Content uploaded by Mahani Stapa
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mahani Stapa on Mar 04, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Review of Educ ation. 2022;10:e3331.
|
1 of 26
https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3331
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/roe
Received: 1 October 2021
|
Accepted: 21 December 2021
DOI: 10.1002/rev3.3331
STATE OF THE ART REV IEW
Global trends of the Common European
Framework of Reference: A bibliometric
analysis
Farah Hussan Sahib1,2 | Mahani Stapa1
© 2022 British Educational Research Association
1Faculty of Social Science and Humanities,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bharu,
Malaysia
2Centre of Fundamental and Continuing
Education, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu,
Terengganu, Malaysia
Correspondence
Farah Hussan Sahib, Faculty of Social
Science and Humanities, Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bharu, Malaysia.
Email: farah_hussan@umt.edu.my
Funding information
None.
Abstract
The Common European Framework of Reference
(CEFR) is a crucial reference framework for informing
teaching, learning and assessment that has achieved
worldwide prominence in language education.
However, there have been concerns raised regard-
ing the breadth of its influence across different do-
mains and countries. Using a bibliometric approach,
a sample of 770 scholarly works on the CEFR publi-
cations from the Scopus database was observed to
investigate the CEFR research activity. The data was
analysed using Microsoft Excel for frequency analy-
sis, VOSviewer for data visualisation, and Harzing's
Publish or Perish for citation metrics and analysis.
This study sought to investigate the evolution of
CEFR research from its inception and subsequent
trends based on source title, country and institution,
and examined the citation pattern of the publication.
It also discusses the fundamental themes based on
the occurrences and terms of the keywords, titles and
abstracts of the documents. This paper also identifies
the major key players involved in the research. The
findings demonstrate that the CEFR has been widely
disseminated and has had a substantial impact,
since the number of publications outside of Europe,
such as in North America and Asia, has increased.
2 of 26
|
SAHIB and STAPA
INTRODUCTION
Over the course of the twentieth century, scholars and language specialists sought to explain
the relevance of acquiring languages and how they might be incorporated and assimilated
into teaching, learning and assessment. In addition, the debates on using the first language
(L1) and second language (L2) in the process of teaching and learning continue to rage
globally to this day, particularly in the context of plurilingual education. In the light of multi/
plurilingualism, ‘hundreds of other languages are spoken as a result of the globalisation of
However, cross- country collaboration revealed a
dearth of CEFR research collaboration across Asia.
The findings provide essential input towards the
emerging movements and issues in articles, journal
performance, collaboration patterns, and research
constituents, contributing to the scarce literature on
the global trends of the CEFR.
KEYWORDS
Common European Framework of Reference, CEFR,
bibliometric analysis, language education
Context and implications
Rationale for this study
The aim of the study was to obtain a better understanding of the CEFR research pat-
terns and trends in the language discipline. The findings of this investigation provide
concrete evidence of its development and global dispersion.
Why do the new findings matter?
The findings reveal the prospective strength and weaknesses of the CEFR research
trend in language education and linguistics publications. They will also suggest av-
enues for further research.
Implications for researchers, practitioners and policy makers
Policy makers, universities and researchers should be encouraging and support-
ing more high- quality research in this important area. Researchers in the discipline
should also consider conducting more ambitious, high- quality research that is likely
to yield robust results. They will obtain benefit from the findings by using them to im-
prove the quality of research and fill in the gaps that have been identified as a result
of this study. The top publications, source titles, institutions, countries, authors, key-
words and citation metrics provide valuable information and future direction for other
researchers looking to produce additional high- quality CEFR research publications.
|
3 of 26
GLOBAL TR ENDS OF THE COMMON EUROPE AN
FRA MEWORK O F REFERENCE: A BIB LIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
capital, economic migration, tourism, and student mobility, among other movements’ (Erling
& Moore, 2021, p. 2). The study of L2 learning has attracted researchers from many aspects
of the field, such as medicine, anthropology, sociology, and education. L2 learning precisely
helps to encourage students to have an equal chance to learn an additional language ‘with
an active involvement and collaboration of L2 educators with L2 learners’ (Dixon et al., 2012,
p. 39). Due to the rapid evolution of language education, concerns have been raised about
the quality of language use and how to achieve mutual comprehension and recognition of its
practice across the continents. Hence, a robust framework is needed to address the issues
of language teaching and learning to standardise its usage.
The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) is a comprehensive approach
to developing international standards established by the Council of Europe (Council of
Europe, 2001). Since its inception in 2001, the CEFR has infiltrated various parts of the
educational landscape, including language curricula, teaching materials, teacher education
and assessment. The CEFR has a wide range of effects in the educational scene. It has
been equally widely used in curricula and language policies today, with major attention paid
to language testing (Little, 2007; Tono, 2019). However, despite its widespread usage in
assessments and tests, past studies have revealed that the CEFR has a low impact in this
sector (Díez- Bedmar and Byram, 2018).
When the CEFR is brought into unique educational environments, teachers frequently
experience difficulties comprehending and executing the abstract concepts in the absence
of concrete exemplars (Mison & Jang, 2011). Teacher opinions on the CEFR indicate that
the framework is difficult to understand, resulting in teachers' having limited knowledge of
the CEFR framework (Alih et al., 2020). Hence, the framework is reported to have no further
application to classroom teaching (Franz & Teo, 2018). Its full potential has yet to be realised
because it is difficult to grasp and teachers are unprepared to implement it (Jones & Saville,
2009).
On the contrary, the CEFR has demonstrated some impact on English language teaching
and learning. It improves language courses and curriculum development in higher education
settings (Kanchai, 2019). It was shown to be significant, with a considerable shift away from
teacher- centred and knowledge- driven classes, towards the encouragement of autonomous
learning (Nagai & O’Dwyer, 2011). Specifically, it also proves to promote students' under-
standing of sentence structures (Krishnan & Yunus, 2019). Although the framework has pos-
itive and negative characteristics, its global impact on language teaching cannot be ignored.
Previous studies have looked at the CEFR's features and their impact on users in the con-
text of education and language requirements skills in other settings such as professional job
demand and citizenship requirements (Read, 2019). Even though research in these areas
is well developed, studies on the CEFR research pattern and trend are limited. There is
an urgent need to research the growth of the CEFR to discover its most recent strategies,
which is essential to inform scholars about the degree of its presence and influence around
the world. Indeed, this can be accomplished by generating a bibliometric analysis of the
literature.
Bibliometric analysis is commonly used because it enables reliable quantification and
analysis of the publications indexed in a database under investigation (Carmona- Serrano
et al., 2020). In terms of CEFR research, Runnels and Runnels (2019) presented the first
bibliometric review of its impact in literature. They looked at the period from 1990 to 2017,
derived from Google Scholar and EBSCO Host as the literature search instruments. They
analysed the data based on the number of publications per year, the geographical location
of the research, highly cited works, and journals with the highest number of relevant publi-
cations. Since then, research on the CEFR has developed significantly, and it is crucial to
keep up with the most recent advancements in the literature. This research conducted a
4 of 26
|
SAHIB and STAPA
bibliometric analysis of published CEFR research from 2002 until 2021 to investigate the
depth and breadth of scholarly work relating to the CEFR. It aims to answer three main re-
search questions:
1. How is CEFR research evolving and progressing?
• Number of published studies per year
• Sources and document types
• Sources titles
• Language of documents
2. What are the most predominant themes that have been addressed in CEFR research?
• Keyword analysis
• Title and abstract analysis
3. Who and what are the leading researchers and institutions in terms of publications on the
CEFR?
