Group Canvas
A real-time collaborative note-taking experience built into GoodNotes
After placing 3rd at a UC Berkeley designathon sponsored by GoodNotes, I continued developing this concept independently—exploring how real-time collaboration could live directly inside the note-taking experience.
Overview
My Role
Concept direction - Ux Flows - Interaction design
Visual design
Context
Uc Berkeley designathon - Developed independently - Concept exploration
Tools
Figma - Figjam - Google Forms - GoodNotes
Research
20+ student surveys - 5 educator surveys
Problem
In class collaboration is fragmented across tools, leading to uneven participation and chaotic synthesis
Solution
Group Canvas — collaboration that lives directly inside the note
Core Idea
Independent thinking → visible collaboration → shared synthesis
Introduction
What is GoodNotes
GoodNotes is a digital note-taking app widely used by students and educators for handwritten notes, diagrams, and freeform learning. Its canvas-first experience makes it especially popular in classrooms.
GoodNotes excels at individual note-taking, but when students need to collaborate during class, they're forced to leave their notes and switch to separate tools—Google Docs for synthesis, messaging apps for coordination, all while trying to maintain their personal work.
What if collaboration happened directly inside GoodNotes?
This concept focuses on real-time, in-class collaboration during breakout sessions—whether students are working together in person or joining remotely during hybrid learning.
Problem Space
In-Class Group Work Requires Competing Demands
In-class group work requires students to:
Think independently
Coordinate with peers
Contribute visibly
Synthesize ideas quickly
Most digital tools aren't designed for this reality.
How Students Collaborate Today
During a 45-min breakout:
iPad - GoodNotes
"Personal notes/work"
Problem: Work stays isolated, doesn't integrate with group
(constant switching)
Laptop - Google Doc
“Group synthesis and editing
Problem: Clutter, unclear ownership, edit collisions
(constant switching)
Verbal Discussion
“Talking while managing screens”
Problem: Ideas lost, focus split between talking & screens
↑
Results
Too many context switches
Personal work disconnected from group
Can't see individual contributions
As a result, collaboration often feels uneven and inefficient — even when students want to participate.
Research
Research + Insights
This concept was informed by research conducted during and after the designathon:
20+
Students surveyed across lecture and discussion classes
5
Educators surveyed in STEM and humanities
Affinity Mapping
Synthesis of research findings into key insights
Key Insights
Collaboration is fragmented
Students frequently switch between note apps, shared docs, and chat tools during a single class session.
One shared page doesn't scale
Groups larger than 3–4 struggle with clutter, edit collisions, and unclear ownership.
Independent thinking still matters
Students prefer to work through ideas privately before contributing to shared space.
Visibility changes behavior — but adds pressure
Seeing progress encourages participation, but constant visibility increases anxiety.
"I like working things out on my own first. Once it's on the main page, it feels permanent."
— Student participant
“There are too many tools that i have to juggle with if i want to create , track , and grade work”
— Educator participant
Approach
Design Direction & Scope
Early ideation explored expressive elements like avatars, multiple stickers, and personality systems. However, synthesis revealed the core problem wasn't identity or motivation — it was how collaboration flows.
Early iteration
Rather than designing systems to manage student behavior, I focused on collaboration mechanics:
How students enter a session
How they work independently
How they coordinate
How they synthesize ideas
Intentional Scope
Real-time, in-class collaboration
Student-to-student coordination
Lightweight structure over enforcement
This kept the concept aligned with GoodNotes' canvas-first identity and avoided over-engineering.
What I chose not to solve
Some findings — like the lack of in-person energy, no ice-breaking opportunities, and the desire for casual chat — reflect social and behavioral dynamics that a tool can't fully address. This concept focuses on the structural problems: fragmented tools, unclear contributions, and chaotic synthesis.
Feature Prioritization
Core Experience
Individual work tabs
Shared synthesis canvas
Supporting features:
Presence indicators
Contextual comments
Focus timer with tasks
Optional Enhancement
Contribution visibility toggle
This ensures the foundation is solid before adding accountability layers.
Solution
The Solution: Group Canvas
Group Canvas is a live, in-class collaborative note experience designed around presence, structure, and synthesis, all within the GoodNotes canvas.
The Student Journey
1. Joining the Session
Students accept a Group Canvas invite and land on the shared workspace, immediately seeing their group members and the main canvas.
This establishes context from the start.
2. Setting Up Work
The group starts a focus timer and assigns tasks with clear ownership — set duration, add tasks, assign to individuals or the group, then start.
Research insight: In-class collaboration happens in 25-45 minute windows—the timer reflects real constraints.
