Research Trends and Patterns of Language Education in Writing (2014-2023): A Bibliometric Analysis

Writing is the process of conveying ideas and arguments in a structured, coherent, and persuasive manner within a predetermined framework of words and formatting. This article will thoroughly examine the trends and patterns in the field of essay writing research using bibliometric analysis, revealing the most essential topics and influential figures in this area. The study aims to track the evolution of essay writing research since its inception and discern prevailing trends by examining source titles, geographical origins, affiliated institutions, and citation patterns in publications. Microsoft Excel was utilized for frequency analysis. VOSviewer was used for data visualization, while Harzing’s Publish or Perish (PoP) was used for citation metrics and analysis. Additionally, it covers vital themes based on keywords, publication titles and abstracts. This document also describes the significant contributors to the research. Contributing to the scant literature on the study trends of essay writing in social sciences, the findings provide critical insights into emerging trends and issues in article and journal performance, collaboration patterns and research components.


Introduction
Writing plays a crucial role in language education as it helps students develop brainstorming, critical thinking, and vocabulary skills and encourages them to speak and read in the target language.It is important for students to engage in active communication and regularly read scientific texts to enhance their writing abilities (Kim & Schatschneider, 2017).The competence-activity paradigm of language education prioritizes the development of productive foreign-language written-speech skills and language skills, contributing to the creation of written texts of academic, scientific, and professionally-oriented genres (Savage et al., 2016).However, there are several difficulties and problems faced by teachers when teaching writing, such as a lack of motivation among students and a lack of coordination of language and lexical skills, especially second language students and foreign language students.(Choubane, 2022;Nia & Fithriani, 2023).
One common difficulty is the language barrier, as these learners may not have a native-level command of the language they are writing in (Mavuso, 2020).This can lead to struggles with grammar, vocabulary, and sentence structure (Nguyen, 2021).Additionally, cultural difference may affect their ability to express ideas effectively, as certain nuances or cultural references might be challenging to convey (Amiruddin, 2022).Another common challenge is the lack of exposure to diverse writing styles, hindering their ability to adapt to different genres or academic conventions (Asnas et al., 2022).Furthermore, English as a Second Language (ESL) or English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students may face difficulties on organizing their thoughts coherently, impacting the overall structure of their written work (Alsariera & Yunus, 2023).Beyond language-related obstacles, motivation plays a crucial role, with some students experiencing a lack of enthusiasm for writing tasks (L.Arcipe & Balones, 2023).Overcoming these challenges requires targeted support, including language development programs, cultural awareness initiatives, and strategies to boost motivation and engagement in the writing process.
To identify potential solutions, an examination of language skills, specifically in the realm of writing within the context of language education, is imperative.This entails a thorough investigation into the extent to which previous researchers have delved into this field, including the methodologies employed, any novel insights garnered, and the identification of area where research gaps persist.A critical aspect of this inquiry involves determining the key experts in the field.Consequently, the execution of such research is deemed crucial to facilitate the ongoing exploration of pertinent and contemporary studies aligning with the challenges prevalent in the 21 st century.Therefore, this research conducted a bibliometric analysis of published writing in language education research from 2014 until 2023 to investigate the depth and breadth of scholars' work relating to writing in language education.It aims to answer three main research questions as follows 1.How has writing in language education evolved and distributed over time?
• Number of published studies per year.
• Source types and titles • Language of documents 2. What are some of the crucial topics on writing in language education research?
• Keyword analysis • Title and abstract analysis 3. Who are the key players involved in language education writing, and how have they collaborated?
• Publications by countries • Authorship analysis • Citation analysis

