A Bibliometric Analysis of Formative Assessment Research in Education: A 2000–2024 Review Based on the Web of Science Core Collection Database

Abstract

This study examines formative assessment research published in the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection between 2000 and 2024 through bibliometric analysis. The dataset was limited to articles and reviews indexed in the Education & Educational Research and Psychology, Educational categories, the 2000–2024 publication period, and four core terms directly used in the formative assessment literature. After applying these criteria, 4,369 publications were included. Data were analyzed with the bibliometrix R package and VOSviewer in terms of annual publication trends, productive authors, journals and countries, international collaboration, highly cited publications, co-citation, keyword co-occurrence, bibliographic coupling, and thematic evolution. The number of publications increased from 11 in 2000 to 375 in 2023, with 349 publications recorded in 2024. The United States, the United Kingdom, and Spain were the most productive countries; Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education was the most productive journal; and Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006) was the most cited publication. Network and thematic analyses indicate that the field has developed around feedback, assessment literacy, technology-supported assessment, and self-regulated learning. The findings point to three priority research gaps: longitudinal designs linking feedback and self-regulation, stronger integration of pedagogical effects in technology-supported formative assessment, and comparative studies in contexts such as Türkiye where international collaboration visibility remains limited.

Keywords

• Formative Assessment
• Bibliometric Analysis
• Web of Science
• VOSviewer
• Educational Research

Eğitimde Biçimlendirici Değerlendirme Araştırmalarının Bibliyometrik Analizi: Web of Science Core Collection Veri Tabanı Üzerine 2000–2024 Dönemi İncelemesi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, 2000–2024 yılları arasında Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection veri tabanında yayımlanan biçimlendirici değerlendirme araştırmalarını bibliyometrik analiz yöntemiyle incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Veri seti; makale ve derleme türleri, Education & Educational Research ile Psychology, Educational kategorileri, 2000–2024 yayın yılı aralığı ve biçimlendirici değerlendirme alanyazınında doğrudan kullanılan dört çekirdek terimle sınırlandırılmış; bu ölçütler sonucunda 4.369 yayın analiz kapsamına alınmıştır. Veriler bibliometrix R paketi ve VOSviewer yazılımı aracılığıyla yıllık yayın eğilimi, üretken yazarlar, dergiler ve ülkeler, uluslararası iş birliği ağları, en çok atıf alan yayınlar, ortak atıf ağı, anahtar kelime ortak oluşum ağı, bibliyografik eşleştirme ve tematik evrim bakımından analiz edilmiştir. Yayın sayısı 2000 yılında 11 iken 2023 yılında 375'e yükselmiş, 2024 yılında 349 yayın kaydedilmiştir. En üretken ülkeler ABD, Birleşik Krallık ve İspanya; en üretken dergi Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education; en çok atıf alan çalışma ise Nicol ve Macfarlane-Dick'in (2006) makalesidir. Ağ ve tema analizleri alanın geri bildirim, değerlendirme okuryazarlığı, teknoloji destekli değerlendirme ve öz düzenlemeli öğrenme eksenlerinde geliştiğini göstermiştir. Bulgular üç öncelikli boşluğa işaret etmektedir: geri bildirim-öz düzenleme ilişkisinin boylamsal incelenmesi, teknoloji destekli biçimlendirici değerlendirmenin pedagojik etkiyle birlikte değerlendirilmesi ve Türkiye gibi iş birliği görünürlüğü sınırlı bağlamlarda karşılaştırmalı çalışmaların güçlendirilmesi.

Keywords

• Biçimlendirici Değerlendirme
• Bibliyometrik Analiz
• Web of Science
• VOSviewer
• Eğitim Araştırmaları

References

1. Aria, M. ve Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
2. Bardakcı, S., Soylu, M. Y., Akkoyunlu, B. ve Deryakulu, D. (2022). Collaborations, concepts, and citations in educational technology: A trend study via bibliographic mapping. Education and Information Technologies, 27(3), 4321–4346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10785-9
3. Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678
4. Black, P. ve Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
5. Black, P. ve Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
6. Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J.-L., Lambiotte, R. ve Lefebvre, E. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2008(10), Article P10008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008
7. Boud, D. ve Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.691462
8. Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572132

