Table 4 The analysis of sources included in the integrative review
Source | Research design/sample | Location/course | Examined tool | Major practices | Major findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Zheng et al. (2015) | Iterative, design-based (n = 139) | -China -Educational Technology, History and Physical Sciences -Duration: from Fall 2007 to Fall 2009 (four-iteration design-based research) | Wiki | -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) | -Thailand 14 weeks -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) | -South Africa -Masters in ICTs in Education -4 months duration | Google Groups | -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) | -Scotland -The school of computing -2 months | -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) | Educational Sciences -Three-week period | Wiki | -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) | Makerere University Uganda 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. |