Methodology
Bibliometric analysis in this research considered all types of documents published in the Scopus database between 2014 and 2023.Scopus delivers the broadest coverage of any interdisciplinary abstract and citation database.A broad database can provide a thorough overview of the research output worldwide.The Scopus database is currently considered one of the essential sources of linked information for the international scientific community (Mansour et al., 2021) and also regarded as one of the international scientific community's most essential and pertinent information sources.
The technique required determining a keyword that would be used for search functions.Specifically, we utilized the phrases ("Writing") when querying the Scopus database for information on article titles exclusively ("Language") AND ("Education").Bibliometric analysis was executed by Scopus database as of 29 December 2023.Findings published between 2014 and 2023 were defined by the search parameters used.Previous research in bibliometric analysis in language education studied the article patterns and style is (Arik and Arik, 2017;Sahib and Stapa, 2021;Sun and Lan, 2021;Hyland & Jiang, 2021;Akbulut, 2020;Barrot, 2023;Miao et al., 2023).These studies are geared towards the field of linguistics, such as morphology, assessment in teaching and learning and language revolution in academic language.All this research is very important, and the main part is a 'bird eye view' to help new researchers or policy makers get the direction and look where they must continue from suggestions by previous studies.
Consequently, a total of 7497 emerged.The documents were further screened, and other unrelated subject areas were excluded, focusing only on the social science in the language education field and limited to ten years, leaving a total of 2,517 documents retrieved by Scopus.In addition, the standardized protocol of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) declaration was used for the review of publications, whose actions are shown in a flow chart (Figure 1).Hence, this article achieves conformity by adhering to the specific processes outlined in the PRISMA protocol (Liberati et al., 2009).We used multiple tools to obtain detailed results to answer all the research questions.We employed Microsoft Excel 2019 to calculate the frequency and proportion of each publication and construct relevant graphs and charts, and VOSviewer [version 1.6.16] to generate bibliometric connections and illustrate them.The citation metrics were calculated using Harzing's Publish and Perish (PoP) software.

The Revolution and Advancement of Writing in Language Education
This section discusses the bibliometric analysis results in relation to the following main questions: How has writing in language education evolved and distributed over time?We will look at the number of published studies per year, sources and document type, source title and language of documents.

Number of Published Studies Per Year
Table 1 provides extensive statistics on annual research in writing language education publications in ten years, suggesting an increase in the number of articles.Based on the table, we can see that the volume of publications began at 141 and has been maintained through 2014, with an increase in 2017.The increase in Scopus articles in 2015 demonstrates that there is a significant level of interest and awareness in the continuation of research in this  Furthermore, as seen in Figure 2 below, documents released in 2017 appear to have peaked in terms of citations (the total number of citations was 2193, and the average number of citations per publication was 9.92).Nonetheless, the number began to fall in 2019 and will continue to fall until 2022.The number of publications is about equal to the number of citations.From 2018 to 2019, the number of citations remained constant, but at the beginning of 2022, the opposite occurred; the collection of citations is shown to be quite low and rather contradictory to the number of publications, which is seen to be increasing.Publication in high-quality journals does not guarantee a high number of citations due to various factors.Open access vs restricted access can impact citation rates, as articles with open access are more likely to be downloaded and cited by a wider audience (Abduh, 2023).The multidisciplinary nature of some fields can also affect citation rates, as articles in these fields may have a smaller target audience (Thelwall et al., 2023).Promotion by authors can play a role in increasing citations, as actively promoting and disseminating research can attract more attention and citations (Khokhlov & Morgunova, 2023).The impact of research, the relevance of niche topics, and the age of publications can also influence citation rates (Sebo & Clair, 2023).Overall, while publication in high-quality journals is important, it is not the sole determinant of citation success.Other factors should be considered when evaluating the impact and visibility of research.

