Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 23, No. 0, pp.376-396
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 30 Jan 2023
Received 21 Mar 2023 Revised 12 Apr 2023 Accepted 17 May 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.23..202305.376

Research Trends in English Writing: A Semantic Network Analysis

Eunhee Park
Lecturer, College of Liberal Arts, Pukyong National University, Tel: +82-51-629-6927 jasminepark7@gmail.com


© 2023 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

This study explores the shifting landscape of English writing research from 2001 to 2020, utilizing a large-scale, data-driven methodology. Data from 1495 articles published in Korea over these two decades was collected and preprocessed with the Biblio data collector, then analyzed with Netminer. The approach involved four stages of semantic analysis: frequency, centrality, network, and modularity analyses. The findings highlight dynamic shifts in research focus. While keywords like ‘test’, ‘college students’, ‘vocabulary’, and ‘level-based’ remained consistent, the 2010s saw emerging themes like ‘task’, ‘textbook analysis’, ‘corpus analysis,’ 'peer feedback’, and ‘genre-based approach’. Centrality analysis showed that in the 2000s, alongside ‘sentence’, ‘questionnaire’ held a central position with multiple nodes linked to it. In the 2010s, ‘questionnaire’ persisted as a central theme but was joined by ‘relationship.’ Network maps generated with Spring 2D and PFnet depicted these evolving interconnections. In the second period, ‘feedback’ emerged as a central theme, yet directly connected to only two nodes: ‘error’ and ‘peer feedback.’ Modularity analysis identified six research groups in each period, with the ‘questionnaire group’ being most significant in the 2000s and the ‘peer feedback group’ gaining prominence in the 2010s. This research illuminates the evolving trends in English writing research, underscoring the potential of big data-driven approaches to uncover key insights and patterns.

Keywords:

social network analysis, SNA, semantic network analysis, research trend, English writing, L2 writing, centrality, community, modularity, Netminer

References

  • Chae, S. 2012. Identifying effective English L2 writing interventions: Emerging trends and issues in recent research. English Teaching 67(4), 3-24. [https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.67.4.201212.3]
  • Cumming, A. 1990. Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication 7(4), 395-411. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088390007004003]
  • Fatimah, F. and H. Masduqi. 2017. Research trends in EFL writing in Indonesia: Where art thou? Journal of Teaching and Education 7(1), 89-98.
  • Fortunato, S. and M. Barthélemy. 2007. Resolution limit in community detection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(1), 36-41. [https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0605965104]
  • Freeman, L. 1977. A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 40(1), 35-41. [https://doi.org/10.2307/3033543]
  • Freeman, L. 1978/79. Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks 1(3), 215-239. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7]
  • Girvan, M. and M. E. J. Newman. 2002. Community structure in social and biological networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99(12), 7821-7826. [https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.122653799]
  • Hwang, S. and J. Kim. 2019. Research trends analysis of North Korean English education using keyword network analysis. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction 9(18), 95-120. [https://doi.org/10.22251/jlcci.2019.19.18.95]
  • Jun, B. and C. Han. 2013. A method to decide the number of additional edges to integrate the communities in social network by using modularity. Journal of the Korea Society of Computer and Information 18(7), 101-109. [https://doi.org/10.9708/jksci.2013.18.7.101]
  • Kamada, T. and S. Kawai. 1989. An algorithm for drawing general undirected graphs. Information Processing Letters 31(1), 7-15. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0190(89)90102-6]
  • Kang, D. 2006. Synthesis of 40 years’s writing studies in the journal of English Teaching. English Teaching 61(special issue), 97-114.
  • Kim, Y. and Y. Kim. 2019. Social Network Analysis. Seoul: Parkyoungsa Co.
  • Klein, P. D. and P. Boscolo. 2016. Trends in research on writing as a learning activity. Journal of Writing Research 7(3), 311-350. [https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2016.07.03.01]
  • Kwon, E. 2021. Research trends in AI-based English language teaching and learning. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 21, 1313-1337.
  • Li, M. and N. Storch. 2017. Second language writing in the age of CMC: Affordances, multimodality, and collaboration. Journal of Second Language Writing 36, 1-5. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.05.012]
  • Lim, J. 2020. A comprehensive review of reading- and writing-related articles in Modern English Education in its 20 years of history. Modern English Education 21(4), 95-111. [https://doi.org/10.18095/meeso.2020.21.4.95]
  • Loncar, M., W. Schams and J. Liang. 2023. Multiple technologies, multiple sources: trends and analyses of the literature on technology-mediated feedback for L2 English writing published from 2015-2019, Computer Assisted Language Learning 36(4), 722-784. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1943452]
  • Ma, J. 2015. Changing trends in English second language writing research in English Teaching. English Teaching 70(5), 329-353. [https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.70.5.201512.329]
  • Manchón, R. 2011. Learning-to-Write and Writing-to-Learn in an Additional Language. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.31]
  • Medaglia, J. and D. Bassett. 2017. Network analyses and nervous system disorders. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Neuroscience. https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.01101 [https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264086.013.121]
  • Moreno, J. L. 1934. Who Shall Survive?: A New Approach to the Problem of Human Interrelations. Washington: Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Co. [https://doi.org/10.1037/10648-000]
  • Newman, M. E. J. 2006a. Finding community structure in networks using the eigenvectors of matrices. Physical Review E 74, 036104. [https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.74.036104]
  • Newman, M. E. J. 2006b. Modularity and community structure in networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103(23), 8577-8582. [https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0601602103]
  • Newman, M. E. J. 2018. Networks (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198805090.001.0001]
  • Newman, M. E. J. and M. Girvan. 2004. Finding and evaluating community structure in networks, Physical Review E 69, 026113. [https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.69.026113]
  • Park, E. 2021. Topic analysis in EFL writing in Korea using text mining. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics 37(3), 95-122. [https://doi.org/10.17154/kjal.2021.9.37.3.95]
  • Park, H. and S. Jang. 2014. A comprehensive review of English writing studies in English Language and Literature Teaching over the past 20 years. English Language and Literature Teaching 20(1), 403-426.
  • Riazi, M., L. Shi and J. Haggerty. 2018. Analysis of the empirical research in the Journal of Second Language Writing at its 25th year (1992–2016). Journal of Second Language Writing 41, 41-54. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.07.002]
  • Shin, Y. and Y. Kim. 2020. Research and trends in English language education from 1990 to 2019: A keyword analysis of published articles in English Language Teaching. English Language Teaching. 32(4), 205-224.
  • Swain, M. 1985. Communicative competence: Some role of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass and C. Madden, eds., Input in Second Language Acquisition, 235-253. MA: Newbury House.
  • Swain, M. 2000. The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf, ed., Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning, 97-114. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 1995. Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics 16, 371-391. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.371]
  • Won, Y. and Y. Kim. 2021. Analysis of research trends in Korean English education journals using topic modeling. International Journal of Contents 21(4), 50-59.
  • Zhang, J. and Y. Luo. 2017. Degree centrality, betweenness centrality, and closeness centrality in social network. Advances in Intelligent Systems Research 132, 300-303. [https://doi.org/10.2991/msam-17.2017.68]