View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Bibliometric Analysis of Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education: 2012-2023

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Bibliometric Analysis of Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education: 2012-2023
Language: English
Authors: Wangqiang Sun (ORCID 0000-0003-3258-0196), Yuting Ding, Ruirui Wang, Yan Liu, Yang Wang, Bailin Zhu, Qiuxin Liu
Source: Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2024 49(8):1121-1135.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Information Analyses
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Journal Articles, Global Approach, Higher Education, Foreign Countries, Cultural Background, College Faculty, Influences, Content Analysis, Evaluation Methods, Feedback (Response), Authors, Change
Geographic Terms: United Kingdom, Australia, Hong Kong, United States, China, Spain, New Zealand, Sweden, Portugal
DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2024.2351602
ISSN: 0260-2938
1469-297X
Abstract: Launched in 1975, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (AEHE) is a prominent international journal that focuses on assessment and evaluation within higher education. This bibliometric analysis of AEHE aims to gain insights into its evolution since its expansion in 2012 and identify its critical contributions to higher education. Bibliographic data associated with a corpus of 1,047 documents published in AEHE from 2012 through 2023 were initially exported from Scopus. Using the specific software, VOSviewer, performance analysis and science mapping were conducted to obtain the following findings: (i) The domination of Australia and the UK as contributors to this journal suggests that culture background significantly affects publication patterns. (ii) Prof. David Boud, along with his cooperative network, emerges as the most prolific author with a remarkably scholarly impact on AEHE. (iii) Prominent themes include concerns about feedback and the practice of assessment. (iv) References responding to the critique mounted for the traditional understanding of feedback serve as essential background materials for readers seeking a better understanding of published works. (v) From 2017 to 2018, there was a completion of conceptualisation regarding feedback as learner-centred processes; starting from 2021 onwards, research frontiers have shifted towards "evaluative judgement", "feedback literacy", and "cheating".
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1451421
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwE9gagPYMTtva7_ZBdNRK5OAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDG0nH4hhdk2_yfTBHwIBEICBmiFQgeuNp2ByZBtPj1XRoBjxQjWw_Lu9aitxXJjPNngqOpOcQdOTW7qfaQozPHM4RmgI_0SF9Ia0fVy8Rt7EVlH4l4XOTzASbaMeaqfLE1SAC8FsX6OXFaf0Bw_Ap-4DoRl7THmPytndyHqGSLS_ndqd8YvAk5hxZj0Y6gbgfZwuT31qppF6K6uNgac0Uh1Jh-nD8Ww9wU6Vdr0=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0181234174;eva01dec.24;2024Dec04.05:29;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0181234174-1">Bibliometric analysis of assessment and evaluation in higher education: 2012–2023 </title> <p>Launched in 1975, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (AEHE) is a prominent international journal that focuses on assessment and evaluation within higher education. This bibliometric analysis of AEHE aims to gain insights into its evolution since its expansion in 2012 and identify its critical contributions to higher education. Bibliographic data associated with a corpus of 1,047 documents published in AEHE from 2012 through 2023 were initially exported from Scopus. Using the specific software, VOSviewer, performance analysis and science mapping were conducted to obtain the following findings: (i) The domination of Australia and the UK as contributors to this journal suggests that culture background significantly affects publication patterns. (ii) Prof. David Boud, along with his cooperative network, emerges as the most prolific author with a remarkably scholarly impact on AEHE. (iii) Prominent themes include concerns about feedback and the practice of assessment. (iv) References responding to the critique mounted for the traditional understanding of feedback serve as essential background materials for readers seeking a better understanding of published works. (v) From 2017 to 2018, there was a completion of conceptualisation regarding feedback as learner-centred processes; starting from 2021 onwards, research frontiers have shifted towards "evaluative judgement", "feedback literacy", and "cheating".</p> <p>Keywords: Assessment & evaluation in higher education; bibliometric analysis; performance analysis; science mapping</p> <hd id="AN0181234174-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (AEHE) is an internationally recognized, peer-reviewed journal that focuses on research related to all aspects of assessment and evaluation within higher education. Its primary objective is to advance understanding of assessment and evaluation practices and processes for student learning as well as course, staff, and institutional development. The current editor is Prof. Malcolm Tight, from the Department of Educational Research, Lancaster University, the United Kingdom. With over ten years of experience in editing scholarly articles (Tight [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref1">47</reflink>]), he brings a wealth of expertise to the journal. Launched in 1975 and debuted as "Assessment in Higher Education", it has been known as "Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education" since 1981. In 1975, AEHE published only one issue. In the subsequent years, three issues were released annually. AEHE then transitioned into a quarterly journal in 1996. In the new millennium, the frequency of publication increased to six issues per year in 2001 and further expanded to seven issues in 2010 and 2011. Since 2012, the journal has consistently published eight issues each year. Currently, it garners significant attention with an impressive annual downloads/views count of 649K. These statistics underscore the influential impact of AEHE in the educational community as evidenced by numerous paper submissions and a diverse readership spanning across the globe (Tight [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref2">47</reflink>]). Indexed with an impact factor of 4.4 in Journal Citation Reports of Web of Science (2022) and boasting a CiteScore (Scopus) of 9.3 (2022), AEHE is listed within Q1 Best Quartile for both metrics. Furthermore, it ranks highly across various measures including the five-year impact factor, SNIP (Source Normalized Impact per Paper) and SJR (Scimago Journal Rank) within its respective field.</p> <p>Bibliometrics is an emerging knowledge system that integrates mathematics, statistics, and linguistics (Zupic and Čater [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref3">54</reflink>]; Donthu, Kumar, Mukherjee, et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref4">21</reflink>]; Gan et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref5">23</reflink>]). As a technology-driven approach in the field of big data analytics, bibliometric analysis acquires data from databases and employs algorithms and quantitative techniques in software to systematically handle, organize, analyse, and present bibliometric data in an objective manner. It is worth noting that the traditional literature reviews often use manual analysis with a limited number of references. In comparison to the traditional approach, bibliometric analysis not only enhances the efficiency and quality of literature screening but also elucidates fundamental characteristics and essential features of literature, thereby mitigating subjective biases (Zupic and Čater [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref6">54</reflink>]; Donthu, Kumar, Mukherjee, et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref7">21</reflink>]; Gan et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref8">23</reflink>]). Consequently, it offers researchers an efficient approach to identify potential targets and conduct comprehensive literature reviews.