Blogging Pedagogy - Google Docs

How to use Google Docs for Assignment Submission and Organization

Rhiannon Goad — Sun, 13 Oct 2013 20:03:17 +0000

Author:

Rhiannon Goad

Image Credit:

Google Doodle, First Day of School 2011 - Estonia, Poland, Russia

Despite my best efforts, I’m a sloppy person with an extremely limited capacity for not losing things. Fortunately, Google Docs provides an easy way for me to organize students’ assignments. Below I outline how to use Google Docs for assignment submission.

Directions for you

1. Using Google Drive, create a Google form for assignment submission. You can set up one submission form for the entire semester or send out a different form for each assignment. Personally, I use the same survey for all assignments because… laziness. You do you.

in text 1.png

2. From here you can paste an embedded link to your fancy pants webpage or send via email.

blog2.jpg

Responses generate in a spreadsheet. Here, that spreadsheet is named “assignments for fall 2013.”

blog3.jpg

3. Open your spreadsheet and marvel at the beauty of it all. To view a student’s work, click on the link. You could even create a column to track grading. Guys, spreadsheets: truly truly truly outrageous.

Directions for them

1. Students must use a Gmail or UT email account. Since the university requires all students to have an official UT email account, this should not be a problem. Using a Google account, students must create or upload their assignments using Google drive.

blog4.jpg

2 She’ll need to get the link to put into the Google Form. To do this, she’ll need to click File>Share.

blog6.jpg

3. She’ll then make sure you can open the assignment by changing the access.

Untitled2.png

4. If you want to comment directly on your student’s Google Doc, have her select Can edit or Can comment.

Untitled3.png

5. She then copies the link for the document.

Untitled4.png

6. Finally, she pastes the link into the submission form, fills out the other fields, and hits submit. Ta-da!

Encouraging Class Participation with Google Docs

Rachel Mazique — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 18:35:40 +0000

Author:

Rachel Mazique

Image Credit:

Salman. "Google Docs VS Microsoft Office Web Apps." Techtoggle. 15 July 2009. Web. Sept. 30 2012.

Classroom dynamics can vary widely from one group of students to the next. This fact has really struck home now that I’m teaching two sessions of Rhetoric and Writing: “Disability in Pop Culture.” I walk into both classes with the same lesson plans, with (one of) the same interpreters, and with the same kinds of technology available. Many variables are different; different buildings, different classroom space (in terms of size), one interpreter is different, different days, different time of day (although both take place in the afternoon).

However, the biggest difference is the group of students themselves. Both classes have a range of upper classmen with a few sophomores. One class has a good number of journalism majors, but both classes have students with a wide range of majors and educational backgrounds.

Because I assess students using The Learning Record, I know from their background information (interview and reflection), that many students in one class prefer to listen rather than speak when learning new ideas or grappling with new concepts. In the class that took about four weeks to open up and have a rolling discussion (or one that doesn’t require my constant prompting) many students are self-professed introverts. Now, because The Learning Record requires “outstanding participation in all course activities” for an “A” grade, the hesitation to participate in class discussions becomes a concern for those students who learn best by listening—or those who have a fear of speaking in class.

In order to have a class document of students’ questions and thoughts on their assigned reading, I planned an in-class activity in which students would write their questions on a class wiki page—for all to see. As I’ve mentioned in a previous blog, our course work is conducted almost entirely on the wiki (excluding class meetings, office hours, and required reading in the form of printed text). This class document would also serve as an informal work sample (in the language of The Learning Record) documenting evidence of their reflective learning and critical thinking processes. However, my original plan to use a wiki page for the activity did not go as planned, as PBWorks does not allow for more than one typist at a time.

This, however, became what my colleague, Cate Blouke, called a “happy accident in the classroom,” as I quickly checked to make sure that all students had a gmail account, then added a link to a Google Document titled “Questions …” to the wiki page I had intended students to write on. Google Docs does allow for multiple writers at once; students, by way of experimentation (first-time experience for everyone) developed their Digital Literacy as they quickly navigated this new format and learned how to save their own space on the document and personalize it with their preferred font, font size, and color.