• Publications by countries
• Main institutions
• Authorship analysis
• Citation analysis
In the following sections, this paper outlines how the study was conducted. Then it de-
scribes the overall evolution and distribution by identifying the number of published studies
per year, sources, document types and document languages. The most common themes
that the researchers are interested in, such as keyword frequency and co- occurences, are
then highlighted. Finally, it discusses how top scholars and institutions have helped further
CEFR research.
METHOD
Database selection
The research carried out in this paper focuses on the analysis of the CEFR in language
education. The Scopus database was utilised to analyse the documents obtained in this bib-
liometric study. Scopus is the largest academic database which contains more than 25,100
active titles, 7000 publishers, 82 million documents, 17 million author profiles, 234,000
books, 80,000 institutional profiles, and 1.7 billion cited references covering 240 disciplines.
This database was chosen because it provides a comprehensive picture of the world's
scientific research output. The Scopus database is currently regarded as one of the key
sources of related data by the international scientific community (Mansour et al., 2021). As
a result, Scopus is advocated as a valuable database for extracting materials related to the
area examined in this research.
Inclusion criteria
Throughout the process, we used a keyword to identify the related documents. The terms
‘CEFR’ or ‘Common European Framework of Reference’ were adopted when searching the
Scopus database for information on article titles and abstracts. This search was conducted
on 25 July 2021, using a specified document published from 2002 until 2021. The research-
ers opted to choose articles issued from the stated year due to the establishment of the
CEFR document, Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,
Teaching and Assessment by the Council of Europe in 2001. Consequently, a total of 1052
|
5 of 26
GLOBAL TR ENDS OF THE COMMON EUROPE AN
FRA MEWORK O F REFERENCE: A BIB LIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
documents emerged. The documents were further screened, and other unrelated subject
areas were excluded, such as engineering, computer science and energy, focusing only the
language educational field (arts and humanities and social science), leaving a total of 770
documents retrieved by Scopus. In addition, for the review of publications, the standard-
ised protocol of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta- analyses
(PRISMA) declaration was used, 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 (Alduais et al., 2021).
Data analysis and tools
This study employed bibliometric analysis as its research methodology. The approach was
utilised to quantify and analyse the publications indexed in the repository under investiga-
tion (Carmona- Serrano et al., 2020). Bibliometric analysis is a quantitative approach used in
archives and records studies to designate publication patterns within a certain area or body
of literature, and it is based on statistical data (Hyland & Jiang, 2021). 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, as well as to construct
FIGURE 1 Flowchart according to the PRISMA declaration
Records identified through
database searching
(n=1052)
Additional records identified
through other sources
(n=0)
Studies included in
quantitative synthesis
(meta-analysis
(n=770)
Studies included in
qualitative synthesis
(n=770)
Records after duplicates removed
(n=0)
Records screened
(
n=1052
)
Full text articles assessed for
eligibility
(n=770)
Records excluded (other than
subject areas Arts and
Humanities and Sciences
(n=282)
Full-text articles excluded
(n=0)
Screening
EligibilityIncluded Identification
6 of 26
|
SAHIB and STAPA
relevant graphs and charts, VOS Viewer [version 1.6.16] to generate bibliometric connec-
tions and illustrate them, and the citation metrics were calculated using Harzing's Publish
and Perish software.
RESU LT S
Development and progress of the CEFR research
In order to answer the first research question (How is CEFR research evolving and progress-
ing?), the development and distribution of the CEFR research were discussed in terms of:
(a) the number of published studies per year; (b) sources and documents types; (c) sources
titles; and (d) languages of documents.
Number of published studies per year
Table 1 displays detailed statistics on annual CEFR research publications from 2002 to
2021, indicating an upward trend in the number of publications. With only one document
published, 2002 marks the first year that CEFR was published and indexed by Scopus.
There were fewer than 20 documents concerning CEFR in the Scopus database from 2002
to 2008, with no documents published in 2003 or 2004. However, in 2007, there was a sig-
nificant rise in publications, primarily due to a conference on the CEFR held at the Council
of Europe Policy Forum in Strasbourg in 2007. Surprisingly, from 2017 to 2020, the number
TAB LE 1 Number of CEFR research publications by year
Yea r TP %NCP TC C/P C/CP h g
2002 10.13% 112 12.0 0 12. 00 1 1
2005 70. 91% 8372 5 3 .14 46.50 8 8
2006 40.52% 383 20.75 27.67 2 3
2007 17 2.21% 16 403 23.71 25.19 916
2008 60.78% 546 7. 6 7 9.20 4 5
2009 25 3.25% 22 354 14.16 16.09 818
2010 17 2.21% 987 5.1 2 9.67 4 9
20 11 22 2.86% 19 429 19.50 22.58 919
2012 31 4.03% 22 323 10.42 14.68 817
2013 52 6.75% 33 257 4.94 7.79 614
2014 57 7. 4 0 % 39 276 4.84 7.0 8 10 14
2015 60 7.79% 43 287 4.78 6.67 10 14
2016 49 6.36% 31 192 3.92 6.1 9 812
2017 71 9.22% 101 446 6.28 4.42 10 13
2018 89 11. 5 6 % 53 228 2.56 4.30 810
2019 105 13 .6 4% 57 165 1.57 2.89 6 8
2020 120 15.58% 45 93 0.78 2.07 4 6
2021 37 4.81% 4 5 0.14 1.25 1 1
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, total number of publications.
|
7 of 26
GLOBAL TR ENDS OF THE COMMON EUROPE AN
FRA MEWORK O F REFERENCE: A BIB LIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
gradually rose, indicating a growing interest in CEFR. The quantity of documents published
on CEFR increased dramatically in 2020, with 120 documents produced that year.
In addition, as shown in Figure 2, documents published in 2017 seem to have reached
their peak with the most citations (the total number of citations was 446, and the average
number of citations per publication was 6.28), but in 2018, the number began to decline. The
spike in total citations in 2017 is possibly due to the Council of Europe event on language
conferences (Council of Europe, 2016) and a conference on the CEFR in Japan held in
March 2016. However, documents published in 2002 received the least citations (the total
number of citations per publication was 1 and the total number of citations was 12). The
low number of citations is most likely due to the limited time span between the Council of
Europe's official CEFR document production in 2001, ‘Common European Framework of
Reference: Learning, Teaching, Assessment’, and the CEFR research published in 2002.
Between the CEFR's formal document inception and the succeeding year, there were very
few publications and citations in the area. Nevertheless, the total number of citations fluc-
tuated a lot from 2002 to 2016, with frequent highs and lows. Figure 2 shows that total
publications are increasing, but total citations are showing inconsistent trends. Following
the identification of the annual growth document, the sources for CEFR research, document
types, most active source titles, and language of documents undertaken in CEFR publica-
tions are also clarified.