3: Independent Work
Each student works in their own tab—visible to the group but protected from editing. Presence indicators show who's active (green = online, yellow = idle).
Research insight: Students prefer working through ideas privately before sharing, while maintaining group awareness.
4. Coordination Through Comments
Students use comments to coordinate without interrupting each other's flow. Comments are anchored to specific work—on tabs or the main canvas—keeping coordination contextual rather than scattered in chat threads.
All members can see and resolve comments once addressed.
- Synthesis
As students complete their work, they check off tasks and move contributions to the main canvas. The flow: mark complete → select key content → add to canvas. Contributions appear in real-time as others finish.
Research insight: "One shared page gets chaotic past 3-4 people"—work stays organized because students synthesize intentionally rather than everyone editing simultaneously.
6. Contribution Visibility (Optional)
An opt-in toggle reveals color-coded authorship when needed.
OFF (default): unified view. ON: clear attribution for accountability.
Research insight: "Visibility encourages participation but creates pressure"—making it opt-in balances both needs. Teachers can use it for grading, students can verify contributions, without constant social pressure.
Design Decisions
Key Design Decisions
Intentional choices were made to balance collaboration effectiveness with user comfort:
Privacy by Default
Contribution visibility defaults to OFF. Students control when attribution matters.
Flexible Structure
Tasks can be assigned individually or to groups. Timer provides pacing without enforcement.
Selective Transparency
Presence indicators show activity, not surveillance. Contribution toggle activates only when needed.
These decisions prioritize user agency over behavioral enforcement, reflecting the research finding that students need both structure and autonomy.
Next Steps
What I'd Explore Next
If taken further, I would validate this concept through classroom testing with 10-15 students completing real group assignments.
Key Questions
- Does opt-in visibility reduce pressure while maintaining accountability?
- Do individual tabs support diverse working styles effectively?
- Does the shared canvas remain organized as contributions accumulate?
- Which features get adopted vs. ignored?
- What happens when contribution is unequal — does privacy-by-default hide the problem, or does the system surface it constructively?
- Students noted that typing feels like extra work — would voice notes or quick reactions reduce friction in coordination?
I'd observe in-class sessions, conduct post-work interviews, and gather teacher feedback to test whether this balance works in practice.
Reflection
A Final Thought
This project reinforced that collaboration isn't just about connecting people—it's about designing how they work together. The biggest shift in my thinking came during synthesis. Early iterations focused on encouraging participation through gamification and visibility. But research revealed students didn't need motivation—they needed structure that respected how they actually think and work. Moving from "how do we get students to contribute?" to "how do we support independent thinking within group work?" changed everything. Individual tabs, opt-in visibility, and intentional synthesis emerged from that reframing. If I were to continue this work, I'd focus on testing the privacy-by-default approach. Does it successfully reduce anxiety, or does it hide problems like unequal contribution? The tension between psychological safety and accountability is real, and the right balance likely varies by context—class size, assignment type, group dynamics. This project taught me to design for how people actually collaborate, not how I think they should.
Group Canvas
A real-time collaborative note-taking experience built into GoodNotes
After placing 3rd at a UC Berkeley designathon sponsored by GoodNotes, I continued developing this concept independently—exploring how real-time collaboration could live directly inside the note-taking experience.
Overview
My Role
Concept direction
Ux Flows
Interaction design
Visual design
Context
Uc Berkeley designathon
Developed independently
Concept exploration
Tools
Figma
Figjam
Google Forms
GoodNotes
Research
20+ student surveys
5 educator surveys
Problem
In class collaboration is fragmented across tools, leading to uneven participation and chaotic synthesis
Solution
Group Canvas — collaboration that lives directly inside the note
Core Idea
Independent thinking → visible collaboration → shared synthesis
Introduction
What is GoodNotes
GoodNotes is a digital note-taking app widely used by students and educators for handwritten notes, diagrams, and freeform learning. Its canvas-first experience makes it especially popular in classrooms.
GoodNotes excels at individual note-taking, but when students need to collaborate during class, they're forced to leave their notes and switch to separate tools—Google Docs for synthesis, messaging apps for coordination, all while trying to maintain their personal work.
What if collaboration happened directly inside GoodNotes?
This concept focuses on real-time, in-class collaboration during breakout sessions—whether students are working together in person or joining remotely during hybrid learning.
Problem Space
In-Class Group Work Requires Competing Demands
In-class group work requires students to:
Think independently
Coordinate with peers
Contribute visibly
Synthesize ideas quickly
Most digital tools aren't designed for this reality.
