Nurse Education Today 41 (2016) 67–72

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Nurse Education Today

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/nedt

Dynamic online peer evaluations to improve group assignments in

nursing e-learning environment
Jehad Adwan
University of Minnesota School of Nursing, Child and Family Health Co-op, 5-140 Weaver-Densford Hall, 308 Harvard St. S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Objectives: The purpose of this research was to evaluate the use of online peer evaluation forms for online group
Received 1 January 2016 activities in improving group project outcomes.
Received in revised form 19 March 2016 Design: The investigator developed and used a web-based Google Forms® self and peer evaluation form of 2
Accepted 24 March 2016 group assignments' rubric for junior and senior nursing students. The form covered elements of the assignments
including: research activity, analysis of the literature, writing of report, participation in making of presentation,
Keywords:
overall contribution to the project, and participation in the weekly group discussions. Items were rated from 1
Nursing students
Peer evaluations
(did not contribute) to 5 (outstanding contribution) in addition to NA when one activity did not apply.
Real-time feedback Procedure: The self and peer evaluation process was conducted twice: once after group assignment 1 and once
Group assignment after group assignment 2. The group assignments final products were done in the form of VoiceThread online
presentations that were shared with the rest of the class reflecting the groups' work on a health informatics
topic of interest.
Data sources: Data collected as the students completed self and peer evaluations for group assignments 1 and 2.
Also, optional comments regarding member performance were collected to add contextual information in addi-
tion to ratings. Students received credit for completing the peer evaluations and the grade for the particular
assignment was affected by their performance based on peer evaluations of their contributions.
Results: Students' peer evaluations showed in a color-coded spreadsheet which enabled the course faculty to
view real time results of students' ratings after each assignment. The faculty provided timely and tailored feed-
back to groups or individuals as needed, using positive feedback and commending high performance while urg-
ing struggling individual students and groups to improve lower ratings in specific areas. Comparing evaluations
of both assignments, there were statistically significant improvements among all students. The mean scores of
the entire sample were skewed toward the higher end of the scale, suggesting an overall high performance
group. However, analysis of the lower performing individuals showed consistent and statistically significant im-
provements in all areas of the evaluation criteria.
Conclusions: Anonymous peer evaluation activities and timely faculty feedback in e-Learning environment can be
a useful tool to faculty to improve group performance over time by engaging the learners within their groups.
Peer evaluations provided real time view of group mid-semester formative evaluations that allowed the faculty
to provide timely and tailored feedback on student performance which allowed for better outcomes.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction traditional classroom is becoming more virtual than a physical place

With the current information revolution, nearly every aspect of
modern society has been influenced in one way or another. Many exam-
ples surround us on a daily basis, such as, shopping, banking, social
media, healthcare management, and—of course—education. The
e-learning medium is becoming more commonplace. Some higher
education institutions are dedicated solely to online teaching and learn-
ing. Entire curricula and many courses in traditional higher education
institutions are being delivered via web-based platforms while the
E-mail address: jehad@umn.edu.
where students interact with their faculty and each other. There are
many advantages to the e-learning environment (Oakley et al., 2004),
such as convenience, ease of access, diverse learner base, and virtually
around the clock access to the learning classroom. This results in a
higher degree of collaboration among learners which offers supportive
learning milieu and results in better outcomes for the learners (Oakley
et al., 2004; and Scherling, 2011).
E-learning has its own challenges. A classic teaching methodology in
the traditional classroom, the group project is a challenging component
in the e-learning environment as well. In the case of online group pro-
jects, it could understandably be harder for all group members, who
may or may not know each other outside of the virtual world, to

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.03.028
0260-6917/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
68 J. Adwan / Nurse Education Today 41 (2016) 67–72

collaborate fully with other members on joint projects and assignments. Depending on size, there could be 2 faculty members involved in addi-
Ineffective communication and unclear roles may cause delays and frus- tion to a teaching assistant to manage teaching activities including
trations among group members due to unequal contributions among group assignments. The purpose of this study was to investigate the ef-
group members (Hall and Buzwell, 2013). fectiveness of using a dynamic Google Forms® peer evaluation form as
part of the online group activities in improving group work outcomes.