</p> <p>Notably, several educational journals have presented bibliometric analyses of journal publications. For example, Computers & Education has witnessed two bibliometric analyses: Zawacki-Richter and Latchem ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref9">53</reflink>]) first conducted an analysis of 3674 documents published in the journal between 1976 and 2016 to unveil significant advances in educational technology and theories of media and learning in four distinct phases. Chen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref10">17</reflink>]) subsequently performed another bibliometric analysis on 3963 articles published in the journal between 1978 and 2018 to identify research status and trends in educational technology. Bond, Zawacki-Richter, and Nichols ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref11">4</reflink>]) analysed a total of 1777 research articles published in the British Journal of Educational Technology from 1970 to 2018, revealing the common themes and the authorship status in those articles. In the recent three years, there has been an increasing number of such bibliometric analyses being conducted. Donthu, Kumar, Mills, et al. (2021) provided a retrospective overview spanning from 1979 to 2019 for the Journal of Marketing. Schoenfeld-Tacher and Alpi ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref12">42</reflink>]) characterised the forty-five years' worth of content (from 1974 to 2019) from the Journal of Veterinary Medical Education. Ozyurt and Ayaz ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref13">36</reflink>]) studied the first twenty‑five years' worth of publications in Education and Information Technologies while Guzmán-Valenzuela, Tagle, and Palacios ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref14">25</reflink>]) presented a historical overview commemorating the 50th anniversary celebration of Higher Education. Bouton and Halasy ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref15">9</reflink>]) conducted a bibliometric analysis to examine the scholarly activity of authors who published research articles in the Journal of Physician Assistant Education from 2011 to 2020. Breznik ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref16">11</reflink>]) performed a bibliometric analysis of documents published in the Global Journal of Engineering Education. Hallinger ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref17">26</reflink>]) provided an overview of contributions made to the Review of Educational Research over a span of seventy years (1931–2020). Additionally, similar aspects were explored for the Journal of Engineering Education (Qiu and Natarajarathinam [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref18">38</reflink>]) and the Journal of Special Education Technology (Sinha et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref19">44</reflink>]), respectively.</p> <p>As a distinguished platform dedicated to assessment and evaluation within higher education, AEHE facilitates educators and students alike in efficiently implementing assessment and evaluation practices in teaching and learning. Since its expansion in 2012, it has emerged as one of the foremost journals within the educational community, publishing eight issues annually. As such, summarising the prominent trends observed in this journal since its expansion presents an opportunity for educators and newcomers alike to swiftly comprehend the overall landscape of AEHE. While bibliometrics has been employed in numerous educational journals, no bibliometric analysis has yet been published in AEHE. Therefore, we are motivated to construct a comprehensive bibliometric overview encompassing all the documents published in AEHE between 2012 and 2023. In this context, our research aims to address the following inquiries: 1) What are the highlights, including the most influential countries/regions, institutions, authors, and documents? 2) What constitutes the primary background knowledge underpinning AEHE? 3) Which topics are currently trending and evolving?</p> <p>The structure of this paper is as follows: Firstly, we conduct a comprehensive review of the bibliometric methods used in this paper. Next, we present the results through performance analysis to highlight the prominent countries/regions, institutions, authors, and documents published in AEHE (2012–2023). Then, we employ the specific software, VOSviewer, to develop a graphical analysis of the bibliographic data from AEHE. Finally, we summarise the key findings and draw conclusions.</p> <hd id="AN0181234174-3">Materials and methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181234174-4">Data source and collection</hd> <p>In bibliometric analysis, a substantial amount of bibliometric data is typically required to effectively summarise and present the intellectual structure and emerging trends within a specific research topic or field (Zupic and Čater [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref20">54</reflink>]; Donthu, Kumar, Mukherjee, et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref21">21</reflink>]; Gan et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref22">23</reflink>]). As encompassing plenty data of eliminated influential academic journals, Scopus serves as an exemplary citation database specifically designed for acquiring extensive volumes of bibliometric data. The data in this study were collected from Scopus using the source title "Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education". The literature data retrieval was conducted on December 10, 2023, covering the period from 2012 to 2023. After excluding eight documents classified as Erratum or Editorial, a corpus with 1047 screened documents was identified, consisting of 1037 articles and 10 reviews. Figure 1 exhibits a four-stage trend of the annual publication of AEHE documents. In the first stage between (2012–2014), the count of documents decreases from 72 to 65. In the second stage (2014–2018), there is a quick increase from 65 to 98. Subsequently, during the third stage (2018–2021), the count of documents decreases again from 98 to 83. Finally, in the last stage (2021–2023), there is a significant leap from 83 to 139 publications. This increase may be attributed to an abundance of online pre-published materials.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Documents published by year in AEHE (2012–2023).</p> <hd id="AN0181234174-5">Research methods</hd> <p>Generally, conducting bibliometric analysis requires adherence to specific operational procedures. The techniques for bibliometric analysis primarily encompass performance analysis and science mapping (Zupic and Čater [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref23">54</reflink>]; Donthu, Kumar, Mukherjee, et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref24">21</reflink>]; Gan et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref25">23</reflink>]). The former accounts for the contributions and highlights of research constituents, while the latter focuses on the relationships between research constituents. In this study, we initially conducted a performance analysis of the literature after collecting and screening data from Scopus to identify the highlights of AEHE. Citation analysis is a fundamental technique for studying the performance of literature (Zupic and Čater [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref26">54</reflink>]; Donthu, Kumar, Mukherjee, et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref27">21</reflink>]; Gan et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref28">23</reflink>]). The number of citations exhibits a positive correlation with the degree of attention, indicating that a higher number of citations reflects a greater influence on the document. Nowadays, science mapping is often performed with network visualization software. VOSviewer, a Java-based information visualization software, offers free access (van Eck and Waltman [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref29">49</reflink>]). Up to now, it has been extensively employed due to its exceptional analytical capabilities, as well as its ability to enrich pathways through network metrics, clustering techniques, and visualization tools. Co-citation analysis is a crucial technique for science mapping, based on the assumption that publications frequently cited together share similar themes (Hjørland [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref30">29</reflink>]). Co-word analysis is another critically important technique for science mapping (Zupic and Čater [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref31">54</reflink>]; Donthu, Kumar, Mukherjee, et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref32">21</reflink>]; Gan et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref33">23</reflink>]). The underlying principle of this methodology posits that the close co-occurrence of words within documents signifies a strong conceptual relationship between them. To comprehensively analyse and explore the literature published in AEHE (2012–2023), we employed VOSviewer when using co-citation analysis and co-word analysis for the purpose of science mapping.</p> <hd id="AN0181234174-6">Performance analysis based on citations</hd> <p>To carry out performance analysis in this study, the data were collected from Scopus and meticulously screened to investigate the most prestige countries/regions, institutions, authors, and documents in AEHE (2012–2023) on the basis of their citation counts.