













































Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. Vol. 11, Special Issue, pp.51-54. 
doi: 10.14434/jotlt.v11i1.34436 

Using Google Docs to Administer Synchronous Collaborative 
Assessments 

Harold Olivey 
Indiana University Northwest 

holivey@iun.edu 

Abstract: Collaborative learning increases student achievement of learning outcomes in a wide range 
of disciplines, including the natural sciences, and is a hallmark of authentic assessment. To help 
students collaborate more effectively, I have used Google Docs, a free, online word-processing program 
accessible using almost any internet-connected device. Assessments that include real-world application 
problems are composed in Google Docs and shared with students via links. Google Docs has proven 
to be more efficient than pencil-and-paper assessment, encourages greater collaboration within student 
groups than is possible with tools embedded in a learning management system, and provides 
opportunities to give students just-in-time instruction and examine student metacognition, all of which 
are foundational for authentic assessment. Post-assessment grading is rapid, and corrected documents 
with instructor feedback can be easily shared with students. Students have adapted readily to the 
platform and have learned on their own how to use the software beyond my original conception. I 
describe how I have used Google Docs successfully in a molecular biology course, offer considerations 
for grading and distributing corrections, and report on students’ perceptions of the assessments 
themselves. 

Keywords: collaborative learning, online learning tools, synchronous teaching 

There exists a diversity of thought on what constitutes authentic assessment. An editorial on the 
components of authentic learning promoted four basic themes, “real-world problems that engage 
learners in the work of professionals; inquiry activities that practice thinking skills and metacognition; 
discourse among a community of learners; and student empowerment through choice” (Rule, 2006). 
Another group’s analysis of the literature led them to propose eight critical rules for authentic 
assessment: challenge, performance or product (outcome), transfer of knowledge, metacognition, 
accuracy, fidelity, discussion, and collaboration (Ashford-Rowe et al., 2014). 

One common element in authentic assessment is the importance of collaboration. As 
collaborative learning techniques have increased student success in biology courses (Tessier, 2007; 
Hacisalihoglu et al., 2018, reviewed in Rutherford, 2015), I have been using collaborative assessments 
in my molecular biology (BIOL-L 211) course since 2017. The majority of these are low-stakes 
assessments that expose students to the real-world application of principles learned in the classroom. 

Administering collaborative assessments using paper is problematic. It is difficult to get all 
students involved in finding solutions to problems when there is only one sheet of paper for groups 
to record answers on. Providing assistance to students during the assessment is difficult because it 
requires removing their access to their work product to review it. Finally, handing back graded 
assessments is cumbersome, requiring either copying the original document for each member of the 
group or scanning the documents to files and distributing them. Returning graded assessments is tricky 
because group membership is not static (e.g., a student might come to the Wednesday class because 
of illness on Monday). Although learning management systems (LMSs) have tools to administer 
assessments online, these are usually designed for individual assessments. Using LMS tools with 
collaborative assessments is not an easy task and often requires confusing logistical steps. 

mailto:holivey@iun.edu


Olivey 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 11, Special Issue, jotlt.indiana.edu 

Because of social distancing requirements in fall 2020, my students met over Zoom and used 
Google Docs to complete collaborative assessments. I chose Google Docs as others had reported 
using it successfully to facilitate online real-time collaboration (Roberts et al., 2019; Spaeth & Black, 
2012). Google Docs allows synchronous editing of documents by multiple users and runs on almost 
any laptop, tablet, or smartphone, eliminating a technology barrier for most students. Preparing, 
delivering, grading, and returning assessments in Google Docs is a straightforward process.  

Helping students figure out “what they know that they know” (i.e., metacognition) is 
important for authentic assessment. With paper-and-pencil assessments, I had to move from one 
group to the next, trying to read over shoulders or having to take students’ work away from them to 
assess it. With Google Docs, one can simultaneously monitor multiple groups and intervene when 
necessary to help students perform better on the assessment. This is far more efficient than walking 
from table to table, picking up a group’s work (necessitating a halt to their work), and then having a 
discussion. Assessment tools built into LMSs do not generally offer the same synchronous editing 
ability of Google Docs, nor do they allow the instructor to monitor student work in real time, making 
Google Docs a far better choice for collaborative assessment. Although I have used Google Docs in 
a medium-sized class (enrollment varies between 30 and 50 students each fall); it is easily scalable using 
file sharing tools within Google.  

Methodology 

Assessments in Google Docs can contain text, images, tables, and links to outside sources. Once a 
template file is created, copies are made for each independent group in the course. This is done quickly 
using CopyDocs,1 a freely available script that easily generates multiple copies of any file in Google 
Drive (Google Docs automatically stores files on Google Drive). Files can be renamed but do not 
have to be since they are shared as links. 

To share files with students, it is easiest to put the files in a Google Drive folder that is not 
shared (“restricted”) and then set the files’ access to “Anyone with the link” and then “Editor.” (If 
your institution has an agreement with Google to allow access only to individuals within your 
institution, this may be preferable to “Anyone with the link.”) Links are shared with students online. 
To avoid students’ accessing links early, I pasted the links into an announcement and used my LMS’s 
“delay posting” feature to hide the announcement until the start of class.  

During class I opened each file being worked on in a separate tab in my web browser. I could 
easily switch from tab to tab and monitor the progress of each group in real time and could intervene 
when needed. If a group had a simple error in their work, I could type into the body of their document 
(using a distinctive font color) or add a comment to the document. If the issue seemed to indicate a 
metacognitive issue (i.e., the students did not know what they did not know), I could intervene in 
person to guide the students’ discussion. I chose to give some feedback in person because of the size 
of my class, but in larger classes all feedback could be done within Google Docs. It would also be 
simple to have teaching assistants (TAs) monitor groups in this way also. Selecting all the files being 
used in that period and changing access from “Editor” to “Viewer” ensures that all students have 
equal time to work on the assessment. 

