Usability testing of Google Cloud applications: Students’ perspective

Journal of Technology and Science Education

JOTSE, 2019 – 9(3): 326-339 – Online ISSN: 2013-6374 – Print ISSN: 2014-5349

https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.585

USABILITY TESTING OF GOOGLE CLOUD APPLICATIONS:

STUDENTS’ PERSPECTIVE

Abdullah Alqahtani

Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam (Saudi Arabia)

[email protected]

Received October 2018

Accepted March 2019

Abstract

Modern information and communication technologies affect all areas of life significantly, including

education and learning. Cloud storage tools are one of the forms of modern information technologies

that are employed to serve the educational process. The current research aims to study the use of Google

cloud applications (Google Classroom, Google Plus, and Google Drive) in education and to determine the

most appropriate Web-based training environment in view of the level of usability. The experimental

method was applied in this study using a sample of 200 students from Imam Abdul Rahman bin Faisal

University. The current research found that there was some convergence in the usability of the three

environments. The results of the study indicated that the environment of Google Classroom has the

highest usability value (86.45) and also showed statistically significant differences in scholastic achievement

in the application of Google Classroom in the educational process.

Keywords –

Web-based learning environments, Distance learning, Google cloud applications, Usability

test.

To cite this article:

Alqahtani, A (2019). Usability testing of Google Cloud applications: Students’ perspective. Journal of

Technology and Science Education, 9(3), 326-339. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.585

----------

1. Introduction

E-learning is a web-based learning ecosystem bringing several stakeholders together with technology and

processes. With the new revolution of communication and Internet devices such as smartphones, laptops,

tablets, and computers, e-learning use and practice has become a requirement around the world. There are

several examples of global e-learning platforms, such as Khan Academy, Udacity, Coursera, EDX, and

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) (Alraimi, Zo & Ciganek, 2015; Chauhan, 2014; Cidral, Oliveira,

Di Felice & Aparicio, 2018).

Cloud computing is a new trend in the use of digital computers across the Web, which represents a

research variable that education science uses for education and learning areas. The Internet has a

significant quantity of free software that can be invested and used in education. The Google for education

initiative, embodied in Google cloud applications that provide cloud storage space, enables individuals to

place and store their knowledge and skills on a service provided by the cloud environment, as well as on

-326-

0mniaScience

Journal of Technology and Science Education – https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.585

electronic platforms that can be used in content management, e-learning courses, and learning process

management (Halash, 2013).

A study by Wul, Wang, Huang and Ciung (2012) illustrated that Google cloud education applications have

many characteristics, causing many educational systems and institutions to select these applications for

distance learning. They can be used in classrooms and educational institutions in several forms such as

document creation, editing and data sharing, as well as offering effective control tools for easy sharing and

compatibility. One of the advantages of these applications that a cloud requires only a small space on a

storage disk, in addition to providing access to all the applications with a single Google account and from

any device connected to the Internet (Ovadia, 2011).

Blended learning is a mixed-learning environment in which teachers use e-learning with traditional class

teaching activities. It can be described as the combination of face-to-face teaching with online education

(Oliver, 2018). E-learning helps learners overcome the limitations of time and place. Mobile services could

serve as effective learning gadgets through third-generation (3G) technology (J. Huang, Lin & Chuang,

2007). Mobile learning (M-learning) is a term referring to learning through the use of a mobile device. It

focuses on learning through social and content interactions using personal electronic devices (Crompton,

2013). The new communication devices allow learners to access knowledge from anywhere and anytime.

Crompton and Burke (2018) investigated the use of mobile learning in higher education. Their results

indicated that the majority of the studies focused on the impact of mobile learning on student

achievement. Teaching language was the most often researched subject matter domain. The largest age

group of mobile users was 18–29 years old, which is the common age of higher education students. The

higher education community is encouraging all stakeholders to expand their learning opportunities beyond

the classroom with mobile learning.

Learning management system (LMS) software is one of the main learning tools used with education

technology. There are several examples of LMSs, such as Moodle, Sakai, Blackboard, Edmodo, and

Google Classroom. Google Classroom is considered one of the most speedily implemented tools in

higher education (Jakkaew & Hemrungrote, 2017; Kumar & Bervell, 2019).

There are many Google applications, such as Google Drive, that can be used in the educational process,

particularly in the case of remote training. Google Drive is a cloud storage service that enables the storage

and sharing of individual files or entire folders with specific people or with all learners in the classroom, as

well as creating and responding to comments from them (Almishiki, 2017). It can accommodate PDF

files, Microsoft Office files, videos, image files, and Google presentations; additionally, users can make

adjustments to these files and access the latest version from anywhere, synchronously or asynchronously.

