MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412740699 · doi:10.22329/jtl.v19i3.9370

Global Research Trends on Learning Technology in Psychology: A Bibliometrics Analysis

2025· article· en· W4412740699 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammad Jailani, Sari Mahanani, Selviana Vironeka Moruk, Giyono, Suparman Suparman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Teaching and Learning · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBibliometricsData sciencePsychologySocial scienceSociologyLibrary scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The urgency of this research stems from the growing use of learning technology in psychology, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of remote and technology-based learning. Although numerous studies have been conducted, the understanding of global trends in this topic remains limited. This study aims to analyze global trends related to learning technology in psychology using bibliometric methods. The methodology employed in this research is bibliometric analysis, using VOSviewer software to map prominent topics frequently discussed in academic literature from 2004 to 2024. The findings reveal that deep learning, self-efficacy, social relationships, and the impact of COVID-19 are dominant themes within learning technology in psychology. Additionally, a significant increase in publications and citations on this topic has been observed over the past two decades. The study also identifies six main clusters that illustrate interconnections among themes. In conclusion, learning technology is increasingly vital in educational psychology, particularly in student motivation, engagement, and performance. This research comprehensively maps global trends in learning technology within psychology. It identifies opportunities for further study, particularly regarding the impact of technology in the post-pandemic era.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0320.040
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.444 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Teaching and LearningSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207