Figure 2. Total publications and citations by year Source types and titles
This study attempted to discover where writing in language education documents had been published by examining the data based on document source categories.As shown in Table 2 below, journals were the most prevalent source, accounting for 2082 (82.72%) of the total.Following that, are the overall publishing numbers for book, (n= 337, 13.39%) and book series (n=59, 2.34%).This can be seen as a significant difference between book and book series (n=278, 11.03%).From Table 2, the researchers' awareness of publishing articles in their field is very high, but most of them are more focused on research articles when compared to other document types.Researchers are highly aware of the need to publish articles in their field for several reasons.Firstly, rigorous peer review before publication ensures the quality, accuracy, and reliability of the information presented (Ashok et al., 2022b).Secondly, articles often present original research findings, contributing new knowledge to the academic community.Thirdly, articles generally offer in-depth discussions of research topics (Ashok et al., 2022a).Lastly, articles are the primary currency in academic citations and are more readily available in academic databases and repositories (Zisopoulos et al., 2022).Source Titles.A journal called System contributed the most significant number of publications on this research (n=53).This was followed by the Journal of English for Academic Purposes (n=51), which had only four publications less than the first journal.Surprisingly, Computer Assisted Language Learning received the highest cite score (n=6.5) and g-index (n=17).Table 3 below shows the top 10 most active source titles in writing in language education.The final method utilized to discover current patterns in document language has been discovered after identifying current trends in source titles.This terminology was employed in this study.
Basically, high-ranking journals have several advantages.Firstly, they typically maintain a rigorous peer-review process, ensuring thorough evaluation of published articles by experts in the field.Secondly, these journals often have a broad international readership.Thirdly, they have a notable impact factor, indicating the average number of citations received by articles in the journal (Triggle et al., 2022).Fourthly, the expertise of the editorial team contributes to the selection of high-quality articles, maintaining the journal's reputation for scholarly excellence (Smedsrød & Longva, 2020).Lastly, high-ranking journals have a clear focus and well-defined scope within a specific academic discipline (Aguinis et al., 2020).Note.Abbreviations: C/CP, average citations per cited publication: C/P, average citations per publication: Cite Score, average citations received per document published in the source title: g, g-index, h, h-index; NCP, number of cited publications; SJR, Scimago Journal Rank measures citations received by the source title: SNIP, source normalized impact per paper measures actual citations received to citations expected for the source title's subject field: TC, total citations; TP, the total number of publication.

Languages of documents.
Writing research in Language Education papers was reported in 10 languages.Table 4 below reveals that English was the most widely used language, representing 96.35% of all publications.The second most common language was Spanish, which accounted for 1.07%.The remaining documents were translated into 19 different languages, but they only made up less than 1% of the total.Finally, nine papers were released in only one language: Bulgarian, Croatian, German, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Norwegian, Polish, and Swedish.
The advantage of English if compared with other languages is that it global lingua franca and the predominant language used in many academic resources (Tiwari, 2020).Meanwhile, researchers proficient in English may have increased opportunities for academic collaboration and career advancement.

Crucial Topic on Writing in Language Education Research
The primary aim of the second research question (What are some of the crucial topics on writing in language education research?)In this section, the key player of the study was analysed in terms of the frequency of keywords document titles and abstract analysis.

Keyword Analysis
Selecting relevant keywords is vital in determining whether a document will be found when performing a search.Thus, frequently choosing relevant keywords can indicate the value of writing.Figure 3 below presents a network visualization of the author's keywords with a minimum of ten occurrences.When two keywords appear in the same article, they co-occur, implying a relationship between the two topics (Mansour et al., 2021).By examining the frequency and evolution of keywords over time, researchers can gain insights into the shifting focus of scholarly publications, providing a visual representation of the intellectual landscape.
High-frequency keywords may indicate influential topics or areas of sustained interest (Liu et al., 2022;Wang, 2023); researchers can conduct more effective literature searches and stay on track with the conceptual evolution of specific topics and identify hot topics and potential gaps in the literature.We employed VOSviewer's keyword and co-occurrence analysis to address the second research question.
Figure 3. Author Keyword The top 20 keywords in writing language education are shown in Table 5.Based on top 20 keywords below, the focus of prior researchers is still on basic needs in various languages's journals.However, we can see researchers have other focuses, such as in Higher Education, Literacy, Systemic Functional Linguistics, Collaborative Writing, Writing Assessment and Writing Performance.Based on this other keyword, we can see the current second focus in writing, and it includes a theory that they use in writing research.

