DINAMIKA STUDI KURIKULUM: Analisis Bibliometrik Publikasi di Jurnal Journal of Curriculum Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Penelitian ini dilatarbelakangi oleh perkembangan studi kurikulum global yang kompleks. Kompleksitas dan keberagaman permasalahan yang terjadi di berbagai belahan dunia menghadirkan tantangan dalam mengidentifikasi dinamika studi kurikulum. Penelitian ini dilakukan untuk mengidentifikasi dinamika topik penelitian dan produktivitas kepenulisan studi kurikulum dalam jurnal Journal of Curriculum Studies dari tahun 2010 hingga 2024. Metode yang digunakaan yaitu metode analisis bibliometrik dengan pendekatan kuantitatif menggunakan teknik co-occurrence dan co-authorship. Dalam menganalisis data digunakan aplikasi VOSviewer untuk memetakan topik penelitian dan kepenulisan. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian diketahui bahwa topik yang diteliti terbanyak pada jurnal Journal of Curriculum Studies adalah curriculum, history education, teacher education, curriculum reform, curriculum theory. Kata kunci curriculum dengan history education dan teacher knowledge dengan teaching quality terbanyak dikaji bersamaan. Penulis terproduktif adalah Deng, Craig, Wermke, Wahlström, dan Westbury. Kerjasama terbanyak dilakukan oleh Westbury dengan Sivesind, Charalambous dengan Hill, dan Rutten dengan Soetaert. Organisasi terproduktif yaitu Department of Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway dan Department of Applied Educational Science, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. Lalu negara terproduktif adalah Amerika, Inggris, Swedia, Australia, dan Kanada. Hasil penelitian ini berguna untuk mengarahkan pemilihan topik penelitian serta referensi kerjasama kepenulisan agar sesuai dengan perkembangan yang terjadi dan mendorong inovasi dalam studi kurikulum kedepannya. This study emerges due to the complex development of global curriculum studies. The complexity and diversity of issues occurring across the world present challenges in identifying the dynamics of curriculum studies. The objective of this study is to identify the dynamics of research topics and authorship in curriculum studies published in the Journal of Curriculum Studies from 2010 to 2024. The methodology employed is bibliometrik analysis with a quantitative approach using co-occurrence and co-authorship techniques. The data was analyzed using VOSviewer for mapping research topics and authorship. The findings indicate that the most frequently researched topics in the Journal of Curriculum Studies are curriculum, history education, teacher education, curriculum reform, and curriculum theory. The keywords curriculum-history education and teacher knowledge-teaching quality are the most frequently studied together. The most productive authors are Deng, Craig, Wermke, Wahlström, and Westbury. The most frequent collaboration is observed between Westbury and Sivesind, Charalambous and Hill, as well as Rutten and Soetaert. The most productive institutions are the Department of Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, and the Department of Applied Educational Science, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. The most productive countries are the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Australia, and Canada. The results of this study are valuable for guiding topic selection in future research and identifying potential collaborative references, thereby aligning with current developments and encouraging innovation in curriculum studies.
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 | 0.008 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.061 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.004 |
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".