</p> <hd id="AN0181234174-7">Citation analysis of countries/regions</hd> <p>Figure 2a illustrates the characteristics of the top 11 high-productivity countries/regions in AEHE (2012–2023). Australia secured the first position with total citations (TC) of 8,593. The exceptional productivity from Australia can be attributed to its remarkably high number of cited documents (CD) (<reflink idref="bib271" id="ref34">271</reflink>) and the highest average citations per document (ACPD) (approximately 31.7). The United Kingdom ranked second with a TC of 6012. Its second-highest CD (<reflink idref="bib242" id="ref35">242</reflink>) and substantial ACPD (around 24.8) contribute significantly to its elevated productivity level. Hong Kong stood out with an impressive TC of 2,471 and the second-highest ACPD of approximately 29.4. The United States and China followed closely with productivity levels of 2,329 TC and 1,378 TC, respectively. Spain, New Zealand, Sweden, and Portugal are characterised with a high ACPD exceeding 20 and have also contributed significantly to the publication of high-quality work in AEHE. These findings highlight the dominant presence of Australia and the United Kingdom in AEHE. Notably, these two countries share cultural similarities and possess English as their official language along with the other high-productivity countries/regions including Hong Kong, the United States, and New Zealand. Although the reach of AEHE is truly global, it is editorially based in the United Kingdom (Tight [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref36">47</reflink>]). Hence, such a background may facilitate publishing documents in this UK-based journal.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Features of the top-11 high-productivity countries/regions (a), the top-15 high-yield institutions (b), and the top-15 prolific authors (c) in AEHE (2012–2023), respectively: Total citations (TC, light grey with one-colour gradient filled), cited documents (CD, grey) and average citations per document (ACPD, light grey).</p> <hd id="AN0181234174-8">Citation analysis of institutions</hd> <p>Figure 2b depicts the features of the top 15 high-yield institutions, with Australian institutions dominating over those from the other countries/regions. Deakin University (Deakin Uni.) ranked first with exceptionally high TC of 2,992, owing to its highest CD of 67 and a significantly high ACPD value of approximately 44.7. Following closely is Monash University (Monash Uni.), which exhibits a TC count of 1,649 and a CD count of 25, distinguished by its remarkable ACPD value of about 66.0. This indicates an abundance of high-quality research output from Monash Uni. The remaining five high-yield Australian institutions include University of Technology Sydney (Uni. Tech. Sydney) (1,340 TC, 23 CD, and an approximate ACPD value of 58.3), University of Melbourne (Uni. Melbourne) (917 TC, 15 CD, and around 61.1 ACPD), The University of Queensland (Uni. Queensland) (634 TC, 31 CD, and about 20.5 ACPD), Griffith University (Griffith Uni.) (614 TC, 20 CD, and 30.7 ACPD), and The University of Sydney (Uni. Sydney) (442 TC, 15 CD, and approximately 29.5 ACPD). There are three UK-based high-yield institutions, namely University of Glasgow (Uni. Glasgow) (493 TC, 15 CD, and approximately 32.9 ACPD), University of Surrey (Uni. Surrey) (376 TC, 19 CD, and about 19.8 ACPD), and Middlesex University (Middlesex Uni.) (336 TC, 15 CD, and 22.4 ACPD). Hong Kong and New Zealand each contribute two high-yield institutions, respectively: The University of Hong Kong (Uni. HK) (1,573 TC, 42 CD, and approximately 37.5 ACPD), The Education University of Hong Kong (Edu. Uni. HK) (492 TC, 17 CD, and about 28.9 ACPD), University of Otago (Uni. Otago) (456 TC, 18 CD, and around 25.3 ACPD), and The University of Auckland (Uni. Auckland) (349 TC, 12 CD, and about 29.1 ACPD). Universiteit Leiden (Uni. Leiden) is the only top 15 high-yield institution from the European Union with 331 TC, 6 CD, and about 55.2 ACPD, respectively. The data of high-yield institutions further support the influence of the cultural background on publishing in AEHE.</p> <hd id="AN0181234174-9">Citation analysis of authors</hd> <p>Figure 2c exhibits the features of the top 15 prolific authors. Prof. David Boud from Australia, a pioneer in developing learning-centred approaches to assessment across the disciplines and new approaches to feedback, ranked first with 2,894 TC due to an exceptionally high CD of 26 and a significant ACPD of approximately 111.3. The following three top authors all share a co-author relationship with him: Prof. Elizabeth Molloy (1,158 TC, 4 CD, and an ACPD of 289.5), Prof. David Carless (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref37">1</reflink>,098 TC, 11 CD, and around 99.8 ACPD), and Prof. Phillip Dawson (889 TC, 22 CD, and about 40.4 ACPD). A similar co-author relationship with Prof. Boud also observed among the other five top authors: Prof. Michael Henderson (589 TC, 7 CD, and roughly an ACPD of 84.1), Dr. Tracii Ryan (385 TC, 5 CD, and 77.0 ACPD), Prof. Rola Ajjawi (372 TC, 11 CD, and approximately 33.8 ACPD), Dr. Paige Mahoney (304 TC, 3 CD, and about 101.3 ACPD), and Prof. Zi Yan (265 TC, 5 CD, and 53.0 ACPD). Additionally, the other two top authors have a co-author relationship with Prof. Carless, a co-author of Prof. Boud: Dr. Edd Pitt (273 TC, 10 CD, and 27.3 ACPD) and Prof. Ernesto Panadero (269 TC, 9 CD, and 29.9 ACPD). The characteristic indicates the presence of a cooperative network centred around Prof. Boud. Their work significantly influences AEHE's scholarly impact. Two more top authors form another pair with a co-author relationship: Prof. Nadira Saab (289 TC, 3 CD, and approximately 96.3 ACPD) and Dr. Bart Huisman (274 TC, 2 CD, and 137.0 ACPD). Finally, two individual top authors include Prof. David Nicol (642 TC, 5 CD, and 128.4 ACPD) and Prof. Sue Bloxham (300 TC, 3 CD, and 100.0 ACPD).</p> <hd id="AN0181234174-10">Citation analysis of documents</hd> <p>Table 1 presents detailed information on the top 20 cited documents, including titles and TC. Of these, 11 are from the cooperative network around Prof. Boud as previously mentioned. The document titled "Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design" (Boud and Molloy [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref38">6</reflink>]) ranked first with a super high TC of 763, testifying its foundation role in shaping our understanding of feedback as a learner-centred process. Following closely behind is "The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback" with a TC score of 683 (Carless and Boud [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref39">13</reflink>]). This paper introduced the concept of "feedback literacy", which has since become recognized as an essential way to making sense of feedback. Additionally, eight other papers listed in Table 1 contain the term "feedback" within their titles, indicating that there exists a robust body of literature focused on this topic within AEHE (2012–2023). Finally, the remaining documents listed in Table 1 primarily address various aspects related to assessment practices such as sustainable assessment, authentic assessment, self-assessment, and peer assessment.</p> <p>Table 1. The top-20 cited documents in AEHE (2012–2023).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Rank</td><td>Document</td><td>TC</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>1</td><td>Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design (Boud and Molloy <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2013</xref>)</td><td char=".">763</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback (Carless and Boud <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr13">2018</xref>)</td><td char=".">683</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective (Nicol, Thomson, and Breslin <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr34">2014</xref>)</td><td char=".">513</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Sustainable assessment revisited (Boud and Soler <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr7">2016</xref>)</td><td char=".">275</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>What makes for effective feedback: staff and student perspectives (Dawson et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr19">2019</xref>)</td><td char=".">208</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Authentic assessment: creating a blueprint for course design (Villarroel et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr51">2018</xref>)</td><td char=".">179</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Assessment