A Half Century Bibliometric Analysis of Studies on The Usage of Technology in Teaching Biology

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine academic publications on the usage of technology in biology teaching in terms of bibliographic variables. The bibliometric analysis method was preferred in the study, which was carried out with a case study approach for in-depth analysis. Within the scope of the study 1339 publications obtained from the bibliometric database Scopus were examined in terms of variables such as publication year, type, source and authors, and were also visually evaluated with the VOSviewer package program to be able to make a mapping based on bibliometric analysis. According to the results, the history of technology usage in biology teaching dates back to 1974, the studies have accelerated since the 2000s, the publications are mostly published in the field of social sciences and, in the form of articles, the most productive publication source is the magazine called American Biology Teacher, the most productive authors are Knight and Wood, most productive country is the USA. Publications are mostly published in English. It was determined that the most preferred keywords are biology, biology education, active learning, science education and training, and the most frequently used terms in the title and abstract section are course, teacher, group, effect, and simulation.

Keywords

• Bibliometric analysis
• biology teaching
• scopus
• technology

Biyoloji Öğretiminde Teknoloji Kullanımına İlişkin Çalışmaların Yarım Asırlık Bibliyometrik Analizi

Öz

Bu çalışmada biyoloji öğretiminde teknoloji kullanımına ilişkin akademik yayınların bibliyografik değişkenler açısından incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Derinlemesine bir inceleme amacıyla örnek olay yaklaşımıyla gerçekleştirilen çalışmada bibliyometrik analiz yöntemi tercih edilmiştir. Çalışmada bibliyometrik veri tabanlarından Scopus’tan erişilen 1339 yayın, yayın yılı, çeşidi, kaynağı ve yazarlar gibi değişkenler açısından incelenmiş, ayrıca bibliyometrik analize dayalı haritalama yapılabilmesi için VOSviewer paket programı ile görsel olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre biyoloji öğretiminde teknoloji kullanımı geçmişinin 1974 yılına dayandığı, çalışmaların 2000’li yıllardan itibaren hız kazandığı, yayınların çoğunlukla sosyal bilimler alanında, bilimsel dergilerde ve makale türünde yayınlandığı, en üretken yayın kaynağının American Biology Teacher adlı dergi, en üretken yazarların Knight ve Wood, en üretken ülkenin Amerika Birleşik Devletleri olduğu, yayınların en çok İngilizce dilinde yayınlandığı, en çok biyoloji, biyoloji eğitimi, aktif öğrenme, fen eğitimi ve eğitim anahtar kelimelerinin kullanıldığı, başlık ve özet bölümünde en sık kullanılan terimlerin ders, öğretmen, grup, etki ve simulasyon olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bibliyometrik analiz
• Biyoloji öğretimi
• Scopus
• Teknoloji

Kaynakça

1. Abdullah, K. H. (2022). Publication trends in biology education: A bibliometric review of 63 years. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 19(2), 465-480. https://doi.org/-10.36681/tused.2022.131.
2. Alkayış, A. (2021). Eğitim felsefesi perspektifinden dijitalleşme ve eğitim 4.0. Bingöl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi (BUSBED), 11(21), 221-237. https://doi.org/10.29029/busbed.818165
3. Arslan, R., Kofoğlu, M., & Dargut, C. (2020). Development of augmented reality application for biology education. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 17(1), 62-72. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2020.13.
4. Asare, I., & Parker, J. (2022). Students' perception on web-based technology in teaching biology in college of education. Science Education International, 33(2), 242-250. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v33.i2.12
5. Atalay, E. (2019). Biyoloji öğretiminde artırılmış gerçeklik kullanımının öğrencilerin öğrenimine etkisi (Tez No. 557187) [Yüksek lisans tezi, Trakya Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü- Edirne]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Başkanlığı Tez Merkezi.
6. Bardakci, S., Soylu, M. Y., Akkoyunlu, B., & Deryakulu, D. (2022). Collaborations, concepts, and citations in educational technology: A trend study via bibliographic mapping. Education and Information Technologies, 27, 4321-4346. https://doi.org/0.1007/s10639-021-10785-9
7. Bozdağ, H. C., Türkoğuz, S., & Gökler, İ. (2021). Bibliometric analysis of studies on the flipped classroom model in biology teaching. JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia), 7(3), 275-287. https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v7i3.16540
8. Burnham, J. F. (2006). Scopus database: a review. Biomedical digital libraries, 3(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-5581-3-1

