Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38327399›Full record

ReviewHeliyon2024

Scientific mapping of research on English as a foreign language (EFL) reading instruction: A thirty-year perspective.

Feifei Chen, Rohaya Abdullah

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Feifei ChenDepartment of College English, Zhejiang Yuexiu University, Shaoxing, China.
Rohaya AbdullahSchool of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, English as a foreign language (EFL) reading instruction has emerged as a prominent and recurring research theme in the realm of education. Despite this growing interest, prior studies have not outlined the research status of EFL reading instruction from a bibliometric lens. Addressing this gap, the present study aims to provide valuable insights into the research landscape of EFL reading instruction by using scientific mapping analysis on documents sourced from the Web of Science Database between 1994 and 2023. The study found that: 1) The analysis of publication trends suggests that the field of EFL reading instruction continues to evolve, with a foreseeable ongoing increase in research output. 2) Asian countries, specifically Iran, China, and Saudi Arabia emerge as leading contributors and collaborators in terms of research on EFL reading instruction. 3) Authors mainly from Asian countries demonstrate the highest levels of productivity and citation impact. 4) The most productive and cited journals primarily originate from developed countries, notably the United Kingdom and the United States. 5) The research foci identified cover various aspects such as "technology-based instruction," "critical thinking," and "literacy skills." However, there is an emerging shift in research focus towards themes "English proficiency," "Covid-19," "technology," "blended learning" and "mobile-assisted language learning (MALL)." By shedding light on the significant concepts and trends of the research field, this study adds to the burgeoning body of literature and provides valuable guidance to new scholars seeking to enrich their knowledge and perspectives on this particular topic.

Indexed as

English as a foreign language (EFL) reading instructionResearch landscapeScientific mapping analysisTopical foci

Identifiers

PMID38327399
PMCPMC10847919

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.