J. Scientometric Res. | A journal devoted to Innovation Studies and Policy Research
Submit
Vol 12 Issue 3 41 Mins Read339 Views

Social Media in General Education: A Bibliometric Analysis of Web of Science from 2005-2021

Dinh-Hai Luong, Xuan-An Nguyen, Thanh-Thuy Ngo, My-Ngoc Tran and Hong-Lien Nguyen*
Author informationPDFCitations

Corresponding author.

Correspondence: Hong-Lien Nguyen The Vietnam National Institute of Educational Sciences, 100000, Vietnam. Email: [email protected]

Author Notes

Received February 16, 2023; Revised July 12, 2023; Accepted September 17, 2023.

Copyright and License information

Copyright ©2023 Author (s)
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
Download PDF
Cite this Article
Read in Readcube
Citations & Metrics

Citation

1.Luong DH, Nguyen XA, Ngo TT, Tran MN, Nguyen HL. Social Media in General Education: A Bibliometric Analysis of Web of Science from 2005-2021. Journal of Scientometric Research [Internet]. 2023 Nov 30;12(3):680–90. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.5530/jscires.12.3.066
Copy to clipboard
Published in: Journal of Scientometric Research, 29 November 2023; 12(3): 680-690.Published online: 29 November 2023DOI: 10.5530/jscires.12.3.066

ABSTRACT

Social media plays an increasingly important role in school activities. The study analysised 2,122 eligibility bibliographic records from 2005 to 2021 were extracted from the Web of Science database. This study employs a bibliometric method to analyze the use of social media on K-12 education worldwide. We concerned the following issues: the annual publication of Social Media in General Education (SMGE), the main characteristics of the SMGE research community, the primary sources in the field, the leading research themes and the new research topics in the field of SMGE. The results represented an annual growth trend of 17.15%. Countries with the highest number of publications were the US, England, Australia, China, and Turkey. The research community consisted of small groups; and Valcke M from the University of Ghent (Belgium) was one of the leading authors with large number of publications and citations. Sources focused on four scopes: Language Education, Educational Technology, Teacher and Teaching Education, Science Education. Furthermore, six themes were developed: SMGE’s environment, ICT integration, teachers’ beliefs and teaching practice, students’ learning, teachers’ motivation and engagement, SMGE’s learning approach. Two prominent topics were COVID-19-related, online and distance learning. The findings represent the basic information of the SMGE knowledge base considered as a source of reference for teachers, school managers, and policymakers interested in SMGE research and suggest further research directions.

Keywords: COVID-19, ICT integration, Teachers’ beliefs, Online learning, Distance learning, Social media, General education

INTRODUCTION

Social media were first used for the first time more than 20 years ago, under the name of Sixdegrees.com, where users could create personal profiles, connect with other users to share problems and topics of mutual interest, and view others’ connections.[1]Therefore, it is changing the ways people access information across societies and worldwide. Some researchers considered social media platforms as “a group of internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0 and that allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content”.[2] Others considered social media as a tool that increases our ability to share, co-operate with others, and take collective action outside traditional institutions and organizations. In short, these arguments describe social media networks as various forms of online sociality: collective action, communication, communities, networking, collaboration, and the creative making of user-generated sociality.[2]

Social Media in General Education

Social media in general education is an area of research that receives great attention, in which its publication volume has rapidly increased in the past decade and will be continued to expand in upcoming years.[4,5] However, most studies still center around the topics of educational process and direct benefits of social media on students and teachers. For instance, according to Aloraini and Cardoso’s,[6] previous studies exemplified various benefits of social media to general education, that includes (1) it promotes interaction such as discussion and teamwork in the online environment;[7] (2) it offers more opportunities to interact and communicate more efficiently which can lead to a better learning outcome;[8,9] (3) it creates a collaborative learning environment based on Web 2.0 applications.[10] A study by Greenhow et al.[8] further shows the benefits of social media for both students and teachers. The authors pointed out three important social media affordances to students: cultivating active learning, enhancing students’ collaboration, and increasing their community connections.

The Benefits of Social Media on Education?

Social media platforms have become a tool regularly used for communication, sharing information, and discussions among teachers and students. They provide spaces where people can raise their voices, ask questions, and te in various classes. Research indicated that integrating social media into education could improve student examination outcomes.[11,12] Others also found that using social media platforms in education could enhance students’ communication skills, knowledge retention, and critical thinking skills.[13,14] Teachers use digital technology in teaching as a powerful tool to master their teaching plans for better educational reforms, assessments, and for creating professional classroom environments.[15] In many schools in the United Kingdom, the educators expressed their concerns on the issue of cyber security and that social networking sites should be used for the right purposes.[16]

Social media has also been used as an increasingly popular and effective tool in the learning process,[17,18] based on two fundamental theories: social constructivism and social connectivism.[16,19,20] Social constructivists believe that learning is not only the construction of knowledge through individual experiences in a context of circumstances, activity, or culture, but the cooperation between learner-learner and learner-teacher also plays a crucial role.[4,16,21] According to this theory, social media can be used as an educational tool to motivate learners to participate in an online social context, and knowledge becomes a “collective agreement” with its validity being endorsed by peer review in an engaged community.[22] On another note, Siemens[23]introduced connectivism as a network learning theory in the digital age based on the epistemology of connective knowledge.[21]This theory suggests that learning is influenced by technology and socialization.[23] Specifically, using Internet-based technologies, the learner will be a node in one or more networks to perform their learning outcomes. According to this theory, social media can be used as a communication, collaboration, and content creation network to share users’ knowledge.[4,24]

It can be said that social media is currently an effective tool in communication and knowledge sharing activities between students and teachers, and supports to create a positive, collaborative and effective learning environment.