2. Background/Literature
3. Methods
Group assignments/projects can be found virtually in every learning
environment. Based on the assumption that, regardless of subject mat- 3.1. Design
ter or specialty, students will eventually graduate and join the work-
force to work in teams, group assignments are used every day in This research study used a descriptive comparative design. At the be-
classrooms (Hansen, 2006). Students are assigned to work on a joint as- ginning of every semester, student groups were created based on a pres-
signment, project, or a physical or intellectual product as a team where ent list of health informatics topics suggested by the faculty. Students
the goal is to come up with a solution to a problem, an idea for a product, had the freedom to choose which topic to work on based on their per-
or a care-plan for a patient through a rigorous collective cognitive exer- sonal interest. Group cohesion and collaboration was facilitated prior
cise. The advantages of group exercises are well documented in the to their engagement in the actual group assignments by using a multi-
educational literature. step assignment format. The course included a total of 4 assignments;
However, group projects are often created without enough thought 2 independent assignments and 2 group assignments. An initial assign-
given to factors that provide for successful group effort (Anson and ment was done individually where a student worked on finding and
Goodman, 2014). Others argue that teams need to work together long summarizing a research article related to their topic of interest. Each
enough to develop a basis of working together, which is hardly seen in student was required to seek feedback from a fellow group member
the classroom (Bacon et al., 1999). This can be of particular import to via a dedicated discussion forum in the online course platform. Another
faculty implementing online group projects. A special attention needs discussion forum was dedicated to weekly learned topics as well as the
to be paid to this type of group activity where the students may or group assignment activities and progress. Following the initial assign-
may not know each other and the virtual learning environment may ment, the groups started working on 2 collaborative group assignments.
not be conducive to building close connections to other group members Students' responses were collected on two stages, once after
(Scherling, 2011). Oakley et al. (2004) emphasize the importance of first group assignment and once after the second group assignment.
preparing the students in advance before they are engaged in group The group assignments were to work in a team to produce online
work. Applicability into the online environment can be challenging VoiceThread® presentations to analyze the gaps and propose solutions
due to the inability to establish rapport and personal connections be- for current topics in health informatics. Mean ratings from multiple
tween team members. group members were aggregated and then they were compared be-
In order to avoid the shortcomings of group work, several studies in tween the two assignments.
different disciplines were conducted to find more effective methods of
creating, enhancing, managing, and monitoring group work projects 3.2. Sample
and assignments. The phenomenon of free-riding or social loafing was
discussed by (Brooks and Ammons, 2003; Aggarwal and O'Brien, The study convenience sample consisted of all mostly female stu-
2008; and Hall and Buzwell, 2013) as a frequent by-product of group as- dents enrolled in the undergraduate health informatics course over 4
signments where one or more members fail to perform as expected semesters; spring 2014, fall 2014, spring 2015, and fall 2015. The total
while other members are forced to pick up the slack of that member. number of participants was 279 junior and senior students. Distribution
Some tools have been proposed to monitor the group performance of the sample by gender and semester can be found in Table 1.
based on repeated peer to peer evaluations throughout the progression
of the group assignment (Druskat et al., 1999; Gueldenzoph and May, 3.3. Instrument
2002; Brooks and Ammons, 2003; and Brutus and Donia, 2010). Like-
wise, in the nursing education literature, there are several studies The online self and peer evaluation form was based on the group as-
highlighting the importance of peer-to-peer learning and feedback, signment rubric, which was posed on the course website and consisted
however, no scholarly work was found on using online peer evaluation of all the activities that the group was expected to perform to come up
tools, much less tools that give the instructor instant real-time access to with the final products. These activities included research activity, anal-
the students' feedback. ysis of the literature, writing of report, overall presentation participa-
tion, overall contribution to the project, and participation in the
2.1. Study Setting weekly group discussions. The online self and peer evaluation tool was
created using Google Forms® web-based platform to collect students'
This study was conducted to fill a gap in the online group project responses. The form was designed similar to online survey for research
evaluation mechanism by giving the faculty an easy to implement, purposes. The novel attribute of Google Forms® is that responses are
sort, analyze, and visualize peer evaluation tool to try to bridge the collected into a Google Spreadsheets within the faculty's institutional
engagement issue by all group members in the joint assignment. The Google Drive®. The spreadsheet within Google Drive® is viewed in
nature of this particular setting was an undergraduate nursing infor- real-time as responses start trickling in. When it was time to give
matics course that was delivered predominantly through the online
Moodle platform. Of particular concern, was the class size, which ranged
from 55 to 75 junior and senior students each semester. It is not hard to Table 1
Sample distribution by semester and gender.
