Google Classroom: The Web-Based Media for Teaching English

Widi Andewi, STMIK Pringsewu Lampung, Indonesia
Dwi Pujiastuti, STMIK Pringsewu Lampung, Indonesia


This study investigates whether: 1) Google Classroom is more effective than the conventional method for teaching writing; 2) The high creativity students have better writing skills than those who have low creativity, and; 3) Interaction between teaching method and students’ creativity in teaching writing occurs. This quasi-experimental study was conducted at STMIK Pringsewu in the academic year of 2020/2021.  The sample of this research was two classes, the namely experimental class taught using Google Classroom, and the control class taught using a conventional method. Each class consisted of 20 students, so the total sample is 40 students. The sample was obtained by using the cluster random sampling technique. Each class was divided into two groups, consisting of ten high creativity students and ten low creativity students. The data of this research were obtained from a writing test to find out students' writing scores. Then, the data were analyzed by using 2x2 multifactor analysis of variance ANOVA and Tukey test. The results show that the mean scores of A1B1 are 82.40, A2B1 is 75.30, A1B2 is 68.70, and A2B2 is 69.70. This study implies that Google Classroom is an effective method in teaching writing and is suitable to be implemented to those having high creativity.


Google Classroom: Media Berbasis Web untuk Mengajar Bahasa Inggris


Penelitian ini menyelidiki apakah: 1) Google Classroom lebih efektif daripada metode konvensional dalam mengajar menulis; 2) Siswa yang kreativitasnya tinggi memiliki kemampuan menulis yang lebih baik dibandingkan siswa yang kreativitasnya rendah; dan 3) Terjadi interaksi antara metode pengajaran dan kreativitas siswa dalam pembelajaran menulis. Penelitian kuasi eksperimen ini dilakukan di STMIK Pringsewu pada tahun pelajaran 2020/2021. Sampel penelitian ini memiliki dua kelas yaitu kelas eksperimen yang diajar menggunakan Google Classroom dan kelas kontrol yang diajar dengan metode konvensional. Setiap kelas terdiri dari 20 siswa, sehingga jumlah sampel adalah 40 siswa. Sampel diperoleh dengan menggunakan teknik cluster random sampling. Setiap kelas dibagi menjadi dua kelompok yang masing-masing terdiri dari 10 siswa kreativitas tinggi dan 10 siswa kreativitas rendah. Data penelitian ini diperoleh dari tes menulis untuk mengetahui nilai menulis siswa. Kemudian data dianalisis dengan menggunakan analisis multifaktor varians 2x2 dan uji Tukey. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa nilai rata-rata A1B1 adalah 82,40, A2B1 adalah 75,30, A1B2 adalah 68,70, dan A2B2 adalah 69,70. Hasil penelitian ini mengimplikasikan bahwa Google Classroom merupakan metode yang efektif dalam pengajaran menulis dan cocok untuk diterapkan bagi mereka yang memiliki kreativitas tinggi.


Google Classroom; writing; student’s creativity

Full Text:



Albashtawi, A. H., & Al Bataineh, K. B. (2020). The effectiveness of google classroom among efl students in Jordan: An innovative teaching and learning online platform. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 15(11), 78–88.

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, 13(6), 112–123.

Ary, D. Jacobs, & Sorensen. (2010). Introduction to research in education: 8th (eight) Edition (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Azhar, K. A., & Iqbal, N. (2018). Effectiveness of google classroom: Teachers’ perceptions. Prizren Social Science Journal, 2(2), 52–66.

Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal learning environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 3–8.

Everson, M., Gundlach, E., & Miller, J. (2013). Social media and the introductory statistics course. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), A69–A81.

Fonseca, K. A. B., & Peralta, F. S. (2019). Google classroom: An effective virtual platform to teach writing in an efl composition course. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 6(1), 27.

Halverson, L. R., Spring, K. J., Huyett, S., Henrie, C. R., & Graham, C. R. (2017). Blended learning research in higher education and k-12 settings. Learning, Design, and Technology, 1–30.

Hastomo, T. (2019). Schoology effects on students’ writing ability. Lentera: Jurnal Ilmiah Kependidikan, 12(1), 149–154.

Hastomo, T. (2016). The effectiveness of edmodo to teach writing viewed from students motivation. Proceeding of International Conference on Teacher Training and Education 1(1), 580–585.

Heggart, K. R., & Yoo, J. (2018). Getting the most from google classroom: A pedagogical framework for tertiary educators. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 140–153.

Henrie, C. R., Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A review. Computers & Education, 90, 36–53.

Hu, J., & Wei, Y. (2019). The centrality of creativity: A new perspective on English language teaching. English Today, 35(2), 60–61.

Iftakhar, S. (2016). Google classroom: What works and how? Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 3.

Keeler, A. (2014). 20 things you can do with google classroom-teacher tech.

Keumala, M., Yoestara, M., & Putri, Z. (2018). The impacts of gadget and Internet on the Implementation of Character Education on Early Childhood. Proceedings of the ICECED, 313–325.

Khodabakhshzadeh, H., Hosseinnia, M., Moghadam, H. A., & Ahmadi, F. (2018). Efl teachers’ creativity and their teaching’s effectiveness: A structural equation modeling approach. International Journal of Instruction, 11(1), 227–238.

Manca, S., & Ranieri, M. (2016). Facebook and the others: Potentials and obstacles of social media for teaching in higher education. Computers & Education, 95, 216–230.

Marashi, H. (2017). Using cooperative learning to boost creativity and motivation in language learning. Journal of Language and Translation, 7(1), 43–58.

McLellan, R., & Nicholl, B. (2013). Creativity in crisis in design & technology: Are classroom climates conducive for creativity in English secondary schools? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 9, 165–185.

Northey, G., Bucic, T., Chylinski, M., & Govind, R. (2015). Increasing student engagement using asynchronous learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 37(3), 171–180.

Pereira, F. M. (2016). Creativity in the English language classroom. In ELT Journal (Vol. 70, Issue 3).

Pienta, N. J. (2016). A “flipped classroom” reality check. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(1), 1–2.

Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of creativity Robert. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 87–98.

Wang, H. C. (2019). Fostering learner creativity in the English L2 classroom: Application of the creative problem-solving model. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 58–69.

Yagcioglu, O. (2016). Increasing creativity with the self-studies in basic English classes. European Journal of English Language Teaching, 1(2), 59–77.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2021 Jurnal Penelitian Ilmu Pendidikan

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Supervised by:

Jurnal Penelitian Ilmu Pendidikan has been indexed by:



View My Stats

Flag Counter