Google Classroom is another Google application (Hammadi, 2017) with an e-learning system based on

blended learning, which is a principle that focuses on integrating learning in a classroom with a teacher

and learning via the Internet. Teachers and trainers can use it to facilitate the classroom teaching process

by using the teaching techniques for learning and training that are available on the system, such as

homework, marks, communication, archived lessons, mobile learning, and scholastic evaluations. The

Google Plus application can also be used for the educational process. It is a social network that can be

customized to encourage students to discuss and share their knowledge. Students could take advantage of

several features of Google Plus, such as Circles, Hangout video calls, Spark interests, Huddle group talks,

and forums (Ovadia, 2011; Bai, Shen, Chen & Zhou, 2011).

2. Literature Review

Lahoti and Ramteke (2004) pointed out the concept of Web-based training environments as Web-based

environments that represent a widespread domain with effective methods for improving learning

outcomes. Investment in Web networks and technology applications, which represent part of the fifth

generation of the Internet, has many advantages in the application of the educational process and is

supported by a number of theories, including social construction theory. Web-based training

-327-

Journal of Technology and Science Education – https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.585

environments were defined by Halash (2013) as enabling individuals to place and store their knowledge

and skills on electronic platforms that can be used in content management, e-learning courses, and

learning management and training. This is due to the ability of these e-cloud platforms to contain a large

amount of verbal and visual digital knowledge that can be used anytime and anywhere synchronously and

asynchronously, based on the nature of the work determined by the users.

Google cloud applications are free applications that consist of a set of collaborative and sharing tools and

solutions provided by Google that can be utilized greatly by educators in the field of education (Google,

2009). There are many advantages to adopting Google applications in education. Google applications

achieve the first goal of education, which is sharing, as both the Google website and the document-

creation tools enable real-time editing and collaboration, as well as provide effective control tools for easy

sharing in order for students to cooperate and share collected information about the same subject. Google

applications could facilitate tasks such as writing articles and scheduling appointments for the class

(Tugrul, 2012). A group of students can work on a task in Google Docs, and everyone in the group can

see changes in real time instead of waiting to receive the changes via e-mail, which helps to save time that

can then be used for teaching or learning (Sherer & Shea, 2011).

One of the most prominent features and advantages of Google Classroom is the “Homework” feature,

which allows students to access their homework, complete it, send it to the teacher electronically via a

direct connection, and receive their marks. This service provides many ways to give students their marks

electronically and allows the students to view their marks directly (Fralinger & Owens, 2009; Krauskopf,

Zahn & Hese, 2012). The service is characterized by having an application on smartphones, enabling

increased and faster access for students and teachers, saving time by allowing the students to access the

material or the class required via their phones. Moreover, teachers can establish a new class within a few

seconds, and the system can then generate a small code consisting of letters and numbers to be published

for the students to use in the classroom. In addition, the School Evaluate feature allows students and

teachers to access the due dates for homework, tests, and other important details and directly import them

to e-mail and the calendar available on mobile phones (Schmid, Bernard, Borokhovski, Tamim, Abrami,

Surkes et al., 2014).

In this context, the results of several studies, including the work of Doan (2014), confirmed that e-learning

would become more effective when introduced in the future via cloud computing applications. Bhatia and

Lala (2012) asserted the effective impact of cloud computing in the study of various courses, and the results

of the study by Doelitzscher, Sulistio, Reich, Kuijs and Wolf, (2011) confirmed that the cloud environment

that was designed played a major role in developing support for learners. The studies by Aaron and Roche

(2012), Bagish (2014), and Alhamdi and Khaparde (2014) pointed to the positive impact of cloud computing

on learners’ development of practical skills in various courses, particularly cooperation and sharing of

knowledge. There is increasing interest of many universities to use the cloud computing environment with

their programs and educational activities to increase communication and sharing among learners.

According to Ercan (2010), Lahoti and Ramteke (2014), and Femandez, Peralta, Benitez and Herrera

(2014), the cloud computing environments represented by Google Cloud applications show the

widespread area that achieves the objectives of e-learning and education technology because of its

effective ways to achieve learning outcomes through the utilization of Web networks and technology

applications to provide better communication and knowledge sharing.

On the other hand, several studies and extensive research have examined the relationship between the

patterns and variables of Web-based learning design and their usability, including the works of Carmel

and John (2009), Khamis and Almuatasim (2011), and Fang and Holsapple (2007). Furthermore, Van and

Ling (2008) investigated the impact of the interaction between the design of the elements on a website

interface and usability in terms of the ease of navigation for the user and rapid access to its portals.

Khalifa and Abdumunim’s (2016) study indicated that the success of the cloud computing environment

depends on the attitude of the learner toward this environment. The study reported that there may be a

link between success and the learner’s character traits with regard to his or her high or low level of

-328-

Journal of Technology and Science Education – https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.585

acceptance, which affects the learning outcomes. This was also reported in a study by Kessler (2012),

which recommended studying the relationship between cloud computing and usability with the purpose

of encouraging flexible educational practices because research on the relationship between cloud

computing and usability is still limited and requires further studies.

In the same context, Al-Mani’s (2005) study recommended that teachers should identify students’

preferences for learning methods and prepare their lessons accordingly; moreover, the teaching methods

followed by teachers need to be diverse to ensure the satisfaction of all the students’ needs and dispositions.

