Yazma Becerisi Öğretimi Araştırmalarının (2000-2025) Bibliyometrik Analizi

Öz

Yazma becerisi öğretimi araştırmaları, ana dilde yazma öğretimi, ikinci dil yazımı ve akademik okuryazarlık gibi birbirinden görece bağımsız geleneklerin bir arada bulunduğu bir alandır. Bu çoklu yapı, alanın bütününe ilişkin resmin tek tek çalışmalardan çıkarılmasını güçleştirmektedir. Bu araştırmanın amacı, yazma öğretimi alanındaki bilimsel literatürün 2000-2025 arasındaki üretim yapısını, entelektüel örgütlenmesini ve tematik gelişimini bibliyometrik yöntemlerle ortaya koymaktır. Veriler Web of Science Core Collection veri tabanından konu alanı etiketiyle taranarak elde edilmiş, PRISMA akışına göre uygulanan dâhil etme ve hariç tutma ölçütleri sonucunda 1212 dokümanlık bir veri seti oluşturulmuştur. Anahtar kelimeler, kurum adları ve ülke bilgileri analiz öncesinde standartlaştırılmıştır. Analizler R tabanlı Bibliometrix paketi ve Biblioshiny arayüzüyle yürütülmüş; tanımlayıcı analizler, atıf analizi, anahtar kelime eş-oluşum analizi, çoklu uygunluk analizine dayalı kavramsal yapı analizi ile Callon merkezilik ve yoğunluk ölçütlerine dayanan tematik harita ve tematik evrim analizleri yapılmıştır. Bulgulara göre alan 389 farklı kaynaktan beslenmekte, bileşik yıllık büyüme oranı %16.89 düzeyinde bulunmakta, doküman başına 17.09 atıf düşmektedir. Üretim üç evrede ilerlemiş ve son altı yılın toplamı önceki yirmi yılın toplamını aşmıştır. Atıf etkisi sınırlı sayıda sentez çalışması çevresinde yoğunlaşmakta, en çok atıf alan on çalışmanın altısında aynı araştırmacı yer almaktadır. Uluslararası ortak yayın oranı %14.05'tir ve bu oranın üretim hacmiyle doğru orantılı olmadığı görülmektedir. Kavramsal analizler alanın üç araştırma geleneğini koruduğunu, yapay zekâ temelli yaklaşımların ise bağımsız bir tema olarak değil mevcut akademik yazma teması içine yerleşerek alana eklemlendiğini ortaya koymaktadır. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yazma Öğretimi
• Bibliyometrik Analiz
• Bilim Haritalama
• Akademik Yazma
• Yapay Zekâ
• Tematik Evrim

A Bibliometric Analysis of Research on Writing Skills Instruction (2000-2025)

Öz

Research on writing skills instruction brings together several relatively independent traditions, including first language writing instruction, second language writing, and academic literacy. This plurality makes it difficult to derive a picture of the field as a whole from individual studies. This study aims to map the production structure, intellectual organisation, and thematic development of the scholarly literature on writing instruction between 2000 and 2025 through bibliometric methods. Data were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection using a topic field search. After inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied following a PRISMA flow, a dataset of 1212 documents was obtained. Author keywords, institutional names, and country information were standardised prior to analysis. Analyses were conducted with the R based Bibliometrix package and its Biblioshiny interface, and comprised descriptive analyses, citation analysis, keyword co-occurrence analysis, conceptual structure analysis based on multiple correspondence analysis, and thematic map and thematic evolution analyses based on Callon centrality and density measures. The findings indicate that the field draws on 389 distinct sources, that its compound annual growth rate is 16.89%, and that it receives 17.09 citations per document. Production advanced in three phases, and the total output of the last six years exceeds that of the preceding twenty. Citation impact is concentrated around a limited number of synthesis studies, with the same researcher appearing as an author in six of the ten most cited works. The international co-authorship rate is 14.05% and is not proportional to production volume. Conceptual analyses show that the field retains its three research traditions, and that artificial intelligence based approaches have entered the field not as an independent theme but by settling within the existing academic writing theme. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Writing Instruction
• Bibliometric Analysis
• Science Mapping
• Academic Writing
• Artificial Intelligence
• Thematic Evolution