How Students Collaborate Today
During a 45-min breakout:
iPad - GoodNotes
"Personal notes/work"
Problem: Work stays isolated, doesn't integrate with group
(constant switching)
Laptop - Google Doc
“Group synthesis and editing
Problem: Clutter, unclear ownership, edit collisions
(constant switching)
Verbal Discussion
“Talking while managing screens”
Problem: Ideas lost, focus split between talking & screens
↑
Results
Too many context switches
Personal work disconnected from group
Can't see individual contributions
As a result, collaboration often feels uneven and inefficient — even when students want to participate.
Research
Research + Insights
This concept was informed by research conducted during and after the designathon:
20+
Students surveyed across lecture and discussion classes
5
Educators surveyed in STEM and humanities
Affinity Mapping
Synthesis of research findings into key insights
Key Insights
Collaboration is fragmented
Students frequently switch between note apps, shared docs, and chat tools during a single class session.
One shared page doesn't scale
Groups larger than 3–4 struggle with clutter, edit collisions, and unclear ownership.
Independent thinking still matters
Students prefer to work through ideas privately before contributing to shared space.
Visibility changes behavior — but adds pressure
Seeing progress encourages participation, but constant visibility increases anxiety.
"I like working things out on my own first. Once it's on the main page, it feels permanent."
— Student participant
“There are too many tools that i have to juggle with if i want to create , track , and grade work”
— Educator participant
Approach
Design Direction & Scope
Early ideation explored expressive elements like avatars, multiple stickers, and personality systems. However, synthesis revealed the core problem wasn't identity or motivation — it was how collaboration flows.
Early iteration
Rather than designing systems to manage student behavior, I focused on collaboration mechanics:
How students enter a session
How they work independently
How they coordinate
How they synthesize ideas
Intentional Scope
Real-time, in-class collaboration
Student-to-student coordination
Lightweight structure over enforcement
This kept the concept aligned with GoodNotes' canvas-first identity and avoided over-engineering.
What I chose not to solve
Some findings — like the lack of in-person energy, no ice-breaking opportunities, and the desire for casual chat — reflect social and behavioral dynamics that a tool can't fully address. This concept focuses on the structural problems: fragmented tools, unclear contributions, and chaotic synthesis.
Feature Prioritization
Core Experience
Individual work tabs
Shared synthesis canvas
Supporting features:
Presence indicators
Contextual comments
Focus timer with tasks
Optional Enhancement
Contribution visibility toggle
This ensures the foundation is solid before adding accountability layers.
Solution
The Solution: Group Canvas
Group Canvas is a live, in-class collaborative note experience designed around presence, structure, and synthesis, all within the GoodNotes canvas.
The Student Journey
1. Joining the Session
Students accept a Group Canvas invite and land on the shared workspace, immediately seeing their group members and the main canvas.
This establishes context from the start.
2. Setting Up Work
The group starts a focus timer and assigns tasks with clear ownership — set duration, add tasks, assign to individuals or the group, then start.
Research insight: In-class collaboration happens in 25-45 minute windows—the timer reflects real constraints.
3: Independent Work
Each student works in their own tab—visible to the group but protected from editing. Presence indicators show who's active (green = online, yellow = idle).
Research insight: Students prefer working through ideas privately before sharing, while maintaining group awareness.
4. Coordination Through Comments
Students use comments to coordinate without interrupting each other's flow. Comments are anchored to specific work—on tabs or the main canvas—keeping coordination contextual rather than scattered in chat threads.
All members can see and resolve comments once addressed.
- Synthesis
As students complete their work, they check off tasks and move contributions to the main canvas. The flow: mark complete → select key content → add to canvas. Contributions appear in real-time as others finish.
Research insight: "One shared page gets chaotic past 3-4 people"—work stays organized because students synthesize intentionally rather than everyone editing simultaneously.
6. Contribution Visibility (Optional)
An opt-in toggle reveals color-coded authorship when needed.
OFF (default): unified view. ON: clear attribution for accountability.
Research insight: "Visibility encourages participation but creates pressure"—making it opt-in balances both needs. Teachers can use it for grading, students can verify contributions, without constant social pressure.
Design Decisions
Key Design Decisions
Intentional choices were made to balance collaboration effectiveness with user comfort:
Privacy by Default
Contribution visibility defaults to OFF. Students control when attribution matters.
Flexible Structure
Tasks can be assigned individually or to groups. Timer provides pacing without enforcement.
Selective Transparency
Presence indicators show activity, not surveillance. Contribution toggle activates only when needed.
