TRENDS IN EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES ACCORDING TO ARTICLES PUBLISHED IN THE LAST 20 YEARS IN INTERNATIONAL LITERATURE

Year 2022, Volume: 11 Issue: 1, 232 - 259, 30.06.2022

Cavit Erdoğmuş , Özgen Korkmaz

https://doi.org/10.55020/iojpe.1083925

Abstract

The aim of this research is to determine the trends in the field of educational technology by analyzing the bibliometric analysis of the articles about Educational Technology published in the Web of Science Core database in the last 20 years. In this framework, a bibliometric analysis of the articles on educational technology published 2000-2019 was conducted. As a result of the preliminary examination, 96 most used themes in the field of educational technology were reached. These themes are gathered under the headings of Application, Design and Environments, Measurement and Evaluation, Pedagogy and Teaching and Learning. As a result of the findings, a bibliometric analysis of a total of 25 themes was made for 5 main theme findings with the highest number of articles under each main topic. During these analyzes, the most used concepts were analyzed with each theme. VOSViewer version 1.6.13 was used for analysis. 

Keywords

Educational technology, bibliometric research, vosviewer, trend analysis, literature analysis.

References

• Abt, H. A. (1993). Institutional productivities. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 105(689), 794-798.
• Admiraal, W., Schenke, W., De Jong, L., Emmelot, Y., & Sligte, H. (2021). Schools as professional learning communities: what can schools do to support professional development of their teachers?. Professional Development in Education, 45(4), 684-698.
• Adraoui, M., Retbi, A., Idrissi, M. K., & Bennani, S. (2019). A new algorithm to detect and evaluate learning communities in social networks: Facebook groups. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 14(23), 165-179.
• Anderson, T. L., & Bodner, G. M. (2008). What can we do about ‘Parker’? A case study of a good student who didn't ‘get’organic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9(2), 93-101.
• Arias Gallegos, W. L., Franco Delgado de Carpio, E. D., & Ceballos Canaza, K. D. (2019). Professional Preferences and professional identity in engineering students from a private university in Arequipa [Preferencias profesionales e identidad profesional en los estudiantes de ingenierías de una universidad privada de Arequipa]. Propósitos y representaciones, 7(2), 160-177.
• Arrington, C. N., Malins, J. G., Winter, R., Mencl, W. E., Pugh, K. R., & Morris, R. (2019). Examining individual differences in reading and attentional control networks utilizing an oddball fMRI task. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 38, 100674.
• Aquino, K. C., & Shell, S. (2020). Device usage and accessible technology needs for post-traditional students in the e-learning environment. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 68(2), 101-116.
• Avila, L., & Bailey, M. (2016). Augment your reality. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 36(1), 6-7.
• Aydoğdu, C., & Yardımcı, E. (2013). Accidents occurred in elementary science laboratories and teachers’ behaviour manners toward these accidents. H. U. Journal of Education, 44, 52-60.
• Bailey, D., Almusharraf, N., & Hatcher, R. (2021). Finding satisfaction: intrinsic motivation for synchronous and asynchronous communication in the online language learning context. Education and Information Technologies, 26(3), 2563-2583.
• Balgiu, B. A. (2020). The reliability and the construct validity of the Gratitude Questionnaire (GQ-6) in a sample of Romanian undergraduates. Journal of Educational Sciences & Psychology, 10(72), 101-109.
• Ball, R., & Tunger, D. (2006). Bibliometric analysis - A new business area for information professionals in libraries? Scientometrics, 66(3), 561-577.
• Ballard, G., Piper, S., & Stokes, P. (2012). Effect of simulated learning on blood pressure measurement skills. Nurs Stand, 27(8), 43-7.
• Baran, B. (2010). Facebook as a formal instructional environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(6), 146-149.
• Barber, J. D. (2021). Using course journals to encourage reflective practice in second language teacher education. Reflective Practice, 22(1), 128-141.
• Barber, W. (2020). Building creative critical online learning communities through digital moments. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 18(5), 387-396.
• Barber, W., Walters, W., Chartier, P., & Temertzoglou, C. (2022). Examining self-Confidence and self-Perceived competence in Canadian pre-service teachers (PSTs): the role of biographies in physical education teacher education (PETE). Sport, Education and Society, 27(3), 347-360.
• Bergmark, U. (2020). Teachers’ professional learning when building a research-based education: context-specific, collaborative and teacher-driven professional development. Professional Development in Education, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1827011
• Bahr, P. R., Jackson, G., McNaughtan, J., Oster, M., & Gross, J. (2017). Unrealized potential: Community college pathways to STEM baccalaureate degrees. The Journal of Higher Education, 88(3), 430-478.
• Bleach, J. (2014). Developing professionalism through reflective practice and ongoing professional development. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 22(2), 185-197.