Sources and document types
This study attempted to discover where CEFR documents had been published by examining
the data based on document source categories. Journals, publications, conference pro-
ceedings, and book series are the only four primary sources of CEFR research. As shown in
Table 2, journals were the most prevalent source, accounting for 652 (84.68%) of the total.
Following that, the overall publishing numbers for books (n = 47, 6.10%) and conference pro-
ceedings (n = 46, 5.97%) are nearly identical, and these sources indicate a substantial 79%
difference from journals. The least common document type (n = 25, 3.25%) was a Scopus
indexed book series.
FIGURE 2 Total publications and citations per year. Abbreviations: TP, total publications; TC, total citations
17417625 17 22 31 52 57 60 49 71 89 105 120 37
12
372
83
403
46
354
87
429
323
257
276 287
192
446
228
165
93
50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
201
7
2018
2019
2020
2021
Total Citaons
Total Publicaons
TP TC
8 of 26
|
SAHIB and STAPA
The data was also analysed based on document types. The Scopus search retrieved
seven types of documents published on the CEFR, as summarised in Table 3. As shown
in the table, most of the publications are classified as articles (n = 578, 75.06%). This was
followed by documents with less than 10% of the total publication, such as reviews (n = 62,
8.05%), conference papers (n = 55, 7.14%), and book chapters (n = 13, 6.49%). The other
types of documents, for instance, books, notes, and editorials, each represented less than
2% of the total publications.
Sources titles
A journal called Language Assessment Quarterly contributed the most significant number of
publications on the CEFR (n = 26). This was followed by the Language Testing and Modern
Language Journal, with more than 15 total publications (n = 16). Although the Modern
Language Journal has fewer total publications, it proved to be the leader in total citations
(n = 582) and received the highest cite score (n = 7.3) and g- index (n = 16). Table 4 shows
the top 20 most active source titles in the CEFR. After detecting current trends in source
titles, the final characteristic used to determine current trends is the language of documents,
which indicates the languages in which CEFR has been identified.
Languages of documents
CEFR research papers were written in a total of 20 languages. Table 5 reveals that English
was the most widely used language, representing 77.88% of all CEFR publications. The
second most common language was French, which accounted for 6.25%, followed by
TAB LE 2 Sources for CEFR research
Source Type TP %
Journal 652 84.68%
Book 47 6.1 0%
Conference Proceeding 46 5.97%
Book Series 25 3.25%
Tot al 770 100%
Abbreviation: TP, total publications.
TAB LE 3 CEFR research document types
Document Type TP %
Article 578 75.06%
Review 62 8.05%
Conference Paper 55 7.14%
Book Chapter 50 6.49%
Book 13 1.69%
Note 10 1.30%
Editorial 20.26%
Tot al 770 100%
Abbreviation: TP, total publications.
|
9 of 26
GLOBAL TR ENDS OF THE COMMON EUROPE AN
FRA MEWORK O F REFERENCE: A BIB LIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
TAB LE 4 Top 20 Most active source titles
Source Title Publisher
Cite
Score
SJR
2020
SNIP
2020 TP NCP TC C/P C/CP h g
Language Assessment Quarterly Taylor & Francis 1.7 0.9 1.25 26 23 254 9.77 11.0 4 915
Language Testing SAGE 4.0 2.419 2.927 16 14 405 25.31 28.93 10 14
Modern Language Journal Wiley- Blackwell 7.3 3.49 2.884 16 16 582 36.38 36.38 11 16
Lahivordlusi Lahivertailuja Estonian Association for Applied
Linguistics
0.6 0.21 0.471 14 919 1.3 6 2.11 3 3
Deutsch als Fremdsprache Erich Schmidt Verlag GmbH & Co 0.3 0.1 9 0.219 13 511 0.85 2.20 2 3
Language Learning Journal Taylor & Francis 2.4 0.78 1.3 8 13 847 3.62 5.88 5 6
Canadian Modern Language Review University of Toronto Press 0.9 0.48 0.607 12 10 42 3.50 4.20 4 6
Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung Paedagogischer Zeitschriftenverlag
GmbH & Co. KG
0.2 0.15 0.428 12 710 0.83 1.43 2 2
Educational Linguistics Springer Nature 0.6 −0.1 − 0 .1 11 830 2.73 3.75 3 5
Language Learning in Higher Education Walter de Gruyter 0.6 0.23 0.461 11 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0
Language Teaching Cambridge University Press 5.9 1.98 3.092 10 8172 17.2 0 21. 50 6 8
Porta Linguarum Universidad de Granada 1.1 0.55 0.884 10 710 1.00 1.4 3 2 2
Internat ional Journal of Education Through
Art
Intellect Publishers 0.9 0.37 1.1 89 9 4 6 0.67 1.50 1 2
Language Testing in Asia Springer Nature 20.49 1.51 9 8 39 4.33 4.88 4 5
Recherc he et Pratiques Pédagog iques en
Langues de S peciali té— Cahiers de
L’APLIUT
Association des Professeurs de
Langues des Instituts Universitaires
de Technologie (APLIUT)
0.2 0.1 0.059 9 5 14 1.5 6 2.80 2 3
Assessing Writing Elsevier 4.2 1.3 3 1. 581 8 7 58 7. 2 5 8.29 6 7
Lidil Revues.org 0.1 0.12 0.1 8 1 1 0 .13 1.00 1 1
System Elsevier 4.2 1.42 2.054 8 5 27 3.38 5.40 4 5
Asian EFL Journal Asian EFL Journal Press 1 0.27 0.781 7 5 13 1.86 2.60 2 3
ELT Journal Oxford Universit y Press 2.4 0.88 1.256 7 7 67 9.57 9.57 4 7
Abbreviations: C/CP, average citations per cited publication; C/P, average citations per publication; Cite Score, average citations rec eived per document published in the source title; g, g- index;
h, h- index; NCP, number of cited publications; SJR, SCImago Journal Rank measures weighted citations received by the source title; SNIP, source normalised impact per paper measures actual
citations received relative to citations expected for the source title's subject field; TC, total citations; TP, total number of publications.
10 of 26
|
SAHIB and STAPA
Spanish, which accounted for 5.38%. The remaining documents were translated into 17 dif-
ferent languages, but they only made up less than 5% of the total. Finally, seven documents
were released in only one language: Arabic, Bosnian, Czech, Italian, Lithuanian, Slovak
and Catalan, which constitute the smallest percentage of the total number of documents
published (0.13%).
Predominant themes of the CEFR research
The primary aim of the second research question (What are the most predominant themes
that have been addressed in CEFR research?) is to identify the main themes of CEFR
research. In this section, the key areas of the research were analysed in terms of (a) the
frequency of keywords and (b) document titles and abstracts.