Title and Abstract analysis
In this section, VOSviewer was utilized to check the titles and abstracts of gathered documents for occurrences and the number of co-occurrences per document.To be exact, this research constructed the co-occurrence network using the binary counting method.
Figure 4 below shows a visualization of the term co-occurrences network, depending on the title and abstract fields, in which at least 80 occurrences of terms appear.The node's width indicates the item's heaviness, while the thickness of the connecting line reflects the item's same colour (Mansour et al., 2021).The cluster colour in Figure 4 represents the theme for the title and abstract.VOSviewer generates three clusters from the title and abstract of the publication, reflecting the whole word containing 54 items.There are three main clusters among them : the first cluster (red), the second cluster (green), and the third cluster (blue).These three clusters represent three themes.Namely, the first and second clusters represent the main and specific topic, while the third cluster represents an instrument in collecting data or methodology part.The visualization in Figure 4 below serves as a navigational tool; as such, future research efforts could benefit from a holistic integration of both thematic and methodological considerations for a more comprehensive understanding of the subject matter.In this research, several terms of the same size, which are English, language, and effect, served as the core node of the entire network.Cluster 1 contains academic writing, challenge, experience, identity, insight, L2 writing, language, literacy, practice, and teacher.In contrast, Cluster 2 contains effect, EFL learner, EFL student, impact, performance, task and writing skill, and Cluster 3 has effectiveness, English foreign language, research, second language, and technology.Cluster 4 contains corrective feedback, EFL writing, and role; Cluster 5 includes case, genre, and pedagogy, and the last one is Cluster 6, which only has proficiency.
From the division of this cluster, Cluster 1 and 4 contribute to a holistic understanding of language education by exploring the broader aspects.Meanwhile, in Cluster 2 and 3 highlight the importance of effectiveness in language education, research methodologies, and the integration of technology.For Cluster 5, focuses on exploring specific teaching methods and understanding the impact of genre on language learning and the last Cluster 6 was focuses on assessing and enhancing language proficiency levels.

Figure 5. VOSviewer visualization of a terms co-occurrence network based on title fields
Following the keyword analysis, the next section discusses vital players and research collaboration.Additionally, citation analysis was performed to understand the prevalent issues better and demonstrate the depth of an article's impact.Even though there are various methods for assessing the effects of research papers, citation analysis is the most widely used.

Key Players and Research Collaboration
This section examines the third research question, which is to evaluate scientific cooperation on writing in language education research through (a) an analysis of publications by country, (b) the most active institutions engaging in this research, (c) authorship analysis, and (d) citation analysis.In Figure 6, in terms of total citations, although the United States was the most outstanding overall publications and citations (n= 497) (n= 375).China is second (n= 238) and (n=146), followed by the United Kingdom (n= 157) and (n= 110) and Hong Kong (n=145) and (n=108).Publication and citations in other countries, especially Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Australia, Turkey, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Spain, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Sweden, New Zealand, Russian Federation, and South Africa, remained low, with all of them falling below, the 35 total publication and 25 total citations, respectively.Based on the number of articles in this country and total publications and citations, it shows that language education writing research is still relevant and studied in most countries according to the language data of the respective countries.

Publication by Countries or Countries with most Contributions
Figure 6.Total publications and citation based on geographical location

Main Institutions
This section analyses the current situation of the most active writing in language education institutions.The total number of publications by the top 15 most active institutions is shown in Table 7.In terms of publication volume, The Education University of Hong Kong was placed at the top, followed by The University of Hong Kong and the Chinese University of Hong Kong; all three of these institutions in the United States, and one each in New Zealand and Singapore.These are among the most active writers in language education institutions.Most of these universities, are well-established institutions dedicated to teacher education and educational research and every university has strong programs and departments in language education.Therefore, it is not surprising that most of the language education studies come from these universities.Note.Abbreviations: C/CP, average citations per cited publication: C/P, average citations per publication: g, g-index, h, h-index; NCP, number of cited publications; TC, total citations; TP, the total number of publications.Note.Abbreviations: C/CP, average citations per cited publication: C/P, average citations per publication: g, g-index, h, h-index; NCP, number of cited publications; TC, total citations; TP, the total number of publications.