These decisions prioritize user agency over behavioral enforcement, reflecting the research finding that students need both structure and autonomy.
Next Steps
What I'd Explore Next
If taken further, I would validate this concept through classroom testing with 10-15 students completing real group assignments.
Key Questions
- Does opt-in visibility reduce pressure while maintaining accountability?
- Do individual tabs support diverse working styles effectively?
- Does the shared canvas remain organized as contributions accumulate?
- Which features get adopted vs. ignored?
- What happens when contribution is unequal — does privacy-by-default hide the problem, or does the system surface it constructively?
- Students noted that typing feels like extra work — would voice notes or quick reactions reduce friction in coordination?
I'd observe in-class sessions, conduct post-work interviews, and gather teacher feedback to test whether this balance works in practice.
Reflection
A Final Thought
This project reinforced that collaboration isn't just about connecting people—it's about designing how they work together. The biggest shift in my thinking came during synthesis. Early iterations focused on encouraging participation through gamification and visibility. But research revealed students didn't need motivation—they needed structure that respected how they actually think and work. Moving from "how do we get students to contribute?" to "how do we support independent thinking within group work?" changed everything. Individual tabs, opt-in visibility, and intentional synthesis emerged from that reframing. If I were to continue this work, I'd focus on testing the privacy-by-default approach. Does it successfully reduce anxiety, or does it hide problems like unequal contribution? The tension between psychological safety and accountability is real, and the right balance likely varies by context—class size, assignment type, group dynamics. This project taught me to design for how people actually collaborate, not how I think they should.
Group Canvas
A real-time collaborative note-taking experience built into GoodNotes
After placing 3rd at a UC Berkeley designathon sponsored by GoodNotes, I continued developing this concept independently—exploring how real-time collaboration could live directly inside the note-taking experience.
Overview
My Role
Concept direction
Ux Flows
Interaction design
Visual design
Context
Uc Berkeley designathon
Developed independently
Concept exploration
Tools
Figma
Figjam
Google Forms
GoodNotes
Research
20+ student surveys
5 educator surveys
Problem
In class collaboration is fragmented across tools, leading to uneven participation and chaotic synthesis
Solution
Group Canvas — collaboration that lives directly inside the note
Core Idea
Independent thinking → visible collaboration → shared synthesis
Introduction
What is GoodNotes
GoodNotes is a digital note-taking app widely used by students and educators for handwritten notes, diagrams, and freeform learning. Its canvas-first experience makes it especially popular in classrooms.
GoodNotes excels at individual note-taking, but when students need to collaborate during class, they're forced to leave their notes and switch to separate tools—Google Docs for synthesis, messaging apps for coordination, all while trying to maintain their personal work.
What if collaboration happened directly inside GoodNotes?
This concept focuses on real-time, in-class collaboration during breakout sessions—whether students are working together in person or joining remotely during hybrid learning.
Problem Space
In-Class Group Work Requires Competing Demands
In-class group work requires students to:
Think independently
Coordinate with peers
Contribute visibly
Synthesize ideas quickly
Most digital tools aren't designed for this reality.
How Students Collaborate Today
During a 45-min breakout:
iPad - GoodNotes
"Personal notes/work"
Problem: Work stays isolated, doesn't integrate with group
(constant switching)
Laptop - Google Doc
“Group synthesis and editing
Problem: Clutter, unclear ownership, edit collisions
(constant switching)
Verbal Discussion
“Talking while managing screens”
Problem: Ideas lost, focus split between talking & screens
(constant switching)
↑
Results
Too many context switches
Personal work disconnected from group
Can't see individual contributions
As a result, collaboration often feels uneven and inefficient — even when students want to participate.
Research
Research + Insights
This concept was informed by research conducted during and after the designathon:
20+
Students surveyed across lecture and discussion classes
5
Educators surveyed in STEM and humanities
Affinity Mapping
Synthesis of research findings into key insights
Key Insights
Collaboration is fragmented
Students frequently switch between note apps, shared docs, and chat tools during a single class session.
One shared page doesn't scale
Groups larger than 3–4 struggle with clutter, edit collisions, and unclear ownership.
Independent thinking still matters
Students prefer to work through ideas privately before contributing to shared space.
Visibility changes behavior — but adds pressure
Seeing progress encourages participation, but constant visibility increases anxiety.
"I like working things out on my own first. Once it's on the main page, it feels permanent."
— Student participant
“There are too many tools that i have to juggle with if i want to create , track , and grade work”
— Educator participant
Approach
Design Direction & Scope
Early ideation explored expressive elements like avatars, multiple stickers, and personality systems. However, synthesis revealed the core problem wasn't identity or motivation — it was how collaboration flows.