• Bond, M. A., & Lockee, B. B. (2018). Evaluating the effectiveness of faculty inquiry groups as communities of practice for faculty professional development. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 2(1), 1-7.
• Boniel-Nissim, M., & Sasson, H. (2018). Bullying victimization and poor relationships with parents as risk factors of problematic internet use in adolescence. Computers in Human Behavior, 88, 176-183.
• Borges, R. (2013). Tacit knowledge sharing between IT workers: The role of organizational culture, personality, and social environment. Management Research Review, 36(1), 89-108.
• Bøe, T., Sandvik, K., & Gulbrandsen, B. (2021). Continued use of e-learning technology in higher education: a managerial perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 46(12), 2664-2679.
• Brace, W. (1992). Quality assessment of library and information science school faculties. Education for Information, 10(2), 115-123.
• Breitenstein, M. (2003). Toward an understanding of visual literacy: Examination of conference papers of the International Visual Literacy Association, 1991-2000. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Long Island University.
• Burguillo, J. C. (2010). Using game theory and competition-based learning to stimulate student motivation and performance. Computers & Education, 55(2), 566-575.
• Cabero-Almenara, J., & Barroso-Osuna, J. (2016). The educational possibilities of Augmented Reality. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 5(1) 44-50.
• Callaghan, G., & Fribbance, I. (2016). The use of Facebook to build a community for distance learning students: a case study from the Open University. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 31(3), 260-272.
• Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-296.
• Charalambous, C. Y., & Litke, E. (2018). Studying instructional quality by using a content-specific lens: the case of the Mathematical Quality of Instruction framework. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 50(3), 445-460
• Chen, Z., Jiao, J., & Hu, K. (2021). Formative Assessment as an Online Instruction Intervention: Student Engagement, Outcomes, and Perceptions. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies (IJDET), 19(1), 1-16.
• Chi, T. P., Tu, T. N., & Minh, T. P. (2020). Assessment of ınformation technology use competence for teachers: ıdentifying and applying the ınformation technology competence framework in online teaching. Journal of Technical Education and Training, 12(1), 149-162.
• Chugh, R., ve Ruhi, U. (2017). Social media in higher education: A literature review of Facebook. Education and Information Technologies, 23(2), 605-616.
• Collins, A. (1998). Learning communities: A commentary on chapters by Brown, Ellery, and Campione, and by Riel. In J. G. Greeno & S. V. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning (pp. 399-405). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Dawson, P., Henderson, M., Mahoney, P., Phillips, M., Ryan, T., Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2019). What makes for effective feedback: Staff and student perspectives. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), 25-36.
• Dervent, F. (2015). The effect of reflective thinking on the teaching practices of preservice physical education teachers. Issues in Educational Research, 25(3), 260.
• Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199.
• Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2009). The systematic design of instruction (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Merrill.
• Diodato, V. P., & Gellatly, P. (2013). Dictionary of bibliometrics. Routledge.
• Erdoğmuş, F. U., & Çağıltay, K. (2016). General trends in master's and doctoral theses published in Turkey in the field of educational technology. In K. Çağıltay & Y. Göktaş (Eds.), Öğretim teknolojilerinin temelleri: Teoriler, araştırmalar, eğilimler [in Turkish] (pp. 333-344). Ankara: Pegem Academy.
• Ezarik, M. (2017). Taking student success to the next level. University Business, 20(8), 37-41.
• Fletcher, J. L. (1995). AANA journal course: update for nurse anesthetists--anesthesia simulation: a tool for learning and research. AANA Journal, 63(1), 61-67.
• Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short-and long-term effects of written error correction. In Hyland K. & Hyland F. (Eds.) Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and Issues (pp. 81-104). Cambridge University Press.
• Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2005). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, (1), 3-31.
• Griffiths, C. (2013). The strategy factor in successful language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
• Gros, B. (2007). Digital games in education: The design of games-based learning environments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 23-38.
• Hamidi, H., & Chavoshi, A. (2018). Analysis of the essential factors for the adoption of mobile learning in higher education: A case study of students of the University of Technology. Telematics and Informatics, 35(4), 1053-1070.
• Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merrill, P. F., Sudweeks, R. R., Strong‐Krause, D. I. A. N. E., & Anderson, N. J. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. Tesol Quarterly, 44(1), 84-109.
• Herodotou, C., Muirhead, D. K., Aristeidou, M., Hole, M. J., Kelley, S., Scanlon, E., & Duffy, M. (2020). Blended and online learning: a comparative study of virtual microscopy in Higher Education. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(6), 713-728.