9. Büyükkol Köse, E., Çetin, G., & Yünkül, E. (2018). A content analysis of studies related to educational technologies in biology education. Journal of Educational Technology & Online Learning (JETOL), 1(2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.419932
10. Byukusenge, C., Nsanganwimana, F., & Tarmo, A. P. (2022). Effectiveness of virtual laboratories in teaching and learning biology: A review of literature. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 21(6), 1-17. https://doi.org/-10.26803/ijlter.21.6.1
11. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
12. Cimer, A. (2012). What makes biology learning difficult and effective: Students' views. Educational Research and Reviews, 7(3), 61-71. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR11.205
13. Djeki, E., Dégila, J., Bondiombouy, C., & Alhassan, M. H. (2022). E-learning bibliometric analysis from 2015 to 2020. Journal of Computers in Education, 9(4), 727-754. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s40692-021-00218-4
14. Donmus Kaya, V. (2022). A bibliometric analysis of using web 2.0 s in educational research area. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 9(1), 194-216.
15. Elsevier, (2023). Researcher tool and databases. https://www.elsevier.com/en-in/solutions/researcher-tools adresinden 4 Eylül 2023 tarihinde alındı.
16. Erdoğmuş, C., & Korkmaz, Ö. (2022). Trends in educational technologies according to articles published in the last 20 years in international literature. International Online Journal of Primary Education, 11(1), 232-259. https://doi.org/10.55020/iojpe.1083925
17. Ersoy, M. & Gürgen, L. (2021). Examination of Articles Related to Educational Technologies. E-International Journal of Educational Research, 12(2), 1-16.
18. Etobro, A. B., & Fabinu, O. E. (2017). Students’ perceptions of difficult concepts in biology in senior secondary schools in Lagos State. Global Journal of Educational Research, 16(2), 139-147. https://doi.org/10.4314/gjedr.v16i2.8
19. Garraway-Lashley, Y. (2014). Integrating computer technology in the teaching of biology. International Journal Of Biology Education, 3(2), 13-30.
20. Gorraiz, J., & Schloegl, C. (2008). A bibliometric analysis of pharmacology and pharmacy journals: scopus versus web of science. Journal of information science, 34(5), 715-725. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551506nnnnnn
21. Goksu, I. (2021). Bibliometric mapping of mobile learning. Telematics and Informatics, 56, 101491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101491
22. Güneş, U., Tonbuloğlu, B., Tonbuloğlu, İ., Yıldırım, K., & Karataş, İ. H. (2023). Educational technology: A bibliometric approach. Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 57(57), 60-90. https://doi.org/10.15285/maruaebd.1148289
23. Hasyim, W., Suwono, H., & Susilo, H. (2018). Three-tier test to ıdentify students’ misconception of human reproduction system. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains, 6(2), 48-54.
24. Heale, R., & Twycross, A. (2018). What is a case study?. Evidence-based nursing, 21(1), 7-8. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2017-102845
25. Hizqiyah, I. Y. N., Nurkanti, M., Putra, A., Syifa, N., Yanti, M., & Nurdiani, N. (2023). Analysis of computer-based teaching materials in biology learning using bibliometric tools (Application of the slna method). Jurnal Mangifera Edu, 7(2), 135-144. 144. https://doi.org/10.31943/mangiferaedu.v7i2.156
26. Karakus, M., Ersozlu, A., & Clark, A. C. (2019). Augmented reality research in education: A bibliometric study. Eurasıa Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(10), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/103904
27. Koyuncu, N., & Akpolat, O. (2023). Sürdürülebilirlik açısından teknoloji, çevre ve insan etkileşimi. Ulusal Çevre Bilimleri Araştırma Dergisi, 6(1), 46-60.
28. Kumandaş, B. (2015). Misconceptions in biology education: A review of relevant research. (Tez No: 395389) [Doktora tezi, Bilkent Üniversitesi- Ankara]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Başkanlığı Tez Merkezi.
29. Kurutkan, M. N. ve Orhan, F. (2018). Kalite odak noktaları ve bibliyometrik analiz. Kurutkan, M. N. ve Orhan, F. (Eds.), Kalite prensiplerinin görsel haritalama tekniğine göre bibliyometrik analizi (1. baskı s.7-14). Sage Yayıncılık San. Tic. ve Ltd. Şti.
30. 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, 4401-4431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10457-8
31. Lazarowitz, R., & Penso, S. (1992). High school students' difficulties in learning biology concepts. Journal of Biological Education, 26(3), 215-223. https://doi.org/-10.1080/00219266.1992.9655276
32. Lee, S. W. Y., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Technology-supported learning in secondary and undergraduate biological education: Observations from literature review. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22, 226-233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9388-6
33. McGlynn, K., & Kelly, J. (2019). Using technology to sensitively and sensibly meet students’ needs in the science classroom. Science Scope, 43(4), 22-27.
34. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB] (2018). Ortaöğretim biyoloji dersi (9,10,11 ve 12. Sınıflar) öğretim programı. http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/20182215535566-Biyoloji%-20d%C3%B6p.pdf adresinden 11 Eylül 2023 tarihinde alındı.
35. Mikropoulos, T. A., Sampson, D. G., Nikopoulos, A., & Pintelas, P. (2014). The evolution of educational technology based on a bibliometric study. Research on e-Learning and ICT in Education: Technological, Pedagogical and Instructional Perspectives, 15-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6501-0.
