Google Forms Quizzes and Substitution, Augmentation, Modification

Issues and Trends in Educational Technology Volume 6, Number 2, Dec. 2018

Google Forms Quizzes and Substitution,

Augmentation, Modication, and Redenition

(SAMR) Model Integration

Abstract

Web-based formative assessment technology has simplied how teachers capture

and analyze student data. As an assessment and data gathering web-based

application, Google Forms quizzes can be used to adapt content, individualize

instructional goals, collect performance data, and connect students and teachers

locally or from dierent parts of the world. Teachers can create and distribute

Google Forms’ formative assessment technology, resulting in synchronous

student performance feedback that communicates critical information related to

learning objectives for teachers and students. In addition, Google Forms quizzes

can be exclusively aligned and integrated with the technology benchmarks dened

in the Substitution, Augmentation, Modication, and Redenition (SAMR) Model,

resulting in the creation of dynamic and customizable formative assessments in

ways never before conceptualized.

Keywords: Google Forms; formative assessment; SAMR Model; online

collaboration; synchronous feedback

Scott Castro

Boise State University

Google Forms is a free web-based data gathering tool part of the Google Suite

applications by Google Cloud. Google Forms can be used to create surveys, polls, and

formative assessment quizzes. Google Forms quizzes allow teachers to create, share,

collaborate, individualize, and distribute formative assessments to students, providing

synchronous feedback that generates measurable performance data which is critical for

evaluating student progress. Nicol and Macfarlane (2005) suggested “good feedback

practice is not only about providing accessible and usable information that help students

improve their learning, but it is also about providing good information to teachers” (p.

14). Synchronous formative feedback has become a direct line for student self-regulated

learning (SLR) and instructional intervention, serving as an “important process as

teachers strive to instill SRL characteristics among their students” (Clark, 2012, p. 8).

Researchers agree formative assessment impacts the quality of teaching and learning,

and it engages students in SRL and self-directed learning (SDL) environment which can

be consummated using Google Forms quizzes (Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, J., & Chappuis,

S, 2004). Google Forms quizzes have an assortment of optional design features that

produce data for students and teachers. These optional design features, located in the

quiz creation Settings tab, include:

Issues and Trends in Educational Technology Volume 6, Number 2, Dec. 2018

1. Missed questions, which show which questions were answered incorrectly;

2. Correct answers, which show the correct answer for each question;

3. Point values, which shows total points and points received for each question

(“Choose a question for your form”, 2018).

Figure 1. Google Form quiz settings. Reproduced from Google Forms. Retrieved

Google.

Google Form quizzes include short response and multiple choice question types, but

only multiple choice questions provide synchronous feedback data. Complete question

design options in Google Forms quizzes include short response, multiple choice,

checkbox, linear scale, and grid (“Getting started with Google Forms”, 2016). Multiple

choice and checkbox questions share design characteristics including a horizontal linear

display, similar to traditional answer sheets. Additionally, multiple choice answers display

in a circular format, analogous to traditional bubble sheet recording documents like

scantrons. One variance is checkbox answer choices. Checkbox answer choices allow

teachers to design questions that authorize students to select more than one answer

choice. The more than one answer choice alternative follows logically with contemporary

computer-based K-12 Common Core assessments. For example, the Smarter Balanced

Assessment Consortium (SBAC) exam presently administered in fteen states (Gewertz,

2017), denes the function of selecting more than one answer choice as “multiple choice,

multiple correct responses” (“Smarter Balance Question Types”, 2016). This optional

Issues and Trends in Educational Technology Volume 6, Number 2, Dec. 2018

design function allows teachers to provide an equivalent testing framework to SBAC.

Google Forms quizzes include several general features that provide security measures

and data access by students. The general features in Google Forms quizzes include:

4. Collecting emails and sending receipts;

5. Restricted and required sign-in;

6. Limit to one response per user or allow multiple;

7. Respondent can edit after quiz submission;

8. Respondent sees a summary of charts and text responses (“Choose a

question for your form” 2018).

