Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis of the Last 40 Years of Science Education Research via Bibliometric Methods

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study aimed to reveal science education research (SER) general trends via VOSviewer version 1.6.17 software program. For this purpose, a bibliometric analysis of 13,242 articles in the Education and Educational Research (E&ER) category of Web of Science (WoS) was performed. It was found that there was a significant increase in article counts since 2007, and that the most articles were published in 2020. The first conclusion of the current research was that funding support is an important factor in SER article counts published in WoS. The bibliometric analysis results showed that the most frequently used keywords in SER articles were science education, STEM/STEM education, nature of science, assessment, professional development, science, scientific literacy, argumentation, gender, and conceptual change. Another conclusion of this study was that science education researchers’ interest varied according to certain year intervals. The study revealed that the most preferred topics were nature of science and professional development during 2007–2021. Additionally, research interest in the topics of conceptual change, scientific literacy, chemistry education, and attitudes during 2007–2016 declined during 2017–2021. The top four research topics in recent years were STEM, argumentation, self-efficacy, and motivation. The countries where most publications came from were the USA, UK, Australia, Turkey, and Canada. The results of this study showed that science education researchers’ interest varied according to countries. The results of the study revealed that STEM/STEM education is mostly referred to in articles from the USA, Australia, UK, Taiwan, and Canada. Additionally, while there was more interest in the nature of science in the USA, Turkey, UK, and Canada there was more interest in argumentation in the USA, Turkey, UK, and Taiwan. Additionally, this study revealed the most cited SER articles’ distinctive features and strength collaborations between countries and between authors. The results provided a comprehensive review to understand the recent developments in the SER.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Not applicable.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

References

  • Abramo, G., Cicera, T., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2014). Are the authors of highly cited articles also the most productive ones? Journal of Informetrics, 8(2014), 89–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Artsın, M. (2020). Bir metin madenciliği uygulaması: VOSviewer. Eskişehir Technical University Journal of Science and Technology B-Theoretical Sciences, 8(2), 344–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkin, J. M., & Black, P. (2003). Inside science education reform: A history of curricular and policy change. Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84(6), 740–756.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boenig, R. W. (1969). Research in science education: 1938 through 1947. Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. The Belknap Press of Harvard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytics lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187–1218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carney, M., Gedajlovic, E. R., Heugens, P. P., Van Essen, M., & Van Oosterhout, J. (2011). Business group affiliation, performance, context, and strategy: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 437–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Y. H., Chang, C. Y., & Tseng, Y. H. (2010). Trends of science education research: An automatic content analysis. Journal Fo Science Education and Technology, 19, 315–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, D., Liu, Z., Luo, Z., Webber, M., & Chen, J. (2016). Bibliometric and visualized analysis of emergy research. Ecological Engineering, 90, 285–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, M. H. (2016). Science education research and practice in Taiwan: A little giant! In M.H. Chiu (Ed), Science education research and practices in Taiwan: Challenges and opportunities (pp.1–8), Springer.

  • Çalık, M., Ünal, S., Çoştu, B., & Karataş, F. Ö. (2008). Trends in Turkish science education. Essays in Education. Special Edition, 23–45.