imagine and expect difficulties in implementing an effective online
group project where groups were created through random drawing Semester Students % of sample Male % Female %
within the course platform. These difficulties were evident in the earlier Spring 2014 56 20.1 9 16 47 84
iterations of the course where there was no easy way to track student Fall 2014 83 29.7 16 19.3 67 80.7
performance due to the large number of students as well as the multiple Spring 2015 66 23.7 8 12 58 88
groups with 5–6 students in each group. This course included nursing as Fall 2015 74 26.5 15 20 59 80
Total 279 100% 48 17.2 231 82.8
well as a few others interested in the topic from around the university.
 J. Adwan / Nurse Education Today 41 (2016) 67–72
feedback, the students received a link from the faculty and started the
process of giving feedback by selecting their own group, the assignment
they were giving feedback on, and a particular group member including
oneself to evaluate. The students repeated the process until they gave
feedback on all of their group members including oneself.
Using a 1–5 Likert scale, students provided ratings of group mem-
bers' performance where 1 = did not contribute even though it was ex-
pected, and 5 = outstanding effort and critical to success of the project.
As an incentive for participation to fill out the online form, students who
completed the form earned extra points that were added to their final
assignment grade.
3.4. Procedures
The students in each semester were asked to join a group based on
interest in health informatics topics. Examples of these topics included
personal health records, telehealth, e-prescribing, and information
security, among others. The aim of the two assignments was to cre-
ate VoiceThread® presentations about investigating gaps in health
informatics topics (Assignment 1) and proposing solutions to cur-
rent gaps in health informatics topics (Assignment 2). VoiceThread®
is a cloud-based application that allows users to create, upload, share
and discuss different types of documents, such as presentations, im-
ages, audio/video files. It allows for collaboration among colleagues
where others can view and comment using text, video using differ-
ent input methods (VoiceThread-Features, 2016, March 19). A typi-
cal group consisted of 5 members who worked together based on a
specific rubric on two consecutive assignments that built on one an-
other. An online forum, within the course platform was provided for
the groups to plan and discuss roles and responsibilities of each
group member.
Students evaluated themselves and peers on participating in
assigned group activities. The faculty graded the product of the group
assignments. Furthermore, the students' scores on participation were
incorporated into their individual grade of the assignment.
An exempt status permission was obtained from the Institutional
Review Board (IRB). Student demographic data collection was limited
to name, gender and email address. This information was necessary to
match pairs for comparison purposes between performance and grades
of two assignments. The online form stored data in a password-secured
Google spreadsheet housed within the educational institution's server
and were accessed only by the researcher. Data was cleaned up and
unique identifiers were removed from results.
Image 1. A screenshot of sample group performance consistently high ratings after the first and second group assignments.
69
3.5. Data Sources and Real-Time Feedback
The self and peer evaluation for first group assignment was adminis-
tered soon after the due date of the assignment. Trouble spots were
identified in real-time as the feedback was pouring in. Using conditional
formatting in the form data spreadsheet, color-coding was built-into the
spreadsheet and automatically visually displayed students low ratings
(ratings 2 or less) in red cell highlights, moderate (ratings of 3) in yel-
low cell highlights, and high (rating of 4–5) in green cell highlights.
Each cell in the spreadsheet represented one data point about one
area of the evaluation form received from a team member. For example,
a group having 5 members, would show 5 cells representing the area of
research and these cells turn a different color depending on the number
in it. As the evaluations were completed, and by sorting by feedback re-
cipient or by group, a mosaic of red, yellow and green could be seen and
instantly interpreted as to how the group or the individual was doing.