rubrics: towards clearer and more replicable design, research and practice (Dawson <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr18">2017</xref>)</td><td char=".">171</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Developing a learning-centred framework for feedback literacy (Molloy, Boud, and Henderson <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr32">2020</xref>)</td><td char=".">169</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Establishing the critical elements that determine authentic assessment (Ashford-Rowe, Herrington, and Brown <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr3">2014</xref>)</td><td char=".">168</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Researching feedback dialogue: an interactional analysis approach (Ajjawi and Boud <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr2">2017</xref>)</td><td char=".">164</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>Peer feedback on academic writing: undergraduate students' peer feedback role, peer feedback perceptions and essay performance (Huisman et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr30">2018</xref>)</td><td char=".">156</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>The assessment cycle: a model for learning through peer assessment (Reinholz <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr39">2016</xref>)</td><td char=".">150</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>Does student engagement in self-assessment calibrate their judgement over time? (Boud, Lawson, and Thompson <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr5">2013</xref>)</td><td char=".">137</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Does peer assessment promote student learning? A meta-analysis (Li et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr31">2020</xref>)</td><td char=".">133</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>Student engagement scale: development, reliability and validity (Gunuc and Kuzu <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2015</xref>)</td><td char=".">133</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>'Now that's the feedback I want!' students' reactions to feedback on graded work and what they do with it (Pitt and Norton <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr37">2017</xref>)</td><td char=".">129</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>Feedback loops and the longer-term: towards feedback spirals (Carless <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr12">2019</xref>)</td><td char=".">125</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>Academics' perceptions of the benefits and challenges of self and peer assessment in higher education (Adachi, Tai, and Dawson <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">2018</xref>)</td><td char=".">123</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>A cyclical self-assessment process: towards a model of how students engage in self-assessment (Yan and Brown <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr52">2017</xref>)</td><td char=".">120</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>Feedback on feedback practice: perceptions of students and academics (Mulliner and Tucker <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr33">2017</xref>)</td><td char=".">119</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0181234174-11">Science mapping</hd> <p>Science mapping employs bibliometric methods to examine the collaboration between disciplines, fields, specialities, and individual papers in a certain area (Zupic and Čater [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref40">54</reflink>]; Donthu, Kumar, Mukherjee, et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref41">21</reflink>]; Gan et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref42">23</reflink>]). It aims to construct a structural representation of the research domain by categorising elements such as documents, authors, and keywords into distinct groups (Zupic and Čater [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref43">54</reflink>]; Donthu, Kumar, Mukherjee, et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref44">21</reflink>]; Gan et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref45">23</reflink>]). Visualization techniques are subsequently employed to visually depict the emerging classification. In this study, two common approaches, co-citation analysis and co-word analysis, are utilized to explore the fundamental background knowledge as well as the evolving topics and forthcoming trends in AEHE (2012–2023).</p> <hd id="AN0181234174-12">Co-citation analysis</hd> <p>Co-citation analysis establishes connections between publications based on their co-occurrence in the reference list of other publications and subsequently organizes them into clusters with comparable topics determined by the strength of co-citation (i.e. the frequency at which both references are cited simultaneously by other publications). Due to its focus on highly cited publications, co-citation analysis often overlooks recent publications for fewer citations. Consequently, the obtained results have a noticeable time lag. Therefore, it prevails in providing structured background knowledge related to a specific field.</p> <p>This study conducted a co-citation analysis with VOSviewer on 32,690 cited references derived from a collection of 1,047 literature sources. The minimum threshold for the number of citations of each reference was set at 20, resulting in the selection of 51 co-cited references for subsequent analysis. Figure 3 presents the visual representation of the co-citation network. The size of each node corresponds to TC received by a reference within AEHE (2012–2023). Meanwhile, the lines and the distances between references depict their interconnectedness and relationships between references.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3. Network visualization of clustering of highly co-cited references in AEHE (2012–2023): Cluster 1 (grey), Cluster 2 (off-white), Cluster 3 (white), and Cluster 4 (light grey).</p> <p>The visual representation in Figure 3 illustrates that highly co-cited references in AEHE (2012–2023) can be divided into four distinct clusters, thereby reflecting the predominant focus on four specific areas within the background knowledge in AEHE (2012–2023). Furthermore, Table 2 provides a list of the top co-cited references for each cluster. Cluster 1 comprises seventeen references that have been extensively cited. They primarily pertain to exploration as a response to the criticism directed towards the traditional understanding of feedback. Cluster 2 consists of fourteen highly co-cited references predominantly centred around a learner-centric understanding of feedback. The third cluster encompasses ten highly co-cited references with a primary emphasis on peer assessment and other assessments. Lastly, Cluster 4 includes ten highly co-cited references that revolve mainly around principles governing assessment design in higher education settings. Both Clusters 1 and 2 are closely interconnected with regard to their association with feedback concepts, while Clusters 3 and 4 concentrate specifically on assessments within higher education contexts. These findings align well with the results summarised in the "citation analysis of documents" section above, indicating that these highly co-cited references offer structured background knowledge pertaining to both domains of feedback and assessment. Notably, Cluster 1 is positioned adjacent to the other three clusters at the centre in Figure 3, suggesting strong interrelatedness between them. Hence, references within Cluster 1 serve as essential background materials for readers seeking a comprehensive understanding of research published in AEHE (2012–2023).</p> <p>Table 2. Typical clustering and grouping information of highly co-cited references in AEHE (2012–2023).