Donmuş Kaya, V. (2022). A bibliometric analysis of using Web 2.0s in educational research area. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 9(1). 194-216. Received : 25.09.2021 Revised version received : 06.12.2021 Accepted : 08.12.2021 A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF USING WEB 2.0s IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AREA (Research article) Vildan DONMUŞ KAYA Fırat University, Turkey vildandnms@gmail.com Biodata: Dr. Vildan DONMUS KAYA received her bachelor's degree in Department of Computer and Instructional Technologies at Firat University in 2008, master’s degree in Department of Computer and Instructional Technologies in 2012, and Ph.D. degree in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction in 2018 from the Graduate School of Educational Sciences at Firat University in Turkey. Since 2009, she has been serving an academic at Firat University. She has studies on technology integration in education, instructional design, online learning environment, curriculum and instruction, teacher education, and measurement and evaluation in education. Copyright © 2014 by International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET). ISSN: 2148-225X. Material published and so copyrighted may not be published elsewhere without written permission of IOJET. mailto:vildandnms@gmail.com https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4362-393X International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(1), 194-216. 195 A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF USING WEB 2.0s IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AREA Vildan Donmuş Kaya vildandnms@gmail.com Abstract The purpose of present study is to reveal the tendency towards Web 2.0s in the educational research area with the analysis of bibliometric mapping. As of July 5th 2021, the 786 studies have been retrieved from in the Web of Science database, and are included in the analysis. VOSviewer was used for the analysis of bibliometric mapping. As a result of the analysis of bibliometric mapping, it was concluded that the most effective countries in Web 2.0s in the educational research area are the USA, England, and Spain. According to the keyword co- occurrence analysis, technology, social media, collaborative learning, e-learning, and higher education keywords stand out on Web 2.0s in the educational research area. It was found that Timothy J. Newby is the most productive researcher. It can be concluded that the most effective researches are higher education researches. According to the analyses conducted in the context of journals, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology”, “Interactive Learning Environments”, and “Internet and Higher Education” were the most contributing journals. Keywords: web 2.0, web 2.0s, bibliometric analysis, bibliometric mapping, science mapping 1. Introduction Web 2.0s, occasionally cited to as the “read/write Web” (Ajjan & Hartshorne, 2008; Gillmor, 2004), are dynamic technological environments, different from the static technological environments of Web 1.0, that allow users to change, edit, share and comment on content through collaboration (Huang et al. 2013; Kale & Goh, 2014; O’Reilly, 2005). Although the term Web 2.0 was first used by Darcy DiNucci in 1999 (King, 2008; Knoor, 2003; Uysal & Cayci, 2022), it is generally accepted in the literature that the term was first used by O'Reilly in 2004 (Hew & Cheung, 2013; Hollinderbäumer, Hartz & Ückert, 2013; Huang et al. 2013). It is seen that the use of Web 2.0s have been increasing since the first day of its existence and today many people, including digital learners, use them informally in their daily life (McLoughlin & Lee, 2007). This popularity of Web 2.0 is related to the fact that they make the user to be active as a content developer, that they have limited free versions, as well as paid versions, that they provide socialization among users and that they are easy to use. All of these have made Web 2.0s attractive to use as teaching tools (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012; Jones et al., 2010; Magnuson, 2013). In this context, previous studies have revealed that the use of Web 2.0 in teaching-learning environments provides opportunities for both learners and teachers. Web 2.0s put the learner from consuming (passive) information to producing, questioning, and changing information (active) (Magnuson, 2013; Preston et al., 2015). As students participate and obtain tangible products, their interest in the lesson (Jones et al., 2010; Rahimi, Berg & Veen, 2015) and motivation increase (Langset, Jacobsen & mailto:vildandnms@gmail.com Donmuş-Kaya 196 Haugsbakken, 2018; Preston et al., 2015). The flexibility of the learning environment allows them to create their own learning environments (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012; Jones et al., 2010; Langset, Jacobsen & Haugsbakken, 2018; Rahimi, Berg & Veen, 2015; Mcloughlin & Lee, 2010; Weshah, 2012). As Web 2.0s allow for collaborative learning, improves students' in-class interactions (Barak et al., 2009; Chitanana, 2020; Deng, Li & Lu, 2018; Elgort, Smith & Toland, 2008; Lai & Ng, 2011; Jones et al., 2010; Mcloughlin & Lee, 2010; Preston et al., 2015), their collective intelligence (Magnuson, 2013; Rahimi, Berg & Veen, 2015), and writing skills (Hadjerrouit, 2014; Weshah, 2012; Wheeler & Wheeler, 2009). Web 2.0s enable students to develop their technology literacy (Rahimi, Berg & Veen, 2015), allow self- assessment and peer assessment (Hadjerrouit, 2014; Lai & Ng, 2011), and contribute positively to learner engagement (Clarke & Kinne, 2012; Wheeler & Wheeler, 2009). The opportunities of Web 2.0s to teachers are as follows (Byrne, 2009; Langset, Jacobsen & Haugsbakken, 2018). Webs 2.0s provide autonomy to teachers by providing the opportunity to use different activities and products in the classroom. Thus, the lessons become more effective and meaningful. These technologies support teachers to diversify their assessment products. Teachers’ use of the current content for classroom instruction is promoted. Following the hyperlinks, teachers reach the data sources on the products made by students. These opportunities of Web 2.0s to teachers and students as a teaching tool have also increased their popularity in the field of educational research. Soomro, Zai & Jafri (2020) draws attention to the increasing popularity of Web 2.0s in educational research area. It is important to reveal the current status of the researches on the use of Web 2.0/s, which has a very high popularity, in this field, to make predictions for the future and actually to reveal the general trends. When the literature of educational research area is examined, it is seen that there are a limited number of studies to determine the general tendencies of the studies on Web 2.0. It has been determined that these studies are the systematic review, literature review (O'Connor- Petruso & Rosenfeld, 2009; Williams, Karousou & Mackness, 2011) and content analysis (Angeli, 2020; Liu & Maddux, 2008). Considering the subjects of the mentioned the systematic review studies, using Web 2.0's in higher education (Conole & Alevizou, 2010; Liu, Kalk, Kinney, Orr & Reid, 2009), problem-based learning in higher