Graded assessments are distributed by using the “Add people and groups” option in Google 
Drive sharing. For each file, the email address of each group member is pasted into the window, and 
access is set to “Commenter” to allow students to see the instructor’s comments. Students receive an 
email that lets them know that they have been given access to the file and contains a direct link. Setting 

1 CopyDocs is available at http://tinyurl.com/copydocscript. For a helpful article on how to use this tool, see 
https://go.iu.edu/4HCB 

52

http://tinyurl.com/copydocscript
https://go.iu.edu/4HCB


Olivey 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 11, Special Issue, jotlt.indiana.edu 

up a simple spreadsheet that lists the names and email addresses of each group makes this process 
much faster. For larger classes, the spreadsheet could be kept in a Google Drive folder that TAs can 
access so that they can grade and distribute materials to the students they are responsible for. Sharing 
using email addresses makes it simple to add extra members or remove absent members from those 
given access. 

Results and Discussion 

Google Docs makes administering assessments and returning graded work much easier. Additionally, 
it allows all students in a group to access and participate in the assessment process, promoting the 
“discourse among a community of learners” highlighted by Rule (2006). Allowing closer monitoring 
of work by instructors and TAs also helps foster metacognition and transfer of knowledge (Ashford-
Rowe et al., 2014). Few barriers were encountered in using Google Docs. In all semesters, students 
have always had at least one device that could be used. Students used Google Docs in ways I did not 
anticipate. For example, students learned on their own that they could use their phones to take pictures 
of information they had written on scratch paper and paste those pictures directly into their document. 

There are some minor drawbacks to using Google Docs. First, deciding what types of 
questions to use requires careful consideration. For example, although it is possible to require students 
to draw as part of their answer, it is difficult to draw inside the Google Docs environment. However, 
as mentioned earlier, students can upload pictures of pencil-and-paper drawings into the document. 
This may necessitate the instructor demonstrating how to do this. There is also the risk of having 
students look up information on their devices, which would be greater in nonproctored or difficult-
to-proctor environments (e.g., hybrid learning scenarios, large classrooms). However, as authentic 
assessment should avoid relying on information that can be easily looked up, instead asking students 
to complete tasks that require application of core principles to real-world tasks, careful composition 
of the assessment should minimize this issue.  

I surveyed students (N = 19) in fall 2021 about their perception of the value of collaborative 
assessments. Table 1 provides the questions asked (“group discussion questions” are low-stakes 
assessments; “group exams” are high-stakes assessments) and a synopsis of students’ responses. 
Students overwhelmingly agreed that the authentic collaborative assessments used in the course 
benefitted them. At least 50% of students strongly agreed that collaborative assessments increased 
their understanding of concepts learned in the classroom and improved their grade in the course. 
These data suggest that students find value in the authentic collaborative assessments delivered via 
Google Docs. 

Table 1. Student perceptions of the value of collaborative assessments. 

Question text Agreed Agreed 
strongly 

Agreed 
somewhat 

Working on the group discussion questions helped me 
understand concepts covered in the lecture. 

88.89% 50.00% 38.89% 

I feel that the group discussion questions have improved 
my grade in this course. 

68.42% 57.89% 10.53% 

53



Olivey 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 11, Special Issue, jotlt.indiana.edu 

I feel that the group exams have improved my grade in 
this course. 

78.95% 57.89% 21.05% 

As noted throughout, using Google Docs to deliver authentic assessments is easily scalable. 
For instance, I have started using it to deliver collaborative assessments in my human anatomy and 
physiology course, which had 186 students in the spring 2022 semester. Grading and distribution are 
easily handled by changing sharing permissions on files and sharing only with students who 
participated on a particular document. Because Google Docs looks and functions like other word-
processing software, there is very little new learning required for either the instructor or students in 
the course. The multiuser editing experience has been excellent, with very few reports from students 
of errors or bugs. Because Google Suites (of which Google Docs is a part) includes spreadsheet and 
presentation tools, there are opportunities to adapt what I describe to courses that require complicated 
mathematical calculations or presentations. These attributes, combined with its compatibility with 
devices nearly all students already own, make Google Suites a remarkably robust means for 
incorporating authentic collaborative assessments. 

Acknowledgments 

All human subjects research was approved by the Indiana University Institutional Review Board, 
protocol #13603. The author wishes to acknowledge Drs. Kris Huysken and Mark Hoyert for helpful 
comments and advice during the preparation of this manuscript. 

References 

Ashford-Rowe, K., Herrington, J., & Brown, C. (2014). Establishing the critical elements that 
determine authentic assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(2), 205–222. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.819566 

Roberts, B. S., Roberts, E. P., Reynolds, S., & Stein, A. F. (2019). Dental students' use of student-
managed Google Docs and other technologies in collaborative learning. Journal of Dental 
Education, 83(4), 437—444. https://doi.org/10.21815/JDE.019.053 

Rule, A. C. (2006). Editorial: The components of authentic learning. Journal of Authentic Learning, 3(1), 
1–10. 

Rutherford, S. (2015). E pluribus unum: The potential of collaborative learning to enhance 
microbiology teaching in higher education. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 362(23), Article fnv191. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnv191 

Spaeth, A. D., & Black, R. S. (2012). Google Docs as a form of collaborative learning. Journal of 
Chemical Education, 89(8), 1078–1079. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed200708p 

Tessier, J. (2007). Small-group peer teaching in an introductory biology classroom. Journal of College 
Science Teaching, 36(4), 64–69. 

54

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.819566
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.819566
https://doi.org/10.21815/JDE.019.053
https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnv191
https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnv191
https://doi.org/10.1021/ed200708p