The study also recommended including educational stimuli that increase the students’ interest in learning.

Furthermore, the studies by Carmel and John (2009) and Mariya (2011) pointed to examining and

analyzing learners’ abilities and attitudes toward using cloud computing environments to enable learners to

accept and assimilate both the educational environment and the educational content involved in terms of

use and application because usability leads to integration in learning tasks, which affects learning

outcomes.

To ensure the effectiveness of the cloud computing environment, research on education technology

should not neglect the study and analysis of learners’ abilities to use cloud computing effectively to

achieve the desired learning outcomes. Usability is considered a prerequisite for ensuring the success of

the educational system (Kessler, 2012). Moreover, the study by Mariya (2011) pointed to the existence of

interaction between the cloud computing environment and the usability of that environment, which

appeared to be a factor in in the high scholastic achievement of students. In addition, Khamis (2009)

stated that the ability to learn showed the user’s ability to use and interact with the system quickly and

easily to accomplish the required tasks efficiently and effectively. It is important to do so with the fewest

errors, which is a key variable in the quality control of the cloud computing environment and its

effectiveness in learning.

Al-Maroof and AlEmran’s (2018) study reported the need for more investigation of the acceptance and

behavioral intention of Google Classroom in higher education. Their study also reported that there is a

gap in the current literature about the use of Google Classroom worldwide.

In general, cloud computing can be classified as one of the interesting topics in current education

research. This concept was announced for first time by John McCarthy in 1961, who mentioned that

computing would be a public service (Wheeler & Waggener, 2009). Shi, Yang, Yang and Wu (2014)

investigated cloud computing and reported five main areas. First are conceptual and pedagogical aspects,

which involve investigating the meaning of cloud computing. The second area is educational applications;

this aspect focuses on how cloud-based services are applied to improve teaching and learning. The third

area is processing of information and resources. This area includes access, sharing, storage, backup, and

recovery. Then, there are pros and cons of cloud computing in education, as well as database management

systems integrated with cloud-based services (Shi et al., 2014). This investigation could be classified under

the second aspect, educational applications. It will study the impact of Google cloud applications and how

they could enhance teaching and learning.

3. Purpose of the Study

Based on what has been shown in previous studies, there is a lack of studies addressing the adoption of

cloud storage tools within the Saudi higher education system. There is a current need to study the usability

of Google cloud applications to better understand the acceptance of those applications. In addition, there

is a growing interest in e-learning systems in Saudi Arabia, which creates a need for investigative research

to address the current gap in knowledge about the impact of using Google cloud applications (Google

Classroom, Google Plus, Google Drive) in education.

It is important to determine the most appropriate cloud environment from among the three environments

included in the current research (Google Classroom, Google Plus, and Google Drive) in the framework of

Web-based distance education by investigating the level of usability with the students at Imam

-329-

Journal of Technology and Science Education – https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.585

Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University. Therefore, it was necessary to conduct the current research to

determine the most appropriate cloud training environments for distance learning due to a lack of

research in this regard. The current research aims to determine the most appropriate Web-based learning

environment using Google applications and their relevance to distance learning from the perspective of

the level of usability. It also aims to measure the impact of different cloud learning environments (Google

Classroom, Google Plus, and Google Drive) on students’ achievements compared to traditional

environments.

Accordingly, the current research seeks to answer the following main questions:

1. What is the level of usability of Google Cloud applications (Google Drive, Google Plus, and

Google Classroom) when used in education from the students’ perspective?

2. What is the impact of using Google Cloud applications (Google Drive, Google Plus, and Google

Classroom) on learning achievements?

4. Methodology

This section details the research design, including its organization, methodology, and relevant evaluation

procedures. The research approach for this investigation is experimental. This approach is used to

measure the impact of specified phenomena, and it can be used to draw conclusions about cause and

effect (Bell, 2014). The experimental approach is applicable for research relating to phenomena from

several disciplines (Kothari, 2004). This research uses the experimental approach to measure the impact of

search variables represented in Google applications (Google Plus, Google Drive, and Google Classroom)

on learning outcomes, and it measures their relevance in terms of usability levels.

4.1. Participants

The design involved three experimental groups and one control group. The study sample of 200 students

was divided randomly into four groups, with 50 students per group. The participants of this study were

aged 21 to 24 years old; 110 of them were female students and 90 were male students.

The first group of students studied using Google Drive, the second group of students studied using

Google Plus, the third group of students studied using Google Classroom, and the fourth group, the

control group, studied in the traditional way to measure the impact of Google applications compared with

traditional teaching methods. The sample included students of both sexes from various disciplines in

courses on learning and e-learning technology. All participants were undergraduate students at Imam

Abdulrahman bin Faisal University and were enrolled in the course “Multimedia and Instructional

Technology.” All participants had sufficient computer skills to work with cloud applications. This course is

a core unit for all students. The first meeting with each group included sufficient training for using each

tool in the course to ensure the students had the required skills for using those cloud applications.