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Cluster</td><td>Highly co-cited references in AEHE (2012–2023)</td><td>Co-citation strength</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td char=".">1</td><td>The power of feedback (Hattie and Timperley <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr27">2007</xref>)</td><td char=".">124</td></tr><tr><td>From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education (Nicol <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr35">2010</xref>)</td><td char=".">68</td></tr><tr><td>Differing perceptions in the feedback process (Carless <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr14">2006</xref>)</td><td char=".">67</td></tr><tr><td>Beyond feedback: developing student capability in complex appraisal (Sadler <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr41">2010</xref>)</td><td char=".">58</td></tr><tr><td char=".">2</td><td>Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design (Boud and Molloy <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2013</xref>)</td><td char=".">86</td></tr><tr><td>The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback (Carless and Boud <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr13">2018</xref>)</td><td char=".">85</td></tr><tr><td>Conceptualizing feedback literacy: knowing, being, and acting (Sutton <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr45">2012</xref>)</td><td char=".">46</td></tr><tr><td>Developing sustainable feedback practices (Carless et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2011</xref>)</td><td char=".">44</td></tr><tr><td char=".">3</td><td>Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective (Nicol, Thomson, and Breslin <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr34">2014</xref>)</td><td char=".">58</td></tr><tr><td>Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities (Topping <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr48">1998</xref>)</td><td char=".">37</td></tr><tr><td>Student peer assessment in higher education: a meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks (Falchikov and Goldfinch <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr22">2000</xref>)</td><td char=".">25</td></tr><tr><td>Effective peer assessment processes: research findings and future directions (van Zundert, Sluijsmans, and van Merriënboer <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr50">2010</xref>)</td><td char=".">21</td></tr><tr><td char=".">4</td><td>Using thematic analysis in psychology (Braun and Clarke <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr10">2006</xref>)</td><td char=".">54</td></tr><tr><td>Sustainable assessment: rethinking assessment for the learning society (Boud <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">2000</xref>)</td><td char=".">53</td></tr><tr><td>Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems (Sadler <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr40">1989</xref>)</td><td char=".">46</td></tr><tr><td>Developing evaluative judgement: enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work (Tai et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr46">2018</xref>)</td><td char=".">44</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0181234174-13">Co-word analysis</hd> <p>In this study, co-word analysis was conducted using VOSviewer under the "Co-occurrence" analysis mode, with the unit of analysis selected as "all keywords" (including author keywords and indexed keywords) based on their co-occurrence patterns. As they are extracted from the text in a document, keywords serve as refined representations of the scholar's research content, effectively unveiling the underlying topic and focus. Through categorising and combining frequently appearing keywords in literature, co-word analysis uncovers the themes in general and identifies research hotspots. Meanwhile, the examination of keywords during specific timeframes further elucidates forthcoming trends.</p> <p>Hereby, a total of 2,325 keywords were analysed from a collection of 1047 literature sources. Further, the threshold for occurrence of each reference was set at least 8 times for inclusion in the analysis. As "higher education" is a prevalent topic closely related to all documents published in AEHE, it was identified as a frequently occurring keyword and subsequently screened in the analysis. Ultimately, a total of 62 keywords were selected as the most occurring keywords with the strongest links for further examination. Figure 4 illustrates overlay visualizations of the high-occurrence keywords, employing a network visualization approach with distinct colour coding. In this case, grey scales are utilized to represent the corresponding average published years (APYs) associated with different keywords. It facilitates to analyse keywords over specific periods. The node size denotes the frequency of occurrence for each keyword, while the lines and distances between them reflect their relationships or connections.</p> <p>Figure 4.</p> <p>Overlay visualizations of high-occurrence keywords in AEHE (2012–2023) with grey scales ranging from white (lowest score) to grey (highest score): a global overview of all high-occurrence keywords (a), assessment (b), feedback (c), evaluative judgement (d), feedback literacy (e), and cheating (f).</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>The overlay visualization in Figure 4a presents the global literature map of the high-occurrence keywords in AEHE (2012–2023). As a prominent theme within this journal, "assessment" is appropriately positioned at the centre of Figure 4a, significantly with 147 occurrences and 45 links. Notably, "feedback" which has the second highest occurrence count of 117 and 36 links, is adjacent to "assessment". The strength of their connection is measured at 26. This indicates that the studies on assessment in AEHE (2012–2023) focus on exploring novel perspectives on feedback to foster learning-centred approaches. Figure 4b, c reveals that APYs of "assessment" and "feedback" are approximately around 2017.3 and 2018.0, respectively. Significantly, "peer assessment" and "self-assessment" emerged as the most prominent areas linking assessment with feedback, with respective occurrence counts of 58 and 45. Notably, both concepts exhibit substantial APYs from 2017 to 2018, aligning with those of "assessment" and "feedback". This observation suggests that the conceptualisation has been accomplished in the studies pertaining to both "assessment" and "feedback" during this period. Regarding trends, the initial focus of studies linking assessment and feedback was primarily on "evaluation," as indicated by an APY of about 2015.2. This finding implies a preceding phase of concept development before 2017. Furthermore, numerous peripheral keywords display more recent APYs post-2018. The results indicate their limited co-occurrence with assessment and feedback. Consequently, this highlights a literature gap in the studies exploring the connection between assessment and feedback beyond 2018.</p> <p>The research frontiers in AEHE from 2021 onwards are highlighted in grey in Figure 4a, with a focus on "evaluative judgement" (approximately 2022.3 APY), "feedback literacy" (around 2021.9 APY), and "cheating" (about 2021.3 APY). The term "evaluative judgement" refers to the ability to access the quality of one's own work as well as that of others (Chen et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref46">16</reflink>]). Featured with the most recent APY, Figure 4d demonstrates that the studies linking evaluative judgement primarily originated from investigations into "feedback". The result is also connected to most other keywords shown in Figure 4c with APYs ranging from 2017 to 2020. It indicates that "evaluative judgement" represents a frontier within the field of "feedback". Furthermore, "feedback literacy" denotes the understandings, capacities and dispositions needed to make sense of information and use it to enhance work or learning strategies (Carless and Boud [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref47">13</reflink>]). The findings in Figure 4e demonstrate that the emergence of "feedback literacy" research is rooted in both "assessment" and "feedback". Similarly, Figures 4b, c also reveal a significant overlap between these two domains. Moreover, the time span of their APYs ranges from 2016 to 2020, indicating that "feedback literacy" represents a cutting-edge area bridging "assessment" and "feedback". With the rapid development of information technology and the frequent occurrence of unpredictable incidents like COVID-19, online learning offers benefits for educators and students (Henderson et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref48">28</reflink>]; Schultz et al. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref49">43</reflink>]). However, it also engenders instances of academic misconduct. Figure 4f illustrates that studies investigating cheating primarily originate from the domain of "assessment", with other linking keywords closely associated with academic misconduct. Their APYs range from 2017 to 2020, highlighting how new challenges related to academic misconduct within assessment have become an emerging research frontier in AEHE.