Image 1 shows a sample group performance where its members' ratings
stayed high after the first and the second group assignment. Image 2
shows a sample group performance where there were some issues
after the first assignment which were improved following the feedback
received from faculty evidenced by the higher ratings after the second
assignment.
A real-time feedback mechanism was set up by the faculty who,
sorting by group or person, could see where there is prevalent red and
yellow highlights, indicating performance issues as illustrated in
Images 1 and 2. Based on the performance of individuals, the faculty
sent tailored feedback to the particular student depending on his/her
score. For instance:
• Message 1 for high performers: Congratulations! Your peers rated
your performance well above average. Keep up the good work!
• Message 2 for average performers with room for improvement: Your
scores were above average for several areas of your group efforts!
There's a room for improvement in (specified behavior). Keep up
the good work!
• Message 3 for low performers: Unfortunately, your scores were below
average for (specify areas) of your group efforts. To ensure success in
this course, please contact the faculty to schedule a time to discuss
ways to improve performance.
When the pattern of scores suggested that an entire group was
struggling (too many red and yellow cells in the spreadsheet), the facul-
ty sent a message to the group to assist in resolving issues. There were
70 J. Adwan / Nurse Education Today 41 (2016) 67–72

Image 2. A sample screenshot of group color-coded performance where ratings were improved following the feedback received from faculty evidenced by the higher ratings after the
second assignment.

very few troubled groups. In these rare instances when a group did not
work well together based on students' feedback early on or right after
the first assignment, the faculty stepped in to explore more and suggest
solutions to improve the group's dynamic. Email and phone calls where
initiated with the individual members to advise, guide and redirect. In
one instance, one student had to be pulled out of a group and given an
individual assignment instead of staying within a group with conflicts.
The same peer evaluation tool was administered in the same fashion
after the second group assignment was due to be submitted.
In addition to numeric ratings, group members also provided quali-
tative data to elaborate on why they felt a particular member performed
in a certain way. This contextual data provided the faculty with another
layer of information and shed more light on the group performance and
what kinds of challenges a particular member of a group is facing and
how these issues can be rectified if necessary.
3.6. Statistical Analysis Plan
All data were aggregated by semester and by group and were
cleaned and entered in the Statistical Package for Social Sciences
(SPSS), version 23. Rows that were missing half or more of the re-
sponses were discarded. There were very few instances of discarded re-
cords, mainly because few students dropped the class and could not
provide feedback for the second round of feedback. In rare instances
students who failed to contribute were removed from their groups
and assigned an individual assignment.
each assignment. Comparisons were also conducted based on overall
group ratings as well.
Descriptive statistical analysis included mean and standard devia-
tions of students' ratings in the peer evaluation tool in terms of each
of the 6 items: research, analysis, writing, presentation, overall perfor-
mance, and discussion. Comparisons of the mean scores were done
using a paired-sample t-test using matched individual students' ratings
and grades received in the respective assignments.
4. Results
4.1. Student Self and Peer Evaluations
Overall, within groups and across semesters, students tended to rate
their group members on the higher end using the 5-point Likert scales.
The results showed that the evaluations were relatively concentrated
toward the higher end of the rating scale, as can be seen in Table 2.
This cohort of students was mostly in the higher performance category
Table 2
Paired-sample T-test for the entire sample (N 279) and low performer subset (N 31) on all
peer evaluation items.
