|Source||Research design/sample||Location/course||Examined tool||Major practices||Major findings|
|1. Zheng et al. (2015)||Iterative, design-based (n = 139)||
-Educational Technology, History and Physical Sciences
-Duration: from Fall 2007 to Fall 2009
(four-iteration design-based research)
-Groups by topics chosen.|
-Co-wrote on a single Wiki page.
-Students signed up for tasks and each was explicitly responsible for a specific part of the content creation.
-Students chose a group leader and assigned roles and responsibilities for each one of them.
-Students discussed, share resources, and reflected on groupwork.
-Instructor provided examples of prior student work on wiki.
-Instructor and researcher played the roles of facilitators.
-Instructor provided out-of-classroom support via email/answering questions on wiki and used incentives in the third and fourth activities to motivate students.
-Well-designed instruction is vital to the success of any technology-facilitated learning activities in HE.|
-The Wiki project grew more effective with several rounds of iterations.
-Future research should address the development of iterative design approaches for refining teaching strategies.
|2. Chookaew (2015)||Experimental design with 2 groups (including a control group) (n = 59)||
-Computer, Multimedia instruction course
-Created teams by topic of individual interest.|
-Students shared personal information on the group.
-Students in the group were held accountable for the work completed and the materials to be learnt.
-Students discussed and exchanged ideas about the assignment (in/out class hours).
-Students provided feedback and encouraged one another.
-Instructor provided a detailed guide of conditions for students to work with.
-The instructor was the facilitator of groupwork.
-Online cooperative learning through Facebook groups enhanced students’ learning achievement.|
-Promoted positive attitudes toward learning.
|3. Rambe (2017)||Community of Inquiry and a case study approach (n = 15)||
-Masters in ICTs in Education
-4 months duration
-Two students’ administrators signing new group members, regulating their academic behavior and blocked access to non-class members.|
-Group was a restricted/closed site.
-Student had full ownership of posts and group discussions.
-The educator did not participate in discussions and posts.
-The educator joined the group and was only responding to questions.
-Posts are not obligatory by students.
-In/out class hours
-Google Groups presented multiple academic engagement opportunities.|
-Benefits were shown in emergent academic networking, student access to knowledgeable peers and academics, and improved the online visibility of interactants
-Issues of administrators’ dominance over group members as well equitable participation which is indicative of the importance of academic regulation and incentive.
|4. Menzies et al. (2017)||Case study research (use of focus groups) (n = 11)||
-The school of computing
-The staff member and tutors are the administrators discussing topics providing and sharing further online resources.|
-Students answer and discuss the topics in a collaborative manner.
-Staff can step in to clear out misunderstandings
-If limited activity in the group, the staff member may seed a conversation.
-Assignment groups are created and managed solely by students.
-Used for communications relating to a given assignment (in/out class hours).
-Created on an ad hoc basis and may be repurposed for future assignments where appropriate.
-A blur in SM’s uses and purpose in education contexts.|
-Use of different purpose groups is useful as it allows breaking communications down so students would not be overwhelmed.
-Familiarity and usability of Facebook helped achieve the positive results.
-Staff moderation of groups yielded much discussion.
-Students expected staff to direct them to the privacy settings.
|5. De Wever et al. (2015)||Experimental design (n = 186)||
-Participation was complimentary.|
-Students were randomly assigned to a group.
-Specific guidelines, in the form of a step-by-step plan, were provided to organize their group work.
-Students built knowledge on each other’s work.
-In/out class hours
-Students taking turn in completing the drafts and final deliverable.
-Students edited others’ ideas in Wikis to increase the amount of work shared.
-Scripting (providing a guide) was beneficial.|
-It increased the shared responsibility within a collaborative environment.
-The script can influence how thorough a task is dealt with.
|6. Bagarukayo (2018)||Bowers Affordance Analysis eLearning design methodology framework (n = 48)||
Students at the Operating Systems course unit at the School of Computing and Informatics Technology
-A closed group page in Facebook was created.|
-Students did all discussions, commented on posts, posted videos, links, uploaded and shared videos they created.
-In/out class hours
-Multimedia content, such as videos, music, pictures, text, and emojis, were used as posts
-Access to group page required approval from the administrator and creator of group
-The group enabled peers’ interactions, critiquing and learning from one another in the process.|
-Facebook affords students ability to communicate, interact, and collaborate.
-Students were actively engaged and enjoyed the use of Facebook to learn.