Authorship Analysis
The current research for co-author analysis is effectively examine the author's collaboration and produce a network visualization (in Figure 7).The study is since influential writers have been cited at least once in two publications and is calculated using the fractional counting technique.Specific characteristics such as colour, circle size, text size, and thickness increase the direction of the authors' connection.Associated authors are frequently listed consecutively, as indicated by the same shade.This collaboration clusters but also sheds light on the depth and impact of these scholarly connections, offering a fresh insight into the collaborative landscape of the research community.
From Figure 7, there are several clusters for each of these co-authors, the circle size for coauthor Zhang.LJ is the largest, followed by Hyland K and Yu S.There is a collaborative network for each main co-author with other co-authors and for each of them, there are several clusters that are connected to other clusters.However, the network distance between the principal co-authors is too far and has formed like an island, and only a tiny network connects each of the existing co-author networks-for example, Zhang L.J and Hyland K, Yu.S.The advantage of this network is that the researcher sees the strength of the co-author as a prominent author very clearly through the size of the circle; this helps other researchers focus on his recent and upcoming research in this field.Additionally, three institutions from China are among the most active research institutions in the writing language education area, which reflects their reputation.The top country in writing is the United States.Surprisingly, the three institutions from Malaysia are also listed as the most active research institutions.To understand how scholars interact with one another, it is necessary to conduct a research collaboration analysis.This can shed light on clustered research among authors from a specific area, which can be used to rationalize and stimulate new studies among authors from underprivileged regions (Donthu et al., 2021).This study identified the countries with the most active collaboration by examining co-authorship.

Citation analysis
A summary of writing in language education research citations from the Scopus database is shown in Table 9 below.For 2517 papers published over ten years (2013)(2014)(2015)(2016)(2017)(2018)(2019)(2020)(2021)(2022)(2023), 13557 citations are recorded, representing an average of 1506.33 citations per year.The second research question illuminates the dominant themes in language education on writing, showcasing the areas scholars have prioritized in their exploration.The prevalent focus on academic writing, L2 writing, and higher education underscores a shared commitment to understanding and improving written language skills within educational contexts.
Turning to the third research question, the analysis of international scientific collaboration unveils a global network of researchers engaged in advancing knowledge in writing within language education.The United States emerges as a central figure in contributing to this field, followed closely by influential participation from China, Asia, the United Kingdom, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Iran, and Malaysia.The nuanced variations in rankings, particularly in total citations, emphasize the diverse impact of research efforts.This underscores not only the quantity of collaboration but also the quality and influence of contributions from different regions.Identifying key collaborating countries provides insights into the current landscape of global research.It offers opportunities for future partnerships, fostering cross-cultural exchanges and enriching the collective understanding of effective writing pedagogies.However, the number of citations seen as somewhat declining is alarming.Therefore, the move to increase the number of citations of this article can be done in various ways among them i) the author of the article needs to re-examine hot topics and trends in writing language education research who potentially will get the high citations, ii) use interesting title for attract the reader iii) collaborate with industry partners or practitioners iv) active promotion v) attend the conference and build the collaboration and networking with others researcher (Efron et al., 2012).However, addressing the decline in citations can be tackled by exploring current trends, crafting engaging titles, partnering with industry experts, promoting actively, and fostering networking opportunities.