Keyword analysis
Selecting relevant keywords is vital in determining whether a document will be found when
performing a search. Thus, frequently selecting relevant keywords can be an indicator of the
value of writing. Figure 3 presents a network visualisation of the author's keywords that each
had a minimum of three occurrences. When two keywords appear in the same article, they
are seen to co- occur, implying a link between the two topics (Mansour et al., 2021). To ad-
dress the second research question, we employed VOSviewer's keyword and co- occurrence
TAB LE 5 Languages used for CEFR research publications
Language TP %
English 623 77.88%
French 50 6.25%
Spanish 43 5.38%
German 33 4.13%
Estonian 15 1.88%
Russian 60.75%
Finnish 50.63%
Portuguese 40.50%
Slovenian 40.50%
Tur k ish 40.50%
Croatian 20.25%
Polish 2 0.25%
Serbian 20.25%
Arabic 10.13%
Bosnian 10.1 3%
Czech 10.13%
Italian 10.1 3%
Lithuanian 10.13%
Slovak 10.13 %
Catalan 10.1 3%
Abbreviation: TP, total publications.
|
11 of 26
GLOBAL TR ENDS OF THE COMMON EUROPE AN
FRA MEWORK O F REFERENCE: A BIB LIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
analysis. The authors analysed keywords using VOSviewer, a software tool for creating and
visualising bibliometric networks, to map the keywords assigned to each article (Figure 4).
The colour, circle size, font size, and thickness of connecting lines represent relationships
with other keywords (Wahid et al., 2020). Keywords that are frequently classified in the same
colour are commonly grouped together. Based on the analysis, 14 clusters with 153 items
in the CEFR research have been developed based on the author's keywords. The diagram
suggests that CEFR, evaluation, bilingual education, foreign languages, e- learning, compe-
tencies, Malaysia, globalisation and linguistic mediation have similar colours, implying that
these keywords were closely related and usually occurred together.
The core keywords specified in the search query (i.e., CEFR or Common European
Framework of Reference), assessment, language learning, teaching and Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages are among the most frequently occurring keywords
with more than 2%. The top 20 keywords in the CEFR research are shown in Table 6.
Title and abstract analysis
In this section, VOSviewer was utilised to check the titles and abstracts of gathered doc-
uments for occurrences and the number of co- occurrences per document. To be exact,
this research constructs the co- occurrence network using the binary counting method.
Figure 4 shows a visualisation of a term co- occurrence network, depending on the title and
FIGURE 3 Author keyword
12 of 26
|
SAHIB and STAPA
abstract fields, in which at least 15 terms appear. The node's width indicates the item's heav-
iness, while the thickness of the connecting line reflects the item's intensity of the connec-
tion. When related words are presented in the same colour, they are more likely to appear
together (Mansour et al., 2021). Framework, effectiveness, competency, content, perspec-
tive, policy, implementation and other terms shown in red, for example, are closely related
and frequently exist at the same time in the diagram. Specifically, VOSviewer generates four
distinct colours from the title and abstract of the publication, reflecting four clusters contain-
ing 172 terms.
Figure 5 depicts the layout of a title- based term co- occurrence network. A binary count-
ing method was utilised, with a minimum of five occurrences of each phrase. The data
indicates that the VOSviewer generates seven clusters and 52 items. In CEFR research,
the term ‘common European framework’ was the primary term that served as the core node
of the entire network. Cluster 1 contains the concepts of reference, b2 level, validity and
standard, whereas Cluster 2 has learner, comparison, proficiency level, evaluation and
European language portfolio (ELP). Furthermore, Cluster 3 has language education, pluri-
lingualism, companion volume, implementation, mediation and challenge. Cluster 4 consists
of vocabulary, grammar, acquisition, expression and specific purpose, Cluster 5 includes
textbook, teacher, case study, tool, communicative competence and English study, Cluster
6 has Spain, languages, role and translation, whereby Cluster 7 only has culture, effect and
perception.
Following the keyword analysis, the next section discusses major players and research
collaboration. Additionally, citation analysis was performed to gain a better understanding
of the prevalent issues and to demonstrate the depth of an article's impact. Despite the fact
that there are a variety of methods for assessing the impact of research papers, citation
analysis is the most widely used (Ding & Cronin, 2011).
FIGURE 4 VOSviewer visualisation of a term co- occurrence network based on title and abstract fields
|
13 of 26
GLOBAL TR ENDS OF THE COMMON EUROPE AN
FRA MEWORK O F REFERENCE: A BIB LIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
Major players and research collaboration
This section examines the third research question, which is to evaluate scientific coopera-
tion on CEFR research through (a) an analysis of publications by country, (b) the most active
institutions engaging in CFER research, (c) authorship analysis, and (d) citation analysis.
Publication by countries/countries with most contributions
Table 7 summarises the published indicators for the top 20 nations in terms of CEFR re-
search. Spain has the most scientific papers in the CEFR research field with 116 documents,
followed by the United Kingdom with 73, and Germany and the United States with 55, re-
spectively. The remaining authors’ national associations constituted below 50 articles dis-
persed across the world, including France, the Netherlands, Italy, Belgium, Finland, Turkey,
Canada, Poland, the Czech Republic, Malaysia, Australia, Japan, Switzerland, Taiwan,
Austria, and China. Apparently, CEFR is crucial in several continents, including Europe,
North America, Oceania and Asia.
As illustrated in Figure 6, in terms of total citations, although the United Kingdom was
ranked second in terms of publication volume, it is imperative to emphasise that the coun-
try has the most outstanding overall citation count (n = 950). The Netherlands is second
(n = 481), followed by the United States (n = 383) and Belgium (n = 239). Publications
in Asia, specifically Malaysia, Japan, Taiwan and China, remained low, with all of them
falling below the 20 total publications. Three- quarters of them were European countries,
with a more significant number of publications and citations, most likely due to the CEFR's
TAB LE 6 Top 20 keywords in CEFR research
Keywords TP %
CEFR 138 17.92%
Assessment 24 3.12%
Language Learning 21 2.73%
Tea c hin g 20 2.60%
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages 18 2.3 4%
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
(CEFR)
15 1.95%
Second Language Acquisition 15 1.95%
E- learning 14 1.82%
Higher Education 14 1.82%
Plurilingualism 14 1.82%
Common European Framework of Reference 13 1.6 9%
Foreign Language 13 1.69%
Learner Corpus 13 1.69%
Proficiency Level 13 1.69%
Students 13 1.69 %
Vocabulary 13 1.69%
Self- assessment 12 1.56%
Computational Linguistics 11 1.43%
Abbreviation: TP, total publications.
14 of 26
|
SAHIB and STAPA
European origins and the period since the framework was implemented. The CEFR has
been used in language teaching for many years in Europe, but not in Asia.
Main institutions
This section analyses the current situation of the most active CEFR research institutions.
The total number of publications by the top 15 most productive institutions is shown in
Table 8. In terms of publication volume, Jyväskylän Yliopisto was placed at the top, fol-
lowed by the Catholic University of Louvain and the Educational Testing Service. Three
institutions in Spain, two in Belgium, two in the United Kingdom, and one each in the United
States, Finland, Slovenia, Estonia, Malaysia, Germany, Ireland, and the Czech Republic
were among the most active CEFR research institutions.
Authorship analysis
Table 9 lists the contributions of 20 leading researchers to CEFR research. Boasting eight
publications each, Ari Huhta of Jyväskylän Yliopisto, Centre for Applied Language Studies
in Finland, David Little of Trinity College Dublin in Ireland, and Brian North of Eurocentres
Foundation in Switzerland are the three most productive authors. However, five of the au-
thors are from Germany, indicating that the country produces fertile authors in the field of
CEFR research.