Entire sample (N = 279) Low performers (N = 31)

After data were collected, student's individual numeric ratings, en- N Mean SD p N Mean SD p
tered by multiple group members, were averaged out and entered as a 279 4.54 0.48 0.004 Research1 31 3.64 0.63 0.001
single score. Totals were not an objective measure due to variable 279 4.61 0.43 Research2 31 4.1 1.63
group sizes and the fact that some students did not receive feedback 279 4.54 0.49 0.001 Analysis1 31 3.60 0.69 b0.001
279 4.63 0.42 Analysis2 31 4.20 0.59
from equal number of group members. The mean scores of the first
279 4.53 0.51 0.008 Writing1 31 3.50 0.65 b0.001
and second assignment were matched manually per student before en- 279 4.61 0.45 Writing2 31 4.1 0.64
tering into SPSS. 278 4.57 0.53 0.058 Presentation1 31 3.65 0.87 0.03
Student's earned grade in both assignments and were granted as 278 4.62 0.46 Presentation2 31 4.0 0.13
group grade in addition to the bonus grade given for completing the 279 4.55 0.52 0.005 Overall1 31 3.55 0.66 b0.001
279 4.62 0.43 Overall2 31 4.14 0.56
self and peer evaluation tool. Also, individual grades were influenced
279 4.54 0.48 0.002 Mean score of 5 activities1 31 3.6 0.64 b0.001
by how their performance was perceived by their group members. 279 4.62 0.42 Mean score of 5 activities2 31 4.12 0.60
These grades were included into the analysis to assess potential signifi- 279 4.52 0.59 0.055 Discussion1 31 3.5 0.78 0.02
cant changes in individual grades on the assignments. Comparisons 279 4.57 0.52 Duscussion2 31 3.86 0.65
were conducted between the first and second group assignments 278 39.16 1.10 0.004 Mean grade1 31 38.9 1.06 0.007
278 39.39 0.93 Mean grade2 31 39.6 0.81
based on individual student received ratings as well as their grades in
 J. Adwan / Nurse Education Today 41 (2016) 67–72
with mean scores at or higher than 4. Using the entire sample (N =
279), statistically significant differences were revealed among most
pairs that were compared using a paired-sample t-test (p-values ranged
from 0.001 to 0.008). The discussion activity associated with the group
assignment—which was not part of the assignment itself but rather a
regular classroom activity associated with a weekly module—had very
subtle and not significant difference between the two assignments.
Moreover, the presentation activity did not show significant difference.
Of particular interest, the overall mean of scores on all 5 areas showed a
statistically significant difference (p = 0.002). Also, the grades received
on the assignments increased in the second assignment in a statistically
significant way (p = 0.004)
Analysis per semester revealed a mixed pattern of statistically signif-
icant changes among the different areas of the survey, with some se-
mesters showing more significant change than others. Of particular
interest, spring semester of 2014 showed significant improvements in
all areas that students gave feedback on. While fall semester of 2014
showed no significant change in performance, while maintaining higher
scores for the second assignments in the peer evaluation scores. As
mentioned above, this group was a part of a high performance subset
of the entire sample where their feedback started at a high level and
remained so during the second assignment. Therefore that did not
leave much room for improvement due to the ceiling effect of the peer
evaluation scores they received.
Another subset of interest to the investigator was the low perfor-
mance subset. This group was defined as having a mean score of all
areas that is less than or equal to 4 out of the 5 maximum score. This
subset of students, which was selected from all semesters, included a
total of 31 students. Paired-sample t-test revealed significant improve-
ment in performance in all areas that they received feedback on (p-
values ranged from b0.001 to 0.007). Table 2 highlights all feedback
areas in pairs with means and SD of each and the statistical significance
of the upward change in peer evaluations between the first and the sec-
ond assignment.
4.2. Student's Experience with the Peer Feedback Survey
In the fall semester of 2014, the researcher added a voluntary activity
to the peer evaluation survey. The researcher aimed at assessing the stu-
dents' perceptions of completing the survey and what, if any, impact it
had on their group assignments. A total of 16 students completed this vol-
untary part of the survey. Students' perceptions were solicited in relation
5 areas: ease of use, time consumption, objectivity, reflection of the group
assignments' components, and engagement with peers. A scale from
strongly disagree to strongly agree was used. A general comments section
about pros and cons of the peer evaluation survey also collected feedback.
Respondents overwhelmingly perceived the peer evaluation survey
in a positive light. The survey was largely seen as easy to use, objective
and reflective of the components of the assignments. Frequencies of stu-
dents' perceptions are detailed in Table 3. Students' comments
highlighted the experience that the feedback process helped groups
that had a hard time getting everyone to participate in the assignment.
Table 3
Frequency of student agreement or disagreement with characteristics of the peer evalua-
tion survey.