Systematic Reviews on Social Media in Education

As aforementioned, a bulk of literature has focused on the use of social media in general education. As a result, many researchers have systematically reviewed relevant literature on specific topics under this research area. Critical synthesis, meta-analysis, and bibliometric analysis are the main approaches to performing literature reviews.[25] A critical analysis is a type of systematic review based on a qualitative approach,[26,27] while meta-analysis is used to analyze quantitative data.[28,29] According to Barrot,[30] the majority of systematic reviews on the topic of social media in education are either critical analyses[5,31,32] or meta-analyses.[33,34]

In recent years, bibliometric analysis has emerged as an approach that quantitatively assesses the academic quality of journals or authors using statistical methods such as citation rates.[35] This approach is believed to have a pivotal role in the evaluation of education research; however, because this is still a new literature review, there have only been a few papers using this analysis to evaluate the use of social media in general education. One of the most outstanding ones is conducted by Barrot,[4] which focused on using social media for educational purposes to show steady scientific output growth and citations on this topic. Another systematic review by Barrot[30] also used bibliometric analysis as one of the two methods to evaluate the scientific literature on social media in education published between 2008 and 2019 based on the Scopus database. The main difference between the two studies is that the latter focuses on published research on the use of social media for language learning and teaching. The study results indicated that research on the impacts of social media on language education increased exponentially and will continue to rise in the future. The data also demonstrates a broad geographical distribution of publications on such topics (e.g., the United States, Australia, Malaysia, and Taiwan). Another systematic review by Hashim et al.[36] using Google Scholar database found 1,373 manuscripts related to the use of social media for teaching and learning in higher education. Out of these papers, only 94 were chosen for analysis. The findings have shown the trends, topics, and challenges addressed by previous research for the past ten years, from 2008 to 2018. Specifically, the review concludes that social media is a tool with great potential to support teaching and learning that can take place anytime, anywhere, and universally for all students. Therefore, it is suggested that higher education institutions use social media sites to transform the learning and teaching processes, accommodating the needs of a new generation of students. This new generation is often known as digital natives, who have been using social media from an early age and thus are familiar with the functionality of social media as well as are comfortable with the use of digital technology in classroom settings. Manca[20] used the bibliometric method to examine the scientific literature on the impacts of four social media platforms (Instagram, Pinterest, Snapchat, and WhatsApp) on students’ learning outcomes at the higher education level. The findings illustrated that WhatsApp was the social media platform receiving the most interest from education scholars, while the other three platforms were barely explored. Another important finding of this study indicates that the use of the pedagogical function of social media is still only partially implemented. Meanwhile, the study by Lopes et al.[37] delved into a review of the scientific literature on one social media platform only – Facebook. 260 articles from 2008 to 2016 in Web of Science were selected through screening and filtering. The study’s findings revealed the leading countries in terms of research output on this

topic, including the United States, Australia, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and Taiwan; Computers and Education was found the most preferred publication platform. The literature review, therefore, confirms the importance of Facebook in facilitating learning and teaching activities.

Indeed, the above reviews have demonstrated that there have been some literature reviews on social media at different levels (e.g., higher education, general education) and aspects of education (e.g., language learning). However, it is noted that there is a lack of studies on the use of social media for K-12 (kindergarten to grade 12) using the bibliometric analysis. This study, therefore, employs a bibliometric method to analyze the use of social media on K-12 education worldwide. Specifically, this paper seeks to answer these research questions as follows:

RQ1: How was the annual publication of social media in general education (SMGE) from 2005 to 2021? Which nation has dominant in this field?
RQ2: What were the main characteristics of the SMGE research community from 2005 to 2021? Which are the most relevant authors?
RQ3: What are the primary sources in the field of SMGE from 2005 to 2021?
RQ4: What are the leading research themes in the field of SMGE from 2005 to 2021?
RQ5: What are the new research topics in the field of SMGE?

METHODOLOGY

Since being proposed for the first time by Pritchard,[38]bibliometrics has been used to explore the knowledge base on a field of study. In the field of education, this method is employed at many levels of learning, i.e., preschool,[39] high school,[40] higher education,[41,42] and lifelong learning.[43] These studies often referred to either source of databases, Scopus and Web of Sciences. Compared to Scopus, the Web of Sciences provides more detailed information.[44] Therefore, this study used the Web of Sciences database as the primary data collection source.

The data collection process was conducted in three steps. First, the research team identified keywords based on the research purpose. The topics of the searched papers should satisfy three conditions simultaneously: i) “social media” or internet-based applications, ii) “general education” or keywords related to this level of study and not contain other grade-related keywords, iii) related to school activities (see operations 1-4 in Figure 1). Second, the research team needed to narrow the search dataset based on the search results collected from the first step. Data was limited regarding collections, research areas, types of documents, languages, and published years (see operations 5-10 in Figure 1). The timing of data collection was 16h00 on the 13th of June 2022. Then, the document content was validated. Each record was reviewed based on its title and summary information, which determined the paper’s eligibility. After the data collection process, the dataset containing 2,122 records related to SMGE for 2005-2021 was formed.

Figure 1:
Data search operations on the Web of Sciences.

The authors used two analytical methods to answer the research questions: descriptive statistical analysis and science mapping analysis. The information needed for the analysis included the year of publication of the paper, the author’s name, the author’s affiliation, the paper’s title, the paper’s keywords, the publication source, and the references. Descriptive statistical analysis was used to determine the number of annual publications, the most prominent authors, the most relevant sources, the most cited papers, and topical topics based on the frequency of author keywords. Science mapping analyses were conducted to visualize the collaboration of countries, the researcher community, the scopes of sources, the themes of the knowledge base, and the topical topics. All the analyses were supported by Microsoft Excel, VOSviewer (https://www.vosviewer.com/), and R application with Biblioshiny package (https://www.bibliometrix.org/home/).

RESULTS

Annual publications on SMGE for 2005-2021

There were 2,122 SMGE papers in the period between 2005 and 2021, including 2,090 articles (98.49%), 30 proceedings papers (1.41%), and two book chapters (0.09%). Figure 2 showed the tendency of SMGE papers over time between 2005 and 2021. The data draw a growth tendency in the number of publications for the whole period, with a significant increase in the two years, 2020-2021. The average annual growth rate was 17.15% per year.

Figure 2:
Annual scientific production of SMGE between 2005-2021.