The current research uses VOSviewer software for co- author analysis to effectively ex-
amine the authors’ collaboration and produce a network visualisation (Figure 7). The anal-
ysis is based on the fact that influential writers have been cited at least once in one CEFR
publication and is calculated using the fractional counting technique. Specific characteristics
FIGURE 5 VOSviewer visualisation of a term co- occurrence network based on title field
|
15 of 26
GLOBAL TR ENDS OF THE COMMON EUROPE AN
FRA MEWORK O F REFERENCE: A BIB LIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
such as colour, circle size, text size, and thickness increase the direction of the authors’ con-
nection. Associated authors are frequently listed consecutively, as indicated by the use of
the same shade. The figure, for example, suggests that K. Wisniewski, A. Abel and J. Hana
worked closely together. According to the findings, C. Harsh, K. Wisniewski and O. Koller,
from Germany, appear to have had an equivalently strong collaboration with colleagues from
other world regions, including Spain, Finland and Hungary.
Figure 8 displays the network visualisation map of the author's affiliated nation. Only
countries that have cited more than one article and more than one citation are included in
the analysis. Based on the fractional counting method, the findings imply that Spain plays
a significant role in international collaboration. Spain has a tight connection with Slovenia,
Germany and the United Kingdom, whereas the Netherlands has links with Norway, Hungary
and South Africa. Finally, the third research question highlighted the issue of citation analy-
sis, which reveals the volume of CEFR research citations in language teaching.
Citation analysis
A summary of CEFR research citations from the Scopus database is shown in Table 10. For
770 papers published over 19 years (2002– 2021), a total of 3775 citations were recorded,
representing an estimate of 198.68 citations per year on average.
Table 11 summarises the 20 most often cited publications on CEFR research, ranked by
the number of times each document was cited. J. Milton authored the most cited document
TAB LE 7 Geographic origins of the CEFR research
Country TP NCP TC C/P C/CP h g Continent
Spain 116 26 156 1.34 6.00 611 Europe
United Kingdom 73 58 950 13.01 16.38 15 29 Europe
Germany 55 40 227 4.13 5.68 912 Europe
United States 55 42 383 6.96 9.12 12 17 North America
France 45 30 231 5.13 7.70 914 Europe
Netherlands 32 26 481 15.03 18.50 10 21 Europe
Italy 30 12 44 1.47 3.67 2 6 Europe
Belgium 28 21 239 8.54 11. 3 8 915 Europe
Finland 28 20 174 6.21 8.70 512 Europe
Tur key 27 13 37 1.37 2.85 4 5 Europe
Canada 21 14 75 3.57 5.36 5 8 North America
Poland 21 946 2.1 9 5.11 3 6 Europe
Czech Republic 20 12 51 2.55 4.25 4 6 Europe
Malaysia 20 11 37 1.85 3.36 3 5 Asia
Australia 18 13 171 9.50 13.1 5 713 Oceania
Japan 18 12 47 2.61 3.92 3 6 Asia
Switzerland 17 12 104 6.12 8.67 610 Europe
Tai wan 16 757 3.56 8.14 4 7 Asia
Austria 14 727 1.93 3.86 3 5 Europe
China 13 927 2.08 3.00 4 4 Asia
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, total number of publications.
16 of 26
|
SAHIB and STAPA
with 198 citations from a book on second language vocabulary learning (2009). The second
and third publications, both published in 2011, are research articles on language assess-
ment and measuring second language competency, written by E. Shohamy, with 115 total
citations, and J.H. Hulstijn, with 103 total citations.
Figure 9 demonstrates the mapping of citations for publications with a minimum of 20
citations. A visual representation of the important authors in the area and how their ideas
were placed concerning one another are presented. Figure 10 depicts further information on
the countries of origin. Countries that have been cited with a minimum of five articles and
five citations per country are included in the analysis. At this point, it appears that Spain,
the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany are the countries that influence CEFR
research the most.
DISCUSSION
Since its inception, CEFR has had its unique strengths, which can be segregated into two
categories: inclusive tools and holistic goals. First, the shared reference levels and illustra-
tive descriptors of the CEFR are often cited as one of the CEFR’s greatest assets by teach-
ers concerned with uniformity and clarity in language proficiency (Mison & Jang, 2011).
Second, the CEFR promotes multilingualism and plurilingualism as policy tools to foster mu-
tual understanding among people from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds (Council
of Europe, 2001). Plurilingual individuals are multilingual who can speak and understand
multiple languages fluently and efficiently. They do not store their linguistic information in
a discrete and distinct repertoire, but rather in an interconnected repertoire (Yüce & Mirici,
2019). Indeed, the CEFR is now used not only in Europe but in many parts of the world be-
yond and has been translated into more than 40 languages due to its distinctive features.
The two strengths outlined above exemplify the distinctions between the two approaches
to linguistic and cultural diversity. However, concerns have been raised about the CEFR
research's breadth and collaborative nature across different regions of the world. In order
FIGURE 6 Total publications and citations based on geographical location
11673555545323028282721212020181817161413
156
950
227
383
231
481
44
239
174
37
75 46 51 37
171
47
104
57 27 27
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Total citaons
Total Publicaons
TP TC
|
17 of 26
GLOBAL TR ENDS OF THE COMMON EUROPE AN
FRA MEWORK O F REFERENCE: A BIB LIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
to address this problem, we conducted a 19- year bibliometric analysis of 770 items of the
CEFR literature published in Scopus (from 2002 to 25 July 2021). This study aims to answer
three research questions: (1) how is CEFR research evolving and progressing; (2) what are
the most predominant themes that have been addressed in CEFR research; and (3) who and
what are the leading researchers and institutions in terms of publications on the CEFR. The
answers to these questions were analysed using different key themes.
In response to the first research question about the evolution and progress of CEFR,
the findings in this study indicated that publications on the CEFR began in 2002 with a
single document, following the Council of Europe's, 2001 release of an official document
named ‘Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching,
and Assessment’. Despite the fact that there were no publications in 2003 and 2004, the
number of articles has progressively increased since 2010. The growth may be due to the
subsequent manual published by the Council of Europe, ‘Relating Language Examinations
to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching,
Assessment (CEFR)’ in 2009. This discovery was consistent with the findings of Runnels
and Runnels (2019), who discovered an upsurge in CEFR research beginning in 2011.