Kaynakça

1. Abdullah, H., Shukor, S. A., Raslie, H., Ngah, E., & Jamain, N. N. A. (2023). A bibliometric analysis and future research directions on language and literacy. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 13(9), 625–643. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v13-i9/18433
2. Aksnes, D. W., Langfeldt, L., & Wouters, P. (2019). Citations, citation indicators, and research quality: An overview of basic concepts and theories. SAGE Open, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019829575
3. Aria, M., & 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
4. Arık, B. T., & Arık, E. (2017). “Second language writing” publications in Web of Science: A bibliometric analysis. Publications, 5(1), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications5010004
5. Atasoy, A. (2023). The last decade of writing education studies (2010–2020): A systematic review. Dil Eğitimi ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(1), 106–149. https://doi.org/10.31464/jlere.1164289
6. Ávila Reyes, N., Narváez-Cardona, E., & Navarro, F. (2023). Twenty years of research on reading and writing in Latin American higher education: Lessons learned from the ILEES initiative. In P. M. Rogers, D. R. Russell, P. Carlino, & J. M. Marine (Eds.), Writing as a human activity: Implications and applications of the work of Charles Bazerman (pp. 327–350). The WAC Clearinghouse; University Press of Colorado. https://doi.org/10.37514/PER-B.2023.1800.2.13
7. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 29–58. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001029
8. Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., & Laville, F. (1991). Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemistry. Scientometrics, 22(1), 155–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02019280

9. Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & 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
10. Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Predicting second language writing proficiency: The roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistication. Journal of Research in Reading, 35(2), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01449.x
11. Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 907–919. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012656
12. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & 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
13. Gilbert, J., & Graham, S. (2010). Teaching writing to elementary students in grades 4–6: A national survey. The Elementary School Journal, 110(4), 494–518. https://doi.org/10.1086/651193
14. Graham, S. (2019). Changing how writing is taught. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 277–303. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821125
15. Graham, S., Kiuhara, S. A., & MacKay, M. (2020). The effects of writing on learning in science, social studies, and mathematics: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 90(2), 179–226. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320914744
16. Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 879–896. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029185
17. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445
18. Hyland, K. (2016). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.005
19. Jaja. (2024). Research trends on students’ writing skills: A bibliometric analysis using Scopus database. Journal of Language and Education, 10(3), 161–182. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2024.18806
20. Karagöz, B., & Şeref, İ. (2020). Yazma becerisiyle ilgili makaleler üzerine bir inceleme: Web of Science veri tabanında eğilimler. Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisi, 8(1), 67–86. https://doi.org/10.16916/aded.619090
21. Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., … Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, Article 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
22. Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079812331380364
23. Litvinova, T. A., Mikros, G. K., & Dekhnich, O. V. (2024). Writing in the era of large language models: A bibliometric analysis of research field. Research Result. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, 10(4), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.18413/2313-8912-2024-10-4-0-1
24. Melin, G. (1999). Impact of national size on research collaboration: A comparison between Northern European and American universities. Scientometrics, 46(1), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766300
25. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56
26. Miao, Y., Badger, R., & Zhen, Y. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 179–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004
27. Miranda, R., & Garcia-Carpintero, E. (2018). Overcitation and overrepresentation of review papers in the most cited papers. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1015–1030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.08.006
28. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, Article n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
29. Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560308222
30. Politzer-Ahles, S., Holliday, J. J., Girolamo, T., Spychalska, M., & Berkson, K. H. (2016). Is linguistic injustice a myth? A response to Hyland (2016). Journal of Second Language Writing, 34, 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.09.003
31. Rogers, L. A., & Graham, S. (2008). A meta-analysis of single subject design writing intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 879–906. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.4.879
32. Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(4), 286–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.05.010
33. Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657–677. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587400
34. Steiss, J., Tate, T., Graham, S., Cruz, J., Hebert, M., Wang, J., Moon, Y., Tseng, W., Warschauer, M., & Olson, C. B. (2024). Comparing the quality of human and ChatGPT feedback of students’ writing. Learning and Instruction, 91, Article 101894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101894
35. Stevenson, M., & Phakiti, A. (2014). The effects of computer-generated feedback on the quality of writing. Assessing Writing, 19, 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.007
36. Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2016). A questionnaire-based validation of multidimensional models of self-regulated learning strategies. The Modern Language Journal, 100(3), 674–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12339
37. Wingate, U. (2012). Using Academic Literacies and genre-based models for academic writing instruction: A ‘literacy’ journey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(1), 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.006
38. Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
39. Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629