Collaborative Feedback-Based Google Docs as a Digital Authentic Assessment: Students’ Perceptions in Academic Writing
Article Sidebar
Page Numbers:
2613-2643
Digital Object Identifier:
10.58578/mikailalsys.v4i2.10590
Viewed: 0 times
Downloaded: 0 times
LYAS Publisher cordially invites qualified professionals to serve as Editors or Reviewers. Your expertise will make an important contribution to maintaining and strengthening the academic quality of our publications. Interested applicants are kindly requested to complete the application form at the following link: Editors & Reviewers
Please feel free to contact us if you need any further information about the submission process or if you have any additional questions.
Authors:
Nadia Eka Putri Indriani1*, Yenni Rozimela2, Syahrul Ramadhan3 
Copyright :
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication.
Main Article Content
Abstract
Digital authentic assessment through collaborative feedback has received increasing attention in academic writing instruction; however, research specifically examining students’ perceptions of Google Docs as a collaborative feedback-based digital authentic assessment medium remains limited. This study aims to analyze students’ perceptions of collaborative feedback-based Google Docs in academic writing assessment. A descriptive quantitative approach supported by qualitative responses was employed using a survey design, involving 41 university students selected through purposive sampling. Data were collected through an online questionnaire consisting of 30 closed-ended items and three open-ended questions. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, including frequency, percentage, mean score, standard deviation, and category interpretation, while open-ended responses were analyzed descriptively through thematic categorization. The findings indicate that students’ overall perception was positive, with a mean score of 3.217. The highest-rated indicator was digital and collaborative feedback, with a mean score of 3.293, which was categorized as very positive. These findings suggest that Google Docs supports feedback delivery, revision, collaboration, and process-based writing assessment in academic writing instruction. This study concludes that collaborative feedback-based Google Docs serves as an effective digital authentic assessment medium for strengthening students’ engagement in the writing process. The study contributes to the development of digital authentic assessment theory and extends current understanding of collaborative feedback practices in academic writing. The findings provide practical implications for lecturers in designing clearer rubrics, structured feedback procedures, and digital literacy guidance to optimize Google Docs-based assessment.
Citation Metrics:
Downloads
Article Details
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
References
Alsahil, A. A. (2025). Exploring students’ perceptions and affordances of Google Docs-supported collaborative writing. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 19(1), 64–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2024.2326030
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Damayanti, I. L., Abdurahman, N. H., & Wulandari, L. (2021). Collaborative writing and peer feedback practices using Google Docs. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference on Applied Linguistics (CONAPLIN 2020) (pp. 233–240). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210427.034
Demissie, G., Amogne, D., & Gashaw, A. (2025). The effect of using Google Docs on Ethiopian EFL students’ collaborative writing improvement. Australian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(3), 102622. https://doi.org/10.29140/ajal.v8n3.102622
Gulikers, J. T. M., Bastiaens, T. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504676
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi Republik Indonesia. (2023). Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi Republik Indonesia Nomor 53 Tahun 2023 tentang Penjaminan Mutu Pendidikan Tinggi. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/265158/permendikbudriset-no-53-tahun-2023
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Nasri, N. F., Habali, A. H. M., & Adam, M. H. M. (2022). Google Docs: Students’ perceptions as online collaborative tool in learning writing skills. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 11(3), 690–705. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v11-i3/14611
Nguyen, T. T. H., & Su, A. A. T. (2025). EFL students’ perceptions in collaborative writing via Google Docs: A case study at Van Lang University. AsiaCALL Online Journal, 16(1), 264–281. https://doi.org/10.54855/acoj.2516113
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
Nieminen, J. H., Bearman, M., & Ajjawi, R. (2023). Designing the digital in authentic assessment: Is it fit for purpose? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(4), 529–543. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2089627
Nurkhamidah, N., Lustyantie, N., & Chaeruman, U. A. (2024). Peer feedback in academic writing: Students’ perspectives on learning and improvement. Jo-ELT (Journal of English Language Teaching), 11(2), 233–245. https://doi.org/10.33394/jo-elt.v11i2.13330
OECD. (2023). OECD digital education outlook 2023: Towards an effective digital education ecosystem. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/c74f03de-en
Ortega-Ruipérez, B., & Correa-Gorospe, J. M. (2024). Peer assessment to promote self-regulated learning with technology in higher education: Systematic review for improving course design. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1376505. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1376505
Öztürk, M., Yüce, E., & Türker, P. M. (2025). Online peer feedback versus online teacher feedback? Effect of online feedback on students’ self-regulated learning. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 30, 769–787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09812-8
Sembiring, S. S., Yuliati, & Sakhiyya, Z. (2025). Exploring the use of Google Docs for collaborative narrative writing: A sequential exploratory study in EFL classroom. ETERNAL (English Teaching Journal), 16(2), 442–456. https://doi.org/10.26877/eternal.v16i2.1543
Sugiyono. (2019). Metode penelitian kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan R&D. Alfabeta.
Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s Alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48, 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
UNESCO. (2023). Global education monitoring report 2023: Technology in education: A tool on whose terms? UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54676/UZQV8501
Valizadeh, M. (2022). Collaborative writing on Google Docs: Effects on EFL learners’ descriptive paragraphs. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 277–287. https://doi.org/10.21093/ijeltal.v6i2.1053
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4
Wiggins, G. (1990). The case for authentic assessment. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 2(1), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.7275/ffb1-mm19