This demonstrates that CEFR was recognised early on in its growth by researchers from
Europe and the West. A dramatic shift occurred in 2009 when more than 20 publications
were produced per year, possibly because CEFR began to garner substantial attention as it
moved beyond Europe. It was introduced in Asia, such as in Vietnam (2008), Japan (2008),
Malaysia (2013) and Thailand (2014). However, between 2017 and 2021, there was a con-
siderable decline in overall citations (from 446 to 5). The reduction could be explained by the
increasing number of publications in English as a foreign language (EFL) and English as a
second language (ESL) contexts where English is not the first language. The United States
is the only English- speaking country among the active affiliations during that period, with
TAB LE 8 The 15 most active institutions
Institution Country TP NCP TC C/P C/CP h g
Jyväskylän Yliopisto Finland 19 13 154 8 .11 11. 8 5 512
Catholic University of Louvain Belgium 14 9113 8.07 12 .5 6 5 9
Educational Testing Service US 11 845 4.09 5.63 4 6
Univerza v Ljubljani Slovenia 11 538 3.45 7. 6 0 3 5
Tallinna Ülikool Estonia 11 919 1.73 2 .11 3 3
Universidad de Jaén Spain 10 940 4.00 4.44 4 6
Universidad Complutense de
Madrid
Spain 10 621 2.10 3.50 3 4
Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia
Malaysia 9 5 16 1.78 3.20 2 3
Universität Leipzig Germany 9 6 31 3.44 5.17 3 5
Trinity College Dublin Ireland 9 6 256 28.44 42.67 5 6
University of Bedfordshire UK 9 8 72 8.00 9.00 5 8
Charles University Czech
Republic
9 6 34 3.78 5.67 2 5
Lancaster University UK 9 7 221 24.56 31.57 5 7
Universidad de Córdoba Spain 8 4 18 2.25 4.50 2 4
KU Leuven Belgium 8 7 50 6.25 7.14 4 7
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, total number of publications.
18 of 26
|
SAHIB and STAPA
TAB LE 9 The 20 most productive authors in CEFR research
Author's Name Affiliation Country TP NCP TC C/P C/CP h g
Huhta, A. Jyväskylän Yliopisto, Centre for Applied
Language Studies
Finland 8 6 107 13.38 17.83 4 6
Little, D. Trinity College Dublin Ireland 8 7 258 32.25 36.86 5 7
North, B. Eurocentres Foundation Switzerland 8 8 113 14.13 14.13 6 8
Köller, O. Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics
Education
Germany 7 7 40 5.71 5 .71 4 6
Harsch, C. Universität Bremen Germany 6 4 20 3.33 5.00 2 4
Piccardo, E. University of Toronto, Universite Grenoble
Alpes
Canada France 6 6 33 5.50 5.50 4 5
Wisniewski, K. Universität Leipzig Germany 6 5 48 8.00 9.60 3 5
Deygers, B. Universiteit Gent Belgium 5 5 39 7.80 7.8 0 3 5
Fleckenstein, J. Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics
Education
Germany 5 5 24 4.80 4.80 4 4
Kitsnik, M. Eesti ja üldkeeleteaduse Instituut Estonia 5 3 7 1.40 2.33 2 2
Papageorgiou, S. ETS, Center for Language Education and
Assessment Research
USA 5 5 53 10.60 10.60 4 5
Snoddon, K. Ryerson University, School of Early Childhood
Studies
Canada 5 4 28 5.60 7.0 0 3 4
Bärenfänger, O. Universität Leipzig, Sprachenzentrum Germany 4 3 12 3.00 4.00 2 3
Díez- Bedmar, M.B. Universidad de Jaén Spain 4 4 25 6.25 6.25 3 4
Fairon, C. Catholic University of Louvain, CENTAL,
Louvain- la- Neuve
Belgium 4 2 15 3.75 7. 5 0 2 2
Figueras, N. EALTA CEFR SIG UK 4 4 74 18.5 0 18.50 3 4
Hulstijn, J.H. Universiteit van Amsterdam Netherlands 4 4 227 56.75 56.75 4 4
Kárpáti, A. Budapesti Corvinus Egyetem, Institute of
Communication and Sociology
Hungary 4 3 5 1.25 1.67 1 2
Martin, M. Jyväskylän Yliopisto, Department of Language
and Communication Studies
Finland 4 2 16 4.00 8.00 2 2
McNamara, T. Educational Testing Service, Princeton USA 4 4 30 7.50 7.50 3 4
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, total number
of publications.
|
19 of 26
GLOBAL TR ENDS OF THE COMMON EUROPE AN
FRA MEWORK O F REFERENCE: A BIB LIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
Malaysia, Belgium, Germany and Spain rounding out the top five. As a result, the publication
credentials are probably influenced by the profile of these institutions.
Compared with other types of documents, CEFR is found primarily in journals in the
form of articles. The top three most active source titles have been invaded by journals man-
aged by well- established publishers from English speaking countries, such as Taylor &
Francis and SAGE from the United Kingdom, and Wiley- Blackwell from the United States,
all of which have a long- standing legacy and exceptional record in the field of publishing.
Additionally, English is the predominant language of the CEFR documents, albeit they are
also published in multiple languages. The majority of documents are written in English as a
result of the language's extensive use throughout the scientific world (Sönmez, 2020) and
FIGURE 7 Network visualisation map of the CEFR research co- authors
FIGURE 8 Network visualisation map of the CEFR research co- authors by country
TAB LE 10 CEFR research citations metrics
Metric Data
Total papers 770
Total citations 3775
Number of years 19
Citations per year 198.68
Citations per paper 4.90
Authors per paper 1.95
h- index 28
g- index 45
20 of 26
|
SAHIB and STAPA
TA B L E 11 Most cited publications
Authors Ye a r Title Source title TC CPY
Milton J. 2009 Measuring second language vocabulary
acquisition
Measuring Second Language Vocabulary
Acquisition
198 16.5
Shohamy E. 20 11 Assessing multilingual competencies: Adopting
construct valid assessment policies
Modern Language Journal 115 11. 5
Hulstijn J.H. 20 11 Language proficiency in native and non-
native speakers: An agenda for research
and suggestions for second- language
assessment
Language Assessment Quarterly 103 10.3
Verspoor M., Schmid M.S., Xu X. 2012 A dynamic usage- based perspective on L2
writing
Journal of Second Language Writing 95 10.56
Hulstijn J.H. 2007 The shaky ground beneath the CEFR:
Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of
language proficiency
Modern Language Journal 94 6.71
Alderson J.C. 2007 The CEFR and the need for more research Modern Language Journal 88 6.29
Little D. 2005 The Common European Framework and the
European Language Portfolio: Involving
learners and their judgements in the
assessment process
Language Testing 83 5.19
Little D. 2007 The issue: The Common European Framework
of Reference for languages: Perspectives
on the making of supranational language
education policy
Modern Language Journal 76 5.43
Alderson J.C., Huhta A. 2005 The development of a suite of computer- based
diagnostic tests based on the Common
European Framework
Language Testing 76 4.75
Weir C.J. 2005 Limitations of the Common European
Framework for developing comparable
examinations and tests
Language Testing 68 4.25
Young T.J., Sachdev I. 2011 Intercultural communicative competence:
Exploring English language teachers’
beliefs and practices
Language Awareness 65 6.50
|
21 of 26
GLOBAL TR ENDS OF THE COMMON EUROPE AN
FRA MEWORK O F REFERENCE: A BIB LIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
Authors Ye a r Title Source title TC CPY
Richards J.C. 2013 Curriculum approaches in language teaching:
Forward, central, and backward design
RELC Journal 64 8.00
Little D. 2006 The Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages: Content,
purpose, origin, reception and impact
Language Teaching 56 3.73
Thewissen J. 2013 Capturing L2 Accuracy Developmental
Patterns: Insights from an Error- Tagged
EFL Learner Corpus
Modern Language Journal 47 5.88
Byram M., Parmenter L. 2012 The Common European Framework of
Reference: The globalisation of language
education policy
The Common European Framework
of Reference: The Globalisation of
Language Education Policy
45 5.00
McNamara T. 2 011 Managing learning: Authority and language
assessment
Language Teaching 39 3.90
Taillefer G.F. 2007 The professional language needs of
Economics graduates: Assessment and
perspectives in the French context
English for Specific Purposes 36 2.57
Chen Y.- H., Baker P. 2016 Investigating criterial discourse features across
second language development: Lexical
bundles in rated learner essays, CEFR B1,
B2 and C1
Applied Linguistics 35 7.00
Figueras N., North B., Takala S.,
Verhelst N., Vam Avermaet P.