According to the authors’ nationality information, co-authoring analysis was conducted to explore the science mapping of country collaboration in SMGE between 2005 and 2021. There were 94 countries involved in the research of this field, of which 74 countries were shown in Figure 3, and 20 countries left were the isolated ones (not shown in Figure 3). Based on the size of the nodes, the United States was the biggest node, with 590 papers published (27.80%), followed by England (201 papers, 9.47%), Australia (200 papers, 9.43%), China (163 papers, 7.68%), Turkey (140 papers, 6.60%), Taiwan (128 papers, 6.03%). The thickness of the links among nodes represented the strength of collaboration between them. The United States and China had the strongest link with 17 papers. The second strongest link was between the United States and Germany with 13 papers, England and Spain (13 papers), the United States and Canada (12 papers), the United States and Australia (11 papers), Australia and China (09 papers), England and Australia (09 papers).

Figure 3:
Countries’ collaboration in the field of SMGE between 2005-2021 (74 countries).

The color of the nodes showed the average published year of countries. The traditional countries in SMGE were the grey nodes, including the United States, England, Australia, Turkey, and Canada. The countries new to the field were the yellow nodes, including Hungary, Palestine, Mozambique, Peru, Saudi Arabia, and Bolivia. These countries were linked to the former countries.

Characteristics of SMGE community from 2005-2021

The most productive authors in SMGE between 2005 and 2021 were listed in Table 1. Valcke M (Ghent University, Belgium) and Lin CH (Michigan State University, USA) were at the top of the list with 08 papers. Six authors published seven documents, including Hwang GJ (National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan), Tsai CC (National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan), Chen CH (National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan), Chen NS (National Sun Yat-Sen University, Taiwan), She HC (National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan), Chu SKW (University of Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China). Each top author had at least five SMGE publications between 2005 and 2021.

ID Author Affiliation h_index TC (Ranking) NP PY
1-2 Valcke M Univ Ghent, Belgium 7 891 (1) 8 2008
1-2 Lin CH Michigan State Univ, USA 5 131(93) 8 2011
3-8 Hwang GJ Natl Taiwan Univ Sci & Technol, Taiwan 6 209 (53) 7 2012
3-8 Tsai CC Natl Taiwan Normal Univ, Taiwan 6 200 (59) 7 2006
3-8 Chen CH Natl Taiwan Univ Sci & Technol, Taiwan 6 179 (67) 7 2011
3-8 Chen NS Natl Sun Yat Sen Univ, Taiwan 6 166(72) 7 2011
3-8 She HC Natl Chiao Tung Univ, Taiwan 5 164 (78) 7 2009
3-8 Chu SKW Univ Hong Kong, Peoples R China 6 136 (89) 7 2012
9-15 Tondeur J Univ Ghent, Belgium 6 675 (3) 6 2008
9-15 Carpenter JP Elon Univ, USA 6 342 (19) 6 2015
9-15 Lingard B Univ Queensland, Australia 6 327 (22) 6 2013
9-15 Azzarito L Univ Loughborough, England 6 191 (60) 6 2006
9-15 Selwyn N Monash Univ, Australia 5 165 (74) 6 2015
9-15 Lubienski C Univ Illinois, USA 3 86 (171) 6 2014
9-15 Hu SH Northwestern Univ, USA 3 18(1318) 6 2008
16-19 Van Braak J Univ Ghent, Belgium 5 662 (4) 5 2008
16-19 Schellens T Univ Ghent, Belgium 5 328 (21) 5 2010
16-19 Li XX Univ Hong Kong, Peoples R China 5 166(72) 5 2011
16-19 Lo YY Univ Hong Kong, Peoples R China 5 130 (96) 5 2012
20 Hong HY Natl Chengchi Univ, Taiwan 4 118(106) 5 2011
Table 1:
List of relevant authors in SMGE from 2005 to 2021 (sorted by the number of publications).

Based on the citation index, three of the top 10 most cited authors included Valcke M (citation ranking #1, 891 citations), Tondeur J (#3, 765), Van Braak J (#4, 622). Their affiliation was the University of Ghent (Belgium), and they collaborated on three publications. The authors’ affiliations included 06 Taiwanese institutions, 04 Belgian institutions, 04 American institutions, 03 Chinese institutions, 02 Australian institutions, and 01 English institution.

SMGE community witnessed 1,000 authors’ collaborations between 2005 and 2021 (see Figure 4). The community was formed by 206 groups in which Tsai CC’s group and Lane R’s group were the biggest ones with 19 authors. Fourteen other groups had from 10 to 20 authors. One hundred and ninety-two others had less than ten authors per group. In addition, the degree of cooperation between authors was weak. The highest link strength recorded was five times, between Lin CH and Zhang YN, Valcke M and Schellens T, and between Tondeur J and Van Braak J. Based on the color of the nodes, representing the average published year, the groups with long tradition of researching SMGE were colored blue, e.g., Valcke M’s group, Chu SKW’s group, She HC’s group, Keddia A’s group, and Dede C’s group. In addition, some traditional research groups with the participation of new authors (yellow nodes) include Lin CH’s group, Hu SH’s group, Carpenter JP’s group, Lubienski C’ group, Rodriguez C’s group.

Figure 4:
SMGE community over time between 2005 and 2021 (1,000 authors).

Moreover, some new research groups joined the SMGE community, e.g., Lane R’s, Condon L’s, Wren H’s, and Connell J’s. It is noted that the development of the research community was mainly associated with the participation of new research groups. Until now, no essential research group has appeared despite the expansion of traditional research groups.