education (Ünal, 2019), K12 and higher education (Hew & Cheung, 2013), health education (Hollinderbäumer, Hartz & Ückert, 2013), language teaching (Halim & Hashim, 2019), challenges (Anastasiades & Katsidis, 2013) or all studies related to Web 2.0s (Akçayır & Akçayır, 2016; Weshah, 2012). In addition, bibliometric analysis studies focusing on technology- enhanced issues in the field (Amoozegar, Khodabandelou & Ale Ebrahim, 2018; Chen, Zou & Xie, 2020; Goksu, 2021; Khan & Gupta, 2021; Li & Wong, 2021; Lopes et al., 2017; Zawacki-Richter & Latchem, 2018) is a limited number of studies, but it is noteworthy that there is no bibliometric analysis study that includes all Web 2.0s, except for the bibliometric analysis study on social media in China (Gan &Wang, 2015). In other words, there are deficiencies in the literature in terms of revealing which key concepts or resources are focused on in the studies on the use of Web 2.0 in educational research, the changes and developments in this field, the connections between the studies, the productivity and efficiency of the authors, the citation sequences or citation associations. At this point, the necessity of making bibliometric analysis of studies using Web 2.0 in the field has arisen. Thus, the study aimed to reveal the trends of the researches in general about the use of Web 2.0 in the educational research area, to identify the key concepts or sources focused on, to reveal the changes and developments in the field, to reveal the connections of the researches with each other, the productivity and efficiency of the authors, the citation sequences or citation associations. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(1), 194-216. 197 2. Methodology Relevant publications in the research were analyzed using bibliometric analysis method. Disclosing the quantitative analysis of scientific editions, the bibliometric method is used extensively in numerous disciplines with the intent of displaying the changes and developments in science (Relevant publications in the research were analyzed using bibliometric analysis method. Disclosing the quantitative analysis of scientific editions, the bibliometric method is used extensively in numerous disciplines with the intent of displaying the changes and developments in science (Koza-Çiftçi et al., 2016) analyzing the links among studies (Zupic & Cater, 2015) and revealing general attitudes in any fields (Kasemodel, Makishi, Souza & Silva, 2016). Koza-Çiftçi et al., (2016) analyzing the links among studies (Zupic & Cater, 2015) and revealing general attitudes in any fields (Kasemodel, Makishi, Souza & Silva, 2016). 2.1. Procedure The publications are retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS), which includes the most extensive coverage of bibliographic and citation records in natural sciences, educational sciences, social sciences, and humanities publications (Aghaei-Chadegani et al., 2013; Olijnyk, 2015). Compared to Scopus, WoS has a strong coverage dating back to 1990. However, Scopus covers a large number of journals, but the impact is small and limited to recent articles (Aghaei-Chadegani et al., 2013). A 5-stage process was followed for the bibliometric analysis study. The applied research process is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Research Process 2.1.1. Stage 1: Defining the boundaries of the study The following steps were applied during the determination of the boundaries of the study:  Defining research questions: In line with the purpose of the research, the research questions listed in Table 1 were defined in order to determine the current status, trends and bibliometric indicators of Web 2.0 technologies in educational research area. Donmuş-Kaya 198 Table 1. Research Questions No Research Question 1. What are the year distributions of relevant publications and citation? 2. What are the countries, journals, authors, and organizations distributions of relevant publications? 3. What are the citation rankings of relevant publications, countries, journals, authors, and organizations? 4. What pattern of co-citation author network has emerged? 5. What pattern of co-word network has emerged?  Defining of search words: General keywords to be used in searches to find basic studies in line with the purpose of the study; It is designated as “Web 2.0 tool” and “Web 2.0”.  Defining of publication selection and exclusion criteria: The selection and exclusion criteria defined in Table 2 were adopted in order for the studies to be included in the research to be suitable for the purpose of the research. If one of the inclusion criteria specified here is met, the study is added for review. Table 2. Selection and Exclusion Criteria Type Criteria Selection Mention of Web 2.0 tool* or Web 2.0* The type of research area is educational research The types of document are articles, review or early access The types of indexing are SSCI, SCI-Expanded, ESCI and AHCI The language is English Exclusion The type of access is abstract 2.1.2. Stage 2: Scanning publication in WOS On July 5th 2021, the 9888 raw document has been retrieved from the using the following advanced query: TS=("Web 2.0 tool*" OR "web 2.0*") 2.1.3. Stage 3: Selecting publication 9102 documents removed from the data set with the help of WoS's filtering features. In the finally, on July 5th 2021, the 786 documents have been retrieved from the using the following advanced query, and are included in the analysis (see Figure 1). TS=("Web 2.0 tool*" OR "web 2.0*") Refined by: RESEARCH AREAS: (EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH) AND DOCUMENT TYPES: (REVIEW OR EARLY ACCESS OR ARTICLE) AND WEB OF SCIENCE INDEX: (WOS.SSCI OR WOS.SCI OR WOS.ESCI OR WOS.AHCI) AND LANGUAGES: (ENGLISH) International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(1), 194-216. 199 Timespan: All years. Indexes: SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, CPCI-S, CPCI-SSH, BKCI-S, BKCI-SSH, ESCI. 2.1.4. Stage 4: Downloading Bibliographic information from WoS In line with the research questions, results of the analysis were downloaded and full records and cited references were exported to file. 2.1.5. Stage 5: Data Analysis In the analysis of the articles, descriptive analysis and bibliometric analysis methods, citation analysis, and co-word analysis were used. VOSviewer application was employed in order to facilitate conducting bibliometric analysis and visualize the results. The reason for using VOSviewer is its being pretty effective in analyzing big data sets and displaying some interesting visuals, analysis, and inquiries (Rafols et al, 2012; Van-Eck & Waltman, 2010). Additionally, VOSviewer can generate maps of publications, authors, or journals derived from networks of co-citation. It can also build maps of keywords from networks (Hundha et al, 2020). 3. Results 3.1. Descriptive Results Descriptive analyses are presented distribution of publications and citation by years (Figure 2), countries (Figure 3), journals (Figure 4), authors (Figure 5), and organizations (Figure 6). 