  • De Jong, O. (2007). Trends in western science curricula and science education research: A bird’s eye view. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 6(1), 15–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R. (1989). Changing conceptions. In P. Adey (Ed.), Adolescent Development and School Science (pp. 79–99). Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Learning in science: From behaviorism towards social constructivism and beyond. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 3–25). Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eybe, J., & Schmidt, H. J. (2001). Quality criteria and exemplary papers in chemistry education research. International Journal of Science Education, 23(2), 209–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falkingham, L. T., & Reeves, R. (1998). Context analysis-A technique for analysing research in a field, applied to literature on the management of R&D at the section level. Scientometrics, 42(2), 97–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fensham, P. J. (2004). Defining an identity: The evolution of science education as a field of research. Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, R. M. (1977). The conditions of learning. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Göktaş, Y., Hasançebi, F., Varışoğlu, B., Akçay, A., Bayrak, N., Baran, M., & Sözbilir, M. (2012). Türkiye’deki eğitim araştırmalarında eğilimler: Bir içerik analizi. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(1), 443–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernández-Torrano, D., & Ibrayeva, L. (2020). Creativity and education: A bibliometric mapping of the research literature (1975–2019). Thinking Skills and Creativity, 35, 100625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensen, K. T. (2009). Writing for publication: A shift in perspective. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(10), 776a–776d.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, E. W. (2000). Research in science education: Time for a health check? Studies in Science Education, 35(2000), 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, E. W. (2001). Research in science education in Europe: Retrospect and prospect. In Behrendt, H., et al. (Eds.), Research in Science Education-past, present, and future (p.17–26), Kluweer Academic Publishers.

  • Journal Citation Reports. (2019). 2019 Journal Citation Reports: Full journal list. https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/dlm_uploads/2019/08/JCR_Full_Journal_list140619.pdf. Accessed 7 Dec 2020.

  • Kobayashi, V. B., Mol, S. T., Berkers, H. A., Kismihok, G., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2018). Text mining in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 21, 733–765.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawlor, E. P. (1970). Research in science education: 1953 through 1957. Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students and teachers conceptions of the nature of science-a review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., Abd-El Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. H., Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2009). Research trends in science education from 2003 to 2007: A content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education., 31(15), 1999–2020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, T. C., Lin, T. J., & Tsai, C. C. (2014). Research trends in science education from 2008 to 2012: A systematic content analysis of publication in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 36(8), 1346–1372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, T. J., Lin, T. C., Potvin, P., & Tsai, C. C. (2019). Research trends in science education from 2013 to 2017: A systematic content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 41(3), 367–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X., Liang, L., & Liu, E. (2012). Science education research in China: Challenges and promises. International Journal of Science Education, 34(13), 1961–1970.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCoun, R. J. (1998). Biases in the interpretation and use of research results. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 259–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrail, M. R., Rickard, C. M., & Jones, R. (2006). Publish or perish: A systematic review of interventions to increase academic publication rates. Higher Education Research & Development, 25(1), 19–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. King’s College London, Cornwall House. https://mk0nuffieldfounpg9ee.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Beyond-2000.pdf. Accessed 7 Dec 2020.

  • Ministry of National Education-MoNE. (2018). Ortaöğretim fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı [Secondary science curriculum]. http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=325. Accessed 20 Mar 2018.

  • Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction-What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., The Prisma Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council-NRC. (1996). National science education standards. National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2007). In praise of armchair science education. E-NARST News, 50(2). 8–11. Retrieved January 16, 2010 from http://www.narst.org/news/enarstnews_july2007.pdf

  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesta, B., Fuerst, J., & Kirkegaard, E. O. W. (2018). Bibliometric keyword analysis across seventeen years (2000–2016) of intelligence articles. Journal of Intelligence, 6(4), 46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, L. J. (1998). Guest editorial: Improving the interpretation and reporting of quantitative research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(3), 237–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossman, G. B., & Yore, L. D. (2009). Stitching the pieces together to reveal the generalized patterns: Systematic research reviews, secondary reanalyses, case-to-case comparisons, and metasyntheses of qualitative research studies (575–601). In Shelly, M. C. II, Yore, L. D., & Hand, B. (Eds). Quality research in literacy and science education: International perspectives and gold standards. Springer

  • Roth, W. M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Education, 88(2), 263–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 127–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1994). Physics students epistemologies and views about knowing and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 5–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans: Project 2061. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salloum, S. A., AlHamad, A. Q., Al-Emran, M., & Shaalan, K. (2018). A survey of Arabic text mining. In Shaalan, K., Hassanien, A., & Tolba, F. (Eds). Intelligent natural language processing: Trends and applications. Studies in Computational Intelligence (pp. 417–431). Springer.