• Hoi, V. N. (2020). Understanding higher education learners' acceptance and use of mobile devices for language learning: A Rasch-based path modeling approach. Computers & Education, 146, 103761.
• Hong, M. (2020). A comparative study of the internationalization of higher education policy in Australia and China (2008–2015). Studies in Higher Education, 45(4), 768-779.
• Hrastinski, S. (2008). What is online learner participation? A literature review. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1755-1765.
• Huang, Y. C., Backman, S. J., Backman, K. F., McGuire, F. A., & Moore, D. (2019). An investigation of motivation and experience in virtual learning environments: a self-determination theory. Education and Information Technologies, 24(1), 591-611.
• Huang, H. M., Rauch, U., & Liaw, S. S. (2010). Investigating learners’ attitudes toward virtual reality learning environments: Based on a constructivist approach. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1171-1182.
• Hudson, S., Matson-Barkat, S., Pallamin, N., & Jegou, G. (2019). With or without you? Interaction and immersion in a virtual reality experience. Journal of Business Research, 100, 459-468.
• Iamudom, T., & Tangkiengsirisin, S. (2020). A comparison study of learner autonomy and language learning strategies among Thai EFL learners. International Journal of Instruction, 13(2), 199-212.
• Ilomäki, L., Paavola, S., Lakkala, M., & Kantosalo, A. (2016). Digital competence–an emergent boundary concept for policy and educational research. Education and Information Technologies, 21(3), 655-679.
• Ivanović, L., & Ho, Y. (2017). Highly cited articles in the education and educational research category in the Social Science Citation Index: A bibliometric analysis. Educational Review, 71(3), 277-286.
• Jacobs, D. (2010). Demystification of bibliometrics, scientometrics, informetrics and webometrics. 11th DIS Annual Conference (1-19).
• Jansen, D., & Schuwer, R. (2015). Institutional MOOC strategies in Europe. Status Report Based on a Mapping Survey Conducted in October-December 2014.
• Jaros, W. (2018). The role of augmented reality and virtual reality in digital learning: Comparing matching task performance (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, United States.
• Jayakumar, R. (2016). Concept, types and approaches to comparative education. In T. Manichander (Eds.), Comparative Education, (pp. 1-50). Laxmi Book Publication.
• Jolley, D. F., Wilson, S. R., Kelso, C., O’Brien, G., & Mason, C. E. (2016). Analytical thinking, analytical action: using prelab video demonstrations and e-quizzes to improve undergraduate preparedness for analytical chemistry practical classes. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(11), 1855-1862.
• Kaddoura, M. A. (2010). New graduate nurses’ perceptions of the effects of clinical simulation on their critical thinking, learning, and confidence. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 41(11), 506-516.
• Kim, B. (2015). Designing gamification in the right way. Library Technology Reports, 51(2), 29-35.
• Kim, P., & Chung, C. (2015). Creating a temporary spontaneous mini-ecosystem through a MOOC. In Bonk C.J., Lee M. M, Reeves T. C., & Reynolds T.H. (Eds.), MOOCs and Open Education Around the World, (pp. 157-168). Routledge.
• Kim, S., Song, K., Lockee, B., & Burton, J. (2018). Gamification in learning and education (pp. 25-38). Springer, Cham.
• King, F. (2014). Evaluating the impact of teacher professional development: An evidence-based framework. Professional Development in Education, 40(1), 89-111.
• Koivisto, J. M., Haavisto, E., Niemi, H., Haho, P., Nylund, S., & Multisilta, J. (2018). Design principles for simulation games for learning clinical reasoning: A design-based research approach. Nurse Education Today, 60, 114-120.
• Kowalski, S. M., Taylor, J. A., Askinas, K. M., Wang, Q., Zhang, Q., Maddix, W. P., & Tipton, E. (2020). Examining factors contributing to variation in effect size estimates of teacher outcomes from studies of science teacher professional development. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13(3), 430-458.
• Lasater, K. (2007). High-fidelity simulation and the development of clinical judgment: Students' experiences. Journal of Nursing Education, 46(6), 269-276.
• Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 144-164.
• Lim, J., & Richardson, J. C. Predictive effects of undergraduate students’ perceptions of social, cognitive, and teaching presence on affective learning outcomes according to disciplines. Computers & Education, 161, 104063.
• Lin, T. B., & Choy, W. (2015) The construction of media in education policies: A comparative study of Singapore and Taiwan. In: Lin T. B., Chen V., Chai C. S. (eds) New Media and Learning in the 21st Century. Education Innovation Series (pp. 93-108). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-326-2_7
• Lin, W. S., & Wang, C. H. (2012). Antecedences to continued intentions of adopting e-learning system in blended learning instruction: A contingency framework based on models of information system success and task-technology fit. Computers & Education, 58(1), 88-99.
• Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2008). Feedback on assessment: students’ perceptions of quality and effectiveness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 263-275.
• López, R. Q., González, M. H., & Martínez, I. G. (2020). Effectiveness of educational intervention on communicative competence in pre-service teachers. Educatio Siglo XXI, 38(3), 151-173.