</p> <hd id="AN0181234174-14">Conclusions</hd> <p>We aim to comprehensively analyse relevant documents in this paper, capturing the key findings, background knowledge, hot topics, and new development in AEHE (2012–2023) through an exhaustive bibliometric analysis. Initially, we retrieved documents published in AEHE collected from the Scopus database between 2012 and 2023. Subsequently, meticulously screened data were subjected to performance analysis and further processed for science mapping using VOSviewer. Ultimately, we present some critical judgments of the study as follows:</p> <p>First, from the perspectives of countries/regions and research institutions, Australia emerges as the leading contributor in AEHE (2012–2023), with seven highly productive institutions including the top-ranked Deakin Uni. Additionally, three high-yield institutions from the United Kingdom also make significant research contributions. These findings suggest that cultural background may facilitate publishing documents in this UK-based journal.</p> <p>Second, Prof. David Boud is ranked as the foremost influential author, surrounded by a cooperative network that significantly contributes to the scholarly impact of AEHE.</p> <p>Third, the analysis of the top 20 cited documents reveals that the exploration of feedback-related concerns has emerged as a prominent focal point in scholarly publications within AEHE. Additionally, several highly cited papers discuss various assessment practices such as sustainable assessment, authentic assessment, self-assessment, and peer assessment.</p> <p>Fourth, co-citation analysis provides structured background knowledge that encompasses the fields of feedback and assessment. References responding to the critique mounted for the traditional understanding of feedback are indispensable for readers to gain a better comprehension of works published in AEHE.</p> <p>Fifth, co-word analysis reflects the emerging trends and advancements in AEHE (2012–2023). Feedback as a learner-centred process holds the utmost significance in the assessment practices within higher education. The conceptualisation related to this aspect has been successfully accomplished during 2017–2018. Starting from 2021, the research endeavours will primarily focus on exploring "evaluative judgement", "feedback literacy", and "cheating" within the context of AEHE.</p> <p>According to this bibliometric review, it is noteworthy that a UK/Australia bias exists in AEHE. This observation reflects the dominance of Western-centric perspectives and its impact on the global understanding of assessment and evaluation within higher education. As a UK-based journal, it is challenging for AEHE to immediately mitigate the influence of a pro-Western cultural background on publication patterns. However, in the long run, it becomes necessary to implement effective measures aimed at encouraging non-Western authors to contribute their work to AEHE. These measures may include reducing language barriers for reviewing papers from non-English speaking authors, expanding the pool of reviewers from non-English speaking countries/regions, and further increasing the frequency of annual issues. Further broader international participation is expected to contribute significantly to the future development of AEHE, positioning it as a top journal in the field of Education.</p> <hd id="AN0181234174-15">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We would like to acknowledge the Education Department of Hubei Province, China, Wuhan City College, and Wuhan College of Foreign Languages & Foreign Affairs for their funding that spurred this work.</p> <hd id="AN0181234174-16">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <ref id="AN0181234174-17"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref37" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Adachi, C., J. H.-M. Tai, and P. Dawson. 2018. " Academics' Perceptions of the Benefits and Challenges of Self and Peer Assessment in Higher Education." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 43 (2): 294 – 306. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2017.1339775.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ajjawi, R., and D. Boud. 2017. " Researching Feedback Dialogue: An Interactional Analysis Approach." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 42 (2): 252 – 265. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1102863.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ashford-Rowe, K., J. Herrington, and C. Brown. 2014. " Establishing the Critical Elements That Determine Authentic Assessment." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 39 (2): 205 – 222. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2013.819566.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref11" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bond, M., O. Zawacki-Richter, and M. Nichols. 2018. " Revisiting Five Decades of Educational Technology Research: A Content and Authorship Analysis of the British Journal of Educational Technology." British Journal of Educational Technology 50 (1): 12 – 63. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12730.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Boud, D., R. Lawson, and D. G. Thompson. 2013. " Does Student Engagement in Self-Assessment Calibrate Their Judgement over Time? " Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 38 (8): 941 – 956. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2013.769198.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref38" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Boud, D., and E. Molloy. 2013. " Rethinking Models of Feedback for Learning: The Challenge of Design." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 38 (6): 698 – 712. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2012.691462.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Boud, D., and R. Soler. 2016. " Sustainable Assessment Revisited." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 41 (3): 400 – 413. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1018133.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Boud, D. 2000. " Sustainable Assessment: Rethinking Assessment for the Learning Society." Studies in Continuing Education 22 (2): 151 – 167. doi: 10.1080/713695728.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref15" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bouton, M., and M. Halasy. 2022. " A Bibliometric Analysis of Scholarly Activity of Authors of Research Articles Published in the Journal of Physician Assistant Education from 2011-2020." The Journal of Physician Assistant Education: The Official Journal of the Physician Assistant Education Association 33 (4): 309 – 312. doi: 10.1097/jpa.0000000000000459.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. " Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology." Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77 – 101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Breznik, K. 2022. " A Bibliometric Analysis of GJEE Documents." Global Journal of Engineering Education 24 (3): 202 – 207.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carless, D. 2019. " Feedback Loops and the Longer-Term: Towards Feedback Spirals." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 44 (5): 705 – 714. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1531108.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carless, D., and D. Boud. 2018. " The Development of Student Feedback Literacy: Enabling Uptake of Feedback." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 43 (8): 1315 – 1325. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carless, D. 2006. " Differing Perceptions in the Feedback Process." Studies in Higher Education 31 (2): 219 – 233. doi: 10.1080/03075070600572132.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carless, D., D. Salter, M. Yang, and J. Lam. 2011. " Developing Sustainable Feedback Practices." Studies in Higher Education 36 (4): 395 – 407. doi: 10.1080/03075071003642449.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, L., S. Howitt, D. Higgins, and S. Murray. 2022. " Students' Use of Evaluative Judgement in an Online Peer Learning Community." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 47 (4): 493 – 506. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2021.1933378.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, X., G. Yu, G. Cheng, and T. Hao. 2019. " Research Topics, Author Profiles, and Collaboration Networks in the Top-Ranked Journal on Educational Technology over the past 40 Years: A Bibliometric Analysis." Journal of Computers in Education 6 (4): 563 – 585. doi: 10.1007/s40692-019-00149-1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dawson, P. 2017. " Assessment Rubrics: Towards Clearer and More Replicable Design, Research and Practice." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 42 (3): 347 – 360. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1111294.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dawson, P., M. Henderson, P. Mahoney, M. Phillips, T. Ryan, D. Boud, and E. Molloy. 2019. " What Makes for Effective Feedback: Staff and Student Perspectives." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 44 (1): 25 – 36. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1467877.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Donthu, N., S. Kumar, A. Mills, and D. Pattnaik. 2021. " Journal of Marketing Education: A Retrospective Overview between 1979 and 2019." Journal of Marketing Education 43 (2): 139 – 158. doi: 10.1177/0273475321996026.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Donthu, N., S. Kumar, D. Mukherjee, N. Pandey, and W. M. Lim. 2021. " How to Conduct a Bibliometric Analysis: An Overview and Guidelines." Journal of Business Research 133 : 285 – 296. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Falchikov, N., and J. Goldfinch. 2000. " Student Peer Assessment in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Peer and Teacher Marks." Review of Educational Research 70 (3): 287 – 322. doi: 10.3102/00346543070003287.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gan, Y., D. Li, N. Robinson, and J. Liu. 2022. " Practical Guidance on Bibliometric Analysis and Mapping Knowledge Domains Methodology—A Summary." European Journal of Integrative Medicine 56 : 102203. doi: 10.1016/j.eujim.2022.102203.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gunuc, S., and A. Kuzu. 2015. " Student Engagement Scale: Development, Reliability and Validity." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 40 (4): 587 – 610. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2014.938019.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guzmán-Valenzuela, C., A. R.-M. Tagle, and D. Palacios. 2022. " Celebrating Higher Education's 50 Years: Trends, Absences, and Opportunities." Higher Education 84 (6): 1183 – 1206. doi: 10.1007/s10734-022-00924-7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hallinger, P. 2023. " Mapping the Contributions of the Review of Educational Research to Education, 1931–2020." Review of Educational Research 93 (6): 791 – 824. doi: 10.3102/00346543221132771.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hattie, J., and H. Timperley. 2007. " The Power of Feedback." Review of Educational Research 77 (1): 81 – 112. doi: 10.3102/003465430298487.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henderson, M., J. Chung, R. Awdry, M. Mundy, M. Bryant, C. Ashford, and K. Ryan. 2023. " Factors Associated with Online Examination Cheating." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 48 (7): 980 – 994. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2022.2144802.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hjørland, B. 2013. " Facet Analysis: The Logical Approach to Knowledge Organization." Information Processing & Management 49 (2): 545 – 557. doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2012.10.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huisman, B., N. Saab, J. van Driel, and P. van den Broek. 2018. " Peer Feedback on Academic Writing: Undergraduate Students' Peer Feedback Role, Peer Feedback Perceptions and Essay Performance." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 43 (6): 955 – 968. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1424318.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, H., Y. Xiong, C. V. Hunter, X. Guo, and R. Tywoniw. 2020. " Does Peer Assessment Promote Student Learning? A Meta-Analysis." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 45 (2): 193 – 211. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2019.1620679.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Molloy, E., D. Boud, and M. Henderson. 2020. " Developing a Learning-Centred Framework for Feedback Literacy." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 45 (4): 527 – 540. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2019.1667955.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mulliner, E., and M. Tucker. 2017. " Feedback on Feedback Practice: Perceptions of Students and Academics." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 42 (2): 266 – 288. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1103365.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nicol, D., A. Thomson, and C. Breslin. 2014. " Rethinking Feedback Practices in Higher Education: A Peer Review Perspective." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 39 (1): 102 – 122. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2013.795518.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nicol, D. 2010. " From Monologue to Dialogue: Improving Written Feedback Processes in Mass Higher Education." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35 (5): 501 – 517. doi: 10.1080/02602931003786559.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ozyurt, O., and A. Ayaz. 2022. " Twenty-Five Years of Education and Information Technologies: Insights from a Topic Modeling Based Bibliometric Analysis." Education and Information Technologies 27 (8): 11025 – 11054. doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11071-y.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pitt, E., and L. Norton. 2017. " Now That's the Feedback I Want!' Students' Reactions to Feedback on Graded Work and What They Do with It." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 42 (4): 499 – 516. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2016.1142500.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Qiu, S., and M. Natarajarathinam. 2023. " Fifty-Three Years of the Journal of Engineering Education: A Bibliometric Overview." Journal of Engineering Education. doi: 10.1002/jee.20547.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reinholz, D. 2016. " The Assessment Cycle: A Model for Learning through Peer Assessment." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 41 (2): 301 – 315. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1008982.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sadler, D. R. 1989. " Formative Assessment and the Design of Instructional Systems." Instructional Science 18 (2): 119 – 144. doi: 10.1007/BF00117714.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sadler, D. R. 2010. " Beyond Feedback: Developing Student Capability in Complex Appraisal." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35 (5): 535 – 550. doi: 10.1080/02602930903541015.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schoenfeld-Tacher, R. M., and K. M. Alpi. 2021. " A 45-Year Retrospective Content Analysis ofJVMEArticles." Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 48 (6): 729 – 746. doi: 10.3138/jvme-2020-0073.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schultz, M., K. F. Lim, Y. K. Goh, and D. L. Callahan. 2022. " OK Google: What's the Answer? characteristics of Students Who Searched the Internet during an Online Chemistry Examination." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 47 (8): 1458 – 1474. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2022.2048356.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sinha, D. B., S. Sinha, A. G S, M. T. Islam, and D. Sahoo. 2023. " Twenty-Five Years of Research in the Journal of Special Education Technology: A Bibliometric Analysis." Journal of Special Education Technology. doi: 10.1177/01626434231187095.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sutton, P. 2012. " Conceptualizing Feedback Literacy: Knowing, Being, and Acting." Innovations in Education and Teaching International 49 (1): 31 – 40. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2012.647781.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tai, J., R. Ajjawi, D. Boud, P. Dawson, and E. Panadero. 2018. " Developing Evaluative Judgement: Enabling Students to Make Decisions about the Quality of Work." Higher Education 76 (3): 467 – 481. doi: 10.1007/s10734-017-0220-3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tight, M. 2023. " Ten Years of Editing Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 48 (3): 259 – 261. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2023.2181601.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Topping, K. 1998. " Peer Assessment between Students in Colleges and Universities." Review of Educational Research 68 (3): 249 – 276. doi: 10.3102/00346543068003249.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Eck, N. J., and L. Waltman. 2009. " Software Survey: VOSviewer, a Computer Program for Bibliometric Mapping." Scientometrics 84 (2): 523 – 538. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Zundert, M., D. Sluijsmans, and J. van Merriënboer. 2010. " Effective Peer Assessment Processes: Research Findings and Future Directions." Learning and Instruction 20 (4): 270 – 279. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Villarroel, V., S. Bloxham, D. Bruna, C. Bruna, and C. Herrera-Seda. 2018. " Authentic Assessment: Creating a Blueprint for Course Design." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 43 (5): 840 – 854. