Investigation of the Bibliometric Features of the Articles on Socioscientific Issues

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 17 Sayı: 36, 2402 - 2428, 30.04.2021

Ayşegül Evren Yapıcıoğlu

https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.841772

Cited By: 1

Öz

The purpose of the present study is to bibliometrically investigate and evaluate the articles published on “socioscientific issues” between the years 1994 and 2019. To this end, it was attempted to determine the countries having the highest number of publications and the collaboration between them, the researchers having the highest number of publications and citations and the collaboration between them, the keywords most frequently used and the journals with the highest publication and citation. The data source of the present study consists of the articles (n: 372) found in the Web of Science (WoS) database. The analysis of the collected data was made with bibliometric mapping in VOSviewer 1.6.15 program. As a result of the study, the countries making the highest number of publications on socioscientific issues (SSI) were found to be the USA, Turkey, and Sweden, respectively. Turkey and the USA (United State of America) were found to come to the fore in terms of both the number of publications and strong cooperation. The authors Zeidler D. L. and Sadler T. D. with the highest number of publications were found to have strong links with the researchers working in the field of SSI and co-authored some articles. Moreover, the keywords found to be used the most frequently in the articles are argumentation, nature of science, science education, decision-making, environmental education, and reasoning.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bibliometric analysis, socioscientific issues, Web of Science Database

Sosyobilimsel Konulara Yönelik Makalelerin Bibliyometrik Özelliklerinin İncelenmesi

Öz

Araştırmanın amacı, “sosyobilimsel konular” üzerine 1994-2019 yılları arasında yayınlanan makaleleri bibliyometrik açıdan inceleyerek değerlendirmektir. Bu amaçla en fazla yayın sayısına sahip ülkeler ve aralarındaki iş birlikleri, en fazla yayın ve atıf sayısına sahip araştırmacılar ile aralarındaki işbirlikleri, en fazla kullanılan anahtar kelimeler, en yüksek yayın ve atıf sayısına sahip dergiler belirlenmeye çalışılmıştır. Araştırmanın veri kaynağını, Web of Science (WoS) veri tabanındaki araştırmalar oluşturmaktadır. Veri analizleri ise, VOSviewer 1.6.15 programı kullanılarak bibliyometrik haritalama ile yapılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda sosyobilimsel konular alanında en fazla yayın yapan üç ülke sırasıyla Amerika, Türkiye ve İşveç’tir. Araştırma sonucunda, Amerika ve Türkiye hem yayın sayısı hem de güçlü iş birlikteliği açısından dikkat çekmektedir. En fazla yayın sayısına sahip Zeidler D. L. ve Sadler T. D isimli yazarların, sosyobilimsel konular alanında çalışan araştırmacılar ile güçlü bağlantıya sahip oldukları ve ortak yayınlar yaptığı belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca sosyobilimsel konulardaki makalelerde, sosyobilimsel konular, argümantasyon, bilimin doğası, fen eğitimi, karar verme, çevre eğitimi ve muhakeme en fazla kullanılan anahtar kelimelerdir. Sosyobilimsel konular alanında en fazla yayın, atıf ve bağlantı gücü potansiyeline “international journal of science education ve Journal of research in science teaching” isimli dergiler sahiptir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bibliyometrik analiz, sosyobilimsel konular, Web of Science Veri Tabanı