2005 Relating examinations to the Common
European Framework: A manual
Language Testing 35 2.19
Hasselgreen A. 2005 Assessing the language of young learners Language Testing 34 2 .13
Abbreviations: CPY, citations per year; TC, total citations.
TA B L E 11 (Continued)
22 of 26
|
SAHIB and STAPA
this is common in international academic settings where English is widely accepted as the
language of communication (Bozdoğan, 2020).
In regard to the second research question, it seeks to elucidate the CEFR themes that are
most frequently discussed among scholars. The findings from the keyword, title and abstract
analysis can be observed from the results of VOSviewer. The author's keywords discovered
are CEFR, evaluation, bilingual education, foreign languages, e- learning, competencies,
globalisation and linguistic mediation. Furthermore, the top keywords employed by scholars
in this study are CEFR, assessment, language teaching, learning and e- learning, which sig-
nify the areas mainly discussed. These terminologies are intricately intertwined in CEFR re-
search, indicating that they have an essential function and may provide a strong foundation
for future CEFR research by other researchers. Looking at the term ‘assessment’ as the top
keyword, it certainly aligns with other findings of this research, such as the two most active
source titles (Table 4), ‘Language Assessment Quarterly’ and ‘Language Testing’, and the
most cited publications (Table 11) by Milton (2009), Shohamy (2011) and Hulstijn (2011). The
publications devoted to language assessment are indeed the two most active source titles
in the CEFR research landscape. In a similar vein, the three aforementioned authors' most
cited papers are also all about language assessment. As a result, the outcome of the most
prevalent keyword— ‘assessment’— in this study is consistent with other findings. This may
assist other researchers in determining that the keyword is prevalent in the CEFR study,
which corresponds to the intensity of this theme in the CEFR domain.
Addressing the third research question, there seems to be a decent degree of scien-
tific collaboration on CEFR research worldwide, as evidenced by an analysis of countries,
institutions, authors and citations. Although the CEFR was founded in Switzerland, schol-
arly writings have been widely disseminated throughout North America, Oceania and Asia.
Thus, despite its origins in the European setting, the framework's applicability can be found
worldwide. According to the findings of this study, Spain had the highest number of publica-
tions on the CEFR, indicating that it was at the forefront of CEFR research at the time. This
FIGURE 9 Network visualisation map of citations of the CEFR documents
|
23 of 26
GLOBAL TR ENDS OF THE COMMON EUROPE AN
FRA MEWORK O F REFERENCE: A BIB LIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
could be because Spain formally began to implement the CEFR in 2006 and has actively
created publications since 2005.
Additionally, most of the articles are available in English, Spanish and a few in French,
Portuguese and Catalan. Due to the variety of languages utilised and the contexts in which
they are used, it is likely that the rate of publication will increase. The three Spanish institu-
tions included among the most active research institutions in the CEFR area also indicate
their reputation. However, although Spain was seen to be productive in CFER research, in
terms of the total number of citations, the United Kingdom ranked first out of all the countries
studied. This is supported further by the fact that the United Kingdom is an English- speaking
country with a large number of articles written in English. Hence, as elucidated earlier, this
reflects that the language is widely used throughout the world and exerts considerable im-
pact in the sphere of publishing.
In this study, further investigation reveals that assessment has played a significant role in
developing the CEFR. For example, Ari Huhta from Finland is the most productive author,
and his articles from 2005 to 2012 were primarily concerned with language assessment. The
finding supports the idea that assessments receive the utmost attention in CEFR research
(Little, 2007; Tono, 2019). Furthermore, it is essential to highlight that the three top- cited
FIGURE 10 Network visualisation map of citations of the CEFR documents by country
24 of 26
|
SAHIB and STAPA
publications also covered topics and sources titles on language assessment. This study dis-
covered that language assessment is a crucial primary focus in the CEFR after thoroughly
examining the major players, including leading researchers and institutions. Publications on
assessment have garnered increased attention and citations from other researchers, and
their influence has continued to grow.
In order to understand how scholars interact with one another, it is necessary to con-
duct a research collaboration analysis. This can shed light on clustered research among
authors from a specific area, which in turn can be used to rationalise and stimulate new
studies among authors from underprivileged regions (Donthu et al., 2021). By examining
co- authorship, this study indentified the countries with the most active research collabo-
rations. However, there was little collaboration in CEFR research across Asia. This may
result in a fragmented understanding of the CEFR, which may affect the effectiveness of
the framework.
CONCLUSION
This study intends to investigate the trend and pattern of CEFR research by looking at the
status of publication, the citation pattern, presenting the themes involved, and offering sug-
gestions for future CEFR research. The findings indicate that the CEFR has been evenly
dispersed and is having a significant impact, as evidenced by the growth in the number
of publications outside of Europe, such as in North America and Asia. The data acquired
from the Scopus database is presented in this study using a bibliometric approach, which
includes quantity, quality and structural map (i.e., the number of publications by year, docu-
ment types, languages, keyword analysis, most active source titles, countries with the most
contributions in the CEFR research, most active institutions, the number of citations and
citation metrics) (Kushairi & Ahmi, 2021). The study does, however, have certain limitations
that the discussion is extrapolated from a bibliometric analysis of published CEFR research
from 2002 to 2021. It should be noted that the study is confined to a specific database,
Scopus, and is based on the favoured keywords in document titles. This study did not con-
sider other major and extensive databases that discussed the CEFR, such as the Web of
Science, Google Scholar and EBSCO Hosts. Hence, it may limit the overall outcome of the
CEFR publication trends in the field of study. Future research can incorporate various data-
bases to conduct searches, amend and compare the results of different keyword phrases,
and see how CEFR research varies by thematic area of study. CEFR research could prob-
ably offer valuable results at this juncture.
The current study provides a comprehensive picture of recent research on the CEFR
emerging trends in articles, journal performance, collaboration patterns and research con-
stituents, which aids in improved comprehension. Each of the signs points to an expansion in
this field of research, which could lead to new prospects for improving educational systems.
In addition, all of these contributions will help new scholars gain a broad perspective on this
field (Deveci, 2021). This research also makes a contribution by employing the bibliometric
method to broaden scholars’ understanding of the literature on language instruction. For this
reason, bibliometric analyses will continue to be a critical tool for determining the gaps in any
subject or field (Yurtcu & Güzeller, 2021). Hence, scholars can use this technique to perform
their research, especially when conducting literature reviews on their topic of interest.