This review will explore Google Forms quizzes as a formative assessment tool and

provide comprehensive examples and integration strategies in correlation with SAMR

Model technology benchmarks.

Interpreting Formative Assessment

There are several denitions of formative assessment. Black and Wiliam (1998a)

described formative assessment as “encompassing all those activities undertaken by

teachers, and/or by their students, which provide information to be used as feedback to

modify the teaching and learning activities in which they are engaged” (p. 7). Black and

Wiliam later re-examined this denition to include the notion that assessments become

formative “when evidence is actually used to meet the needs of students” (1998b. p.

140). Expanding on Black and Wiliam’s denition, Broadfoot Daugherty, Gardner, Gipps,

Harlen, James, and Stobart (1999) argued that improving learning through assessment

depends on the following ve factors:

“(1) the provision of eective feedback to pupils; (2) the active involvement of pupils in

their own learning; (3) adjusting teaching to take account of the results of assessment;

(4) a recognition of the profound inuence assessment has on the motivation and self-

esteem of pupils, both of which are crucial inuences on learning; and (5) the need for

pupils to be able to assess themselves and understand how to improve.” (p. 7).

Furthermore, Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, and Wiliam (2004) argued an assessment

activity can assist learning if it produces information that teachers and their students can

use as feedback in assessing themselves and one another. Most teachers agree that

formative assessment is a continuous instructional process that follows closely to the

provisions Broadfoot et al. presented, rationalizing that its purpose is to evaluate, improve,

and support student learning. An example of this process could be observed when a

student is assigned a critical response essay aligned with specic learning objectives.

As an assessment tool, a teacher can use a rubric wherein feedback is recorded, oering

Issues and Trends in Educational Technology Volume 6, Number 2, Dec. 2018

personalized feedback with the intent of providing a means for the student to improve

their writing. During this process, both student and teacher evaluate student performance

and address potential needs to improve upon prior performance. Black et al. (2004)

supported this armation by suggesting such an assessment becomes formative when

the “evidence is actually used to adapt the teaching work to meet learning needs” (p. 10).

In the preceding critical response writing example, a student can amend their work based

on teacher feedback, and the teacher can use results to facilitate focused and guided

instructional objectives. When interpreting student feedback, formative assessment

provides an instructional framework for teachers, often distributing measures to adapt,

individualize, and dierentiate instructional goals to support students. It is critical to

consider “an assessment activity can help learning if it provides information that teachers

and their students can use as feedback in assessing themselves and one another and

in modifying the teaching and learning activities in which they are engaged” (Black et

al., 2004, p. 10). Despite varying interpretations and denitions of formative assessment,

one can summarize it as a procedure “carried out during the instructional process for

the purpose of improving teaching or learning” (Hammerness & Rust, 2005. p. 275) that

“is used to provide information on the likely performance of students...where feedback

is given to students...telling them which items they got correct” (Wiliam & Thompson,

2008, p. 60). Google Forms quizzes authorize teachers to deliver formative assessment

tasks to their students, allowing the creation of dynamic and original content that can be

integrated into all four technology benchmarks of the SAMR Model.

The SAMR Model

Developed in 2006 by Dr. Ruben Puentedura as part of his work with the Maine Learning

Technology Initiatives, the SAMR Model “provides a framework for teachers designed to

improve the integration of emerging technologies into their daily lessons” (Hilton, 2017, p.

68). Within this framework, the SAMR Model deploys a hierarchical structure, consisting

of four distinct levels with specic technology integration benchmarks. These levels and

benchmarks include:

• Substitution: technology acts as a tool substitute, with no functional

change;

• Augmentation: technology acts as a direct tool substitute, with functional

improvement;

• Modication: technology allows for signicant task redesign;

Redenition: technology allows for the creation of new tasks previously inconceivable

(Puentedura, 2013).