  • Seymour, E., Hunter, A. B., Laursen, S. L., & Deantoni, T. (2004). Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three-year study. Science Education, 88(4), 493–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shih, M., Feng, J., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). Research and trends in the field of e-learning from 2001 to 2005: A content analysis of cognitive studies in selected journals. Computers & Education, 51(2008), 955–967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. McMillan Comp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sozbilir, M., & Canpolat, N. (2006). Fen eğitimindeki son otuz yıldaki uluslararası değişimler: Dünyada çalışmalar nereye gidiyor? Türkiye bu çalışmaların neresinde? [International changes in science education over the last thirty years: Where are the studies going in the world? Where is Turkey in these studies?]. In Bahar, M. (Ed.), Fen ve teknoloji öğretimi. Pegem A Yayıncılık.

  • Sozbilir, M., & Kutu, H. (2008). Development and current status of science education research in Turkey. Essays in Education, Special Edition, 1–22.

  • Sozbilir, M., Kutu, H., & Yasar, M.D. (2012). 14. Science education research in Turkey: A content analysis of selected features of published papers. In Jorde, D., & Dillon, J. (Eds.). Science Education Research and Practice in Europe: Retrospective and Prospective (pp. 341–374). SENSE Publishers.

  • Swift, N. J. (1969). Research in science education: 1948 through 1952. Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonta, Y. (2017). TÜBİTAK Türkiye adresli uluslararası bilimsel yayınları teşvik (UBYT) programının değerlendirilmesi. TUBİTAK ULAKBİM, Lazer Ofset Matbaacılık.

  • Tosun, C. (2022). Trends of WoS educational research articles in the last century. Review of Education, 10, e3328. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic-tests to evaluate students misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 159–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, C. C. (2002). Nested epistemologies: Science teachers’ beliefs of teaching, learning and science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 771–783.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, C. C., & Wen, M. L. (2005). Research and trends in science education from 1998 to 2002: A content analysis of publication in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 27(1), 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2014). Visualizing bibliometric networks. In Y. Ding, R. Rousseau, & D. Wolfram (Eds.), Measuring scholarly impact (pp. 285–320). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eck, N. J., Waltman, L., Dekker, R., & Van den Berg, J. (2008). An experimental comparison of bibliometric mapping techniques. In 10th international conference on science and technology indicators, Vienna.

  • Viennot, L. (1977). Le raisonnement spontane’ en dynamique élémentaire [Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics]. Université Paris VII.

    Google Scholar 

  • Villani, A., Dias, V. S., & Valadares, J. M. (2010). The development of science education research in Brazil and contributions from the history and philosophy of science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(7), 907–937.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, R., & Masal, D. (2015). Public leadership: A review of the literature and framework for future research. Public Management Review, 17(8), 1165–1189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J. (2012). Curriculum reform in mainland china, 1978–2008. Chinese Education and Society, 45(1), 59–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wei, B., & Thomas, G. P., et al. (2007). The post-Mao junior secondary school chemistry curriculum in the People’s Republic of China: A case study in the internationalization of science education. In B. Atweh (Ed.), Internationalisation and globalisation in mathematics and science education (pp. 487–507). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, R. (1997). Trends in research in science education. Research in Science Education, 27(2), 215–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, R. T. (1998). Research, theories of learning, principles of teaching and classroom practice: Examples and issues. Studies in Science Education, 31, 55–70.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Department of Science Education, Bartın University, Bartın, Turkey

    Cemal Tosun

Authors
  1. Cemal Tosun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cemal Tosun.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

No data was collected from human participants in the study. Research is document review. All ethical standards were taken into account and followed during the research.

Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tosun, C. Analysis of the Last 40 Years of Science Education Research via Bibliometric Methods. Sci & Educ 33, 451–480 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00400-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00400-9

Search

Navigation