The primary sources in SMGE from 2005 to 20221

Table 2 listed the top 20 primary sources in the field of SMGE with the most active ones from 2025 to 2021. The data showed that the found sources are all high-quality journals, with 19 ranked Q1 and one ranked Q2 according to Scimagojr ranking in 2021. By publication scope, the main subject areas were education (20/20 sources), e-learning (5/20), and computer science (5/20). Some subject areas are related to SMGE, that is, media technology, and information systems, and communication. According to the number of publications, Computer Sciences and Education were in the first place with 173 papers (Figure 2). The following journals had a large difference in the number of publications compared to the former, namely International Journal of Science Education (44), Educational Technology and Society (41), Teachers College Record (39), and Education and Information Technologies (33). Regarding the citation index, computers and Education was still in first place with 8254 citations, followed by the Journal of Science Education and Technology (1,637 citations), British Journal of Educational Technology (920), Educational Technology and Society (782), Learning Media and Technology (773), and Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (754). Highly cited journals are likely to be relevant to educational technology.

ID Source Scope h_index TC (ranking) NP PY
1 Computers and Education Computer Science (miscellaneous) (Q1)Education (Q1)E-learning (Q1) 52 8354 (1) 173 2005
2 International Journal of Science Education Education (Q1) 15 697 (8) 44 2006
3 Educational Technology and Society Engineering (miscellaneous) (Q1)Education (Q1)E-learning (Q1)Sociology and Political Science (Q1) 16 782 (4) 41 2005
4 Teachers College Record Education (Q1) 13 523 (11) 39 2006
5 Education and Information Technologies Education (Q1)E-learning (Q1)Library and Information Sciences (Q1) 9 216 (41) 33 2018
6-7 Journal of Science Education and Technology Engineering (miscellaneous) (Q1) Education (Q1) 15 1637 (2) 31 2008
6-7 Learning Media and Technology Media Technology (Q1)Education (Q1) 13 773 (5) 31 2008
8 Educational Technology Research and Development Education (Q1) 10 446 (14) 31 2006
9 Journal of Computer Assisted Learning Computer Science Applications (Q1)Education (Q1)E-learning (Q1) 12 754 (6) 30 2005
10-12 Journal of Education Policy Education (Q1) 14 598 (9) 28 2007
10-12 Technology Pedagogy and Education Computer Science Applications (Q1) Information Systems (Q1) Communication (Q1) Education (Q1) 13 373 (18) 28 2010
10-12 Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education Applied Mathematics (Q2)Education (Q2) 9 268 (28) 28 2012
13-14 Teaching and Teacher Education Education (Q1) 15 540 (10) 26 2005
13-14 Interactive Learning Environments Computer Science Applications (Q1)Education (Q1)E-learning (Q1) 10 308 (25) 26 2014
15-18 British Journal of Educational Technology Education (Q1)E-learning (Q1) 14 920 (3) 25 2006
15-18 International Journal of Bilingual Education and BilingualismEducation (Q1)Linguistics and Language (Q1) 11 474 (12) 25 2009
15-18 Sport Education and Society Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation (Q1)Sports Science (Q1)Orthopedics and Sports Medicine (Q1)Education (Q1) 12 470 (13) 25 2006
15-18 Research in Science Education Education (Q1) 11 343 (22) 25 2005
19 Journal of Curriculum Studies Education (Q1) 10 262 (33) 20 2006
20 Journal of Educational Computing Research Computer Science Applications (Q1)Education (Q1) 10 343 (23) 19 2008
Table 2:
Top 20 sources in SMGE between 2005 and 2021 (sorted by number of publications).

Figure 5 visualized the relationships between 100 publications rendered bibliographic coupling analysis. Based on the color of the nodes, there were four scopes that SMGE publishers were interested in from 2005 to 2021. The first scope was Language Education, with 45 publications (red cluster). Major publication sources included Learning Media and Technology (31 papers, 2332 link strength), International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (27 citations, 1634 link strength), and English Teaching: Practice and Critique (19 citations, 1036 link strength). The second scope was Educational Technology, with 19 publications (green cluster). Prominent in this group were Computer and Education (174 citations, 20284 link strength), followed by Educational Technology and Society (43 citations, 4297 link strength), Educational Technology Research and Development (37 citations, 4160 link strength), and Educational and Information Technologies (2638 citations, 36 link strength). The third scope was Teacher and Teaching Education, with 19 publications (blue cluster). The most relevant journals were Teaching and Teacher Education (26 citations, 5093 link strength), Egitim ve Bilim-Education and Science (26 citations, 1186 link strength), and South African Journal of Education (25 citations, 1148 link strength). The fourth scope was Science Education, with 13 published sources (yellow cluster). Important publications in this cluster were International Journal of Science Education (45 citations, 4946 link strength), Journal of Science Education and Technology (32 citations, 4878 link strength), and Research in Science Education (27 citations, 4007 link strength). Computer and Education was at the heart of the research network, and this source was closely linked to relevant sources of the other clusters within the SMGE.

Figure 5:
Scopes of SMGE sources between 2005-2021 (100 sources).

SMGE themes from 2005-2021

The top 10 SMGE papers by citation index for 2005-2021 were listed in Table 3. The topics covered in this list are: the virtual environment in teaching,[45,46,47] using video games in teaching and,[48,49] teachers’ intentions of using technology,[51] teachers’ beliefs,[52] and teaching methods.[53] These papers were published in Computers and Education (06 articles), Journal of Science Education and Technology (03 articles), and Journal of Research in Science Teaching (01 article).

ID Author(s) Title Source PY TC
1 Dunleavy M; Dede C; Mitchell R Affordances and Limitations of Immersive Participatory Augmented Reality Simulations for Teaching and Learning Journal of Science Education and Technology 2009 525
2 Weintrop D; Beheshti E; Horn M; Orton K; Jona K; Trouille L; Wilensky U Defining Computational Thinking for Mathematics and Science Classrooms Journal of Science Education and Technology 2016 376
3 Liu IF; Chen MC; Sun YLS; Wible D; Kuo CH Extending the TAM Model to Explore the Factors that Affect Intention to Use an Online Learning Community Computers and Education 2010 347
4 Annetta LA; Minogue J; Holmes SY; Cheng MT Investigating the Impact of Video Games on High School Students’ Engagement and Learning about Genetics Computers and Education 2009 326
5 Hermans R; Tondeur J; Van Braak J; Valcke M The Impact of Primary School Teachers’ Educational Beliefs on the Classroom Use of Computers Computers and Education 2008 294
6 Albirini A Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Information and Communication Technologies: the Case of Syrian EFL Teachers Computers and Education 2006 270
7 Bourgonjon J; Valcke M; Soetaert R; Schellens T Students’ Perceptions About the Use of Video Games in the Classroom Computers and Education 2010 242
8 Steinkuehler C; Duncan S Scientific Habits of Mind in Virtual Worlds Journal of Science Education and Technology 2008 227
9 Chin C Teacher Questioning in Science Classrooms: Approaches that Stimulate Productive Thinking Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2007 225
10 Kamarainen AM; Metcalf S; Grotzer T; Browne A; Mazzuca D; Tutwiler MS; Dede C Ecomobile: Integrating Augmented Reality and Probeware with Environmental Education Field Trips Computers and Education 2013 213
Table 3:
Top 10 SMGE papers between 2005-2021 (sorted by number of citations).

