Teaching with Google Classroom Claimed Usage, Perceived Effects and the Potential for Subject Learning
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The use of digital tools in education is subject to debate in school as well as in wider society. This motivates studies on the potential of these tools to facilitate teaching and learning. One of the digital tools being used is Google Classroom (GC). In order to increase knowledge of its usage and effects in content teaching, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 teachers in Swedish compulsory school. The aim is thus to answer three research questions: 1) How do teachers describe their usage of GC in teaching? 2) What effects of using GC do teachers perceive? 3) How can GC be used to develop students’ communicative and metacognitive abilities? In the interviews teachers primarily described usage of GC as structuring, but also with some pedagogical objectives. Teachers also reported on perceived effects on students’ motivation to learn and development of knowledge and skills. In summary, the interviews indicate teachers’ different degrees of appropriation of GC and opinion on its affordance.
We conclude that GC has the potential to promote students’ learning, but that teachers may need training and support to take advantage of that potential.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
References
Abazi-Bexheti, L., Kadriu, A., Apostolova-Trpkovska, M., Jajaga, E., & Abazi-Alili, H. (2018). LMS Solution: Evidence of Google Classroom Usage in Higher Education. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 33(3), 31-43. DOI:10.2478/bsrj-2018-0003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/bsrj-2018-0003
Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2015). The Role of Beliefs in Teacher Agency. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 21(6), 624-640. DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2015.1044325 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1044325
Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7 ed.): Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, [England]; New York: Routledge, cop. 2011.
Daniels, H. (2008). Vygotsky and research: New York, N.Y.: Routledge, 2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203891797
DiCicco, K. M. (2016). The effects of Google Classroom on teaching social studies for students with learning disabilities. (Master Master), Rowan University,
Dysthe, O., Hertzberg, F., & Hoel, T. L. (2011). Skriva för att lära. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Gaver, W. W. (1991). Technology affordances. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/108844.108856
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception: Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin, cop. 1979.
Granitz, N., & Koernig, S. K. (2011). Web 2.0 and Marketing Education: Explanations and Experiential Applications. Journal of Marketing Education, 33(1), 57-72. DOI: 10.1177/0273475310392539 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475310392539
Grönlund, Å., Andersson, A., & Wiklund, M. (2014). Unos uno årsrapport 2013: Örebro universitet. http://www.janhylen.se/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Unos-Uno-år-2013.pdf
Hatakka, M., Andersson, A., & Grönlund, Å. (2013). Students’ use of one-to-one laptops: a capability approach analysis. Information Technology & People (1), 94. DOI:10.1108/09593841311307169 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09593841311307169
Heggart, K. R., & Yoo, J. (2018). Getting the Most from Google Classroom: A Pedagogical Framework for Tertiary Educators. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 140-153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v43n3.9
Iftakhar, S. (2016). Google classroom: what works and how? Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 3, 12-18. https://www.jesoc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/KC3_35.pdf
Jakobsson, A., Mäkitalo, Å., & Säljö, R. (2009). Conceptions of Knowledge in Research on Students’ Understanding of the Greenhouse Effect: Methodological Positions and Their Consequences for Representations of Knowing. Science Education, 93(6), 978–995. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20341
Janossy, J., & Hover, T. (2008). Proposed Model for Evaluating C/LMS Usage. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/27681
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun (S.-E. Torhell, Trans.): Lund: Studentlitteratur, 2009 (Ungern) 2nd. ed.
Kyoko, J., Troncale, J., Trucks, C., Calhoun, C., & Alvidrez, M. (2017). Cool Tools for School: Twenty-First-Century Tools for Student Engagement. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 84(1), 53-58. http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.ludwig.lub.lu.se/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=10&sid=ebddc92e-788b-4769-99b6-f9f4abaf5961%40pdc-v-sessmgr02
Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J. S., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of Science and Scientific Inquiry as Contexts for the Learning of Science and Achievement of Scientific Literacy. Online Submission, 1, 138-147.
Malmberg, C. (2006). Kunskapsbygge på nätet ´: en studie av studenter i dialog: Malmö : Lärarutbildningen, Malmö högskola : Holmbergs i Malmö.
Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things: New York: Basic Books, cop.
Northey, G., Bucic, T., Chylinski, M., & Govind, R. (2015). Increasing Student Engagement Using Asynchronous Learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 37(3), 171-180. DOI:10.1177/0273475315589814 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475315589814
Rennie, L. J. (2005). Science awareness and scientific literacy. Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 51(1), 10-14.
Skolverket (2018). Curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and school-age educare. https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.6bfaca41169863e6a65d4df/1553968064187/pdf3984.pdf
Säljö, R. (2013). Lärande och kulturella redskap: om lärprocesser och det kollektiva minnet: Lund : Studentlitteratur, 2013 (Malmö : Exaktaprinting) 3. ed.
Swedish Research Council (2017). Good Research Practice. https://www.vr.se/download/18.5639980c162791bbfe697882/1555334908942/Good-Research-Practice_VR_2017.pdf
Thapa, D., & Hatakka, M. (2017). Understanding ICT in ICT4D: An Affordance Perspective. Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). DOI: https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2017.316
Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do Matter: The Role of College Faculty in Student Learning and Engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 153-184. DOI:10.1007/s11162-004-1598-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-004-1598-1
Vygotskij, L. S. (2001). Tänkande och språk: Göteborg : Daidalos, 2001 ; (Uddevalla : Mediaprint).
Vygotskij, L. S., Rieber, R. W., & Carton, A. S. (1987). The collected works of L.S. Vygotskij. Vol 1, Problems of general psychology including the volume Thinking and Speech. New York: Plenum P.
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as Action: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195117530.001.0001
Wertsch, J. V., Tulviste, P., & Hagstrom, F. (1993). A sociocultural approach to agency. Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children’s development, 23, 336-356.