Exploring new frontiers of experiential learning landscape: a hybrid review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Experiential learning is crucial in education, as it offers hands-on, practical experiences that enable individuals to develop their skills and knowledge more engagingly and interactively. In recent years, experiential learning has become a significant aspect of education. To provide academic scholars with a thorough roadmap for further investigation, this study aims to provide useful insights into the bibliometric and content analysis of experiential learning, including keywords, well-known authors, publications, nations and topics. Design/methodology/approach This research does a rigorous bibliometric analysis to give a thorough and visually instructional assessment of the evolution and advancement of the literature on experiential learning. Its fast development between 1976 and 2022 is meticulously tracked in the research. By using VOSviewer and Biblioshiny tools, the present study presents a concise overview of 507 records retrieved from the Scopus database using the keyword “Experiential Learning”, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis protocol. Deeper text mining was done using Python libraries “Pandas” and “Natural Language Toolkit” and regular expressions. Findings The findings reveal a surge in the number of publications on experiential learning and provide insights, particularly using the theory, context, characteristics, methodology analysis, supporting researchers and practitioners to understand learning better and provide perspectives for future research. Descriptive bibliometric analysis showed that most contributions are from the USA, the UK and Canada. In-depth content analysis revealed five clusters: developments in learning, management education, engineering curricula, organisational learning and knowledge management and entrepreneurship education. The keyword co-occurrence analysis enabled linkages between relevant fields of study and significant research domains. The most commonly used theories were: experiential learning theory, social learning theory, relational coordination theory, empowerment theory, feedback learning theory, effectuation theory and human capital theory. Originality/value This study uses information from the Scopus database to do a bibliometric analysis of experiential learning from 1976 to 2022. This study serves as a valuable resource for researchers in the field, helping them to position their work more explicitly within the existing literature and highlighting potential areas for future research. It does this by thoroughly analysing the literature on experiential learning using bibliometrics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".