Kaynakça

• 21st Century Science Project Team.(2003). 21st-century science: A new flexible model for GCSE science. School Science Review, 85(310),27–34
• Atabey, N. and Topçu, M. S. (2017a). The effect of socioscientific issues based field trips on elementary school students’ argumentation quality. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(1), 68-71. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.263541
• Atabey, N. and Topçu, M. S. (2017b). The development of a socioscientific ıssues-based curriculum unit for middle school students: global warming issue. Internatıonal Journal of Educatıon In Mathematics Science and Technology, 5(3), 153-170. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.296027.
• Bağ, H. and Çalık, M. (2017). İlköğretim düzeyinde yapılan argümantasyon çalışmalarına yönelik tematik içerik analizi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 42(190), 281-301. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2017.6845
• Bingle, W. H. and Gaskell, P. J. (1994). Scientific Literacy for Decisionmaking and the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Journal of Science Education, 78(2), 185-201. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730780206
• Bozdogan, A. E. (2020). Web of Science veri tabanına dayalı bibliyometrik analiz: Bilim merkezleri/müzeleri üzerine yapılan eğitim araştırmaları makaleleri. Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 14(31), 174-194.
• Chowdhury, T., Holbrook, J. and Rannikmäe, M. (2020). Socioscientific issues within science education and their role in promoting the desired citizenry. Science Education International, 31(2), 203-208. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v31.i2.10
• Çiftçi, K. Ş., Danişman, Ş., Yalçın, M., Tosuntaş, Ş. B., Ay, Y., Sölpük, N. and Karadağ, E. (2016). Map of scientific publication in the field of educational sciences and teacher education in Turkey: A bibliometric study. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 16(4), 1097-1123.
• Çilhoroz, Y. and Arslan, İ. (2018). Sağlık hizmetlerinde yalın yönetim yaklaşımı: Bibliyometrik bir analiz. Atlas International Referred Journal On Social Sciences, 4(10), 540-555.
• Demir, E. and Çelik, M. (2020). Bibliometric profile of scientific studies in the field of science curriculum. Türkiye Kimya Derneği Dergisi Kısım C, 5(2), 131-182. https://doi.org/10.37995/jotcsc.765220
• Denktaş Sakar, G. and Cerit, A. G. (2013). Uluslararası alan indekslerinde Türkiye pazarlama yazını: Bibliyometrik analizler ve nitel bir araştırma. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 27(4), 37-62.
• Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, T. D. Zeidler, D. L., Lewis, A., Amiri, L. and Applebaum, S. (2012). Contextualizing nature of science ınstruction in socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2289-2315. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.667582.
• Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, T.D., Sherwood, R.D. and Schlegel, W. M. (2013). Students’ participation in an interdisciplinary, socioscientific issues based undergraduate human biology major and their understanding of scientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 43, 1051–1078. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9298-x
• Ekborg, M., Ottander, C., Silfver, E. and Simon, S. (2013). Teachers’ experience of working with socio-scientific issues: A large scale and in depth study. Research in Science Education, 43, 599–617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9279-5
• Ellegaard, O. and Wallin, J. A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact?. Scientometrics, 105(3), 1809-1831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z
• Fang, S-C., Hsu, Y-S. and Lin, S-S. (2018). Conceptualizing socioscientific decision making from a review of research in science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17, 427–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9890-2
• Fensham, P. J. (1980). A research base for new objectives of science teaching. Research in Science Education, 10, 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02356306
• Fensham, P. J. (1983). A research base for new objectives of science teaching. Science Education, 67(1), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730670103
• Genç, M. and Genç, T. (2017). Türkiye’de sosyo-bilimsel konular üzerine yapılmış araştırmaların içerik analizi. e – Kafkas Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 19-26.
• Genel, A. and Topçu, M. S. (2016). Turkish preservice science teachers’ socioscientific issues-based teaching practices in middle school science classrooms. Research in Science & Technological Education, 34(1), 105- 123. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2015.1124847
• Gürlen, E., Özdiyar, Ö. and 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
• Karasar, N. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
• Karisan, D. and Zeidler, D.L. (2017). Contextualization of nature of science within the socioscientific issues framework: A review of research. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(2), 139-152.
• Kılınç, A., Boyes, E. and Stanisstreet, M. (2013). Exploring students’ ideas about risks and benefits of nuclear power using risk perception theories. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22, 252–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9390-z
• Klosterman, M. L. and Sadler, T. D. (2010). Multi‐level assessment of scientific content knowledge gains associated with socioscientific issues‐based instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1017-1043. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902894512
• Kolstø, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students' argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689-1716. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560878
• Kolstø, S.D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310.
• Lederman, N. G., Antink, A. and Bartos, S. (2014). Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socio-scientific issues arising from genetics: A pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry. Science & Education, 23(2), 285- 302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9503-3
• Lin, T-C., Lin, T-J. and Tsai, C-C. (2014). Research trends in science education from 2008 to 2012: A systematic content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 36(8), 1346-1372. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.864428.
• Lin, T-J., Lin, T-C., Potvind, P. and Tsai, C-C. (2018). 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.
