4.5 Article

Visualizing research trends and research theme evolution in E-learning field: 1999-2018

Journal

SCIENTOMETRICS
Volume 126, Issue 2, Pages 1389-1414

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03760-7

Keywords

E-learning; Co-word analysis; Research theme; Research trends

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper provides a comprehensive understanding of the evolution of major research themes and trends in e-learning research, using co-word analysis to analyze keywords from articles published between 1999 and 2018. The study identifies bridging, popular, and core topics in e-learning research for two time periods, and suggests hints on the future direction of the field based on the findings. The research highlights the temporal continuity and continuous evolution of research traditions in e-learning, driven by the development of new technologies.
This paper aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the evolution of major research themes and trends in e-learning research. A co-word analysis is applied for the analysis of the 21,656 keywords collected from 7214 articles published in 10 journals in the field of e-learning from the years 1999 to 2018. Specifically, a cluster analysis, social network analysis, strategic diagram, and graph theory were applied in the analysis for two time periods: 1999-2008 and 2009-2018. The study detects the bridging, popular, and core topics in e-learning research for the two periods. The research results indicate that e-learning research has undergone a health evolution over the past two decades. There is a temporal continuity of e-learning research because some research topics have kept their continuity over the studied 20 years. Meanwhile, the research traditions in the e-learning field are also continuously evolving with the development of new technologies. The results also offer useful hints on the future direction of how the field may evolve.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available