The SAMR Model follows closely with recent revisions of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Forehand

(2011) described Bloom’s Taxonomy as a “multi-tiered model of classifying thinking

according to six cognitive levels of complexity” (p.42). These classications from lower-

Issues and Trends in Educational Technology Volume 6, Number 2, Dec. 2018

level to higher-order thinking go as follows: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application,

Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. In 2001, former Benjamin Bloom student Lorin

Anderson revised Bloom’s Taxonomy and published a new list of categories from lower

to higher-order thinking (Churches, 2008, p. 2). Anderson’s changes included eliminating

the noun form of each classication and replacing them with verbs. The revised lower

to higher-level order thinking goes as follows: Remembering, Understanding, Applying,

Analyzing, Evaluating, and Creating (Churches, 2008). Each revised level of Bloom’s

Taxonomy can be connected to SAMR benchmarks. For example, Substitution and

Augmentation in the SAMR Model enhance learning, suggesting they serve to utilize

technology to replace or improve upon traditional learning exercises with technology.

Puentedura (2014) recommended that Substitution and Augmentation be associated

with the “three lower levels of Bloom (Remember, Understand, and Apply)” (para. 3). The

tasks of Modication and Redenition transform learning, creating new opportunities

that were previously unattainable through traditional measures absent of technology

(Kirkland, 2014). Puentedura noted “Modication and Redenition are associated with

the upper levels of Bloom” including Analyze, Evaluate, and Create (Puentedura, 2014,

para. 3). Although the connection to Bloom can be used “it is important to realize the

association between SAMR and Bloom’s Taxonomy is not a necessary or even habitual

coupling…the simple structure described is well-suited to beginning practitioners’ needs

and even retains usefulness for more experienced faculty” (Puentedura, 2014, para. 5).

It is worth taking into consideration that using Bloom’s Taxonomy as a framework with

SAMR presents a familiarity to teachers, allowing for the likelihood of an uninterrupted

transition when integrating technology into learning tasks. Teachers must also consider

the rapid development of new technologies being considered for classroom integration.

Because of this, SAMR benchmarks and how they are achieved appear to be in constant

uctuation due technology enhancements and improvements. These improvements and

enhancements have a direct impact on decision making by beginning and advanced

technology educators and play a critical role when implementing SAMR. With this taken

into consideration, each SAMR Model benchmark related to Google Forms quizzes

integration will be presented in further detail, beginning with Substitution.

Substitution. Hockly (2013) stated that Substitution is the simplest way to implement

mobile learning, and when evaluating whether an activity is a part of the Substitution

phase, Puentedura (2015) posed the question, “What will be gained by replacing older

technology with the new technology?” (p.3). Hilton (2017) dened Substitution as the

“use of technology for a task that could be accomplished without technology” making

technology gains at this stage insignicant (p. 68). For example, during a traditional

quiz, when students are presented with multiple choice or written response questions,

they are required to use a writing tool, like a pencil or pen to record responses. The

assessment delivery method is tangible, including a test and answer document. As a

direct tool substitute, Google Forms quizzes can accomplish these objectives without

functional modications using mobile or laptop technology. For example, Google Forms

quizzes may include both multiple choice and short response questions. Instead of using

a traditional pen or pencil to record responses, students use a keyboard, mouse, and

Issues and Trends in Educational Technology Volume 6, Number 2, Dec. 2018

touch technology. Even though administering a Google Forms quiz with mobile or laptop

technology diers from a traditional multiple choice and written response assessment,

the outcome eectuates no functional change notwithstanding the present technology

hardware. As teachers explore the design options in Google Forms quizzes, they will

discover advancement beyond the Substitution phase of the SAMR Model. When

transitioning from Substitution to Augmentation, teachers must investigate if they have

added an improvement to the task process that could not be accomplished with older

technology and explore if this feature contributes to the design (Puentedura, 2013).