Figure 6 represented the relationships between 300 references determined by bibliographic coupling analysis. Six SMGE themes were developed, corresponding to six different color clusters, in which the link strength index represented the number of citations of the papers. First, SMGE’s environment was the biggest theme, with 77 red nodes. Research by Adler et al.[54] was the most prominent, 306 link strength, which studied how teachers facilitated students’ motivation in an online environment. Racionero and Padros’s research,[55] 229 link strength concerned intersubjectivity and communication as primary factors in online learning. Seah and Toh-Heng’s study,[56] 227 link strengths explored learning environments which are accessible to all learners.

Figure 6:
SMGE themes between 2005-2021 (300 documents).

The second theme was ICT integration with 59 green nodes. Hermans et al.’s study,[52] 396 link strengths, was the most relevant paper, investigating the impacts of educators’ beliefs on the classroom use of computers. Chan and Chan’s study,[57] 367 link strengths, discussed students’ views of collaboration and online participation in knowledge forums. Lastly, Eteokleous’s research,[58] 348 link strength, investigated how to integrate computer technology into a centralized school system.

Third, teachers’ beliefs and teaching practice theme had 52 blue nodes. The biggest node was De Vries, Jansen and De Grift’s study,[59] 881 link strength, which demonstrated the relationships between teachers’ beliefs on their teaching and students’ learning; followed by Chai and Tan’s paper,[60] 645 link strength, which explored teachers’ learning in their knowledge-building community. Last but not least, Van Den Bergh, Ros and Beijaard’s paper,[61] 376 link strength suggested the directions for the teacher to improve their feedback during active learning.

Fourth, the students’ learning theme had 51 yellow nodes. The most relevant paper was by Oortwijn, Boekaerts and Vedder,[62] 396 link strength, discussing the effectiveness of cooperative learning in multiethnic classrooms. Lawton et al.’s paper,[63] 325 link strengths, explored the relationship between students’ learning outcomes and online course design. Lastly, Song’s paper,[64] 296 link strengths, investigated the effects of ESL learning tasks in an online environment.

The fifth theme was teachers’ motivation and engagement with 32 purple nodes. Hashim and Carpenter’s study[65] had 325 link strengths, studying teachers’ motivation in using social media. The second most prominent paper in this category was by Carpenter and Green,[66] 317 link strength, explored the roles of Voxer application to communication among educators. The paper follows this by Fischer, Fishman and Schoenebeck,[67] 317 link strength, which sought teachers’ engagement in using Twitter.

The last theme was so-called SMGE’s learning approach with 29 grey nodes. The biggest node was the paper by Yang et al.,[68] 287 link strengths, presented the relationships between students’ online learning approaches, e.g., group and individual, and their learning performances on certain topics. The second noticeable paper of this theme was by Weng, Lin and She,[69] 231 link strengths, researching students’ online argumentation on learning biology between theoretical and hypothetical concepts. The study by Evagorou, Jimenez-Aleixandre and Osborne[70] with 178 link strength was the last prominent paper in this category, which addressed the differences among students’ decisions in socioscientific problems based on evidence from the learning environment.

SMGE’s topical topics

Figure 7 listed the SMGE keywords that appeared the most each year from 2005 to 2021. Two new keywords appeared in 2021, e.g., COVID-19 (29 times), distance education and online learning(09 times). On the other hand, the topics shown in Figure 8 were based on the co-occurrence analysis of 100 keywords. The two keywords COVID-19 and distance education and online learning were colored yellow. The data demonstrated that the keyword COVID-19 appeared together with online learning (7 co-occurrence), distance education (2), teacher professional development (2), social media (1), teacher education (1), education policy (1), curriculum (1), assessment (1), and motivation (1). For the keyword distance education and online learning, the related keywords were media in education (3), pedagogical issues (3), teacher professional development (3), cooperative/collaborative learning (2), improve classroom teaching (2), teaching/learning strategies (1), mobile learning (1), human-computer interface (1).

Figure 7:
Relevant SMGE keywords between 2005-2021.

Figure 8:
Topical SMGE topics over time between 2005-2021 (100 author keywords, each has at least five occurrences).

DISCUSSION

This study used the bibliometrics analysis to the dataset of 2,122 records extracted from the Web of Science to explore the knowledge base of SMGE from 2005 to 2021. In general, the results show the annual published growth of the research field and the development of this research community. Detailed findings are discussed as follows.

First, the noticeable annual growth of SMGE research publications showed the increasingly important role of social media in education. The emergence of social networking platforms is considered a new research topic in this field, e.g., Facebook,[71]Twitter,[72] Youtube,[73] and MOOCs.[74] Therefore, with the development of social networking sites, the trend of publishing SMGE research is likely to continue growing.

Second, based on the number of publications, the United States, England, China, Australia, and Turkey were the countries with the most publications in the SMGE research. Research results of Barrot[75] and Do et al.[76] on social media also showed similar results. It is argued that these countries have had sufficient technological development, economic advantages and are thus interested in this topic of research.[43] On the other hand, new research groups were formed due to the emergence of new technologies that assisted the research community’s development. However, it is noted that the rapid development of technology also limited the cooperation between research groups to conduct longitudinal studies.