• Martínez-Gómez, A. (2015). Bibliometrics as a tool to map uncharted territory: A study on non-professional interpreting. Studies in Translatology, 23(2), 205-222. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2015.1010550
• Martínez-López, F. J., Merigó, J. M., Gázquez-Abad, J. C. and Ruiz-Real, J. L. (2020). Industrial marketing management: Bibliometric overview since its foundation. Industrial Marketing Management, 84, 19-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.07.014
• Mohajan, H. (2012). Greenhouse gas emissions of the USA. Retrieved on 08 December 2020 from https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/50670/1/MPRA_paper_50670.pdf.
• Ratcliffe, M. and Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
• Sadler, T. D. and Donnelly, L. A. (2006).Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463-1488. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600708717
• Sadler, T. D. and Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4-27. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10101
• Sadler, T. D. and Zeidler, D. L. (2005a). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112-138. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20042
• Sadler, T. D. and Zeidler, D. L. (2005b). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71-93.
• Sadler, T. D. and Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 909-921. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20327
• Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 41(5), 513-536.
• Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: socio‐scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260802681839
• Sadler, T.D., Barab, S.A. and Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry?.Research in Science Education, 37, 371–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9
• Saunders, K. J. and Rennie, L. J., (2013). A pedagogical model for ethical inquiry into socioscientific issues in science. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 253‐274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9248-z
• Seel, N. and Zierer, K. (2019). Bibliometric synthesis of educational productivity research: Benchmarking the visibility of German educational research. Comparative & International Education, 14(2), 294-317. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499919846189
• Sinkovics, N. (2016). Enhancing the foundations for theorising through bibliometric mapping. International Marketing Review, 33(3), 327-350.
• Small, H. (1999). Visualizing science by citation mapping. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(9), 799–813. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1999)50:9<799::AID-ASI9>3.0.CO;2-G
• Şen, Ö. (2019). Bibliyometrik analiz yöntemi ile ağızdan ağıza iletişim (wom) konusunun incelenmesi. Social Sciences Studies Journal, 6(54), 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.26449/sssj.1919
• Tekin, N., Aslan, O. and Yılmaz, S. (2016). Research trends on socioscientific issues: A content analysis of publication in selected science education journal. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(9), 16-24.
• Topçu, M. S. (2008). Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues and the factors influencing their informal reasoning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Middle East Tecnical University.
• Topçu, M. S., Sadler, T. D. and Yılmaz-Tüzün, Ö. (2010). Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning about socioscientific issues: the influence of issue context. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2475-2495. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903524779
• Topçu, M.S., Muğaloğlu, E. and Güven, D. (2014). Fen eğitiminde sosyobilimsel konular: Türkiye örneği. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 14(6), 2327-2348.
• Tsai, C-C., and 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.
• van Eck, N. J. and Waltman, L. (2017). Vosviewer Manual. Retrieved on 08 December 2020 from https://www.vosviewer.com/documentation/Manual_VOSviewer_1.6.6.pdf .
• van Eck, N.J. and Waltman L. (2014). Visualizing bibliometric networks. In: Ding Y., Rousseau R., Wolfram D. (eds) Measuring Scholarly Impact. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10377-8_13
• van Leeuwen T. (2004) Descriptive Versus Evaluative Bibliometrics. In: Moed H.F., Glänzel W., Schmoch U. (eds) Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2755-9_17
• van Nunen, K., Li, J., Reniers, G. and Ponnet, K. (2018). Bibliometric analysis of safety culture research. Safety Science, 108, 248–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.08.011
• Venville, G. J. and Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students' argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952-972. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20358
• Walker, A. K. and Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387-1410.
• Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J. and Noyons, E. C. M. (2010). A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 629–635.
• Wang, H-H., Chen, H-T., Lin, H-S., Huang, Y-N. and Hong, Z-R. (2017). Longitudinal study of a cooperation- driven, socio-scientific issue intervention on promoting students’ critical thinking and self-regulation in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 39(15), 2002-2026.
• World Nuclear Associations. (2020). Nuclear power in Turkey. Retrieved on 08 December 2020 from https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/turkey.aspx .
• World Resources Institute. (2016). Explore the latest global greenhouse gas emissions data on. climate watch. Retrieved on 08 December 2020 from https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/02/greenhouse-gas- emissions-by-country sector#:~:text=Within%20the%20energy%20sector%2C%20generation,12%25%20of%20total%20emissions.
• Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific ıssues as a curriculum emphasis: Theory, Research and Practice. In N. G. Lederman, & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (p. 697-726). Newyork: Routledge Publisher. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203097267
• Zeidler, D. L. Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S. and Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through Socioscientific Issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 75-101. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20281
• Zeidler, D. L. and Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58.
• Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A. and Simmons, M. L. (2002).Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343-367. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10025