Determining the trend of science education topics in gifted education research with R studio program

Abstract

The aim of the study is to examine the trends and results of studies on giftedness in science education by making bibliometric analyzes through the R program. For this purpose, 443 scientific studies published between 2000 and 2022 were accessed from Web of Science (WoS). The data were analyzed under the headings of numerical distribution by year, keyword, active scientific study, active researcher, active journal, active institution and most collaborating country. Result show that the most published scientific study on giftedness in science education was in 2016 and the highest citation rate was in 2003. The most common and central keywords related to giftedness in science education were “learning”, “creativity” and “development”. In addition, the most influential scientific study was “Tracking exceptional human capital over two decades”, the most prolific author was “VanTassel-Baska, J.”, the most influential journal with the highest co-citation network was “Gifted Child Quarterly”, the most influential institution was “National Taiwan Normal University”, and the most collaborative country was “USA”. This study provides a perspective for future studies by revealing the gaps and emerging trends of giftedness in science education.

Keywords

• Attitude towards gifted
• Bibliometric
• Gifted education
• Science education
• Trends of gifted education research

References

1. Baccassino, F., & Pinnelli, S. (2023). Giftedness and gifted education: A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Education, 7, 1073007. DOI:10.3389/feduc.2022.1073007
2. Baylarova, S., & Baloğlu, M. (2023). Bibliometric analysis of research on social-emotional problems in gifted children. Journal of Society, Education and Cultural Research, 2(1), 1-11.
3. Betts, G. (1986). The autonomous learner for the gifted and talented. In J.S. Renzulli (Ed) System and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp 27-56). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
4. Bicakci, M., & Baloglu, M. (2021). A biblıometric analysis on personality research of gifted individuals (1957-2020). Journal of Uludag University Faculty of Education, 34, 125-157. DOI: 10.19171/uefad.845218
5. Demir, E., & Çelik, M. (2020). Bibliometric profile of scientific studies in the field of science curriculum. Journal of Turkish Chemical Society Section C: Chemistry Education (JOTCSC). 5(2), 131-182. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6313-1644
6. Derviş, H. (2019). Bibliometric analysis using bibliometrix an R package. Journal of Scientometric Research, 8(3), 156-160.
7. Ertz, M., & Leblanc-Proulx, S. (2018). Sustainability in the collaborative economy: a bibliometricanalysis reveals emerging interest. J. Clean. Prod. 196, 1073e1085. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.095.
8. Feldhussen, J. F. (1986). A conception of giftedness: conception of giftedness. In R. J. Steinberg, J. E. Davidson (Eds), Conception of Giftedness. New York: Cambridge University press.

9. Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Talent Identification and Development in Education (TIDE). Gifted Education International, 10(1), 10–15. DOI: 10.1177/026142949401000103
10. Freeman J. (2005). Permission to be gifted. In Sternberg R. J., Davidson J. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness, second edition (pp. 80–97). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
11. Garfield, E. (1979). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1(4), 359-375.
12. Gürlen, E., Özdiyar, Ö., & Şen, Z. (2019). Social network analysis of academic studies on gifted people. Education and Science, 44(197), 185-208. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2018.7735
13. Han, H. J., & Shim, K. C. (2019). Development of an engineering design process-based teaching and learning model for scientifically gifted students at the Science Education Institute for the Gifted in South Korea. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 5(1), 1-18.
14. Hernández-Torrano, D., & Ibrayeva, L. (2020). Creativity and education: A bibliometric mapping of the research literature (1975–2019). Thinking Skills and Creativity, 35, 100625. DOI: 10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100625
15. Hernández-Torrano, D., & Kuzhabekova, A. (2019). The state and development of research in the field of gifted education over 60 years: A bibliometric study of four gifted education journals (1957–2017). High Ability Studies, 1-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2019.1601071
16. Jolly, J. L. (2009). Historical perspectives: The national defense education act, current STEM Initiative, and the gifted. Gifted Child Today, 32(2), 50-53.
17. Karagöz, B. & Şeref, İ. (2019). Bibliometric analysis of researches on Yunus Emre. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Research, 13(27), 123-141. DOI: 10.29329/mjer.2019.185.6
18. Kaya, N. G. (2022). Effective classroom management qualifications for teachers of gifted students. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 21(82), 572-583.
19. Kessler, M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American documentation, 14(1), 10-25.
20. Kunt, K., & Tortop, H.S. (2017). Examination of science and technology teachers’ attitude and opinions related giftedness and gifted education in Turkey. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 5(1), 37-54. DOI: 10.17478/JEGYS.2017.53
21. Kuzhabekova, A., Hendel, D. D., & Chapman, D. W. (2015). Mapping global research oninternational higher education. Research in Higher Education,56(8), 861–882.
22. Marland, S. P., Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education and background papers submitted to the U.S. Office of Education (Y4.L 11/2: G36). Committee on Labor and Public Welfare United States Senate. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
23. Mcclain, M. C. & Pfeiffer, S. (2012). Identification of gifted students in the United States today: A look at state definitions, policies, and practices. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28(1), 59-88. DOI: 10.1080/15377903.2012.643757
24. Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213-228. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1765- 5. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5
25. Moral-Muñoz, J.A., Herrera-Viedma, E., Santisteban-Espejo, A., & Cobo, M.J., (2020). Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: An up-to-date review. El profesional de la información, 29(1), 1-20. DOI: 10.3145/epi.2020.ene.03
26. Mourao, P.R., & Martinho, V.D. (2020). Forest entrepreneurship: a bibliometric analysis and a discussion about the co-authorship networks of an emerging scientific field. J. Clean. Prod. 256, 14. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120413.
27. Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation, 25, 348– 349.
28. Sierra, V. D., Valdés Cuervo, A., Leyte, M., Aymes, G., Amezaga, T., & Rodríguez, A. (2015). Analysis of the scientific productivity of Mexican researchers on the topic of gifted students. Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science, 8(4), 216-226. DOI: 10.9734/BJESBS/2015/16947
29. Sumida, M. (2013). Emerging trends in Japan in education of the gifted: A focus on science education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36(3), 277-289.
30. Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking Giftedness and Gifted Education: A Proposed Direction Forward Based on Psychological Science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54. DOI: 10.1177/1529100611418056
31. Tanık Önal, N., & Büyük, U. (2020). To be a gifted child. Journal of National Education, 49(228), 153-174.
32. Tarhan, S., & Kılıç, Ş. (2014). Identification of gifted and talented student and models in Turkey. Journal of gifted education research, 2(2), 27-43.
33. Tekbıyık, A. & Akdeniz, A., R. (2008). Teachers’ views about adoption and application of primary science and technology curriculum. Necatibey Faculty of Education, Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education (NFE-EJSME), 2(2), 23-37.
34. Tortop, H. S., & Kunt, K. (2013). Investigation of primary school teachers' attitudes towards gifted education. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(2), 441-451.
35. Yurdakul, M., & Bozdoğan, A. E. (2022). Bibliometric evaluation based on web of science database: articles on science education. Turkish Scientific Researches Journal, 7(1), 72-92.
36. Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472.