gugino, J. (2018). Using Google Docs to Enhance the Teacher Work Sample. Journal of Special Education Technology, 33(1), 54-65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643417729135
  14. Haring-Smith, T. (1994). Writing together: Collaborative learning in the writing classroom. New York, NY: HarperCollins College Publishers.
  15. Howell, D. C. (2014). Fundamental statistics for the behavioral sciences. (8th Edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
  16. Jorge Lillo Durán, & Katia Sáez Carrillo. (2017). The effect of written corrective feedback in second language acquisition. Revista Signos, 50(94), 217. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342017000200217
  17. Kessler, G., Bikowski, D., & Boggs, J. (2012). Collaborative writing among second language learners in academic web-based projects. Language Learning & Technology, 16(1), 91–109.
  18. Robb, T., Ross, S. M., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586390
  19. Lamy, M., & Hampel, R. (2007). Online communication in language learning and teaching. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
  20. Li., M, & Zhu., W. (2017). Explaining Dynamic Interaction in Wiki-based-collaborative Writing. Language, Learning and Technology, 21(2), 96-120.
  21. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
  22. Ornprapat SUWANTARATHIP, & Saovapa WICHADEE. (2014). The Effects of Collaborative Writing Activity Using Google Docs on Students' Writing Abilities. TOJET the Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(2), 2014-04-01.
  23. Oxnevad, S. (2013). 6 Powerful Google Docs Features to Support the Collaborative Writing Process. Retrieved January 2, 2013, from http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume14/ej55/ej55m1/
  24. Perron, B., & Sellers, J. (2011). A review of the collaborative and sharing aspects of Google Docs. Research on Social Work Practice, 21, 489-490. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731510391676
  25. Poehner, M. E., Zhang, J. and Lu, X. (2015) Computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA): Diagnosing L2 development according to learner responsiveness to mediation. Language Testing, 32(3): 337–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214560390
  26. Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2013) Bringing the ZPD into the equation: Capturing L2 development during computerized dynamic assessment. Language Teaching Research, 17(3): 323–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813482935
  27. Poehner, M. E., & Ableeva, R. (2011) Dynamic Assessment: From display of knowledge to engagement in the activity of development. In: Tsagari, D. and Csepes, I. (eds.), Classroom-based language assessment. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
  28. Pishghadam, R., & Zabihi, R. (2011). Foreign language attributions and achievement in foreign language classes. International Journal of Linguistics, 3(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v3i1.530
  29. SEYYEDREZAIE, Zari Sadat, GHONSOOLY, Behzad, SHAHRIARI, Hesamoddin, & FATEMI, Azar Hosseini. (2016). A mixed-methods analysis of the effect of Google Docs environment on EFL learners’ writing performance and causal attributions for success and failure. The Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education TOJDE, 17(3), 90-110. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.34418
  30. Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23(1), 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829202300107
  31. Tang, C., & Liu, Y.-T. (2018). Effects of indirect coded corrective feedback with and without short affective teacher comments on l2 writing performance, learner uptake and motivation. Assessing Writing, 35, 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2017.12.002
  32. Veerman, A., & Veldhuis-Diermanse, E. (2001), in Dillenbourg, P. (Ed.), “Collaborative learning through computer-mediated communication in academic education”, European Perspectives on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Maastricht University, Maastricht, pp. 625-32.
  33. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  34. Ware, P., & O’Dowd, R. (2008). Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 43–63. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num1/wareodowd/default.html
  35. Wikipedia (2010). Google Docs. Retrieved November 4, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Docs.
  36. Williams, M., Burden, R., Poulet, G., & Maun, I. (2004). Learners’ perceptions of their successes and failures in foreign language learning. Language Learning Journal, 30(1), 19-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571730485200191
  37. Yeh, S.-W., Lo, J.-J., & Huang, J.-J. (2011). Scaffolding collaborative technical writing with procedural facilitation and synchronous discussion. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(3), 397–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9117-9
  38. Zaky, H. (2018). Collaborative Writing as a Method to Spur Transformational Learning in Adult Education Classes. Journal of Education and Human Development, 7(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.15640/jehd.v7n1a1
  39. Zaky, H. (2020). Asynchronous Peer Assessment in ESL College Composition Curriculum: An Investigation of the Influence of Students' Learning Styles on Their Perceptions in USA Context. Indiana University of Pennsylvania, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2020. 28155821.
  40. Zhu, C. (2012). Student satisfaction, performance, and knowledge construction in online collaborative learning. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (1), 127–136.