Mapping cultural literacy programs in elementary schools over the last two decades: A bibliometric analysis of Scopus-indexed publications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on cultural literacy in elementary schools has gained increasing attention, yet the use of bibliometric methods to analyze its development remains limited. This study aims to map the scientific landscape of cultural literacy research in elementary schools over the past two decades by applying bibliometric analysis. Data were retrieved from the Scopus database using the keyword “cultural literacy in elementary schools,” covering publications between 2004 and 2024. An initial search yielded 219 documents, of which 62 irrelevant items such as conference papers, books, and reviews were excluded. A total of 157 journal articles were included for analysis. The data were processed using VOSviewer to generate citation patterns, publication trends, keyword co-occurrence networks, and collaboration maps among authors, institutions, and countries. The findings indicate a steady growth in publications, with a notable surge after 2020, reflecting the increasing global recognition of cultural literacy as a central theme in education. The United States and Canada emerged as the leading contributors, while Indonesia also demonstrated significant participation from a developing country context. Keyword mapping identified three major research clusters: (1) social interaction and family support, (2) teaching practices and curriculum development, and (3) cultural identity and research approaches. Additionally, the analysis revealed research gaps, particularly in areas such as motivation, engagement, teacher beliefs, and assessment design, which have received limited attention. These results provide insights into the evolution and current state of cultural literacy research in elementary education. By highlighting dominant trends, influential authors, and underexplored themes, this study offers valuable guidance for future research directions and policy development. Overall, the bibliometric mapping underscores the growing importance of cultural literacy in shaping inclusive, democratic, and globally aware elementary education.
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 | 0.011 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.208 | 0.293 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".