The practices of this study included adopting Google cloud applications into the teaching process. This

included using cloud applications (Google Plus, Google Drive, and Google Classroom) to share files, have

online discussions, share ideas, share videos, and submit projects and online assessments.

4.2. Data Collection and Analysis

This section details the research practice and process of data collection and analysis.

4.2.1 Level of usability of Google Cloud applications

To answer the first question, it was necessary to consider the usability of the Google applications. Based on

the interaction of system interfaces, Khamis (2009) defined usability as the ability of the learner to interact

with the system easily and quickly via the design of the interaction interface to accomplish the required

educational tasks with fewer errors. With regard to the general concept, Alon and Herath (2014) described

usability as the user’s ability to access the material or to satisfy his or her actual needs on the system. If the

-330-

Journal of Technology and Science Education – https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.585

user fails to find what he or she wishes, he or she might abandon the system entirely in search of another

system that achieves the requirements of simplicity, clarity, and the fastest and easiest access to the desired

scientific subject. Therefore, usability is a prerequisite for users in Web-learning environments.

To investigate the usability of Google applications, this study adopted the System Usability Scale (SUS),

which is a 10-item scale developed by John Brooke in 1986. SUS is a widely used scale that provides software

developers with an evaluation of their products and user interfaces. SUS consists of 10 phrases that are

ranked on a five-point Likert scale measuring strength of agreement. The final score can range from 0 to

100; higher scores designate better usability (Martins, Rosa, Queiros, Silva & Rocha, 2015; Bangor, Kortum

& Miller, 2008). The total score for the SUS is calculated via the formula defined by Brooke (1996). Firstly,

for the odd items, 1 is subtracted from the user’s score. Secondly, for the even-numbered items, the user’s

score is subtracted from 5. Finally, the converted scores for each user are added and the total is multiplied by

2.5. This converts the range of possible values from 0 to 100 (Martins et al., 2015; Brooke, 1996).

Figure 1 shows the applicable study procedures to answer the first question. The SUS test was applied to

the experimental groups, and the level of usability of each application was compared. The SUS will be

investigated for the three groups that studied using Google applications (experiment groups). The control

group will not be investigated within this analysis because it is not related to the first research question.

Figure 1. Usability testing process

4.2.2 The Impact of Using Google Cloud Applications

To answer the second question, it was necessary to study the impact of Google applications on students’

academic achievements. The results of the post-test in the three experimental groups and the control

group were compared. The participants studied the same course in the learning and e-learning technology.

Both the pre-test and the post-test examined the knowledge of the students in the investigated course.

The tests were simple, corresponding, and used multiple choice questions to test the knowledge and skills

of students before and after the course.

To ensure the reliability of a sample, there should be no differences between the experimental and control

groups. A pre-test of the selected sample was conducted in all the groups to ensure the validity of the

study results (Bryman & Cramer, 2012; Dawson, 2009). This test was conducted at the beginning of the

experiment to ensure that there was no bias between the groups.

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 143.45 3 47.81

1.16 .32

Within Groups 8030.03 196 40.97

Total 8173.48 199

Table 1. ANOVA test results

-331-

Student use

the

app

for

their

learning

experience

They evaluate

the

app

with

SUS

t------------+----------1

------1----1

_________jl

I I

Journal of Technology and Science Education – https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.585

An ANOVA test was used to test the differences in the averages among the groups. The results in Table 1

show that there were no statistical differences in the results of the students in the three experimental

groups and the control (Sig > 0.05). This means the sample was homogeneous and there were no

differences between the skills of students in the different groups. A post hoc test was applied to compare

each group with the other groups. The results in Table 2 show no statistically significant differences

among the groups in the pre-test. The table compares each group with each of the other groups to

identify any individual differences between any two groups.

Figure 2 explains the research process for investigating the second question of this study. It summarizes

the experience starting from the pre-test exam, after which the students were randomly distributed into

four groups. After that, the experimental groups studied the course by adopting Google apps. The control

group used traditional learning experiences to complete their course. At the end, the students had to take a

post-test, and the differences between their performances were compared to answer the second question.

Scheffe

(I) VAR00002 (J) VAR00002

Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

Google+

Google Drive 2.17 1.28 .41 -1.43- 5.77

Google

Classroom

1.78 1.28 .58 -1.82- 5.38

Control Group .81 1.28 .94 -2.79- 4.41

Google Drive

Google+ -2.17- 1.28 .41 -5.77- 1.43

Google

Classroom

-.39- 1.28 .99 -3.99- 3.21

Control Group -1.36- 1.28 .77 -4.96- 2.24

Google

Classroom

Google+ -1.78- 1.28 .58 -5.38- 1.82

Google Drive .39 1.28 .99 -3.21- 3.99

Control Group -.97- 1.28 .90 -4.57- 2.63

Control Group

Google+ -.81- 1.28 .94 -4.41- 2.79

Google Drive 1.36 1.28 .77 -2.24- 4.96

Google

Classroom

.97 1.28 .90 -2.63- 4.57

Table 2. Multiple Comparisons result for the pre-test

Figure 2. The process of identifying the impact of using Google Cloud applications

-332-

Group2:

Student

use

the

app

Gooste+

for

their

leamkl1

experience

Group4: S

tud

ent traditional

Contr

sro

up ----+ learnin1 experience

(face

face

learning)

post•testat

the

end

the

course

post-t

est

end o

rth

rse

Journal of Technology and Science Education – https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.585

5. Result

This section presents the results obtained in this study.