Characteristics of peer N Strongly Strongly
evaluation survey disagree Disagree Neutral Agree agree
Easy to complete 16 9 7
Time consuming 16 2 5 7 2
Objectively assesses 16 2 9 5
group performance
Reflective of assignment 16 2 2 8 4
components
Promoted engagement 16 6 5 3 2
in group work
71
Others indicated that the tool gave the faculty an objective measure of
how the groups are performing behind the scene due to the nature of
the course being online and there are no face-to-face encounters with
the students. However, some students disliked the fact that they had
to start the survey over, which was perceived as time consuming, to
leave feedback for each group member separately.
5. Discussion
With the ubiquitous presence of e-learning platforms, educators are
challenged every day to deliver high quality services to their students. A
particular challenge to educators in the classroom and specifically to ed-
ucators delivering e-learning courses, is engaging the learner through
group assignments (Bacon et al., 1999; and Brooks and Ammons,
2003). This study focused on the aspect of having the learners account-
able for themselves and to their teams when conducting an online pro-
ject together. The results suggest that having a self and peer evaluation
tool in place, instructor engagement through real-time feedback, and
use of positive reinforcement, may be factors that allow for improve-
ments in the group assignment aspect of online teaching (Kaufman
et al., 2000; and Druskat et al., 1999).
Through data collected over 4 semesters, it was clear that the students
in this sample had high ratings overall of their group members while
working together on group assignments. Differences in ratings between
assignments 1 and 2 were usually very narrow and often having a ceiling
effects where their ratings of each other could not go much higher. How-
ever, overall results suggest improvements after the first round of being
engaged in a group project by means of peer feedback. Motivation can
be a useful tool for educators to improve group projects (Krishen,
2013). In this study high performers were encouraged through positive
enforcement messages from the instructor, average performers were en-
couraged to do better in the areas that needed improvements, and the
low performing individuals and groups were contacted and helped to
find ways to correct their approach to group assignments. When faculty
help facilitates groups' growth and creating proper working environment,
group work become more purposeful and individual members can bene-
fit (St. Clair and Tschirhart, 2002; and Gueldenzoph and May, 2002).
A novel aspect of the results shown by this study is the instant iden-
tifications of low performing members or groups and tailoring feedback
or intervention to help the troubled area. This is very hard to implement
in a face-to-face setting with paper-and-pencil evaluation forms. The
web-based and color-coded system added a layer of speed and conve-
nience to the faculty to preview, assess, and intervene as needed in a
timely fashion, a technique viewed as helpful for successful group
projects (Gueldenzoph and May, 2002; and St. Clair and Tschirhart,
2002). When especially applied to the low performing group the feed-
back used in this study helped realign group members and improved in-
dividual performance evidenced by the significant improvement in the
low performing subset. The real-time dashboard-style color-coded visu-
alization of the results of the peer evaluation survey by the faculty
allowed for timely feedback—messages that were tailored to fit the na-
ture of the recipients' evaluation by peers. For example, it was very easy
and convenient to see struggling individuals if their feedback cells looks
mostly yellow or red on the spreadsheet. The same way was used to de-
termine struggling groups as well. This allows for early interventions to
take place to avoid the free-riding phenomenon and improve individual
accountability to self and the group (Kaufman et al., 2000; Brooks and
Ammons, 2003; and Aggarwal and O'Brien, 2008).
Overall, students' perception of the peer evaluation survey was pos-
itive. Students reported that the survey was easy to use, objectively
measured students' performance, reflective of the components of the
assignments, and not time consuming. The experience of working in
group assignments can have a positive effect on students' own percep-
tions of working in groups in the future (Pragman et al., 2010) where
students' attitudes could change as they are engaged in group work.
However, the students in this study had mixed feelings about whether
72 J. Adwan / Nurse Education Today 41 (2016) 67–72
knowing about the survey helped them be more engaged with their
group.
6. Conclusion
In conclusion, this study provided a new approach to corroborate
the usefulness of effective and easy-to-implement peer evaluation strat-
egies to improve group assignments among nursing students. As much
of the literature currently available draws more often on other fields' ex-
periences, such as business and natural sciences, it is time nursing re-
search came to the forefront by employing peer evaluation forms
using easy to implement technologies that are at the fingertips of faculty
in all settings. Easy to learn and use, and abundantly available, Google
Forms® can be a strong tool to use by faculty, especially when used in
large class sizes. These forms can be of great benefit for the early identi-
fication and intervention in low performing individuals as well as
groups.