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2017.1412396.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yan, Z., and G. T. L. Brown. 2017. " A Cyclical Self-Assessment Process: Towards a Model of How Students Engage in Self-Assessment." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 42 (8): 1247 – 1262. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2016.1260091.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zawacki-Richter, O., and C. Latchem. 2018. " Exploring Four Decades of Research in Computers & Education." Computers & Education 122 : 136 – 152. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.04.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zupic, I., and T. Čater. 2014. " Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization." Organizational Research Methods 18 (3): 429 – 472. doi: 10.1177/1094428114562629.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Wangqiang Sun; Yuting Ding; Ruirui Wang; Yan Liu; Yang Wang; Bailin Zhu and Qiuxin Liu</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Wangqiang Sun is an Associate Professor at Urban Construction Division, Wuhan City College. His research interests include nanotechnology, new energy, waste recovery, and bibliometrics.</p> <p>Yuting Ding is a Lecturer at Urban Construction Division, Wuhan City College. Her research interests include engineering cost, engineering management, and hydraulic structure engineering.</p> <p>Ruirui Wang is an Assistant Lecturer at Urban Construction Division, Wuhan City College. Her research interests include engineering cost, engineering management, and geological engineering.</p> <p>Yan Liu is a Professor at Urban Construction Division, Wuhan City College. Her research interests include engineering mechanics, computational mechanics, and quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods in higher education.</p> <p>Yang Wang is an Assistant Lecturer at Urban Construction Division, Wuhan City College. Her research interests include architectural design, building environment, and bibliometrics.</p> <p>Bailin Zhu is a Professor in Materials Science and Engineering at Department of Materials, Wuhan University of Science and Technology. His research interests include surface strengthening of materials, optoelectronic functional films, and organic-inorganic composite materials.</p> <p>Qiuxin Liu is a Professor and Dean at Urban Construction Division, Wuhan City College. His research interests include building environment and energy application.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib271" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib242" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref49"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1451421
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Bibliometric Analysis of Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education: 2012-2023
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wangqiang+Sun%22">Wangqiang Sun</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3258-0196">0000-0003-3258-0196</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yuting+Ding%22">Yuting Ding</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ruirui+Wang%22">Ruirui Wang</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yan+Liu%22">Yan Liu</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yang+Wang%22">Yang Wang</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bailin+Zhu%22">Bailin Zhu</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Qiuxin+Liu%22">Qiuxin Liu</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Assessment+%26+Evaluation+in+Higher+Education%22"><i>Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2024 49(8):1121-1135.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Journal+Articles%22">Journal Articles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Global+Approach%22">Global Approach</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cultural+Background%22">Cultural Background</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Influences%22">Influences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Content+Analysis%22">Content Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Methods%22">Evaluation Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Feedback+%28Response%29%22">Feedback (Response)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Authors%22">Authors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Change%22">Change</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom%22">United Kingdom</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Hong+Kong%22">Hong Kong</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+States%22">United States</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22China%22">China</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Spain%22">Spain</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22New+Zealand%22">New Zealand</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sweden%22">Sweden</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Portugal%22">Portugal</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/02602938.2024.2351602
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0260-2938<br />1469-297X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Launched in 1975, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (AEHE) is a prominent international journal that focuses on assessment and evaluation within higher education. This bibliometric analysis of AEHE aims to gain insights into its evolution since its expansion in 2012 and identify its critical contributions to higher education. Bibliographic data associated with a corpus of 1,047 documents published in AEHE from 2012 through 2023 were initially exported from Scopus. Using the specific software, VOSviewer, performance analysis and science mapping were conducted to obtain the following findings: (i) The domination of Australia and the UK as contributors to this journal suggests that culture background significantly affects publication patterns. (ii) Prof. David Boud, along with his cooperative network, emerges as the most prolific author with a remarkably scholarly impact on AEHE. (iii) Prominent themes include concerns about feedback and the practice of assessment. (iv) References responding to the critique mounted for the traditional understanding of feedback serve as essential background materials for readers seeking a better understanding of published works. (v) From 2017 to 2018, there was a completion of conceptualisation regarding feedback as learner-centred processes; starting from 2021 onwards, research frontiers have shifted towards "evaluative judgement", "feedback literacy", and "cheating".
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1451421
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1451421
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/02602938.2024.2351602
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 1121
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Journal Articles
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Global Approach
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cultural Background
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Influences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Content Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Feedback (Response)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Authors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Australia
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Hong Kong
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United States
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: China
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Spain
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: New Zealand
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sweden
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Portugal
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Bibliometric Analysis of Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education: 2012-2023
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wangqiang Sun
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yuting Ding
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ruirui Wang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yan Liu
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yang Wang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bailin Zhu
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Qiuxin Liu
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0260-2938
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1469-297X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 49
            – Type: issue
              Value: 8
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1