5.1. The Usability Scale

This section is intended to answer the first research question. Table 3 presents the SUS test results for the

three applications. It displays the sum of the points obtained for each phrase on the scale for each group

and presents the average answers and standard deviation for each phrase. The table shows a general

convergence of the answers of the experimental groups concerning the scale’s phrases, reflecting a

convergence of the three applications with regard to the level of usability.

Extrapolating the data in Table 4 shows the students’ responses to the SUS items. After applying the

statistical treatments and the SUS rules to the scale, the overall score for the scale of usability for the

students who studied using the Google Drive environment was 3837.5, which represents the total results

of all the students in the experimental group, or an average equivalent of 76.75 out of 100 points on the

SUS. This score is acceptable because it is above the minimum (68). Based on the classification of the

score in Figure 3, students classified Google Drive as good.

N Phrase

Google Class room Google Plus Google Drive

Score Mean

Std.

D Score Mean

Std.

D Score Mean

Std.

I think that I would like to use this

system frequently.

225 4.50 0.67 220 4.40 0.67 210 4.20 0.80

I found the system unnecessarily

complex.

71 1.42 0.67 81 1.62 0.85 88 1.76 0.87

I thought the system was easy to

use.

225 4.50 0.67 221 4.42 0.67 216 4.32 0.65

I think that I would need the

support of a technical person to be

able to use this system.

81 1.62 0.66 87 1.74 0.72 94 1.88 0.68

I found the various functions in

this system were well integrated.

224 4.48 0.67 220 4.40 0.75 212 4.24 0.91

I thought there was too much

inconsistency in this system.

75 1.50 0.67 89 1.78 1.05 96 1.92 1.08

I would imagine that most people

would learn to use this system very

quickly.

213 4.26 0.94 176 3.52 1.29 176 3.52 1.29

I found the system very

cumbersome to use.

75 1.50 0.67 89 1.78 1.05 91 1.82 1.04

I felt very confident using the

system.

222 4.40 0.80 216 4.32 0.89 208 4.16 1.09

I needed to learn a lot of things

before I could get going with this

system.

76 1.52 0.67 100 2 1.29 118 2.36 1.54

Table 3. SUS results based of the scale of by Brooke (1996)

Total Score Score Mean SM Rating

Google Class room 4322.5 86.45 Best Imaginable

Google Plus 4017.5 80.35 Excellent

Google Drive 3837.5 76.75 Good

Table 4. SUS rating for each application

-333-

Journal of Technology and Science Education – https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.585

Figure 3. Mean system SUS scores rating (Bangor et al., 2008)

The group that used Google Plus achieved a total score of 4017.5, an average of 80.35 points on the SUS,

which is rated as excellent. The third experimental group, which used Google Classroom, had a total of

4322.5 and an average score of 86.45; this score is classified as excellent. Based on the previous results,

there was some convergence in the usability of the three environments, and they were at an acceptable

level. From the above, the first research question can be answered by stating that Google cloud

applications (Google Drive, Google Plus, and Google Classroom) have appropriate levels of usability. The

results showed that the Google Classroom environment was at the first level, followed by the Google Plus

environment and the Google Drive environment.

5.2. The Impact of the Applications on Students’ Achievements

The aim of this section is to answer the second research question. Table 5 shows a comparison of the

averages between the experimental and control groups in the post-test. The ANOVA test was used to test

the differences in the averages between study groups. The results showed statistically significant

differences between the results of the three experimental groups and the control group, as shown in Table

5 (Sig < 0.05).

To determine the statistically significant differences, a post hoc test was applied to compare each group

with the other groups. The results showed statistically significant differences between the control group

and the experimental group that used the Google Classroom application, Sig = 0.34, which is smaller than

the function of 0.05, as shown in the table below.

Thus, the second question can be answered by stating that there was a positive impact of the use of

Google Cloud applications (Google Drive, Google Plus, and Google Classroom) on the academic

achievement of Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University students because the results showed an increase

in the students’ averages following the use of these applications. The results also showed statistically

significant differences in favor of using the Google Classroom application compared to the traditional

learning methods.

ANOVA

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 1018.37 3 339.45

2.90 .036

Within Groups 22939.22 196 117.03

Total 23957.59 199

Table 5. ANOVA test results

-334-

I I I

Best

Imaginable

xcellent

Good

I I

Poor

Awful

Worst

Imaginable

100

SUS

Score

Journal of Technology and Science Education – https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.585

Sidak

(I) VAR00002 (J) VAR00002

Mean Difference

(I-J)

Std.