The findings of this study will assist specific researchers in understanding the CEFR's
worldwide success in the linguistic and educational fields, as well as suggest areas for future
research. It is predicted that the CEFR will remain relevant for the next decade as a result
of its widespread use in language education around the world, as it is now popular among
Asian countries such as Malaysia, Japan, Taiwan and China, which are actively producing
|
25 of 26
GLOBAL TR ENDS OF THE COMMON EUROPE AN
FRA MEWORK O F REFERENCE: A BIB LIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
CEFR- related publications. This demonstrates that its allure is growing and its worldwide
usage is increasing. However, while the assessment has received considerable attention,
the authors have paid less attention to its use in areas other than education. Although Read
(2019) stated that the framework is mostly used in the fields of professional job demand and
citizenship requirements, these aspects have remained elusive. As a result, other academ-
ics and practitioners should pay more attention to these areas, paving the way for future
research.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
ETHICAL APPROVAL
As this research is based on a review of published studies, this is not applicable to our
research.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data sharing is not applicable as all relevant data are within the article.
ORCID
Farah Hussan Sahib https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1055-2127
REFERENCES
Alduais, A., Deng, M., & Gökmen, S. (2021). Is female education ‘gendered’ and procedurally yet substantively
practiced’ in China? Insights from a systematic review and the practical theory. Review of Education, 9,
e3302. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3302
Alih, N. A. C., Yusoff, M. A. M., & Abdul, A. H. (2020). Teachers’ Knowledge and belief on the CEFR implementa-
tion in Malaysian ESL classroom. Educational Research (IJMCER), 2(5), 126– 134.
Bozdoğan, K. (2020). A bibliometric analysis of educational studies about ‘museum education’. Participator y
Educational Research, 7(3), 161– 179. https://doi.org/10.17275/ per.20.40.7.3
Carmona- Serrano, N., López- Belmonte, J., Cuesta- Gómez, J. L., & Moreno- Guerrero, A. J. (2020). Documentary
analysis of the scientific literature on autism and technology in Web of Science. Brain Sciences, 10(12), 1– 17.
https://doi.org/10.3390/brain sci10 120985
Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assess-
ment. Cambridge University Press.
Council of Europe (2016). 1st Symposium on The linguistic integration of adult migrants: Lessons from research,
Strasbourg. March 30- April. LIAM Project: www.coe.int/lang- migrants (accessed 18 August, 2021).
Deveci, İ. (2021). Review of entrepreneurship education literature in educational contexts: Bibliometric analysis.
Participatory Educational Research, 9(1), 214– 232. https://doi.org/10.17275/ per.22.12.9.1
Díez- Bedma r, M. B., & Byram, M. (2018). The current inf luence of the CEFR in sec ondary education: Teachers’ per-
ceptions. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 32(1), 1– 15. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908 318.2018.1493492
Ding, Y., & Cronin, B. (2011). Popular and/or prestigious? Measures of scholarly esteem. Information Processing
and Management, 47(1), 80– 96. ht tps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2010.01.002
Dixon, L. Q., Zhao, J., Shin, J.- Y., Wu, S., Su, J.- H., Burgess- Brigham, R., Gezer, M. U., & Snow, C. (2012).
What we know about second language acquisition. Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 5– 60. https://
doi.org/10.3102/00346 54311 433587
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis:
An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 13 3, 285– 296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusr
es.2021.04.070
Erling, E. J., & Moore, E. (2021). Socially just plurilingual education in Europe: Shifting subjectivities and practices
through research and action. International Journal of Multilingualism, 18, 523– 533.
Franz, J., & Teo, A. (2018). ‘A2 is Normal’ – Thai secondary school English teachers’ encounters with the CEFR.
RELC Journal, 49(3), 322– 338. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336 88217 738816
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2021). A bibliometric study of EAP research: Who is doing what, where and when?
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 49, 100929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100929
Jones, N., & Saville, N. (2009). European language policy: Assessment, learning and the CEFR. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 29, 51– 63. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267 19050 9090059
26 of 26
|
SAHIB and STAPA
Kanchai, T. (2019). Thai EFL university lecturers’ viewpoints towards impacts of the CEFR on their English lan-
guage curricula and teaching practice. NIDA Journal of Language and Communication, 24(3 5), 2 3 – 47.
Krishnan, P. D., & Yunus, M. M. (2019). Blended CEFR in enhancing vocabulary among low proficiency students.
Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), Special Issue on CALL, 5, 141– 153. https://doi.org/10.24093/ awej/
cal l 5 .11
Kushairi, N., & Ahmi, A. (2021). Flipped classroom in the second decade of the Millenia: A Bibliometrics analysis
with Lotka’s law. Education and Information Technologies, 26(4), 4401– 4431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1063
9- 0 21- 10457 - 8
Little, D. (2007). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Perspectives on the making of
supranational language education policy. Modern Language Journal, 91, 645– 655.
Mansour, A. Z., Ahmi, A., Popoola, O. M. J., & Znaimat, A. (2021). Discovering the global landscape of fraud
detection studies: A bibliometric review. Journal of Financial Crime. Advance online publication. https://doi.
org/10.1108/jfc- 03- 2021- 0052
Mison, S., & Jang, I. C. (2011). Canadian FSL teachers’ assessment practices and needs: Implications for the
adoption of the CEFR in a Canadian context. Synergies Europe, 6, 99 – 108.
Nagai, N., & O’Dwyer, F. (2011). The actual and potential impacts of the CEFR on language education in Japan.
Synergies Europe, 6, 141 – 152.
Read, J. (2019). The influence of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) in the Asia- Pacific
region. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network Journal, 12(1), 12– 18.
Runnels, J., & Runnels, V. (2019). Impact of the Common European Framework of Reference— A bibliometric
analysis of research from 1990– 2017. CEFR Journal, 1, 18– 32. https://cefrj apan.net/image s/PDF/Newsl
etter/ CEFR- 1- 1- art2_JRunn els_VRunn els.pdf
Sönmez, Ö. F. (2020). Bibliometric analysis of educational research articles published in the field of social study
education based on Web of Science Database. Participatory Educational Research, 7(2), 216– 229. https://
doi.org/10.17275/ per.20.30.7.2
Tono, Y. (2019). Coming Full Circle – From CEFR to CEFR- J and back. CEFR Journal- Research and Practice.
Japan Association for Language Teaching (JALT); CEFR & Language Portfolio. SIG.ISSN 2434- 849X, 3,
5 – 17.
Wahid, R., Ahmi, A., & Alam, A. S. A. (2020). Growth and collaboration in massive open online courses: A biblio-
metric analysis. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(4), 292– 322. https://
doi.org/10.19173/ irrodl.v21i4.4693
Yüce, E., & Mirici, İ. H. (2019). A qualitative inquiry into the application of 9th Grade EFL program in terms of the
CEFR. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15 , 1171– 1187. https://doi.org/10.17263/ jlls.631560
Yurtcu, M., & Güzeller, C. (2021). Bibliometric analysis of articles on computerized adaptive testing. Par ticipatory
Educational Research, 8(4), 426– 438. https://doi.org/10.17275/ per.21.98.8.4
How to cite this article: Sahib, F. H., & Stapa, M. (2022). Global trends of the
Common European Framework of Reference: A bibliometric analysis. Review of
Education, 10, e3331. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3331
A preview of this full-text is provided by Wiley.
Content available from Review of Education
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.