• Madsen, S. S., Archard, S., & Thorvaldsen, S. (2018). How different national strategies of implementing digital technology can affect teacher educators. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 13(04), 7-23.
• Maldonado, Y. P., Burelo, E. D. L. C., & Solorzano, C. M. V. (2020). The problem of pseudo-STEM programs in higher education: A classification criterion. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1833813.
• Meierdirk, C. (2016). Is reflective practice an essential component of becoming a professional teacher?. Reflective Practice, 17(3), 369-378.
• Minott, M. (2019). Reflective teaching, inclusive teaching and the teacher’s tasks in the inclusive classroom: a literary investigation. British Journal of Special Education, 46(2), 226-238.
• Mishra, S. (2019). Early years of the journal of learning for development: A combination of bibliometrics and thematic analysis. Journal of Learning for Development, 6(2), 160-176. Mutambara, D., & Bayaga, A. (2021). Determinants of mobile learning acceptance for STEM education in rural areas. Computers & Education, 160, 104010.
• Nami, F. (2020). Educational smartphone apps for language learning in higher education: Students’ choices and perceptions. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 82-95.
• Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102-122.
• Park, Y. J. (2015). My whole world’s in my palm! The second-level divide of teenagers’ mobile use and skill. New Media & Society, 17(6), 977-995.
• Pedaste, M., Mitt, G., & Jürivete, T. (2020). What is the effect of using mobile augmented reality in K12 inquiry-based learning?. Education Sciences, 10(4), 94. doi:10.3390/educsci10040094
• Prashanti, E., & Ramnarayan, K. (2020). Ten maxims for creating a safe learning environment. Advances in Physiology Education, 44, 550-553
• Ritterfeld, U., Shen, C., Wang, H., Nocera, L., & Wong, W. L. (2009). Multimodality and interactivity: Connecting properties of serious games with educational outcomes. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12(6), 691-697.
• Rouet, J. F., Dillon, A., Levonen, J. J., & Spiro, R. J. (Eds.). (1996). Hypertext and cognition. Psychology Press.
• Saltan, F., Türkyılmaz, T., Karaçaltı, C., & Bilir, K. (2018). Use of current educational technology in science education: A scoping review. Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 47(1), 308-336.
• Sandoval, W. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Design-based research methods for studying learning in context: Introduction. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 199-201.
• Schaeper, H. (2020). The first year in higher education: the role of individual factors and the learning environment for academic integration. Higher Education, 79(1), 95-110.
• Shukla, P., McClean, S., & Hidson, E. (2020). The need for positive pedagogy in multi-disciplinary STEM courses in higher education: an opinion piece. Higher Education Pedagogies, 5(1), 324-326.
• Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: A survey. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 74, 14-31.
• Siemens, G., & Baker, R. S. D. (2012, April). Learning analytics and educational data mining: towards communication and collaboration. Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 252-254).
• Sołtysik, M., Zakrzewska, M., Sagan, A., & Jarosz, S. (2020). Assessment of project manager’s competence in the context of ındividual competence baseline. Education Sciences, 10(5), 146.
• Thompson, A.D. (2005). Scientifically based research: Establishing a research agenda for the technology in teacher education community. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(4): 331–337.
• Tokel, S., & Cevi̇zci̇ Karataş, E. (2014). Three-dimensional virtual worlds: research trends and future directions. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 10(1), 1-12..
• Torun, E. D. (2020). Online distance learning in higher education: E-learning readiness as a predictor of academic achievement. Open Praxis, 12(2), 191-208.
• Truscott, J. (2009). Arguments and appearances: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 59-60.
• Tsaparlis, G., & Finlayson, O. E. (2014). Physical chemistry education: its multiple facets and aspects. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(3), 257-265.
• Ulusoy, F. (2020). Prospective teachers’ skills of attending, interpreting and responding to content-specific characteristics of mathematics instruction in classroom videos. Teaching and Teacher Education, 94, 103103.
• van Alten, D. C., Phielix, C., Janssen, J., & Kester, L. (2020). Self-regulated learning support in flipped learning videos enhances learning outcomes. Computers & Education, 158, 104000.
• Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2014). Visualizing bibliometric networks. In Y. Ding, R. Rousseau, and D. Wolfram (Eds.), Measuring scholarly impact: Methods and practice (pp. 285–320). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10377-8_13.
• Virkkula, E. (2022). Student teachers’ views of competence goals in vocational teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 45(2), 250-265. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1806229
• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
• Yurtseven, N. (2020). Teacher emotion questionnaire: A Turkish adaptation, validity, and reliability study. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 10(1), 251-282.
• Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166-183.