3.1.1. Distribution of publications and citation by years In Figure 2, when the distribution of the relevant publications by years is examined, it is seen that Web 2.0 studies in the educational research area started to be studied in 2007. While there was a fluctuation in the number of studies between 2007 and 2021, it is seen that the number of studies reached the maximum level in 2015. Especially in 2015 and 2016, it is noteworthy that there is a serious intensity in the number of studies. When the distribution of relevant publications citations by years, although the citations of Web 2.0 studies in the field of educational research decreased in 2018, it increased rapidly between 2007-2020. Figure 2. Distribution of publications and citation by years Donmuş-Kaya 200 3.1.2. Distribution of publications by countries, journals, authors, and organizations When the distribution of the relevant publications by country is examined, it is seen that there are studied 81 countries on Web 2.0 in educational research area. Due to the large number of countries, countries with 15 or more publications are given in Figure 3. In Figure 3, there are 183 articles in the United States of America and this number is considerably higher than the publications in other countries. This country is followed by the England with 92 articles, Spain with 79 articles, Australia with 62 articles, Taiwan with 52 articles, Turkey with 49 articles, China with 40 articles, Canada with 24 articles, Greece with 21 articles, Malaysia with 17 articles, and Finland with 15 articles. Figure 3. Distribution of publications by countries When the distribution of the relevant publications by country is examined, it is seen that there are studied 222 journals on Web 2.0 in educational research area. Due to the large number of journals, journals with 10 or more publications are given in Figure 4. In Figure 4, there are 48 articles were published in the "Computers and Education" journal. This journal is followed by “Australasian Journal of Educational Technology" journal with 39 articles, “Interactive Learning Environments" journal with 34 articles, and “Internet and Higher Education” journal with 31 articles. Figure 4. Distribution of publications by journals International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(1), 194-216. 201 In Figure 5, when the distribution of the relevant publications by author is examined, it is seen that there are 7 articles were published by Timothy J. Newby. This author is followed by “Kathleen Gray" with 6 articles, and “Peggy A. Ertmer, Yueh-Min Huang, John Sandars, Chin-Chung Tsai" with 5 articles, and “, Juan Asensio-Perez, Wen-Hao David Huang, Ugur Kale, Lina Lee, Chen-Chung Liu, Celia Thompson, Jenny Waycott” with 4 articles. Figure 5. Distribution of publications by authors In Figure 6, when the distribution of the relevant publications by organizations is examined, it is seen that there are 16 articles were published by Open University. This organization is followed by “University Hong-Kong" with 12 articles, and “University Melbourne, National Center University" with 11 articles, and “Nanyang Technological University” with 10 articles. Figure 6. Distribution of publications by organizations 3.2. Bibliometric Results Bibliometric analysis was started with traditionally frequently used citation analysis. So, citation analysis of country (Table 3), journals (Table 4), authors (Table 5), organizations (Table 6), and documents (Table 7) with the highest number of publications was conducted by citation rankings. Bibliometric analysis was continued with co-citation analysis and co- word analysis. Co-citation analysis for authors’ cooperation was presented in Figure6. Co- word analysis was presented Figure7. Donmuş-Kaya 202 3.2.1. Citation analysis (Country, Journal, Author, Organizations and Document) Table 3 shows the number of publications and citations of the most influential authors in educational research area. The first 20 countries with at least 200 citations in the relevant indexes are listed according to the number of citations. When the table is examined, it seems that USA with 6012 citations comes to the fore. This country is followed by England with 2251 citations, Australia with 1415 citations, Spain with 1372 citations, and Taiwan with 1083 citations. Table 3. Citation Ranking of Authors Country Documents Citations Total Link Strength USA 182 6012 572 England 91 2251 242 Australia 62 1415 233 Spain 79 1372 173 Taiwan 52 1083 147 China 39 813 125 Scotland 14 585 79 New Zealand 13 495 51 Germany 13 486 40 Turkey 49 401 136 Greece 20 389 68 Singapore 13 345 46 Switzerland 4 341 30 Finland 15 333 62 Netherlands 13 322 61 Austria 3 276 27 Italy 12 271 42 Malaysia 17 266 71 Canada 24 250 48 Pakistan 5 214 17 Table 4 shows the number of publications and citations of the most influential journal in educational research area. The first 21 countries with at least 100 citations in the relevant indexes are listed according to the number of citations. When the citations received by the publications in the mentioned journals are examined, it is seen that "Computers & Education" and “Internet and Higher Education” journals come to the fore. When the number of citations per article is examined, "Internet and Higher Education” journal comes to the fore. This journal is followed by “Journal of Computer Assisted Learning” and “Computers & Education”. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(1), 194-216. 203 Table 4. Citation Ranking of Journals Source Titles Documents Citations Total Link Strength Number of Citations Per Research Computers & Education 48 2549 142 53,10 Internet and Higher Education 31 2536 179 81,81 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 39 1076 109 27,59 Computer Assisted Language Learning 17 738 38 43,41 Educatıonal Technology Society 26 722 47 27,77 Interactıve Learning Environments 34 664 59 19,53 International Review of Research In Open and Distributed Learning 19 648 35 34,11 Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 11 601 70 54,64 British Journal of Educational Technology 22 520 46 23,64 Learning Media and Technology 11 502 38 45,64 Medical Teacher 11 414 6 37,64 Journal of Computing In Higher Education 8 331 20 41,38 Comunicar 7 328 0 46,86 Educational Technology Research and Development 13 260 41 20,00 Turkısh Online Journal of Educational Technology 8 194 11 24,25 Innovations In Education and Teaching International 12 189 23 15,75 Education and Information Technologies 23 167 32 7,26 Technology Pedagogy and Education 16 157 36 9,81 International Journal of Educational Technology In Higher Education 10 123 26 12,30 Recall 6 122 19 20,33 Language Learning Technology 8 105 7 13,13 Donmuş-Kaya 204 Table 5 shows the number of publications and citations of the most influential author in educational research area. The first 20 authors with at least 150 citations in the relevant indexes are listed according to the number of citations. When the citations received by the publications in the mentioned authors are examined, it is seen that "Christine Greenhow" and “Nada Dabbagh” come to the fore. These authors are followed by “Joan E. Hughes”, “Mark J. W. Lee”, and “Catherine Mcloughlin”. Table 5. Citation Ranking of Authors Author Documents Citations Total Link Strength Christine Greenhow 3 669 41 Nada Dabbagh 3 645 26 Joan E. Hughes 2 512 36 Mark J. W. Lee 2 445 39 Catherine Mcloughlin 2 445 39 Jenny Waycott 4 334 64 Lina Lee 4 260 15 Stefania Manca 3 246 30 Gregor Kennedy 3 244 47 Maria Ranieri 2 242 27 Timothy J. Newby 7 197 93 Chun Lai 3 194 26 Peggy A. Ertmer 5 193 60 Shanton Chang 3 186 24 Stephen J. H. Yang 2 180 3 K. Logan 2 174 17 John Sandars 5 172 0 Suraya Hamid 2 159 19 Yueh-Min Huang 5 159 5 Sherah Kurnia 2 159 19 Table 6 shows the number of publications and citations of the most influential organizations in educational research area. The first 21 organizations with at least 200 citations in the relevant indexes are listed according to the number of citations. When the citations received by the publications in the mentioned organizations are examined, it is seen that "George Mason University ", “University Texas Austin”, and “Charles Sturt University” come to the fore. These organizations are followed by “University Minnesota”, “University Maryland”, and “University Melbourne”. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(1), 194-216. 205 Table 6. Citation Ranking of Organizations Organization Documents Citations Total Link Strength George Mason University 3 645 27 University Texas Austin 8 628 52 Charles Sturt University 4 614 67 University Minnesota 4 594 47 University Maryland 4 519 8 University Melbourne 11 505 72 Australian Catholic University 3 448 36 University N Carolina 4 395 56 University Hong Kong 12 386 50 Open University 16 342 28 University London 8 339 48 Michigan State University 8 330 28 Nanyang Technology University 10 292 30 National Center University 11 284 31 University Leeds 8 267 2 University Edinburgh 3 263 31 University New Hampshire 4 260 14 University Huelva 3 224 10 University llinois 6 204 13 National Cheng Kung University 9 203 16 University Nottingham 4 200 27 Table 7 contains the number of citations of the 12 most cited articles with at least 150 citations among the articles included in the review according to WoS data. When the most cited articles are examined, it is seen that " Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning." come to the fore. Donmuş-Kaya 206 Table 7. Citation Ranking of Documents Document Citations Links 1. Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 3-8. 637 37 2. Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now?. Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246-259. 509 68 3. Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. The Internet and Higher Education, 19, 18-26. 482 9 4. Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. The internet and higher education, 11(2), 71-80. 384 66 5. McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. (2010). Personalized and self- regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1). 340 48 6. Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2014). Technologies for foreign language learning: A review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer assisted language learning, 27(1), 70-105. 272 3 7. Ebner, M., Lienhardt, C., Rohs, M., & Meyer, I. (2010). Microblogs in Higher Education–A chance to facilitate informal and process-oriented learning?. Computers & Education, 55(1), 92-100. 264 21 8. Blaschke, L. M. (2012). Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A review of heutagogical practice and self-determined learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(1), 56-71. 199 7 9. Sánchez, R. A., Cortijo, V., & Javed, U. (2014). Students' perceptions of Facebook for academic purposes. Computers & Education, 70, 138-149. 182 3 10. Bennett, S., Bishop, A., Dalgarno, B., Waycott, J., & Kennedy, G. (2012). Implementing Web 2.0 technologies in higher education: A collective case study. Computers & Education, 59(2), 524-534. 163 43 11. Hemmi, A., Bayne, S., & Land, R. (2009). The appropriation and repurposing of social technologies in higher education. Journal of computer assisted learning, 25(1), 19-30. 158 29 12. Greenhow, C., & Lewin, C. (2016). Social media and education: Reconceptualizing the boundaries of formal and informal learning. Learning, media and technology, 41(1), 6-30. 150 12 International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(1), 194-216. 207 3.2.2. Co-citation analysis (Author) When a co-citation analysis was conducted among the relevant publications, 18332 authors were found to be cited in the related field. When more than 20 citation criteria were set as the cut-off point, the number of authors was found 141 items / 6 clusters. Figure 7, the main research questions related to web 2.0 in educational research area co-occurrence map is shown. It is based on the information retrieved from WoS, which covers the publications from 2007 and 2021. Figure 7. Co-citation (author) Network As seen Figure 7, six clusters are formed on the map. Of these clusters, the red, green and blue clusters are larger and more distinctive than others. However, clusters seen as yellow, purple, and turquoise are observed to form less frequent and smaller clusters. When the entire map is examined, first, it seems that Catherine Mcloughlin, Vygotsky, Neil Selwyn, and Christine Greenhow are located at relatively central place and associated with many different clusters. This shows that Catherine Mcloughlin, Vygotsky, Neil Selwyn and Christine Greenhow were cited in many different studies. When the red cluster, which is in the center of the map and one of the most intense clusters, is examined, it is found that academics Catherine Mcloughlin, Vygotsky, Étienne Wenger, and D. Randy Garrison are located at relatively central place. These academics work on educational psychology, and digital technology (outside Vygotsky). When the green cluster is examined, it is found that persons Tim O’Reilly, Neil Selwyn, and Marc Prensky (In publications, Tim O'Reilly and Prensky are less highlighted on the map than Selwyn because they are named differently. However, looking at the detailed analysis, it was determined that Tim O’Reilly received more citations than Neil Selwyn with 121 citations) are located at relatively central place. O'Reilly is an author, and the founder of O'Reilly Media, popularizing the terms open source and Web 2.0. Selwyn is an academic working on integration of digital technology into schools, universities and adult learning. Prensky is an author who is best known for coining the terms “Digital Native” and “Digital Immigrant”. Donmuş-Kaya 208 The blue cluster is seen to consist of academics Timothy Teo, and Viswanath Venkatesh being located at relatively central place. These academics work on technology adoption, and psychology. In addition, this cluster includes researchers known for their work on research methods, mainly in qualitative research (J.W. Creswell, L. Cohen, etc.). When the yellow cluster, which is one of the relatively small clusters, it is found that academic In Lee working in Business Administration (Specialization: Information Systems). The second small cluster is the purple cluster which is found that academic Christine Greenhow. She works in Educational Psychology, and Educational Technology. The turquoise cluster, which is the last small cluster, is found that academic Thomas Cochrane working in Educational Technology. 