Third, publishing sources were interested in four scopes, in which educational technology was the most noticeable journal with the center being the computer and education theme. This journal was notable for the number of papers as well as its citations and was most closely related to relevant sources of other scopes. The reason could be its priority in pedagogical research using digital technology for the community of educators.[77]

Fourth, SMGE’s knowledge base consists of six themes, in which teachers’ motivation and engagement was the latest when examining the publication year of the papers. Research on this theme focused on proposing a conceptual framework of teacher motivation in using social media,[65] exploring teacher perineurial behaviors in social media,[78] investigating teacher identity,[79] teacher engagement for professional learning using Twitter,[67,80,81] Facebook,[82,83] proposing a model for managing teaching resources on social networks,[78] challenges in the use of social media in professional development.[84] With the diversity in research issues, it can be seen that the role of teachers in SMGE is increasingly interesting and considered an important factor in the effectiveness of teaching and learning on online platforms.

Fifth, SMGE’s topical topics in recent years were not found relevant to the emergence of new technology but rather the COVID-19 pandemic. Research contents revolved around improving the quality of online teaching in the context of the pandemic, such as curriculum,[85] assessment,[86,87] teacher professional development,[87,88] improving classroom teaching,[89] teaching and learning strategies,[90,91] cooperative and collaborative learning,[92]mobile learning,[90] human-computer interface.[92]

Last, it is noted that this study has several limitations. The first limitation is the search scope, in which papers were extracted from a single data source under time constraints, and keywords that did not fully capture all existing social media applications. Next, the analysis results have not mentioned the paper’s actual content but rather the paper’s bibliography information. Therefore, further research should be conducted on other data sources such as Google Scholar, Scopus, Lens, and PubMed, and at the same time, implement a systematic review to view this research area comprehensively.

CONCLUSION

This study explores the knowledge base of SMGE by applying bibliometrics analysis to 2,122 Web of Science indexed papers. The main findings showed the annual growth trend and the SMGE research community’s development from 2005-2021. In this period, the United States, England, Australia, China, and Turkey were countries with the highest number of publications, and Valcke M. (University of Ghent, Belgium), was the most

cited author. Besides, the most cited theme was Educational Technology, and the latest research theme was teachers’ motivation and engagement. In recent years, the SMGE community focused on online and distance learning due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the study has some limitations, the findings are considered a source of reference for teachers, school managers, and policymakers interested in SMGE research and suggest further research directions.

Cite this article:

Dinh-Hai L, Xuan-An N, Thanh-Thuy N, My-Ngoc T, Hong-Lien N. Social Media in General Education: A Bibliometric Analysis of Web of Science from 2005-2021. J Scientometric Res. 2023;12(3):680-90.

