Mapping the Evolution of Evidence-Based Teaching in Science Education: A Bibliometric Approach

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 1, 1 - 38

İpek Derman , Sevim Bezen

https://doi.org/10.46778/goputeb.1517854

Öz

This study was conducted to present a holistic perspective on the research on evidence-based teaching in science education (EBTiSE) and to provide guidance to the field so that educators and researchers can easily access resources and authors. This study aimed to determine the trend of research on EBTiSE by focusing on evidence-based teaching. For this purpose, the bibliometric analysis method was utilized. Thus, it was aimed to reveal the structure and development of the research topic. The study accessed 218 publications published between 2000 and 2024 from the Web of Science (WoS) database. VOSviewer software was used to analyze these data bibliometrics. As a result of the research, it was determined that publications related to EBTiSE have been published regularly since 2000 and peaked with 21 publications in 2020-2021. The USA ranks first in the countries with the most publications on EBTiSE. It was determined that the highest number of publications on EBTiSE was in the "International Journal of Science Education." The most frequently used keywords in the studies were "science education," "professional development," and "argumentation." In recent studies, key concepts such as science teacher education, undergraduate research, early childhood, scientific literacy, educational technology, etc., are frequently mentioned. According to the citation network analysis, Wu and Tsai (2007), Dawson and Venville (2010), Zembal-Saul et al. (2002), Oliver and Hannafin (2000), and Brown et al. (2010) emerged as the primary sources of the subject area. The article titled “Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms" was found to have the highest number of common citations. The results obtained by utilizing visual maps in this study will contribute to other original studies to be conducted in the field of EBTiSE.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Science Education, Evidence-Based Practices, Evidence-Based Teaching, Bibliometric Analysis, WoS Database

Etik Beyan

All analyses are based on previously published studies, so ethical approval is not required.

Fen Eğitiminde Kanıta Dayalı Öğretimin Evriminin Haritalanması: Bibliyometrik Bir Yaklaşım

Öz

Bu araştırma, fen eğitiminde kanıta dayalı öğretimi konu edinen araştırmalara ilişkin bütüncül bir bakış açısının sunulması ve eğitimciler ile söz konusu alandaki araştırmacıların kaynak ve yazarlara kolaylıkla ulaşabilmesi noktasında alana rehber olunması amacıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu çalışmada kanıta dayalı öğretime odaklanılarak, fen eğitiminde kanıta dayalı öğretimi konu edinen araştırmaların eğiliminin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda bibliyometrik analiz yönteminden yararlanılmıştır. Böylece araştırma konusunun yapısının ve gelişiminin ortaya konulması istenmiştir. Araştırmada WoS veri tabanından 2000 ile 2024 yılları arasında yayınlanmış 218 yayına ulaşılmıştır. Bu verilerin bibliyometrik analizi için VOSviewer yazılımı kullanılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda fen eğitiminde kanıta dayalı öğretim (FETKDÖ) ile ilgili belgelerin 2000 yılından itibaren düzenli olarak yayınlandığı ve 2020-2021 yıllarında 21’er yayınla zirve yaptığı tespit edilmiştir. FETKDÖ ile ilgili en fazla yayına sahip ülkeler listesinde ABD ilk sırada yer almaktadır. FETKDÖ konulu yayınların en fazla “International Journal of Science Education” isimli dergide olduğu belirlenmiştir. Araştırmalarda en sık kullanılan anahtar kelimelerin "fen bilimleri eğitimi", “mesleki gelişim” ve "argümantasyon" olduğu saptanmıştır. Daha yakın tarihli araştırmalarda fen bilimleri öğretmen eğitimi, lisans araştırmaları, erken çocukluk, bilimsel okuryazarlık, eğitimsel teknoloji vb. anahtar kavramlara daha fazla değinildiği görülmektedir. Atıf ağı analizine göre Wu ve Tsai (2007), Dawson ve Venville (2010), Zembal-Saul ve diğerleri (2002), Oliver ve Hannafin (2000) ve Brown ve diğerleri (2010) konu alanının temel kaynakları olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. En yüksek ortak atıfa sahip olan yayının da “Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms” başlıklı makale olduğu belirlenmiştir. Bu çalışmada görsel haritalardan yararlanılarak elde edilen sonuçların FEKDÖ ile ilgili yapılacak diğer özgün çalışmalara katkı sağlayacağına inanılmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Fen Eğitimi, Kanıta Dayalı Uygulamalar, Kanıta Dayalı Öğretim, Bibliyometrik Analiz, WoS Veri Tabanı

Etik Beyan

Tüm analizler daha önce yayınlanmış çalışmalara dayanmaktadır, bu nedenle etik onay gerekmemektedir.