Error Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower

Bound Upper Bound

Google Classroom

Google+ 2.06 2.16 .91 -3.69- 7.81

Google Drive 1.28 2.16 .99 -4.47- 7.03

Control Group 6.04 2.16 .03 .28 11.79

Google+

Google

Classroom

-2.06- 2.16 .91 -7.81- 3.69

Google Drive -.78- 2.16 1 -6.53- 4.97

Control Group 3.98 2.16 .34 -1.77- 9.73

Google Drive

Google

Classroom

-1.28- 2.16 .99 -7.03- 4.47

Google+ .78 2.16 1 -4.97- 6.53

Control Group 4.76 2.16 .16 -.99- 10.51

Control Group

Google

Classroom

-6.04- 2.16 .03 -11.79- -.28-

Google+ -3.98- 2.16 .34 -9.73- 1.77

Google Drive -4.76- 2.16 .16 -10.51- .99

Table 6. Multiple Comparisons results

6. Discussion

These results can be explained by the fact that the students in the group that studied using the Google

Classroom environment felt that it was more usable in the cloud educational environment than did the

students who studied using Google Drive and Google Plus. The results also showed a limited increase in

the perceived usability of Google Plus over Google Drive. This is consistent with many studies’ findings

pertaining to the effectiveness of usability in the multiple research variables applied in learning

environments and platforms across Web networks, including the works of Rafla, Robillard and Desmarais

(2006) and Van and Ling (2008). These authors concluded the existence of effectiveness when designing

learning elements across websites, as well as an increase in usability because of the easy navigation for the

user and rapid access to the desired section of the website. Previous studies also reported on the

importance of meeting the students’ needs and making the most of the benefits of Internet cloud

applications, particularly if these environments provide active effects and interactions that increase

students’ interest (Alon & Herath, 2014; Fang & Holsapple, 2007).

The results of this study indicate that the Google Classroom environment was considered to have a much

higher level of usability than did the other environments. The study also showed a positive impact on the

scholastic achievement of the students. This may be because Google Classroom has many advantages that

can easily be used in educational institutions, is completely free, and includes the principles and strategies

of e-learning based on the principle of blended learning, which is based on the integration of learning in

a classroom with a teacher and learning via the Internet. The teacher and the students can use it to

facilitate learning in a classroom by using the available learning techniques in the environment. This is

consistent with Almishiki’s (2017) finding that the environment also has other advantages because it is

primarily designed to serve the educational process. One of the advantages of the Google Classroom

environment (Fralinger & Owens, 2009; Krauskopf et al., 2012) is the Homework feature, which allows

the teacher to assign homework to the students, evaluate their work, and provide them with direct

feedback.

The cloud applications Google Plus and Google Drive achieved user-acceptable levels and facilitated a

slight increase in the students’ achievements. This could have been because these applications are not

directly intended for the education field, although their features can be used to assist in the education

process.

-335-

Journal of Technology and Science Education – https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.585

In general, the study is consistent with previous studies pertaining to the role of cloud storage

environments in increasing the level of students’ achievements and developing and facilitating the learning

process through many of the features provided, including flexibility, interaction, multimedia, observing

individual differences, multilingualism, and open and multiple access to information (Rahman, 2016;

Jakkaew & Hemrungrote 2017; Kumar & Bervell, 2019).

Studies such as those by Zhou, Fang, Vogel, Jin and Zhang (2012) have indicated the enthusiasm of

educational communities and their desire to employ technical means in the teaching and learning

processes. Banerjee and Dey (2013) also addressed the factors that support the employment of cloud

social networks such as Google Plus in learning, as they provide rich and valuable content and are

designed to increase users’ confidence. Nevin (2009) also noted that Google Cloud applications supported

the most important trends in the field of education technology, namely cloud computing and mobile

education, which contribute to reducing the loss of work and save time and effort by providing rapid

access to the required information.

7. Conclusion and Future Work

This study discussed the use of cloud computing environments (Google Classroom, Google Plus, and

Google Drive) and demonstrated usability by implementing the SUS for usability. The study concluded the

importance of applying Google Classroom and the high level of usability that was achieved, as well as the

statistical increase it generated in the students’ results. The study therefore recommends that these cloud

storage technologies be integrated into education and that teachers and learners receive sufficient training

to use them. The study also encourages teachers to use Google applications in their daily tasks and the

research required from them. The study also recommends utilizing the results of the current research at

the applied level, particularly if future research supports these results.

Furthermore, a comparative study on students’ and faculties’ perceptions toward Google Classroom

acceptance could be studied in depth in order to develop a framework for adopting this application in

higher education using best practice.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or

publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Aaron, L., & Roche, C., (2012). Teaching, Learning and Collaborating in the Cloud: Applications of Cloud

Computing for Educators in Post-Secondary Institutions. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 40(2),

95-111. https://doi.org/10.2190/ET.40.2.b

Alhamdi, F.A., & Khaparde, V. (2014). Collaboration in the Could Computing among Students of Library

and Information Science Department. International Journal of Advanced Library and Information Science, 2(1),

82-92.