36. Muir-Herzig, R. G. (2004). Technology and its impact in the classroom. Computers & Education, 42(2), 111-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(03)00067-8.
37. Murnaka, N. P. (2021). Educational technology research trends: A bibliometrics analysis and visualization. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 12(6), 2695-2701. https://doi.org/10.17762/turcomat.v12i6.5770.
38. National Research Council [NRC] (2003). BIO2010: Transforming undergraduate education for future research biologists. The National Academic Press.Washington D.C.
39. OECD (2023), Shaping digital education: Enabling factors for quality, equity and efficiency, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/bac4dc9f-en
40. Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils' views of the role and value of the science curriculum: a focus-group study. International journal of science education, 23(5), 441-467.
41. Partnership for 21st Century Skills [P21]. (2009). P21 framework definitions. ERIC Clearinghouse.
42. Polat, Z. A., Saraçoğlu, A., & Duman, H. (2019). Harita Dergisi’nin bibliyometrik analizi. Harita Dergisi, 161, 46-56.
43. Rahmati, R., & Karimi, A. (2022). Scientometric mapping of educational technology (1999-2022). Quarterly of Iranian Distance Education Journal, 4(1), 98-110. https://doi.org/10.30473/IDEJ.2022.65389.1121.
44. Robert, C., Arreto, C.D., Azerad, J., & Gaudy, J.F. (2004). Bibliometric overview of the utilization of artificial neural networks in medicine and biology. Scientometrics, 59, 117-130.
45. Rojas-Sánchez, M. A., Palos-Sánchez, P. R., & Folgado-Fernández, J. A. (2023). Systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis on virtual reality and education. Education and Information Technologies, 28(1), 155-192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11167-5.
46. Safitri, M., Riandi, R., Widodo, A., & Nasution, W. R. (2017, September). Integration of various technologies in biology learning. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 895, No. 1, p. 012145). IOP Publishing.
47. Sesli, E., & Kara, Y. (2012). Development and application of a two-tier multiple-choice diagnostic test for high school students’ understanding of cell division and reproduction. Journal of Biological Education, 46(4), 214-225.
48. Suwandi, T., Rahmat, A., Jamil, M. W., & Nurkhalishah, S. (2023). Research trends on biology digital modules: A bibliometric analysis. Biosfer: Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi, 16(1), 13-24. https://doi.org/10.21009/biosferjpb.31361
49. Talan, T. (2021). Artificial intelligence in education: A bibliometric study. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 7(3), 822-837. https://doi.org-/10.46328/ijres.2409
50. Taşçı, G., Yaman, M. ve Soran, H. (2010). Biyoloji öğretmenlerinin öğretimde yeni teknolojileri kullanma durumlarının incelenmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 38(38), 267-278.
51. Tekkaya, C., Özkan, Ö., & Sungur, S. (2001). Biology concepts perceived as difficult by Turkish high school students. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(21), 145-150.
52. Topcu, M. S., & Sahin-Pekmez, E. (2009). Turkish middle school students' difficulties in learning genetics concepts. Journal of Turkish Science Education (TUSED), 6(2), 55-62.
53. Ulakbim (2024), Bibliyometrik analiz sıkça sorulan sorular. https://cabim.ulakbim.gov.tr-/bibliyometrikanaliz/bibliyometrik-analiz-sikcasorulan-sorular/ adresinden 2 Ocak 2024 tarihinde alındı.
54. Uşkul, Ş. (2016). Türkiye’de eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme alanında yapılmış bilimsel yayınların sosyal ağ analizi ile değerlendirilmesi: Bir bibliyometrik çalışma. (Tez No. 436747) [Yüksek lisans tezi, Akdeniz Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü Eğitim Bilimleri Anabilim Dalı- Antalya]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Başkanlığı Tez Merkezi.
55. Van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: Vosviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523-538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
56. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2023). VOSviewer manual. Univeristeit Leiden 1(1), 1-53.
57. Vekli, G.S. (2018). Turkiye'de biyoloji ogretiminde yasanilan sorunlar ve cozum onerileri: akademisyen perspektifi. Akdeniz Egitim Arastirmalari Dergisi, 12(26).
58. VOSviewer. (2024). VOSviewer: Visiualizing Scientific Landscape. https://www.vosviewer.com/features/highlights adresinden 15 Şubat 2024 tarihinde alındı.
59. Yalım, E. (2021). High school students’ level of knowledge and attitudes towards the use of technology in biology classrooms. (Tez No. 658152) [Doktora tezi, Bilkent Üniversitesi- Ankara]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Başkanlığı Tez Merkezi.
60. Yapıcı, İ. Ü. ve Hevedanlı, M. (2013). Biyoloji öğretiminde bit kullanımı tutum ölçeğinin türkçeye uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 1(2), 21-37.
61. Yapıcı, İ. Ü. ve Karakoyun, F. (2017). Biyoloji öğretiminde oyunlaştırma: Kahoot uygulaması örneği. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 8(4), 396-414.
62. Yin, R. (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. (4th edition), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
63. Yuliani, Y., Ardianto, D., & Retnowati, R. (2022). Mapping research on multimedia biology: A bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Biology Education Towards Sustainable Development, 2(1), 12-22. https://doi.org/10.53889/ijbetsd.v2i1.117.
64. Zhou, X., Zhou, M., Huang, D., & Cui, L. (2022). A probabilistic model for co-occurrence analysis in bibliometrics. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 128, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2022.104047.