Having students work on the Google Doc allows everyone to see each other’s questions; it allows me to monitor their progress without peering over everyone’s shoulder or walking around to quickly check computer screens. I can stay in one place and observe their writing process—with all the backspaces, highlighting, rewriting, pauses, and self-correcting that goes on. Google Docs also allows me to quickly intervene if a student is not quite following instructions. I also get a better idea of the time it takes students to write and can easily see when most students are done writing—as activity quiets down on the Google Doc. (Without this document, students may appear to be busily working online, but they may have jumped to a different web page or activity once completing the given task.) Having all their questions as a starting point also helps guide the discussion, and the document allows us to return to past questions that are not answered in one class. The digital archive functions as collective class memory; we will not forget because it is saved online.

In these first four weeks of the semester, after our first “happy accident,” we have used Google Documents three times. The first was for their questions on the reading, the second time was for a collaborative class resource page on instances of “disability” in pop culture, and our most recent encounter was for a quick workshop on their individual research questions.

As useful as the tool has been to me as an instructor facilitating learning and working to make the best use of our class time, what I’ve found most interesting have been the student Observations on the use of Google docs during in-class activities.

One student wrote,

“I noticed the class seems much more comfortable using technology to interact with each other. Also, all the questions that were written on the google doc, while similar, all offered a unique perspective on how people interpreted the readings. (digital literacy; Creativity, originality, imagination)”

Another wrote of his difficulty with using this new format and of his strategy for adapting to it,

“In class today while we were all brainstorming on the Google Doc, I observed that it was extremely difficult to type information on the page because it was bouncing all over the place with everyone typing at once. To solve this I typed my comments on a seprate word proccessor and copied them in. Digital Literacy &prior and emerging experience”

A third indicated that she liked being able to participate via Google Docs (I should note that this student does not generally speak up during in-class discussions):

“In class today we used a google document to express any questions or reflections we had about the readings we have been assigned to read outside of class. This type of class participation allowed me to write my own reflection and also allowed me to see what were my fellow classmates reflections and questions about the readings were as well. (Skills and Strategies, Independence;Digital Literacy)”

One observant and introverted student (who also puts good effort into pitching in when he can) noted that the digital format for class participation allows for greater “accessibility:”

“I noted that the majority of students are still shy and don't contribute much in discussion, myself included. I did notice that working on a Google Doc simultaneously allows for more easy and accessible sharing of ideas though. (Presentation, Knowledge + Understanding)”

All four of these observations came from the class that has (up until our most recent meeting) been generally quiet and reserved during discussions. The student dynamic in the other class—which is much more vocal—did not seem to view the use of the Google Doc as an alternative mode for participating or accessing class discussions. Their observations focused on the pragmatics of the Google doc (observations along the lines of: "my reading notes allowed me to remember my questions and thoughts on the readings, so I knew what to write on the Google doc;"and, "the collaborative resource on disability in pop culture allows us to see how disability really is everywhere—even if we haven’t noticed it on our own").

However, those two comments also tell me that the Google Document has a pedagogical value when used in the classroom. When asking students if they have any questions, few, if any, may speak up. Open-ended, on-the-spot questions often leave students speechless. On the other hand, when asking students to write their questions, they know they are being observed “on paper” so to speak, so they are much more inclined to generate a question to demonstrate that they have, in fact, completed their homework. Last, collaboration in online spaces allows students to “see” each other and to realize that everyone has something to contribute.

Peer Reviews Work: Observations and Reflections

Rachel Mazique — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 03:03:42 +0000

Author:

Rachel Mazique

Image Credit:

Jorg Weingrill

As we approach the end of the long academic year and my students prepare their first draft of their final paper for peer review, I thought it would be fitting to reflect on the pedagogical practice of peer reviews in a writing course.

First off, let me say that my colleague in the Department of Rhetoric and Writing, Cate Blouke, convinced me last semester to make the switch to digital submissions of writing assignments. To reduce the paper load I had to carry, I asked students to share their essays with me via NoodleBib’s sharing tool (which relies on GoogleDocs). At times, students had difficulty sharing their papers via this tool, so I also made BlackBoard digital submissions an option. Checking for student assignments in two different web-based software programs required a bit of extra work on my part, but because I believe in democratic, student-centered classroom practices, I was willing to provide options as we made the switch from paper to digital submissions.