Augmentation. Learning activities positioned within the Substitution and Augmentation

classications are said to enhance learning. In the Augmentation phase, “Technology acts

as a direct tool substitute with functional improvement” (Puentedura, 2013). To establish

whether Google Forms quizzes provide a functional improvement, one must consider

the default accessibility functions on laptops and mobile devices. Traxler (2010) stated,

“Mobile devices, especially connected devices, enable students to consume—that is, to

access and store—all sorts of knowledge almost instantly and almost wherever they are,

with little or no eort compared with earlier technologies” (p. 154). For example, when

using an Apple iOS device to take a Google Forms quiz, students can select an unknown

word and use the dene technology. The result of this process is a dictionary pop-up

window that displays the denition of the word and a thesaurus. These options allow

students to acquire vocabulary parallel to their independent skill level. Dene technology

is a functional improvement over traditional dictionary and thesaurus counterparts

because the student has immediate access to word denitions and synonyms. In a

learning environment without this technology, the process of looking up words in physical

texts is prolonged and can take away from instructional time. Along with dene options,

iOS devices also include speak technology. Speak technology allows students to have

a phonetic pronunciation of a word spoken to them, including customizable accents.

Speak technology is a functional improvement because content adjusts to learning

styles, providing a phonetic media alternative not available in traditional dictionaries. It

is worth detailing that speak and dene technologies are not design features of Google

Forms quizzes; instead, they are embedded accessibility tools on laptops, desktops,

and mobile devices.

Further functional improvements in the Augmentation phase include sharing and accessing

Google Form quizzes remotely. Accessing quizzes remotely empowers teachers to use

a ipped learning pedagogical approach, so students can access and complete content

prior to attending class. Additionally, Google Forms quizzes can integrate video and

photos into multiple choice and short response question sequencing. This feature is a

functional improvement because it merges media into quizzes, following logically with

media-driven questioning presented during computer-based state assessments like

SBAC. Video integration in Google Forms quizzes is limited to YouTube content and

may present challenges to teachers at school because of potential YouTube networking

blocking. Despite these limitations, most YouTube content contains automated closed-

captioning technology which can be used to individualize Google Forms quizzes for

students with hearing impairments or other learning disabilities.

Issues and Trends in Educational Technology Volume 6, Number 2, Dec. 2018

Photo integration with Google Forms quizzes allows more exibility than videos. Teachers

can upload photo media from a screenshot, hard drive, URL, Google Photo Albums,

browser search, and Google Drive. Photo integration can also be used for multiple

choice answers, making it adaptive for visual learners. However, photo integration lacks

meta descriptions of photos, which is not equitable for students with visual impairments,

something teachers should take into consideration. Additional functional improvements

in Google Forms quizzes include creating distinct numerical point values for questions,

randomizing answer choices, restricting quizzes to specic users, allowing users to or

not to edit responses, and permitting users to take a quiz multiple times or only once.

Modication. Learning activities positioned within the Modication and Redenition

classications transform learning. When in the Modication phase, “Technology allows

for signicant task redesign” (Puentedura, 2013). First, upon completion of a Google

Forms quiz, students receive immediate performance feedback. Winne and Butler

(1994) describe feedback as “information with which a learner can conrm, add to, and

overwrite, tune, or restructure information in memory” (p. 5740). Unlike traditional pen

and paper formative multiple-choice assessments, feedback for Google Forms multiple

choice questioning allows teachers to enable an immediate auto-grading feature that

shows incorrect and correct answers and question point values. It is critical for quiz

feedback to be visibly aligned with questions, allowing students to regulate their learning.

Clark and Mayer (2011) supported this design technique in their cognitive multimedia

research, concluding “When feedback is provided on a page separate from the quiz

question to which it is referring, it is more dicult for the learner to relate the feedback to

the quiz response” (pg. 92). The inclusion of answers with questions should be taken into

consideration by teachers designing Google Form quizzes so students can self-regulate

learning. Question point values and written answer feedback must be set by the teacher

and can be customized for each question and displayed when a quiz is completed.

Additionally, teachers can enable permissions for students to observe whole class

scoring data when they nish the quiz, so that they can measure performance outcomes

relative to peers. It is worth noting students do not have access to individual student

scores with this feature, only question-to-question class data provided in graph format.

Enabling these functions allows quality feedback and communication among teacher

and student. Nicol and Macfarlane (2005) asserted “quality feedback is information that

helps students troubleshoot their own performance and self-correct: that is, it helps

students take action to reduce the discrepancy between their intentions and the resulting

eects” (p. 10).