Kaynakça

• Akay, C., & Kanadli, S. (2021). The effect of react strategy on achievement in science education: A mixed research synthesis. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 20(6), 868-880. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.868
• Baildon, M. C., & Ong, M. W. (2022). Singapore teachers’ perceptions of research in practice: Contexts, constraints, and possibilities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 119, 103850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103850
• Barnett, J. H., Frankel, A. J., & Fisher, K. W. (2018). Systematic review of evidence-based interventions in science for students with autism spectrum disorders. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 53(2), 128-145.
• Belland, B. R. (2010). Portraits of middle school students constructing evidence-based arguments during problem-based learning: The impact of computer-based scaffolds. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(3), 285-309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9139-4
• Belland, B., Glazewski, K., & Richardson, J. (2011). Problem-based learning and argumentation: Testing a scaffolding framework to support middle school students’ creation of evidence-based arguments. Instructional Science, 39, 667-694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9148-z
• Beniermann, A., Mecklenburg, L., & Upmeier zu Belzen, A. (2021). Reasoning on controversial science issues in science education and science communication. Education Sciences, 11(9), 522. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090522
• Block, J. H., & Fisch, C. (2020). Eight tips and questions for your bibliographic study in business and management research. Management Review Quarterly, 70, 307-312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00188-4
• Bouni, A., Nchia, L. N., Sigha, P. M., Mfeyet, B. A., Aimée, A. N., Ateba, J. A., ... & Soudani, M. (2024). The foundations of the nature of science as a tool for teaching and learning scientific concepts. International Journal of Science and Research Archive, 13(1), 113-120. https://doi.org/10.30574/ijsra.2024.13.1.1589
• Brown, N. J., Furtak, E. M., Timms, M., Nagashima, S. O., & Wilson, M. (2010). The evidence-based reasoning framework: Assessing scientific reasoning. Educational Assessment, 15(3-4), 123-141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2010.530551
• Brown, C., Daly, A., & Liou, Y.-H. (2016). Improving trust, improving schools: Findings from a social network analysis of 43 primary schools in England. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 1(1), 69-91. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-09-2015-0004
• Budimir, G., Rahimeh, S., Tamimi, S., & Južnič, P. (2021). Comparison of self-citation patterns in WoS and Scopus databases based on national scientific production in Slovenia (1996–2020). Scientometrics, 126(3), 2249-2267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03862-w
• Cain, T., Brindley, S., Brown, C., Jones, G., & Riga, F. (2019). Bounded decision-making, teachers’ reflection and organisational learning: How research can inform teachers and teaching. British Educational Research Journal, 45(5), 1072-1087. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3551
• Cohen, J. (1988). Set correlation and contingency tables. Applied psychological measurement, 12(4), 425-434. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216880120041
• Csanadi, A., Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2021). Pre-service teachers’ evidence-based reasoning during pedagogical problem-solving: better together? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 36, 147-168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-020-00467-4
• Davies, P. (1999). What is evidence-based education? British Journal of Educational Studies, 47(2), 108-121. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8527.00106
• Dawson, V., & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40, 133-148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9104-y
• Deehan, J., & MacDonald, A. (2024). Australian teachers’ views on how primary science education can be improved. The Australian Educational Researcher, 51(4), 1255-1272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-023-00638-4
• DeHaan, R. L. (2017). Teaching creativity and inventive problem solving in science. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 8(3), 155-264. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-12-0081
• Diery, A., Vogel, F., Knogler, M., & Seidel, T. (2020). Evidence-based practice in higher education: Teacher educators' attitudes, challenges, and uses. Frontiers in Education, 5(62). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00062
• 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, 133, 285-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
• Downey, R. M., Downey, K. B., Jacobs, J., Korthas, H., Melchor, G. S., Speidell, A., . . . Myers, A. K. (2022). Learning design in science education: perspectives from designing a graduate-level course in evidence-based teaching of science. Advances in Physiology Education, 46, 651-657. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00069.2022
• Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science education, 287-312.
• Dunn, D. S., Saville, B. K., Baker, S. C., & Marek, P. (2013). Evidence‐based teaching: Tools and techniques that promote learning in the psychology classroom. Australian Journal of Psychology, 65(1), 5-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12004
• Eddy, S. L., Converse, M., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2017). PORTAAL: A classroom observation tool assessing evidence-based teaching practices for active learning in large science, technology, engineering, and mathematics classes. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-06-0095
• European Commission. (2012). Supporting the Teaching Professions for Better Learning Outcomes. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SWD:2012:0374:FIN:EN:PDF
• Fang, S.-C., Hsu, Y.-S., & Lin., S.-S. (2019). Conceptualizing socioscientific decision making from a review of research in science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(3), 427-448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9890-2
• Ferguson, L. E. (2021). Evidence-informed teaching and practice-informed research. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 35(2-3), 199-208. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000310
• Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404-423. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20263
• Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.131903011
• Furtak, E. M., Hardy, I., Beinbrech, C., Shavelson, R. J., & Shemwell, J. T. (2010). A framework for analyzing evidence-based reasoning in science classroom discourse. Educational Assessment, 15(3-4), 175-196. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2010.530553
• Gabbin, C. P. (2020). Teachers’ experiences implementing evidence-based interventions with fidelity for preschool-students with disabilities [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Walden University.