This spring, consolidating all of my classroom instructions, resources, and student work into one place (with the PBWorks wiki system) was a breath of fresh air. At the beginning, a few students had a bit of anxiety about using the online workspace; none of them had used a wiki before. One student even wrote (in an observation on her learning processes) that she found digital submissions to be “less personal” and "a bit confusing." But, a few weeks later, this same student wrote that it was easier to navigate the wiki and that she could do so "without problems."

A handful of students have run into a few glitches here and there (during heavy uploading traffic times), but the PBWorks support team has been helpful whenever these issues come up. And, as another student put it, "The wiki kinda grew on me. It saves paper :-D." So even though some students felt "apprehensive about using the wiki on a daily basis," these same students concluded at the midterm, "I can see how helpful technology, such as the wiki and other resources, are to the writing and reflection process. I actually like this way of organization much better, because it is efficient and fast." I fully agree and am a huge fan of the wiki.

I even have to make one final plug for digital submissions and contest a comment Ms. Blouke makes in her discussion of some of the pitfalls of digital submissions, "No system is entirely perfect. Digital submission means that I can't generally grade papers on the bus," and admit that I actually do take out my laptop on bus rides and comment on student papers. Once papers are all on the wiki, I simply need to download them and create a folder devoted to comments on that particular writing assignment. The rest of the work is done offline, and I do not need to be “plugged-in” until it’s time to upload my comments to their “Teacher Comments” folder. In fact, I plan on reading papers while in the air during my travels this weekend.

Now that I’m done plugging for digital submissions and the PBworks wiki system, I’ll go into how peer reviews work via the wiki during in-class review sessions. At the start of the semester, I envisioned that students would provide comments on papers digitally—much like I do with their papers. However, before the first review session, students were very vocal about having hard copies to work with as well. So, that has been our practice. And, as fellow bloggers Blouke and Jay Voss have pointed out, this preference is clearly an uncommon one. So, in my class, I require both. Students ask for printed copies, and they get what they want for those peer reviews. Here’s the rationale for requiring that these first drafts be uploaded to the wiki as well:

I can check to see whether they completed a full first draft:

Last semester, students learned that I was not going to read their first drafts for peer reviews, so I started to notice a trend of very “unfinished” first drafts, which did not help them or their reviewers. Reviewers were unable to answer all the questions I set out for them to respond to when their partners only had a page or two of their paper completed.

Students can more easily include specific examples in their feedback:

Since the peer review prompts students to be as specific as possible (e.g. if you’re confused, which part is confusing?; or locate and transcribe the main claim; give examples of where you see your peer explaining how arguments intersect/differ, and so on), rather than transcribing all of the examples that they want to refer to, students can download their peer’s paper from the wiki and simply copy/paste the relevant sections.

Increased sense of online collaboration and interaction:

Because I give student work high security restrictions on the wiki (only the writer and I can see that student’s work), peer review is the one time when students can peer into and access their partners’ work on the wiki. I grant assigned peer groups security privileges (but only to their peer group’s papers—and only for that particular paper). They are then able to type up a review and reflect on the paper copy and use the electronic copy as needed. Also, if a student is absent on peer review day, they already have access to the paper via the wiki, and I do not need to ask certain students to email their paper to their absent partners (this was an issue on several occasions last semester but hasn’t occurred this semester as this group has perfect attendance on peer review days!) The peer review process requires online collaboration because students usually do not finish their reviews during class time; they can use the wiki or BlackBoard to email their reviews to their partners. I also ask that they post their reviews on the wiki so I may see what kind of responses they had. Last, for multimodal compositions, electronic submissions are the only kind that make sense. For their final paper of the semester, I’ve encouraged students to showcase their understanding of visual and spoken rhetoric and incorporate a variety of multimedia evidence—whether podcast recordings of interviews they conducted, images they found or took themselves, or links to video sources that display authoritative testimonies.

And, since I use The Learning Record as my method of assessing student learning processes, I have the privilege of sharing evidence of the purposefulness and helpfulness of peer reviews from the students themselves. As part of the Learning Record, students make observations about their learning; I encourage observations that are relevant to our five course goals, or course strands, but otherwise, students are free to make observations on any topic on a self-imposed timeline (although they do have a minimum of fourteen observations to make throughout the semester). These observations are analyzed as data of how their learning progressed over time. In commenting on their observations, I focus on the content and not the grammar, so in the direct quotes below, I’ve kept the original errors and will refrain from pointing them all out with the [sic] reference.