This study is not without limitations. It has to be noted that during
each semester, there was a very small number (1 to 3) of students
who had to drop out of the course, partly due to burden of course
work which was reflected on their peer evaluations of the group pro-
jects, which may have contributed to some of the lack of variability. It
is important to note that groups were not selected randomly which
may be seen as a limitation. Groups were formed based on individual
student's interest in a specific nursing informatics topic. While some
students may have selected a group based on personal, social or intellec-
tual categories, this method enabled students to work on a topic they
were interested in where better performance is expected as opposed
to an imposed topic.
Another limitation is that the implementation of such form of real-
time collecting, analyzing and providing feedback may prove challeng-
ing to educators who are not familiar with Google Docs® platforms
and some kind of training and orientation ahead of time may be
necessary.
Security issues may arise from using Google Docs® outside of the ac-
ademic institutions' secured servers. Data can be compromised if per-
sonal Google account are used to conduct surveys involving private or
identifying information. The investigator recommends checking if the
educational institutions permit usage of Google Apps®. An institutional
subscription maybe warranted to get the full benefits of these online
resources and avoid security problems related to data storage and ac-
cess in the future.
Acknowledgements
Madeleine Kerr, PhD, RN, Associate Professor, University of Minne-
sota School of Nursing. Bridget Engelbrektson, MN, RN University of
Minnesota School of Nursing. Isatou Cham, SN University of Minnesota
School of Nursing.
References
Aggarwal, P., O'Brien, C., 2008. Social loafing on group projects: structural antecedents
and effect on student satisfaction. J. Mark. Educ. 30 (3), 255–264.
Anson, R., Goodman, J., 2014. A peer assessment system to improve student team experi-
ences. J. Educ. Bus. 89 (1), 27–34.
Bacon, D., Stewart, K., Silver, W., 1999. Lessons from the best and worst student team ex-
periences: how a teacher can make the difference. J. Manag. Educ. 23 (5), 467–488.
Brooks, C., Ammons, J., 2003. Free riding in group projects and the effects of timing, fre-
quency, and specificity of criteria in peer assessments. J. Educ. Bus. 78 (5), 268–272.
Brutus, S., Donia, M., 2010. Improving the effectiveness of students in groups with a
centralized peer evaluation system. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 9 (4), 652–662.
Druskat, V.U., Wolff, S., Murphy, K., 1999. Effects and timing of developmental peer ap-
praisals in self-managing work groups. J. Appl. Psychol. 84 (1), 58–74.
Gueldenzoph, L., May, G., 2002. Collaborative peer evaluation: best practices for group
member assessments. Bus. Commun. Q. 65 (1), 9–20.
Hall, D., Buzwell, S., 2013. The problem of free-riding in group projects: looking beyond
social loafing as reason for non-contribution. Act. Learn. High. Educ. 14 (1), 37–49.
Hansen, R., 2006. Benefits and problems with student teams: suggestions for improving
team projects. J. Educ. Bus. 82 (1), 11–19.
Kaufman, D., Felder, R., Fuller, H., 2000. Accounting for individual effort in cooperative
learning teams. J. Eng. Educ. 89 (2), 133–140.
Krishen, A., 2013. Catch it if you can: how contagious motivation improves group projects
and course satisfaction. J. Mark. Educ. 35 (3), 220–230.
Oakley, B., Felder, R., Brent, R., Elhajj, I., 2004. Turning student groups into effective teams.
J. Stud. Center. Learning 2 (1), 9–34.
Pragman, C., Bowyer, S., Flannery, B., 2010. Using student feedback to assess team projects
in a required, cross-disciplinary, undergraduate management course. Acad. Educ.
Leader. J. 14 (2), 85–102.
Scherling, S., 2011. Designing and fostering effective online group projects. Adult Learning
22 (2), 13–18.
St. Clair, L., Tschirhart, M., 2002. When and where? Facilitating group work beyond the
borders of the classroom. J. Manag. Educ. 26 (4), 449–461.
VoiceThread-Features, 2016, March 19. Communicate, Collaborate, and Connect.
(Retrieved from https://voicethread.com/about/features/).