Alraimi, K.M., Zo, H., & Ciganek, A.P. (2015). Understanding the MOOCs continuance: The role of

openness and reputation. Computers & Education, 80, 28-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.006

Al-Maroof, R.A.S., & Al-Emran, M. (2018). Students acceptance of Google classroom: an exploratory

study using PLS-SEM approach. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 13(06),

112. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v13i06.8275

-336-

Journal of  Technology and Science Education – https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.585
Al-Mani, A.A. (2005). Learning Styles Preferred by Middle School Students in Riyadh. Jordan university 
Journal of  Educational Studies. 
Almishiki, A. (2017). Using Electronic Classrooms in Training: Experimenting with Google Classroom, 
Available at: https://www.mozn.ws/13950/ 
Alon, I., & Herath, K. (2014). Teaching international business via social media projects. Journal of  Teaching 
in International Business, 25(1), 44-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/08975930.2013.847814 
Bagish, S.S.A. (2014). Students Awareness of  Could Computing: Case Study Faculty of Engineering at 
Aden University. International Journal of  Engineering Development and Research, 2(1), 1122-1129. 
Bai, Y., Shen, S., Chen, L., & Zhuo, Y. (2011). Cloud learning: A new learning style. International Conference 
on Multimedia Technology (3460-3463). Hangzhou, China.
Banerjee, N., & Dey, A.K. (2013). Identifying the factors influencing users’ adoption of  social networking 
websites-A study on facebook. International Journal of  Marketing Studies, 5(6). 
https://doi.org/10.5539/ijms.v5n6p109 
Bangor, A., Kortum, P.T., & Miller, J.T. (2008). An empirical evaluation of  the system usability scale. 
International Journal of  Human–Computer Interaction, 24(6), 574-594. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310802205776 
Bell, J. (2014). Doing Your Research Project: A guide for first-time researchers. UK: McGraw-Hill Education.
Bhatia, G., & Lala, A. (2012). Implementation of  Cloud Computing technology in Indian education 
system, Computing Communication & Networking Technologies (ICCCNT), Third International Conference
(1-5).
Brooke, J. (1996). SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Evaluation in Industry, 189(194), 4-7.
Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2012). Quantitative data analysis with IBM SPSS 17, 18 & 19: A guide for social 
scientists. Routledge, Psycholofy Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203180990 
Carmel, M., & John, L. (2009). Usability and Usefulness of  E. Book on PPCs: How Students, Opinions 
Vary Over Time, Australasian Journal of  Educational Technology, 25(1).
Chauhan, A. (2014). Massive open online courses (MOOCS): Emerging trends in assessment and 
accreditation. Digital Education Review, 25, 7-17.
Cidral, W.A., Oliveira, T., Di Felice, M., & Aparicio, M. (2018). E-learning success determinants: Brazilian 
empirical study. Computers & Education, 122, 273-290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.12.001 
Crompton, H. (2013). A historical overview of  mobile learning: Toward learner-centered education. In 
Z.L. Berge & L.Y. Muilenburg (Eds.), Handbook of  mobile learning (pp. 3-14). New York: Routledge.
Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2018). The use of  mobile learning in higher education: A systematic review. 
Computers & Education, 123, 53-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.04.007 
Dawson, C. (2009). Introduction to research methods: A practical guide for anyone undertaking a research project. 
Oxford: How To Books Ltd.
Doan, D. (2014). A Developer’s Survey on Different Cloud Platforms. San Diego, USA: University of California.
Doelitzscher, F., Sulistio, R., Reich, C., Kuijs, H., & Wolf, D. (2011). Private cloud for collaboration and e-
learning services: from Iaas to Saas. Computing, 91(1), 23-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00607-010-0106-z 
Ercan, T. (2010). Effective use of  cloud computing in educational institutions. Procedia Social and Behavioral 
Sciences, 2(2), 938-942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.130 
-337-