Another way that Google Forms quizzes modify task redesign is through creating

conditional logic-branching questions. Conditional logic-branching questions allow

teachers to create a quiz with unique sections of questions. For example, when taking a

quiz with logic-branching questions, students can complete the assessment more rapidly

based on correct answer selections. In contrast, if students answer questions incorrectly

during conditional logic-branching questioning, the quiz will could continue until students

show mastery of content. Conditional logic-branching questions authorize teachers to

gather valuable feedback “prioritizing areas of improvement” (Nicol & Macfarlane, 2005),

Issues and Trends in Educational Technology Volume 6, Number 2, Dec. 2018

by adapting in real-time based on student understanding. The inclusion of conditional

logic-branching questions and synchronous feedback communicates a signicant task

redesign with technology, allowing teachers to deliver innovative technology integration

for students.

Redenition. In the Redenition phase, “Technology allows for the creation of new

tasks, previously inconceivable” (Puentedura, 2013). Redenition is the highest phase

in the SAMR Model, and teachers must rst explore the Share features in Google Forms

quizzes to connect with teachers and students. For example, teachers and students

from dierent schools can work collaboratively to create and produce personalized

Google Forms quizzes by utilizing the quiz sharing option. One example of how this

activity can work is having teachers from dierent schools in the same school district

collaborate, create, and produce a series of shared Google Forms quizzes related to

shared curriculum. When a Google Forms quiz is nalized, the teachers could share it

on a learning management system like Google Classroom so students can assess their

understanding of the topic. Upon completion of the quiz, students from both schools

could engage in a discussion board related to the quiz topic. They can engage in a

collaborative analysis discussion on the performance data, allowing for the construction

of new knowledge. In this example, Google Forms quizzes serve as not only a formative

assessment tool but also one that connects students to shared learning goals through

communication and collaboration, creating a transformative technological task.

Using the ‘share’ function in Google Forms quizzes is not limited to teachers in the same

school or district. Teachers can also connect with a broader range of technology educators

all over the world using Google Education Groups (GEGs). GEGs are “communities of

educators who learn, share, and inspire each other to meet the needs of their students

through technology solutions, both in the classroom and beyond” (“Google Educator

Groups”, 2018). GEGs are created with the social media platform, Google Plus, and are

for teachers that aspire to innovate students with technology. Once teachers create a GEG

or join one in progress, they can establish shared learning goals with group educators

and proceed to share, collaborate, and create Google Forms quizzes, resulting in the

creation of new opportunities for students and teachers to connect and collaborate on

a global scale. In GEGs, Google Forms quizzes can be administered on a Google Plus

message board, so students and teachers can gather, analyze, and interpret data from

all participating group members. This example is transformative because it creates a

global task using technology that was previously implausible, redening how teachers

can connect themselves and students to one another around the world.

Google Forms Quizzes Limitations

With most technology, it is practical when administered by individuals that have proper

training. To eectively use Google Form quizzes, it is suggested teachers become

qualied with implementation strategies by becoming a Google Certied Educator or

undergoing similar professional development. Completing certication or professional

Issues and Trends in Educational Technology Volume 6, Number 2, Dec. 2018

development requires time and money, something teachers may not have the opportunity

to pursue, presenting a potential barrier. Also, Google Forms quizzes require an internet

connection. The 2013 US Census reported the population at 316,200,000 million with

98% having access to the internet (“Computer Use and the Internet”, 2014). This data

concludes that 2% of the United States population, some of which are students, are

without internet access, creating potential concerns for student connectivity to Google

Forms quizzes. Moreover, in a school setting, Google Forms quizzes may encounter

network security that prohibits administering assessments that contain embedded media

content, creating a potential obstruction for teachers that want to embed media content

for students with physical or learning disabilities. Lastly, GEG meetings could become

complicated because of the varying time zones of participates, making it problematic for

teachers and students to communicate in real time.