9. Carless, D. (2011). From testing to productive student learning: Implementing formative assessment in Confucian-heritage settings. Routledge.
10. Carless, D. (2019). Feedback loops and the longer-term: Towards feedback spirals. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(5), 705–714. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1531108
11. Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M. ve Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075071003642449
12. Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E. ve Herrera, F. (2011). An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the fuzzy sets theory field. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 146–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.002
13. Divjak, B., Svetec, B. ve Horvat, D. (2024). How can valid and reliable automatic formative assessment predict the acquisition of learning outcomes? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(6), 2616–2632. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12953
14. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N. ve Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
15. Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70–120. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312474350
16. Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D. ve Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333–2351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.004
17. Hattie, J. ve Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
18. Hwang, G.-J. ve Chang, H.-F. (2011). A formative assessment-based mobile learning approach to improving the learning attitudes and achievements of students. Computers & Education, 56(4), 1023–1031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.002
19. Ismail, S. M., Rahul, D. R., Patra, I. ve Rezvani, E. (2022). Formative vs. summative assessment: Impacts on academic motivation, attitude toward learning, test anxiety, and self-regulation skill. Language Testing in Asia, 12(1), Article 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-022-00191-4
20. Jing, Y., Wang, C., Chen, Y., Wang, H., Yu, T. ve Shadiev, R. (2024). Bibliometric mapping techniques in educational technology research: A systematic literature review. Education and Information Technologies, 29(8), 9283–9311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12178-6
21. Kessler, M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation, 14(1), 10–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090140103
22. Mongeon, P. ve Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5
23. Mukherjee, D., Lim, W. M., Kumar, S. ve Donthu, N. (2022). Guidelines for advancing theory and practice through bibliometric research. Journal of Business Research, 148, 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.04.042
24. Nash-Stewart, C. E., Kruesi, L. M. ve Del Mar, C. B. (2012). Does Bradford's law of scattering predict the size of the literature in Cochrane Reviews? Journal of the Medical Library Association, 100(2), 135–138. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.100.2.013
25. Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003786559
26. Nicol, D. J. ve 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
27. Perianes-Rodriguez, A., Waltman, L. ve van Eck, N. J. (2016). Constructing bibliometric networks: A comparison between full and fractional counting. Journal of Informetrics, 10(4), 1178–1195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.10.006
28. Pranckutė, R. (2021). Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The titans of bibliographic information in today’s academic world. Publications, 9(1), Article 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010012
29. Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348–349. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026482
30. Reddy, Y. M. ve Andrade, H. (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(4), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930902862859
31. Sadi Yılmaz, S. (2025). Bibliometric analysis of formative assessment research in science education. International Journal of Educational and Artificial Intelligence, 2(1), 17–40. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16615094
32. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714
33. Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903541015
34. Saky, S. A. T. M., Inayati, N. L. ve Islam, M. N. (2025). Research patterns in formative assessment: A bibliometric review of primary and secondary school studies. Prisma Sains: Jurnal Pengkajian Ilmu dan Pembelajaran Matematika dan IPA IKIP Mataram, 13(1), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.33394/j-ps.v13i1.14219
35. Schuwirth, L. W. T. ve van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2011). Programmatic assessment: From assessment of learning to assessment for learning. Medical Teacher, 33(6), 478–485. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.565828
36. Segura-Robles, A., Parra-González, M. ve Gallardo-Vigil, M. (2020). Bibliometric and collaborative network analysis on active methodologies in education. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 9(2), 259–274. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2020.7.575
37. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795
38. Sirianansopa, K. (2024). Evaluating students' learning achievements using the formative assessment technique: A retrospective study. BMC Medical Education, 24, Article 1373. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06347-5
39. Sudakova, N. E., Savina, T. N., Masalimova, A. R., Mikhaylovsky, M. N., Karandeeva, L. G. ve Zhdanov, S. P. (2022). Online formative assessment in higher education: Bibliometric analysis. Education Sciences, 12(3), Article 209. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030209
40. Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P. ve Panadero, E. (2018). Developing evaluative judgement: Enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work. Higher Education, 76(3), 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0220-3
41. van Eck, N. J. ve Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
42. Waltman, L. ve van Eck, N. J. (2015). Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method. Journal of Informetrics, 9(4), 872–894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.08.001
43. Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Solution Tree Press.
44. Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45(4), 477–501. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023967026413
45. Zupic, I. ve Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629