Journal of  Technology and Science Education – https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.585
Fang, X., & Holsapple. W. (2007). An empirical study of  web site navigation structures’ impacts on web 
site usability. Decision Support Systems, 43(2), 476-491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2006.11.004 
Fernandez, A., Peralta, D., Benitez, J.M., & Herrera, F. (2014). E-learning and educational data mining in 
cloud computing: an overview. International Journal of  Learning Technology, 9(1), 25-52. 
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLT.2014.062447 
Fralinger, B., & Owens, R. (2009). YouTube as a learning tool. Journal of  College Teaching & Learning, 6(8), 
15-28.
Google (2009). Free email and collaboration tools for your school. In Google apps education edition. 
Available at: http://vww.google.com/a/help/intl/en/edu/index.html 
Halash, E.A. (2013). Mobile Cloud Computing: Case Studies. Michigan, USA: Wayne State University.
Hammadi, A.,  (2017). Starting from today: Google classroom is free platform for everyone. Available at: 
https://www.mozn.ws/11553/
Huang, J.H., Lin, Y.R., & Chuang, S.T., 2007. Elucidating user behavior of  mobile learning: A perspective 
of  the extended technology acceptance model. The Electronic Library, 25(5), 585-598. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/02640470710829569 
Jakkaew, P., & Hemrungrote, S. (2017). The use of  UTAUT2 model for understanding student perceptions
using Google classroom: A case study of  introduction to information technology course. 2017 
International Conference on Digital Arts, Media and Technology (ICDAMT) (205-209).  
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDAMT.2017.7904962 
Kessler, G. (2012). Collaborative Writing among Second Language Learners in Academic Web-Based 
Projects. Language Learning & Technology, 16(1), 91-109.
Khalifa, Z.M., & Abdumunim, A.F. (2016). The Impact of  Different Size Groups Sharing in the Cloud Computing 
Environment. Arabic Studies in Education and Psychology.
Khamis, M.A. (2009). Teaching and learning technology. Cairo: Dar Al Sahab Publishing & Distribution Library.
Kothari, C.R. (2004). Research methodology: Methods and techniques. New Age International. 
Krauskopf, K., Zahn, C., & Hesse, F.W. (2012). Leveraging the affordances of  Youtube: the role of  
pedagogical knowledge and mental models of  technology functions for lesson planning with technology.
Computers & Education, 58(4), 1194-1206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.010 
Kumar, J.A., & Bervell, B. (2019). Google Classroom for mobile learning in higher education: Modelling 
the initial perceptions of  students. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-
018-09858-z 
Lahoti, A.A., & Ramteke, P.L., (2014). Mobile Cloud Computing the Necessity of  Future with its 
Architecture Advantages and Applications. International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing 
Networks (IJCN), 3(5), 247-255.
Mariya, S. (2011). Cloud computing-an advanced e-learning platform of  school education? In Interactive 
Collaborative Learning International Conference (569-570). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICL.2011.6059651 
Martins, A.I., Rosa, A.F., Queiros, A., Silva, A., & Rocha, N.P. (2015). European Portuguese Validation of  
the System Usability Scale (SUS). Procedia Computer Science, 67, 293-300. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.09.273 
Nevin, R. (2009). Supporting 21st century learning through Google Apps. Teacher Librarian, 37(2), 35-38. 
-338-

Journal of  Technology and Science Education – https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.585
Oliver, E. (2018). Blended learning for teaching Theology. Verbum et Ecclesia, 39(1), e1-e7. 
https://doi.org/10.4102/ve.v39i1.1894 
Ovadia, S. (2011). An early introduction to the Google+ social networking project. Behavioral Social Sciences 
Librarian, 30 (4), 259-263. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639269.2011.622258 
Rafla, T., Robillard, N., & Desmarais, M. (2006). Investigating the impact of  usability on software 
architecture through scenarios: A case study on Web systems. Journal of  Systems and Software. 415-426. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2005.10.014 
Rahman, H. (2016). ICT Integration in Education: Potential and Challenges in IGI Global. In Human 
Development and Interaction in the Age of  Ubiquitous Technology, 25-47.
Schmid, R.F., Bernard, R.M., Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R.M., Abrami, P.C., Surkes, M.A., et al. (2014). The 
effects of  technology use in postsecondary education: A meta-analysis of  classroom applications. 
Computers & Education, 72, 271-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.11.002 
Sherer, P., & Shea, T. (2011). Using online video to support student learning and engagement. College 
Teaching, 59(2), 56-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2010.511313 
Shi, Y., Yang, H.H., Yang, Z., & Wu, D. (2014). Trends of  Cloud Computing in Education. Hybrid 
Learning. Theory and Practice. ICHL 2014, Lecture Notes in Computer Science Springer. Cham. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08961-4_12 
Tugrul, T.O. (2012). Student perceptions of  an educational technology tool: Video recordings of  project 
presentations. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 64, 133-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.016
Van, P., & Ling, J. (2008). Modelling user experience with web sites: Usability, hedonic value, beauty and 
goodness. Science Direct. 20(3), 419-432.
Wheeler, B. & Waggener, S. (2009). Above-campus services: shaping the promise of  cloud computing for 
higher education. Educause Review, 44(6), 52-67.
Wu, T-T., Wang, C-S., Huang, S-H., & Ciung, M-Y. (2012). Using Google plus to Conduct High 
Interaction and Interdependence Learning Environments Based on Group Investigation Strategy. Journal
of  Internet Technology, 997-1004.
Zhou, Z., Fang, Y., Vogel, D. R., Jin, X., & Zhang, X. (2012). Attracted to or locked in? predicting 
continuance intention in social virtual world services. Journal of  Management Information Systems, 29(1), 
273-306. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222290108 
Published by OmniaScience (www.omniascience.com) 
Journal of  Technology and Science Education, 2019 (www.jotse.org) 
Article’s contents are provided on an Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 Creative commons International License.
Readers are allowed to copy, distribute and communicate article’s contents, provided the author’s and JOTSE
journal’s names are included. It must not be used for commercial purposes. To see the complete licence contents,
please visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
-339-