Conclusion

As a web-based formative assessment tool, and with careful consideration, Google

Forms quizzes can achieve all four SAMR Model technology benchmarks. When

designing Google Forms quizzes using SAMR model benchmarks, teachers can embed

media content, design logic-branching questioning, individualize and adapt content, and

provide students with synchronous feedback and data to support learning through self-

regulation. Additionally, teachers can communicate and share Google Form quizzes in a

global domain, reaching students and teachers in venues never before conceptualized.

Despite the enhanced and transformative functions in Google Forms quizzes, not all

teachers achieve each SAMR benchmark. Having this expectation is unrealistic. Instead,

SAMR can be interpreted as a guide or reective framework for beginning and advanced

teachers that aspire to integrate more technology into lessons. Moreover, it is critical

to take into consideration not all teachers maintain comparable technology skills. For

teachers using SAMR as a model for integration, they should work in the levels they have

determined familiar and comfortable, so they never force SAMR integration. Despite

varying pedagogical approaches to SAMR integration in the classroom, Google Forms

quizzes permit beginning and experienced technology educators with opportunities to

carry out SAMR Model benchmarks, functioning as a valuable formative assessment

tool for teachers and students.

Issues and Trends in Educational Technology Volume 6, Number 2, Dec. 2018

References

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and

assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York:

Longman.

Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the

black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1),

8–21.

Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in

Education: Principles, Policy, and Practice, 5(1), 7–73.

Broadfoot, P. M., Daugherty, R., Gardner, J., Gipps, C. V., Harlen, W., James, M., et

al. (1999). Assessment for learning: beyond the black box. Cambridge, UK:

University of Cambridge School of Education.

Butler, D.L., & Winne, P.H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical

synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245-281.

Churches, A. (2008). Bloom’s taxonomy blooms digitally. Tech & Learning, 1, 1-6.

Clark, I. (2012). Formative assessment: assessment is for self-regulated learning.

Educational Psychology Review, 24 (2), 205-249.

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2011). E-Learning and the science of instruction: proven

guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (3rd ed.). San

Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Docs Editors Help: Choose a question for your form (2018). Retrieved April 02, 2018,

from https://support.google.com/docs/answer/7322334?hl=en

Forehand, M. (2010). Bloom’s taxonomy. Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching,

and Technology, 41, 47.

Gewertz, C. (2017). Which states are using PARCC or Smarter Balanced: an interactive

breakdown of states’ 2016-17 testing plans. Education Week, 36 (21). Retrieved

from https://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/states-using-parcc-or-

smarter-balanced.html

Google Educator Groups. (n.d.). Retrieved April 22, 2018, from https://www.google.

com/landing/geg/

Google Learning Center: Get started with forms (2016). Retrieved from https://gsuite.

google.com/learning-center/products/forms/get-started/

Issues and Trends in Educational Technology Volume 6, Number 2, Dec. 2018

Hilton, J. T. (2016). A case study of the application of SAMR and TPACK for reection

on technology integration into two social studies classrooms. The Social

Studies, 107(2), 68-73, doi: 10.1080/00377996.2015.1124376

Hockly, N. (2013). Technology for the language teacher: mobile learning. ELT Journal,

67(1),80–84.

Kirkland, A. (2014). Models for technology integration in the learning commons. School

Libraries in Canada 32(1), 14–18.

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.

Puentedura, R. (2013). Moving from enhancement to transformation.

Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/

archives/2013/05/29SAMREnhancementtToTransformation.pdf

Puentedura, R. (2014). SAMR and Bloom’s Taxonomy: assembling the puzzle.

Retrieved from https://www.commonsense.org/education/blog/samr-and-

blooms-taxonomy-assemblingthe-puzzle

Smarter Balanced Question Types. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/

sa/question-types.asp

Stiggins, R. J., Arter, J. A., Chappuis, J., & Chappuis, S. (2004). Classroom assessment

for student learning: doing it right--using it well. Portland, Oregon: Assessment

Training Institute.

U.S. Census Bureau (2014). Computer and internet use in the United States. 2013

American Community Reports. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/history/

pdf/2013computeruse.pdf

Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2017). Integrating assessment with learning: what will it

take to make it work? (pp. 53-82). Routledge.