One student wrote after the peer review session:

"For starters I didn't really know what to think of my experience with peer editing. I like the idea of having your peer proofread, make suggestions, etc. However, I don't think I got as much out of it because my peer didn't give me any critical things I needed to change or work on. It was mostly just what I was doing right, which of course I admire, but I know my paper is far from perfect. I found Ms. Mazique's suggestions very helpful though. There were some things I knew after being in class I knew I had to revise, but she gave me other feedback of things I had not thought of that were insightful. I hope to implement the revision goals to end up with a splendid 1.2 paper!"

However, around the midterm, and after the second peer review session, this same student observed:

"I think this is crucial to the writing process for not only the person we are evaluating but for ourselves. I know that reading and evaluating my peers' papers it enhanced my own paper. The reason for this is because everyone has different writing styles and techniques and when I would read some of the other papers I realized my paper lacked in some areas where theirs was more in depth. It made me look at my paper in a whole new way because of the feedback I was given and also the feedback I gave them."

A second student, who is not a native English speaker, has shown much improvement in his writing over the course of the semester. He made this observation after the second peer review session:

"For this assignment I review [my group partners'] paper. I felt like if I were Rachel for a second. I tried my best to correct their papers, and I also focused on their erros. I used my experience learned from my mistakes and applied it to their papers. I also used what I have learned from Rachel's comments. This assignment helped me realize how much I have learn."

I found this comment especially poignant after attending a Peer Review Workshop that presented research on how and why peer review works.

Susan Schorn, of the School of Undergraduate Studies, provides consultation work to instructors and faculty who teach writing-intensive courses (across a variety of departments). She shared research that confirms what I have experienced with my students.

For example, her presentation noted that Lundstrom and Baker (2009) found that students who gave feedback improved their writing more than those who only received peer feedback. Students with the poorest writing skills improved the most. Considering the improvement of the second student above and his strategy in providing feedback (trying to think like the teacher and recalling feedback he had received from me in the past), I would say that he relied on critical thinking skills in order to complete his peer reviews.

And, although research shows that peer reviews benefit those with the weakest writing skills the most, one of my best students--a student who already has a Bachelor's degree and is in my class only as a pre-requisite for a medical school program (that he's already been accepted to)--has also made an observation about the peer review process:

"While reviewing [my partner's] paper I found it very surprising how many errors in each others papers we were able to find in a single reading. I found [his] comments very helpful and insightful, and I think I was also able to point out some sentences in [his] writing that could be clearer with a little revision. It's amazing what another set of eyes can find."

A couple of other students made observations about how the peer review process made them think about writing style. For example, one student wrote,

"While analyzing and editing the writing of my partner, I learned many things about my own writing. I learned how my writing style differs and how I can better my own writing. Changing my word choice and syntax will help me explain my thoughts more efficiently and ultimately make me a better writer."

These comments align with other research that Schorn presented at the workshop with faculty from the English Department, the Department of Theatre, and the Department of Rhetoric. Schorn cited Monroe and Troia (2006) as finding that when students collaobarote their standards become higher. They are better able to assess their own writing.

We thus have evidence from multiple sources that peer review works when done well. One point that really stuck out to me was that peer review is an academic form of “peer pressure” (Schorn) that helps students take the instructor’s comments more seriously. After receiving feedback from peers, they are less able to rationalize that the feedback they receive from their teacher is just from someone who “doesn’t understand them,” or who is just another “really picky teacher.”

I’ll leave you with some other pertinent thoughts/options for peer review and links/suggestions for further reading in case you ever need a resource to justify your pedagogical practice of peer reviews!

Options for Peer Review formats:

Response-centered (doesn't rely on grammatical expertise)

--E.g. “I was confused when…” “This doesn’t make sense…” “I really like”)

2. Advice-centered (recommending specific changes)

--Sometimes detrimental when students give poor advice, or the wrong advice, or do not know what to say so they make something up

3. Ask students to do either or both

For further reading:

Check out the School of Undergraduate Studies' page on "Peer Feedback," which is a resource in and of itself, but also cites references to published books and articles on peer review.