References

  1. Boyd DM, Ellison NB. Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2007;13(1):210-30. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  2. Kaplan AM, Haenlein M. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons. 2010;53(1):59-68. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  3. Fuchs C. Social media: A critical introduction. 2021 [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  4. Barrot JS. Scientific Mapping of Social Media in Education: A Decade of Exponential Growth. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2021;59(4):645-68. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  5. Greenhow C, Galvin S. Teaching with social media: evidence-based strategies for making remote higher education less remote. ILS. 2020;121(7/8):513-24. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  6. Aloraini N, Cardoso W. Social media in language learning: a mixed-methods investigation of students’ perceptions. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2022;35(8):1707-30. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  7. Llorens Cerdà F, Capdeferro Planas N. Facebook’s Potential for Collaborative e-Learning. RUSC Univ and Know Soc. 2011;8(2):31 [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  8. Greenhow C, Galvin SM, Staudt Willet KB. What Should Be the Role of Social Media in Education?. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2019;6(2):178-85. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  9. Rosell-Aguilar F. Twitter as a formal and informal language learning tool: from potential to evidence. Innovative Language Teaching and Learning at University: Integrating Informal Learning into Formal Language Education. 2018:99-106. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  10. Wang S, Vasquez C. Web 2. 0 and Second Language Learning: What Does t he Research Tell Us?. CALICO Journal. 2012;29(3):412-30. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  11. Javaeed A, Kibria Z, Khan Z, Ghauri SK. Impact of Social Media Integration in Teaching Methods on Exam Outcomes. AMEP. 2020;11:53-61. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  12. Wan H, Liu K, Yu Q, Ding J, Gao X. Improving blended learning outcomes through academic social media. In: 2018 IEEE 42nd Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC). 2018;1:1006-1015. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  13. Sohoni T. Harnessing the Power of Social Media in the Classroom: Challenging Students to Create Content to Share on Social Media Sites to Improve Learning Outcomes. Journal of Criminal Justice Education. 2019;30(3):389-406. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  14. Ying YH, Siang WEW, Mohamad M. The Challenges of Learning English Skills and the Integration of Social Media and Video Conferencing Tools to Help ESL Learners Coping with the Challenges during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Literature Review. CE. 2021;12(07):1503-16. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  15. Boholano H. Smart social networking: 21st Century teaching and learning skills. Istraživanja u pedagogiji. 2017;7(2):21-9. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  16. Greenhow C, Lewin C. Social media and education: reconceptualizing the boundaries of formal and informal learning. Learning, Media and Technology. 2016;41(1):6-30. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  17. Castrillo DL. Learners attitude toward collaborative writing in e-language learning classes: A Twitter project for German as a foreign language. Revista Española De Linguistica Aplicada. 2013;26:127-138. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  18. Mitchell K. A Social Tool: Why and How ESOL Students Use Facebook. CALICO Journal. 2012;29(3):471-93. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  19. Chu SK. Social Media Tools in experiential internship learning. 2020 [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  20. Manca S. Snapping, pinning, liking or texting: Investigating social media in higher education beyond Facebook. The Internet and Higher Education. 2020;44 [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  21. Jung I. Open and distance education theory revisited: Implications for the Digital Era. 2019 [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  22. Dede C. A seismic shift in epistemology. EDUCAUSE review. 2018;43(3):80 Available from: https://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/tecfa-activities/e-culture/ERM0837.pdf
    [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  23. West RE. In: Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology. 2018 [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  24. Friedman H, Friedman LW. Using Social Media Technologies to Enhance Online Learning. JEO. 2013;10(1):1-22. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  25. Hallinger P. Reviewing Reviews of Research in Educational Leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly. 2014;50(4):539-76. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  26. Al-Qaysi N, Mohamad-Nordin N, Al-Emran M. A Systematic Review of Social Media Acceptance From the Perspective of Educational and Information Systems Theories and Models. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2020;57(8):2085-109. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  27. Kinchin IM. Concept Mapping as a Learning Tool in Higher Education: A Critical Analysis of Recent Reviews. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education. 2014;62(1):39-49. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  28. Glass GV. Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research. Educational Researcher. 1976;5(10):3-8. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  29. Guraya S. The usage of social networking sites by medical students for educational purposes: A meta-analysis and systematic review. North Am J Med Sci. 2016;8(7):268 [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  30. Barrot JS. Social media as a language learning environment: a systematic review of the literature (2008-2019). Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2022;35(9):2534-62. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  31. Chugh R, Ruhi U. Social media in higher education: A literature review of Facebook. Educ Inf Technol. 2018;23(2):605-16. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  32. Manca S, Ranieri M. Is it a tool suitable for learning? A critical review of the literature on Facebook as a technology-enhanced learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2013;29(6):487-504. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  33. Huang C. Social network site use and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education. 2018;119:76-83. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  34. Kutlu B, Çeken B, Mutlutürk M, Türkmen C. A Meta-Analysis of Social Media & Learning Studies in Educational Research. 2018:80-84. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  35. Ahamer G, Kumpfmüller KA. In: Handbook of Research on Transnational Higher Education. 2014:526-584. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  36. Hashim KF, Rashid A, Atalla S. Social Media for Teaching and Learning within Higher Education Institution: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Literature (2008-2018). Int J Interact Mob Technol. 2018;12(7):4 [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  37. Lopes RM, Faria DJ, Fidalgo-Neto AA, Mota FB. Facebook in educational research: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics. 2017;111(3):1591-621. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  38. Pritchard A. Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of documentation. 1969;25:348 [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  39. Su J, Ng DTK, Yang W, Li H. Global Trends in the Research on Early Childhood Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Bibliometric Analysis. Education Sciences. 2022;12(5):331 [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  40. Le Thi Thu H, Tran T, Trinh Thi Phuong T, Le Thi Tuyet T, Le Huy H, Vu Thi T, et al. Two Decades of STEM Education Research in Middle School: A Bibliometrics Analysis in Scopus Database (2000–2020). Education Sciences. 2021;11(7):353 [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  41. Phan TT, Vu CT, Doan PT, Luong DH, Bui TP, Le TH, Nguyen DH, et al. Two decades of studies on learning management system in higher education: A bibliometric analysis with Scopus database 2000-2020. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice. 2022;19(3) [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  42. Pham H, Dong T, Vuong Q, Luong D, Nguyen T, Dinh V, et al. A bibliometric review of research on international student mobilities in Asia with Scopus dataset between 1984 and 2019. Scientometrics. 2021;126(6):5201-24. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  43. Do T, Thi Tinh P, Tran-Thi H, Bui DM, Pham TO, Nguyen-Le V, et al. Research on lifelong learning in Southeast Asia: A bibliometrics review between 1972 and 2019. Cogent Education. 2021;8(1) [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  44. Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB journal. 2008;22(2):338-342. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  45. Dunleavy M, Dede C, Mitchell R. Affordances and Limitations of Immersive Participatory Augmented Reality Simulations for Teaching and Learning. J Sci Educ Technol. 2009;18(1):7-22. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  46. Kamarainen AM, Metcalf S, Grotzer T, Browne A, Mazzuca D, Tutwiler MS, et al. EcoMOBILE: Integrating augmented reality and probeware with environmental education field trips. Computers & Education. 2013;68:545-56. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  47. Steinkuehler C, Duncan S. Scientific Habits of Mind in Virtual Worlds. J Sci Educ Technol. 2008;17(6):530-43. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  48. Annetta LA, Minogue J, Holmes SY, Cheng M. Investigating the impact of video games on high school students’ engagement and learning about genetics. Computers & Education. 