Early iteration
Rather than designing systems to manage student behavior, I focused on collaboration mechanics:
How students enter a session
How they work independently
How they coordinate
How they synthesize ideas
Intentional Scope
Real-time, in-class collaboration
Student-to-student coordination
Lightweight structure over enforcement
This kept the concept aligned with GoodNotes' canvas-first identity and avoided over-engineering.
What I chose not to solve
Some findings — like the lack of in-person energy, no ice-breaking opportunities, and the desire for casual chat — reflect social and behavioral dynamics that a tool can't fully address. This concept focuses on the structural problems: fragmented tools, unclear contributions, and chaotic synthesis.
Feature Prioritization
Core Experience
Individual work tabs
Shared synthesis canvas
Supporting features:
Presence indicators
Contextual comments
Focus timer with tasks
Optional Enhancement
Contribution visibility toggle
This ensures the foundation is solid before adding accountability layers.
Solution
The Solution: Group Canvas
Group Canvas is a live, in-class collaborative note experience designed around presence, structure, and synthesis, all within the GoodNotes canvas.
The Student Journey
1. Joining the Session
Students accept a Group Canvas invite and land on the shared workspace, immediately seeing their group members and the main canvas.
This establishes context from the start.
2. Setting Up Work
The group starts a focus timer and assigns tasks with clear ownership — set duration, add tasks, assign to individuals or the group, then start.
Research insight: In-class collaboration happens in 25-45 minute windows—the timer reflects real constraints.
3: Independent Work
Each student works in their own tab—visible to the group but protected from editing. Presence indicators show who's active (green = online, yellow = idle).
Research insight: Students prefer working through ideas privately before sharing, while maintaining group awareness.
4. Coordination Through Comments
Students use comments to coordinate without interrupting each other's flow. Comments are anchored to specific work—on tabs or the main canvas—keeping coordination contextual rather than scattered in chat threads.
All members can see and resolve comments once addressed.
- Synthesis
As students complete their work, they check off tasks and move contributions to the main canvas. The flow: mark complete → select key content → add to canvas. Contributions appear in real-time as others finish.
Research insight: "One shared page gets chaotic past 3-4 people"—work stays organized because students synthesize intentionally rather than everyone editing simultaneously.
6. Contribution Visibility (Optional)
An opt-in toggle reveals color-coded authorship when needed.
OFF (default): unified view. ON: clear attribution for accountability.
Research insight: "Visibility encourages participation but creates pressure"—making it opt-in balances both needs. Teachers can use it for grading, students can verify contributions, without constant social pressure.
Design Decisions
Key Design Decisions
Intentional choices were made to balance collaboration effectiveness with user comfort:
Privacy by Default
Contribution visibility defaults to OFF. Students control when attribution matters.
Flexible Structure
Tasks can be assigned individually or to groups. Timer provides pacing without enforcement.
Selective Transparency
Presence indicators show activity, not surveillance. Contribution toggle activates only when needed.
These decisions prioritize user agency over behavioral enforcement, reflecting the research finding that students need both structure and autonomy.
Next Steps
What I'd Explore Next
If taken further, I would validate this concept through classroom testing with 10-15 students completing real group assignments.
Key Questions
- Does opt-in visibility reduce pressure while maintaining accountability?
- Do individual tabs support diverse working styles effectively?
- Does the shared canvas remain organized as contributions accumulate?
- Which features get adopted vs. ignored?
- What happens when contribution is unequal — does privacy-by-default hide the problem, or does the system surface it constructively?
- Students noted that typing feels like extra work — would voice notes or quick reactions reduce friction in coordination?
I'd observe in-class sessions, conduct post-work interviews, and gather teacher feedback to test whether this balance works in practice.
Reflection
A Final Thought
This project reinforced that collaboration isn't just about connecting people—it's about designing how they work together. The biggest shift in my thinking came during synthesis. Early iterations focused on encouraging participation through gamification and visibility. But research revealed students didn't need motivation—they needed structure that respected how they actually think and work. Moving from "how do we get students to contribute?" to "how do we support independent thinking within group work?" changed everything. Individual tabs, opt-in visibility, and intentional synthesis emerged from that reframing. If I were to continue this work, I'd focus on testing the privacy-by-default approach. Does it successfully reduce anxiety, or does it hide problems like unequal contribution? The tension between psychological safety and accountability is real, and the right balance likely varies by context—class size, assignment type, group dynamics. This project taught me to design for how people actually collaborate, not how I think they should.