Conclusion
In summary, this bibliometric analysis significantly contributes to theoretical understanding and practical applications within the language education research.Theoretical insights have been meticulously derived by examining the evolution and distribution of writing research, employing indicators such as annual publication counts, sources and document types, source titles, language distribution, journal performance and collaboration patterns.The findings reveal that writing studies in language education continue to attract attention from both expert field researchers and emerging researchers across diverse fields, as evidenced by the substantial number of publications in high-indexed journals and allowing contemporary scholars to gain a broad understanding of the subject (Deveci, 2022).This study's sustained interest and relevance in language education, particularly in addressing critical problems within educational institutions, position it as a valuable contributor to ongoing research in the field.
The practical implications of this study are noteworthy, particularly in providing researchers with a comprehensive understanding of the landscape, identifying knowledge gaps, generating unique ideas for further investigation, and facilitating the strategic positioning of planned contributions to the field.As underscored by Henderson at al (2018); Sun and Ge Lan (2021), the continuous study in writing addresses the need for the latest thinking in resolving writing skills challenges among students.
Additionally, the study prompts a shift in researcher focus toward areas that are currently unexplored.For future research, exploring innovative research methods for teaching writing can pave the way for more effective and engaging approaches.The outcomes of this study are poised to guide scholars in understanding the global success of writing in language teaching and identifying avenues for future research.

Figure. 1
Figure. 1 Flow chart of the recommended search study from PRISMA diagram (Liberati et al., 2009; Page et al., 2021)

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. VOSviewer visualization of a terms co-occurrence network based on title and abstract fields

Figure 7 .
Figure 7. Network visualization map co-author

Figure 8 .
Figure 8. Network visualization map co-author by countries

Table 2
Number of publications by year

Table 3
Document type in writing research

Table 5
Top 20 keywords used for writing in language education Table 6 summarizes the published indicators for the top 15 nations in the keyword of writing in language education research.The United States has the most scientific papers in this research field with 497 documents, followed by China with 238, the United Kingdom with 157, Indonesia with 147 and Hong Kong with 146, Iran with 121, Malaysia with 118, Australia with 114, and Turkey with 104, respectively.The remaining authors of the articles below were dispersed worldwide, includingJapan, South Korea, Canada, Spain, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia,  Thailand, Sweden, New Zealand, the Russian Federation, and South Africa.

Table 7
Table8below lists the contribution of 15 leading researchers to writing in language education research.Boasting ten contributions or more each, Zhang, L.J., The University of Auckland, Faculty of Education and Social Work in New Zealand.Hyland, K. of the University of East Anglia, School of Education and Lifelong Learning, Norwich in the United Kingdom and Yu, S. of the University of Macau, Faculty of Education, Taipa in Macao are the three most active authors.However, other authors are still consistent in 4 to 8 publications, most active from China, followed by Malaysia, the United States, and Spain, and one in Australia, Indonesia, Canada, and Iran.This result reflects a global collaboration in advancing research within the field.

Table 9
Writing in Language Education Research MetricsTable10below summarizes the most often cited publications on writing in language education research, ranked by the number of times each document was cited.N.Storch authored the most cited document with 191 citations about Collaborative Writing in L2 Classrooms in 2013.The second publication is research on Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice, and the third is Translanguaging and the Writing of Bilingual Learners, written by K. Hyland, with 178 citations, and P. Velasco, with 155 total citations.DiscussionsIn response to the first research question, the investigation into the evolution and development of writing in language education revealed a steady increase in publications from 2014 to 2016, with a notable spike in 2016, potentially attributed to the growing significance of writing criticism within the academic community.However, a concerning decline in overall citations occurred in 2017, persisting until 2021, indicating a shift in focus or interest.The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021 brought about a renewed emphasis on the importance of writing in language education, leading to a subsequent rise in document production.Notably, articles dominated journal writing, with the top three active sources predominantly being journals controlled by reputable publishers such as Elsevier.The unexpected inclusion of the Asian EFL Journal as a prominent publishing entity underscores the diverse landscape within this field.Despite variations, the data indicates a consistent interest in exploring effective approaches to integrate new knowledge into language education.Both global events and changes in the publishing landscape shape this interest.