2009;53(1):74-85. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  49. Bourgonjon J, Valcke M, Soetaert R, Schellens T. Students’ perceptions about the use of video games in the classroom. Computers & Education. 2010;54(4):1145-56. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  50. Albirini A. Teachers’ attitudes toward information and communication technologies: the case of Syrian EFL teachers. Computers & Education. 2006;47(4):373-98. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  51. Liu I, Chen MC, Sun YS, Wible D, Kuo C. Extending the TAM model to explore the factors that affect Intention to Use an Online Learning Community. Computers & Education. 2010;54(2):600-10. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  52. Hermans R, Tondeur J, van Braak J, Valcke M. The impact of primary school teachers’ educational beliefs on the classroom use of computers. Computers & Education. 2008;51(4):1499-509. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  53. Chin C. Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. J Res Sci Teach. 2007;44(6):815-43. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  54. Adler I, Schwartz L, Madjar N, Zion M. Reading between the lines: The effect of contextual factors on student motivation throughout an open inquiry process. Sci Ed. 2018;102(4):820-55. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  55. Racionero S, Padrós M. The dialogic turn in educational psychology. Revista de Psicodidáctica. 2010;15(2):143-162. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  56. So H, Seah LH, Toh-Heng HL. Designing collaborative knowledge building environments accessible to all learners: Impacts and design challenges. Computers & Education. 2010;54(2):479-90. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  57. Chan CK, Chan Y. Students’ views of collaboration and online participation in Knowledge Forum. Computers & Education. 2011;57(1):1445-57. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  58. Eteokleous N. Evaluating computer technology integration in a centralized school system. Computers & Education. 2008;51(2):669-86. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  59. de Vries S, Jansen EP, van de Grift WJ. Profiling teachers’ continuing professional development and the relation with their beliefs about learning and teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2013;33:78-89. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  60. Chai C, Tan S. Professional Development of Teachers for Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: A Knowledge-Building Approach. Teachers College Record. 2009;111(5):1296-327. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  61. van den Bergh L, Ros A, Beijaard D. Feedback during active learning: elementary school teachers’ beliefs and perceived problems. Educational Studies. 2013;39(4):418-30. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  62. Oortwijn M, Boekaerts M, Vedder P. The impact of the teacher’s role and pupils’ ethnicity and prior knowledge on pupils’ performance and motivation to cooperate. Instr Sci. 2008;36(3):251-68. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  63. Lawton D, Vye N, Bransford J, Sanders E, Richey M, French D, et al. Online Learning Based on Essential Concepts and Formative Assessment. Journal of Engineering Education. 2012;101(2):244-87. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  64. Song D. Expertise reversal effect and sequencing of learning tasks in online English as a second language learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments. 2016;24(3):423-37. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  65. Hashim AK, Carpenter JP. A Conceptual Framework of Teacher Motivation for Social Media Use. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education. 2019;121(14):1-18. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  66. Carpenter JP, Green TD. Mobile instant messaging for professional learning: Educators’ perspectives on and uses of Voxer. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2017;68:53-67. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  67. Fischer C, Fishman B, Schoenebeck SY. New Contexts for Professional Learning: Analyzing High School Science Teachers’ Engagement on Twitter. AERA Open. 2019;5(4) [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  68. Yang W, Lin Y, She H, Huang K. The Effects of Prior-knowledge and Online Learning Approaches on Students’ Inquiry and Argumentation Abilities. International Journal of Science Education. 2015;37(10):1564-89. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  69. Weng W, Lin Y, She H. Scaffolding for argumentation in hypothetical and theoretical biology concepts. International Journal of Science Education. 2017;39(7):877-97. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  70. Evagorou M, Jimenez-Aleixandre MP, Osborne J. ‘Should We Kill the Grey Squirrels?’ A Study Exploring Students’ Justifications and Decision-Making. International Journal of Science Education. 2012;34(3):401-28. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  71. Davies J. Facework on Facebook as a new literacy practice. Computers & Education. 2012;59(1):19-29. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  72. Junco R, Elavsky CM, Heiberger G. Putting twitter to the test: Assessing outcomes for student collaboration, engagement and success. Br J Educ Technol. 2013;44(2):273-87. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  73. Banaji S. Everyday Racism and «My Tram Experience»: Emotion, Civic Performance and Learning on YouTube. Comunicar: Media Education Research Journal. 2013;20(40):69-78. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  74. Kellogg S, Booth S, Oliver K. A social network perspective on peer supported learning in MOOCs for educators. IRRODL. 2014;15(5):263-289. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  75. Barrot JS. Facebook as a learning environment for language teaching and learning: A critical analysis of the literature from 2010 to 2017. J Comput Assist Learn. 2018;34(6):863-75. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  76. Linh DV, Thao VT, Thuy NT, Luong DH. Bibliometric Research on Youth Entertainment Activities in Social Media between 2000 and 2021 from Scopus. Journal of Scientometric Research. 2021;10(3):337-47. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  77. Elsevier. Computer & Education. 2022 Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/computers-and-education/about/aims-and-scope
    Aims and scope.
  78. Torphy K, Hu S, Liu Y, Chen Z. Teachers Turning to Teachers: Teacherpreneurial Behaviors in Social Media. American Journal of Education. 2020;127(1):49-76. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  79. Carpenter JP, Kimmons R, Short CR, Clements K, Staples ME. Teacher identity and crossing the professional-personal divide on twitter. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2019;81:1-12. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  80. Nochumson TC. Elementary schoolteachers’ use of Twitter: exploring the implications of learning through online social media. Professional Development in Education. 2020;46(2):306-23. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  81. Carpenter J, Tani T, Morrison S, Keane J. Exploring the landscape of educator professional activity on Twitter: an analysis of 16 education-related Twitter hashtags. Professional Development in Education. 2022;48(5):784-805. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  82. Nelimarkka M, Leinonen T, Durall E, Dean P. Facebook is not a silver bullet for teachers’ professional development: Anatomy of an eight-year-old social-media community. Computers & Education. 2021;173 [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  83. Yildirim Z, Reigeluth CM, Kwon S, Kageto Y, Shao Z. A comparison of learning management systems in a school district: searching for the ideal personalized integrated educational system (PIES). Interactive Learning Environments. 2014;22(6):721-36. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  84. Carpenter JP, Harvey S. “There’s no referee on social media”: Challenges in educator professional social media use. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2019;86 [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  85. Restad F, Mølstad CE. Social and emotional skills in curriculum reform: a red line for measurability?. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 2021;53(4):435-48. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  86. Judge M. Covid 19, school closures and the uptake of a digital assessment for learning pilot project during Ireland’s national lockdown. Irish Educational Studies. 2021;40(2):419-29. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  87. Tian W, Louw S, Khan MK. Covid-19 as a critical incident: Reflection on language assessment literacy and the need for radical changes. System. 2021;103 [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  88. Beardsley M, Albó L, Aragón P, Hernández‐Leo D. Emergency education effects on teacher abilities and motivation to use digital technologies. Brit J Educational Tech. 2021;52(4):1455-77. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  89. Yang S, Carter RA, Zhang L, Hunt T. Emanant themes of blended learning in K-12 educational environments: Lessons from the Every Student Succeeds Act. Computers & Education. 2021;163 [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  90. Torrington J, Bower M. Teacher‐created video instruction in the elementary classroom—Its impact on students and teachers. Computer Assisted Learning. 2021;37(4):1107-26. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  91. González-Betancor SM, López-Puig AJ, Cardenal ME. Digital inequality at home. Array. 2021;168 [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  92. Chen C, Li M, Chang W, Chen X. Developing a Topic Analysis Instant Feedback System to facilitate asynchronous online discussion effectiveness. Computers & Education. 2021;163 [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

Related Articles