3.2.3. Co-word analysis When the repeating keywords in the publications are analyzed, it is found that 1861 different keywords are used. When "being used at least 5 times" was determined as the cut- off point, 87 frequently used words were reached. In Figure 8, it is observed that the most- used keywords in the articles tend towards such keywords as higher education, social media, collaborative learning, e-learning, and technology. Figure 8. Analysis of Keywords When the map is examined, it is seen that five main clusters (red, green, blue, yellow, and purple) and relatively smaller clusters are formed. It is understood that the red cluster, which is a very large cluster, focuses on social media. Concepts are frequently used in studies on social media that is seen that the focus is on issues such as teacher education, pedagogy, foreign language learning, and motivation. The second large cluster is the green cluster International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(1), 194-216. 209 focusing on technology (ict, distance education, pre-service teacher, professional development, digital literacy etc.). The blue cluster focuses on collaborative learning (computed-mediated communication, teaching/learning strategy, adult learning etc.). The yellow cluster focuses on e-learning (case study, engineering education, informal learning etc.). The purple cluster is the last large cluster focusing on higher education (wiki, assessment, project-based learning etc). 4. Discussion and Conclusions In this present study, the trends of the articles in the field of educational research area published in international journals related to "Web 2.0" are revealed through descriptive and bibliometric analyzes. In the terms of the results of the research, it is seen that there was a rapid increase in the number of related publications, especially in 2015-2016, and in the number of citations in 2019-2020. This result indicates that the interest and tendency of education researchers to use Web 2.0 increased in 2015-2016. Soomro, Zai & Jafri (2020) draws attention to the increasing popularity of Web 2.0s in educational research area. Considering the increasing number of publications over the years and the tendencies of researchers, it is normal for the number of citations to reach the highest level in 2019-2020. When the most popular countries are analyzed, USA and England have been the most published and cited country in education research area about Web 2.0. One of the countries with the most publications and citations in different bibliometric analysis studies on the use of technology-related topics in the field of education is "USA". (Amoozegar, Khodabandelou & Ale Ebrahim, 2018; Chen, Zou & Xie, 2020; Goksu, 2021; Khan & Gupta, 2021; Li & Wong, 2021; Lopes et al., 2017; Zawacki-Richter & Latchem, 2018). In addition, in Bozkurt's (2020) study on the field of educational technologies, it is revealed that USA is the country with the highest contribution of articles. Although it is interesting that the USA is in the first place in almost all of the studies carried out, it is not surprising. Because USA, both pioneered the traditions in technology (Bozkurt, 2020), adopted technology earlier (Rogers, 2003), and is the country located O'Reilly Media where the first to introduce the concept of Web 2.0. When the most popular journals are analyzed, “Computers & Education” has been the most published and cited journal in educational research area about Web 2.0. “Australasian Journal of Educational Technology”, “Interactive Learning Environments”, and “Internet and Higher Education” are effective about numbers of publication. The most published and cited journal in different bibliometric analysis studies on the use of technology-related topics in the field of education is “Computers & Education” (Amoozegar, Khodabandelou & Ale Ebrahim, 2018; Goksu, 2021; Khan & Gupta, 2021; Lopes et al., 2017; Shen & Ho, 2020; Zawacki- Richter & Latchem, 2018). In addition, in Bozkurt's (2020) study on educational technologies, “Computers & Education” journal is determined as the journal with the highest article contribution. This journal is leading in its field, has a high h-index, is at Q1 level and is an important journal to identify current research topics. For this reason, it can be said that it is preferred more by researchers. In addition, SSCI-indexed journals, like “Computers & Education”, tend to be preferred as target publications by countries where academic promotion is heavily decided on the basis of where the articles are indexed (Bozkurt, 2020). From this point of view, the result is normal considering the countries’ forefront in the number of publications related to Web 2.0 and considering that these countries direct academic promotion. “Internet and Higher Education” journal leaves behind “Computers & Education” journal in terms of citations per article. Because “Internet and Higher Education” journal has higher link strength than “Computers & Education” journal. An interesting Donmuş-Kaya 210 situation in the order of citations per article is related to the number of publications and the "Journal of Computer Assisted Learning", which is not at the forefront in the number of citations. This journal, which has a very high number of citations per article, has very low link strength. In other words, the citation power of the journal with other journals is quite weak despite the high number of citations. Finally, "Australasian Journal of Educational Technology", which is one of the top three journals with the highest number of publications and link strength, is quite low in the number of citations per article. Considering the ranking of the authors in terms of productivity, it is seen that the authors named “Timothy J. Newby”, “Kathleen Gray”, and “Peggy A. Ertmer” are in the top three. While two of these authors are in the field of educational sciences, Gray, who works in e- learning in the health field, is in second place. In the citation order, it is seen that the studies of “Christine Greenhow”, “Nada Dabbagh”, and “Joan E. Hughes” received more than 500 citations. It is seen that the authors who stand out in terms of productivity are not in the expected place in the citation order. Goksu (2021) emphasizes that productivity refers to the number of publications, but it is believed that it is more important for the researcher to produce effective and interesting publications. In this context, it is noteworthy that efficient authors studying “Web 2.0s” in the educational research area are not effective enough. It is thought that this may be related to the quality of the relevant publications or the study subjects. Although Timothy J. Newby has very high link strength, it is seen that he is not in the expected place in the citation ranking. In other words, although the author's co-citation power with other authors is quite high, he lagged behind in the citation ranking. Considering the order of citations per article, Joan E. Hughes ranks first. An interesting case in the citation ranking concerns Nada Dabbagh. This author, who has a very high number of citations, has very low link strength. In other words, the power of the author to be cited jointly with other authors is quite weak despite the high number of citations. Considering the rankings of organizations in terms of productivity, it is seen that Open University, University Hong-Kong, University Melbourne, and National Center University are at the top of the list. In the citation ranking, it is seen that the