• Georgiou, D., Mok, S. Y., Fischer, F., Vermunt, J. D., & Seidel., T. (2020). Evidence-based practice in teacher education: The mediating role of self-efficacy beliefs and practical knowledge. Frontiers in Education, 5, 559192. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.559192
• Good, M., Maries, A., & Singh, C. (2019). Impact of traditional or evidence-based active-engagement instruction on introductory female and male students’ attitudes and approaches to physics problem solving. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15, 020129. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.020129
• Graham, S., Capizzi, A., Harris, K. R., Hebert, M., & Morphy, P. (2014). Teaching writing to middle school students: A national survey. Reading and Writing, 27, 1015-1042. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9495-7
• Hardy, I., Kloetzer, B., Moeller, K., & Sodian, B. (2010). The analysis of classroom discourse: Elementary school science curricula advancing reasoning with evidence. Educational Assessment, 15(3-4), 197-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2010.530556
• Hargreaves, D. H. (1996). Teaching as a research-based profession: Possibilities and prospects. Teacher Training Agency Annual Lecture. http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Portals/0/PDF%20reviews%20and%20summaries/TTA%20Hargreaves%20lecture.pdf
• Hattie, J. A. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
• Hofer, S. I., Schumacher, R., Rubin, H., & Stern, E. (2018). Enhancing physics learning with cognitively activating instruction: A quasi-experimental classroom intervention study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(8), 1175-1191. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000266
• Howard, B., Diug, B., & Ilic, D. (2022). Methods of teaching evidence-based practice: a systematic review. BMC Medical Education, 22(1), 742. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03812-x
• Hsiao, Y. J., & Petersen, S. (2019). Evidence-based practices provided in teacher education and in-service training programs for special education teachers of students with autism spectrum disorders. Teacher Education and Special Education, 42(3), 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406418758464
• Ion, G., & Sirvent, E. L. (2022). Teachers’ perception of the characteristics of an evidence-informed school: initiative, supportive culture, and shared reflection. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 33(4), 610-628. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2022.2093921
• Jagger, S. L., & Yore, L. D. (2017). Mind the gap: Looking for evidence-based practice of science literacy for all. Science Teaching Journals, 23(6), 559-577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9271-6
• Karaer, G., Hwang, J., Chanlen, N., & Hand, B. (2024). Longitudinal study examining immersing students with IEPs in argument-based inquiry to improve the learning of science. International Journal of Science Education, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2024.2348823
• Karim, N. I., Maries, A., & Singh, C. (2018). Do evidence-based active engagement courses reduce the gender gap in introductory physics?. European Journal of Physics, 39, 025701. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6404/aa9689
• Karpudewan, M., & Roth, W.-M. (2018). Changes in primary students’ informal reasoning during an environment-related curriculum on socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(3), 401-419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9787-x
• Knogler, M., Hetmanek, A., & Seidel., T. (2022). Determining an evidence base for particular fields of educational practice: a systematic review of meta-analyses on effective mathematics and science teaching. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 873995. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.873995
• Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y., & Froyd, J. E. (2020). Research and trends in STEM education: a systematic review of journal publications. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(11), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00207-6
• Li, J., Goerlandt, F., & Reniers, G. (2021). An overview of scientometric mapping for the safety science community: Methods, tools, and framework. Safety Science, 134, 105093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.105093
• Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
• McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1
• NRC. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press.
• Oliver, K., & Hannafin, M. J. (2000). Student management of web-based hypermedia resources during open-ended problem solving. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(2), 75-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670009598746
• Pei, B., Xing, W., Zhu, G., Antonyan, K., & Xie, C. (2023). Integrating infrared technologies in science learning: An evidence-based reasoning perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 8423-8443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11538-y
• Schwartz, B. M., & Gurung, R. A. (2012). Evidence-based teaching for higher education. American Psychological Association.
• Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15-21. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X03100701
• Song, Y., Chen, X., Hao, T., Liu, Z., & Lan, Z. (2019). Exploring two decades of research on classroom dialogue by using bibliometric analysis. Computers & Education, 137, 12-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.002
• 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.17275/per.20.30.7.2
• Sulu, M. D., Martella, R. C., Aydin, O., Bolshokova, V., & Erden, E. (2023). A meta-analysis of science education studies for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 35(6), 917-950. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-023-09890-z
• Şimşir, İ. (2021). Bibliyometri ve bibliyometrik analize ilişkin kavramsal çerçeve [Conceptual framework for bibliometrics and bibliometric analysis]. In O. Öztürk & G. Gürler (Eds.), Bir literatür incelemesi aracı olarak bibliyometrik analiz [Bibliometric analysis as a literature review tool] (p.7-31). Nobel Bilimsel Eserler.
• Towne, L., & Shavelson, R. J. (2002). Scientific research in education. National Academies Press.
• Towne, L., Wise, L. L., & Winters, T. M. (2005). Advancing Scientific Research in Education. National Academies Press.
• 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
• Voisin, A., & Dumay, X. (2020). How do educational systems regulate the teaching profession and teachers’ work? A typological approach to institutional foundations and models of regulation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 96, 103144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103144
• Wu, Y.‐T., & Tsai, C.‐C. (2007). High school students' informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163-1187. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601083375
• Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding preservice science teachers' evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 437-463. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022411822951