Thu, Nov 21, 2024
[Archive]
Volume 5, Issue 3 (SEPTEMBER ISSUE 2024)
johepal 2024, 5(3): 168-178 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Bich N T, Huong V T M, Thuy K P, Binh P T. (2024). Exploring Research Trends and Network Characteristics in Blended Learning in Higher Education: Bibliometric Methods and VOSViewer Software Analysis. johepal. 5(3), 168-178. doi:10.61186/johepal.5.3.168
URL: http://johepal.com/article-1-850-en.html
URL: http://johepal.com/article-1-850-en.html
Abstract: (245 Views)
- Blended Learning (BL), an innovative, technology-supported pedagogical approach, has gained widespread adoption in schools and universities. Its effectiveness has been scrutinized across various educational domains, including education, computer science, nursing, engineering, and psychology.
- This study examines the major trends in BL research in higher education (HE) through co-occurrence keyword, co-citation, and bibliographic coupling analyses of 1501 studies published between 2004 and 2024 and indexed in the Scopus database core collection. Employing a quantitative approach and visual analytical tool VOS Viewer, the review identifies development trends, influential researchers and institutions, and pivotal studies and topics in the field, informing future progression.
- The findings reveal a significant growth in BL research over the past decade, evidenced by exponential publication and citation increases. Over the past 20 years, the field of BL has coalesced around a conceptual core primarily focused on transforming teaching by integrating face-to-face instruction with IT applications. This underscores the enduring importance of BL at HE in shaping policies and practices in higher education.
Keywords: Blended Learning, Co-occurrence Keyword Analysis, Co-citation, Bibliographic Coupling Analysis, Scopus Database, VOSViewer, Higher Education
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2024/06/9 | Accepted: 2024/09/17 | Published: 2024/09/30
Received: 2024/06/9 | Accepted: 2024/09/17 | Published: 2024/09/30
References
1. Bichteler, J., & Eaton, E. A., III. (1980). The combined use of bibliographic coupling and cocitation for document retrieval. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 31(4), 278-282. [DOI]
2. Case, D. O., & Higgins, G. M. (2000). How can we investigate citation behavior? A study of reasons for citing literature in communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(7), 635-645. [DOI]
3. Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359-377. [DOI]
4. Chen, N. S., Kinshuk, Wei, C. W., & Chen, H. J. (2008). Mining e-learning domain concept maps from academic articles. Computers & Education, 50(3), 1009-1021. [DOI]
5. Choi, J., Yi, S., & Lee, K. C. (2011). Analysis of keyword networks in MIS research and implications for predicting knowledge evolution. Information & Management, 48(8), 371-381. [DOI]
6. Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. Jossey-Bass.
7. Graham, C. R. (2006). blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3-21). Pfeiffer.
8. Graham, C. R., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, J. B. (2013). A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 4-14. [DOI]
9. Hallinger, P., & Chatpinyakoop, C. (2019). A bibliometric review of research on higher education for sustainable development, 1998-2018. Sustainability, 11(8), 2401. [DOI]
10. Kaufman, L., & Rousseeuw, P. J. (1990&2005). Finding groups in data: An introduction to cluster analysis. Wiley-Interscience.
11. Kuo, H.-K., & Yang, C. (2014). An intellectual structure of activity-based costing: A co-citation analysis. The Electronic Library, 32(1), 31-46. [DOI]
12. Leung, X. Y., Sun, J., & Bai, B. (2017). Bibliometrics of social media research: A co-citation and co-word analysis. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 66(1), 35-45. [DOI]
13. Lozano, S., Calzada-Infante, L., Adenso-Díaz, B., & García, S. (2019). Complex network analysis of keywords co-occurrence in the recent efficiency analysis literature. Scientometrics, 120(2), 609-629. [DOI]
14. Martyn, J. (1964). Bibliographic coupling. Journal of Documentation, 20(4), 236-236. [DOI]
15. McGee, P., & Reis, A. (2012). Blended course design: A synthesis of best practices. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(4), 7-22. [DOI]
16. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. The University of Chicago Press.
17. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G. (2010). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. International Journal of Surgery, 8(5), 336-341. [DOI]
18. Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213-228. [DOI]
19. Nicolaisen, J. (2010). Bibliometrics and citation analysis: From the science citation index to cybermetrics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), 205-207. [DOI]
20. Radhakrishnan, S., Erbis, S., Isaacs, J. A., & Kamarthi, S. (2017). Novel keyword co-occurrence network-based methods to foster systematic reviews of scientific literature. PLOS ONE, 12(3), e0172778. [DOI]
21. Sahin, I., & Shelley, M. (2008). Considering students' perceptions: The distance education student satisfaction model. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), 216-223. [Article]
22. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building environments: Extending the limits of the possible in education and knowledge work. In A. DiStefano, K.E. Rudestam, & R. Silverman (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distributed learning (pp. 269-272). Sage Publications, Inc.
23. Small, H. (1973) Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265-269. [DOI]
24. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2014). Visualizing bibliometric networks. In Y. Ding, R. Rousseau, & D. Wolfram (Eds.), Measuring scholarly impact (pp. 285-320). Springer. [DOI]
25. Van Raan, A. F. J. (2005). For your citations only? Hot topics in bibliometric analysis. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 3(1), 50-62. [DOI]
26. White, H. D., & McCain, K. W. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972-1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(4), 327-355. [DOI]
27. Zaby, S. (2019). Science mapping of the global knowledge base on microfinance: Influential authors and documents, 1989-2019. Sustainability, 11(14), 3883. [DOI]
28. Zhao, D., & Strotmann, A. (2008). Evolution of research activities and intellectual influences in information science 1996-2005: Introducing author bibliographic-coupling analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(13), 2070-2086. [DOI]
29. Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472. [DOI]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