studies in George Mason University, University Texas Austin, and Charles Sturt University received more than 600 citations. It is seen that the organizations that come to the fore in terms of productivity are not in the expected place in the citation ranking. The fact that the organizations in the first six have more than 500 citations reveals the effects of these organizations in terms of citations. The presence of organizations in different locations in the list can be seen as an important indicator in terms of the visibility and efficiency of these organizations. When the most cited articles are analyzed, it is seen that most of them are related to higher education. In addition, when the authors of the most cited articles are examined, they overlap with the most influential authors. Three of the 12 most cited articles are published in Computers & Education, three articles in Internet and Higher Education, and the others in different journals. It is noteworthy that the other articles in the ranking are reviews, quantitative and qualitative studies in the context of research methods. This may be an indication that Web 2.0s, whose popularity in the field of education have increased over time, have been adapted to education by researchers with various research methods. It is important that new researchers on Web 2.0s in educational research area use these articles to form the theoretical framework for their thesis or other studies. When the most co-citation analysis in term of authors is examined, Catherine Mcloughlin, Tim O'Reilly and Timothy Teo are the most cited authors. It is seen that Catherine Mcloughlin and other authors in the cluster study on subjects suitable for the information age, especially in the field of educational psychology. From this point of view, it can be said that International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(1), 194-216. 211 most of the studies that refer to this cluster are studies that focus on educational psychology and digital technology. Tim O'Reilly is not an academic. He is an author who founder of O'Reilly Media, popularizing the terms open source and Web 2.0. Since the publications examined are related to Web 2.0, it is thought that the citation behavior to the author who first used this concept is high. The interesting result about co-citation analysis in term of authors concerns Timothy Teo. This academic is not one of the prominent researchers in both productivity and effectively. However, the citation behavior of the researcher in the reviewed publications is quite high. For this reason, it can be said that most of the studies that refer to the cluster in which the author is included are studies that focus on technology acceptance and that they often use qualitative research methods. The keywords such as Web 2.0s in educational research area, social media, technology, collaborative learning, e-learning, and higher education are the most-used keywords according to the co-occurrence analysis. This presents important findings with regards to determining the research subjects and trend research subjects that form the basis of the Web 2.0s in educational research area. The fact that the most prominent keywords are "social networks" may be due to the fact that social networks are the first Web 2.0s that come to mind. The use of social networks in education improves student satisfaction and engagement (Clarke & Kinne, 2012), writing skills (Hadjerrouit, 2014; Wheeler & Wheeler, 2009), collaboration (Preston et al., 2015), and academic skills (Lai & Ng, 2011; Wake & Modla, 2012). Similar to the results of this study, Iredale et al. (2020) concluded that the articles examined in their review study are mostly related to social media. The fact that the keyword "Technology" is the second most prominent word reveals that Web 2.0s are an important technology in the field of education. Other important words are collaborative learning, and e- learning. Web 2.0 technologies are structures that allow users to change, edit, share and comment on content through collaboration (Huang et al. 2013; Kale & Goh, 2014). The results of Magnuson's (2013) study confirmed that Web 2.0 can improve five information literacy standards, including information literacy related to collaboration and technology education. In addition, many studies point out that Web 2.0 technology encourages learners to participate more in the cooperative learning environment and mention the importance of the use of Web 2.0 technologies in cooperative learning environments (Barak et al., 2009; Chitanana, 2020; Ciampa & Revels, 2012; Deng, Li & Lu, 2018; Elgort et al., 2008; Huang, Jeng & Huang, 2009; Jones et al., 2010; Langset, Jacobsen & Haugsbakken, 2018; Mcloughlin & Lee, 2010; Seifert, 2020). The relationship between e-learning with Web 2.0 is thought to be more related to Web 2.0 Personal Learning Environments (PLEs). Because Web 2.0 PLEs have started to be a promising environments in e-learning (Rahimi, Berg & Veen, 2015). The last keyword such as Web 2.0s in education is “higher education”. This finding is supported by the fact that Web 2.0s in educational research focuses on higher education and that the use of these technologies provides new ways to support and enhance the learning process in higher education (Ajjan & Hartshorne, 2008). In conclusion, this study -as far as it is known, is the first bibliometric analysis study on this subject- aims to identify the changes and developments related to the use of Web 2.0 in the educational research area, to identify the connections between the studies and to provide a starting basis for revealing general trends. The increasing popularity of Web 2.0s, their positive effects on teaching-learning by enabling collaborative learning and interactive ways of acquiring knowledge, and their preference in higher education (Soomro, Zai & Jafri) are confirmed by the bibliometric findings obtained from this present study. In addition, this study reveals that the authors in the USA and European countries are mostly productive and effective in research on the use of Web 2.0s in educational research area. According to the results of this study, Web 2.0s are increasingly popular in educational research, studied Donmuş-Kaya 212 mostly by researchers of USA origin, published more in the journal "Computers & Education", attracting the attention of educational psychology and digital technology researchers, being more preferred in higher education, e-learning. It is an innovative technology that enables collaborative learning. 5. Limitations and Recommendations There are some limitations to this present study. The first of these limitations is related to the subject of the research. This research is limited to studies about Web 2.0s in the educational research area. For this reason, it is recommended to conduct bibliometric studies on different subjects in educational research, taking into account the macro data revealed in the current study. Secondly, the publications examined in the study are limited to studies in English (article, review, early access) scanned in the SSCI, SCI-expanded, ESCI and AHCI indexes in the WoS database. Therefore, in order to increase the generalizability of the results obtained from the research, studies that include studies in different languages, scanned in different databases and using different indexes should be conducted. The last limitation is related to the time range of the publications examined in the study. The publications examined in this study are limited to the studies conducted in 2007-2021(June). Therefore, researchers are advised to include studies conducted after 2021-June. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(1), 194-216. 213 References Aghaei Chadegani, A., Salehi, H., Yunus, M., Farhadi, H., Fooladi, M., Farhadi, M., & Ale Ebrahim, N. (2013). A comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of Science and Scopus databases. Asian Social Science, 9(5), 18-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n5p18 Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 71-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.05.002 Akçayır, G., & Akçayır, M. (2016). Research trends in social network sites’ educational use: A review of publications in all SSCI journals to 2015. Review of Education, 4(3), 293- 319. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3075 Amoozegar, A., Khodabandelou, R., & Ale Ebrahim, N. (2018). Major trends in distance education research: A combination of bibliometric and thematic analyze. International Journal of Information Research and Review, 5(2), 5352-5359. Anastasiades, P. S., & Kotsidis, K. (2013). The Challenges of Web 2.0 for education in Greece: A review of the literature. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 8(4), 19-33. Barak, M., Herscoviz, O., Kaberman, Z., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). MOSAICA: A web-2.0 based system for the preservation and presentation of cultural heritage. Computers & Education, 53(3), 841-852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.004 Bozkurt, A. 2020. Educational Technology Research Patterns in the Realm of the Digital Knowledge Age. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2020(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.570 Byrne, R. (2009). The effect of Web 2.0 on teaching and learning. Teacher Librarian, 37(2), 50-53. Chen, X., Zou, D., & Xie, H. (2020). Fifty years of British Journal of Educational Technology: A topic modeling based bibliometric perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(3), 692-708. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12907 Chitanana, L. (2020). The role of Web 2.0 in collaborative design: An ANT perspective. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09578-x Ciampa, M., & Revels, M. (2012). Student access to online interaction technologies: The impact on grade delta variance and student satisfaction. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 9(6), 31-42. Clarke, L. W., & Kinne, L. (2012). More than words: Investigating the format of asynchronous discussions as threaded discussions or blogs. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 29(1), 4-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2012.10784698 Conole, G., & Alevizou, P. (2010). A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in Higher Education. A report commissioned by the Higher Education Academy. Deng, L., Li, S. C., & Lu, J. (2018). Supporting collaborative group projects with Web 2.0 tools: A holistic approach. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 55(6), 724-734. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2017.1321494 http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n5p18 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.05.002 https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3075 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.004 https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.570 https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12907 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09578-x https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2012.10784698 https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2017.1321494 Donmuş-Kaya 214 Elgort, I., Smith, A. G., & Toland, J. (2008). Is wiki an effective platform for group course work?. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(2). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1222 Goksu, I. (2021). Bibliometric mapping of mobile learning. Telematics and Informatics, 56, 101491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101491 Hadjerrouit, S. (2014). Wiki as a collaborative writing tool in teacher education: Evaluation and suggestions for effective use. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 301-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.004 Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2013). Use of Web 2.0 technologies in K-12 and higher education: The search for evidence-based practice. Educational Research Review, 9, 47-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.08.001 Hollinderbäumer, A., Hartz, T., & Ückert, F. (2013). Education 2.0-How has social media and Web 2.0 been integrated into medical education? A systematical literature review. GMS Zeitschrift Für Medizinische Ausbildung, 30(1), 1-12. Huang, W. H. D., Hood, D. W., & Yoo, S. J. (2013). Gender divide and acceptance of collaborative Web 2.0 applications for learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 16, 57-65. Huang, Y. M., Jeng, Y. L., & Huang, T. C. (2009). An educational mobile blogging system for supporting collaborative learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 163-175. Hudha, M. H., Hamidah, I., Permanasari, A., Abdullah, A. G., Rachman, I., & Matsumoto, T. (2020). Low carbon education: A review and bibliometric analysis. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(1), 319-329. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.9.1.319 Iredale, A., Stapleford, K., Tremayne, D., Farrell, L., Holbrey, C., & Sheridan-Ross, J. (2020). A review and synthesis of the use of social media in initial teacher education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 29(1), 19-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2019.1693422 Jones, N., Blackey, H., Fitzgibbon, K., & Chew, E. (2010). Get out of MySpace!. Computers & Education, 54(3), 776-782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.07.008 Kale, U., Goh, D. (2014). Teaching style, ICT experience and teachers’ attitudes toward teaching with Web 2.0. Education and Information Technologies, 19, 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9210-3 Kasemodel, M. G. C., Makishi, F., Souza, R. C., & Silva, V. L. (2016). Following the trail of crumbs: A bibliometric study on consumer behavior in the Food Science and Technology field. International Journal of Food Studies, 5(1), 73-83. https://doi.org/10.7455/ijfs/5.1.2016.a7 Khan, F. M., & Gupta, Y. (2021). A bibliometric analysis of mobile learning in the education sector. Interactive Technology and Smart Education. In press. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-03-2021-0048 King, B.J. (2008). Web 2.0 and education literature review of tools& Technologies to enhance education. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/9010043/Web-20- Tools-for-Higher-EducationLiterature-Review-by-Brian-J-King https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1222 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101491 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.004 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.08.001 https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.9.1.319 https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2019.1693422 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.07.008 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9210-3 https://doi.org/10.7455/ijfs/5.1.2016.a7 https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-03-2021-0048 http://www.scribd.com/doc/9010043/Web-20-Tools-for-Higher-EducationLiterature-Review-by-Brian-J-King http://www.scribd.com/doc/9010043/Web-20-Tools-for-Higher-EducationLiterature-Review-by-Brian-J-King International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(1), 194-216. 215 Koza Çiftçi, Ş., Danişman, Ş., Yalçın, M., Tosuntaş, Ş. B., Ay, Y., Sölpük, N., … & Karadağ, E. (2016). Map of scientific publication in the field of educational sciences and teacher education in Turkey: A bibliometric study. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 16, 1097-1123. doi:10.12738/estp.2016.4.0009 Knorr, E. (2003). The year of web services. Retrieved from https://www.cio.com/article/2439869/2004--the-year-of-web-services.html Lai, Y. C., & Ng, E. M. (2011). Using wikis to develop student teachers' learning, teaching, and assessment capabilities. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(1), 15-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.06.001 Langset, I. D., Jacobsen, D. Y., & Haugsbakken, H. (2018). Digital professional development: towards a collaborative learning approach for taking higher education into the digitalized age. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 13(01), 24-39. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1891-943x-2018-01-03 Li, K. C., & Wong, B. T. M. (2021). Research landscape of smart education: a bibliometric analysis. Interactive Technology and Smart Education. In press. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-05-2021-0083 Liu, M., Kalk, D., Kinney, L., Orr, G., & Reid, M. (2009). Web 2.0 and its use in higher education: A review of literature. In E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 2871-2880). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Lopes, R.M., Faria, D.J.G.S., Fidalgo-Neto, A.A., & Mota, F. B. (2017). Facebook in educational research: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 111, 1591–1621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2294-1 Magnuson, M. L. (2013). Web 2.0 and information literacy instruction: Aligning technology with ACRL standards. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39(3), 244-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2013.01.008 McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. (2010). Personalised and self-regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1100 O’Connor-Petruso, S., & Rosenfeld, B. (2009). Web 2.0: What works–and what doesn’t– Experience from the trenches. AECT Annual Proceedings, 1, 370, 375. Olijnyk, N.V. (2015). A quantitative examination of the intellectual profile and evolution of information security from 1965 to 2015. Scientometrics, 105, 883–904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1708-1 O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & Strategies, 1, 17- 37. Preston, J. P., Wiebe, S., Gabriel, M., McAuley, A., Campbell, B., & MacDonald, R. (2015). Benefits and challenges of technology in high schools: A voice from educational leaders with a Freire echo. Interchange, 46(2), 169–185. Rafols, I., Leydesdorff, L., O’Hare, A., Nightingale, P., & Stirling, A. (2012). How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between innovation studies and business & management. Research policy, 41(7), 1262-1282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.015 https://www.cio.com/article/2439869/2004--the-year-of-web-services.html https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.06.001 https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1891-943x-2018-01-03 https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-05-2021-0083 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2294-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2013.01.008 https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1100 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1708-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.015 Donmuş-Kaya 216 Rahimi, E., van den Berg, J., & Veen, W. (2015). Facilitating student-driven constructing of learning environments using Web 2.0 personal learning environments. Computers & Education, 81, 235-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.012 Seifert, T. (2020). Harnessing collaborative pedagogies to promote writing skills in a Web 2.0 environment. International Journal of Learning Technology, 15(3), 255-274. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLT.2020.112171 Shen, C. W., & Ho, J. T. (2020). Technology-enhanced learning in higher education: A bibliometric analysis with latent semantic approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 104, 106177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106177 Soomro, K. A., Zai, S. Y., & Jafri, I. H. (2015). Competence and usage of Web 2.0 technologies by higher education faculty. Educational media international, 52(4), 284- 295. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2015.1095522 Unal, E. (2019). Web 2.0 technologies supporting problem based learning: A systematic literature review. Journal of Problem Based Learning in Higher Education, 7(1), 25-50 Wake, D. G., & Modla, V. B. (2012). Using wikis with teacher candidates: Promoting collaborative practice and contextual analysis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(3), 243-265. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2012.10782589 Wheeler, S., & Wheeler, D. (2009). Using wikis to promote quality learning in teacher training. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880902759851 Weshah, H. A. (2012). Understanding the pedagogies of blogs, wikis and discussion boards. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 9(6), 59-77. Williams, R., Karousou, R., & Mackness, J. (2011). Emergent learning and learning ecologies in Web 2.0. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 39-59. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i3.883 Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523-538. DOI 10.1007/s11192-009- 0146-3 Zawacki-Richter, O., & Latchem, C. (2018). Exploring four decades of research in Computers & Education. Computers & Education, 122, 136-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.04.001 Zupic, I., & Cater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472. doi:10.1177/1094428114562629 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.012 https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLT.2020.112171 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106177 https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2015.1095522 https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2012.10782589 https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880902759851 https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i3.883 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.04.001