Fen Bilimleri (Fen Bilgisi, Fizik, Kimya, Biyoloji) ve Matematik Eğitimi Alanlarında Yayınlanan Makalelerin Bilimsel Haritalama Tekniği ile İncelenmesi: Bir Bibliyometrik Analiz

Öz

Bu çalışmada, 2012-2021 yılları arasında fen bilgisi, fizik, kimya, biyoloji ve matematik eğitimi alanlarında yapılmış makalelerin bilimsel haritalama tekniği ile bibliyometrik analizinin yapılması amaçlanmıştır. Belirlenen kriterler doğrultusunda Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) veri tabanından 7556 makaleye erişilmiştir. Bu makaleler Visualization of Similarities Viewer (VOSviewer) 1.6.17.0 yazılım programı ile analiz edilmiş olup, elde edilen sonuçlar doğrultusunda fen bilimleri ve matematik eğitimi ile ilgili makale sayısının ve bu makalelere yapılan atıf sayısının artış eğilimini sürdürdüğü tespit edilmiştir. En çok kullanılan anahtar kelimenin fen bilgisi eğitimi olduğu, en fazla çalışılan alanın eğitim ve eğitim araştırmaları olduğu ve makalelerin en çok “Sosyal Bilimler Atıf İndeksinde (SSCI)” indekslendiği tespit edilmiştir. Ortak yazarlık, karşılıklı atıf ve bibliyografik ilişki kategorilerinde hem makale sayısı hem atıf sayısı açısından en çok öne çıkan yazarın “Ingo Eilks” olduğu, birlikte atıf kategorisinde en fazla “National Research Council” olduğu belirlenmiştir. Karşılıklı atıf ve bibliyografik ilişki kategorilerinde hem makale sayısı hem de atıf sayısı bakımından en çok öne çıkan derginin “International Journal of Science Education” olduğu belirlenmiştir. Araştırma sonuçları ortak yazarlık, karşılıklı atıf ve bibliyografik ilişki kategorilerinde hem makale sayısı hem atıf sayısı kapsamında “Michigan Devlet Üniversitesi” nin fen bilgisi alanında ilk sırada yer aldığını göstermektedir. Ülkeler arasında ortak yazarlık, karşılıklı atıf ve bibliyografik ilişki kategorilerinde hem makale sayısı hem atıf sayısı kapsamında en ön plana çıkan ülkenin “Amerika Birleşik Devletleri” olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Fen bilgisi eğitimi
• fizik eğitimi
• kimya eğitimi
• biyoloji eğitimi
• matematik eğitimi
• bilimsel haritalama
• bibliyometrik analiz

Examination of Articles Published in the Fields of Sciences (Science, Physics, Chemistry, Biology) and Mathematics Education with Scientific Mapping Technique: A Bibliometric Analysis

Öz

The aim of this study is to examine bibliometric analysis of the articles published in the fields of science, physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics education between 2012-2021 using scientific mapping technique. In line with the determined criteria, 7556 articles were accessed from the Web of Science Core Collection database (WoS). These articles were analyzed with the Visualization of Similarities Viewer (VOSviewer) 1.6.17.0 software program, and it was determined that the number of articles on science and mathematics education and the number of citations made to these articles continued to increase in line with the results obtained. It has been determined that the most used keyword is science education, the most studied field is education and training research, and the articles are mostly indexed in the “Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI)”. it was determined that “Ingo Eilks” was the most prominent author in terms of both the number of articles and the number of citations in co-authorship, cross-citation and bibliographic relationship categories, and “National Research Council” was the most prominent in the co-citation category. It has been determined that “International Journal of Science Education” was the most prominent journal in terms of both the number of articles and the number of citations in the mutual citation and bibliographic relationship categories. The results of the research show that “Michigan State University” ranks first in the field of science in terms of both the number of articles and the number of citations in the categories of co-authorship, cross-citation and bibliographic relationship. It has been determined that the most prominent country in terms of co-authorship, mutual citation and bibliographic relationship between countries in terms of both the number of articles and the number of citations is the “United States”.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Science education
• physics education
• chemistry education
• biology education
• mathematics education
• scientific mapping
• bibliometric analysis

Kaynakça

1. Agarwal, A., Durairajanayagam, D., Tatagari, S., Esteves, S. C., Harlev, A., Henkel, R., et al. (2016). Bibliometrics: Tracking research impact by selecting the appropriate metrics. Asian Journal of Andrology, 18(2), 296-309. https://doi.org/10.4103/1008-682X.171582
2. Akçayır, M., & Akçayır, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 20, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.002
3. Akgün, Ş. (1996). Fen bilgisi öğretimi. Zirve Ofset.
4. Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959-975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
5. Bitzenbauer, P. (2021). Quantum physics education research over the last two decades: A bibliometric analysis. Education Sciences, 11(11), 669. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110699
6. Calabretta, G., Durisin, B., & Ogliengo, M. (2011). Uncovering the intellectual structure of research in business ethics: A journey through the history, the classics, and the pillars of Journal of Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(4), 499-524. doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0924-8
7. Ceylan, S. (2014). Ortaokul fen bilimleri dersinde asitler ve bazlar konusunda fen, teknoloji, mühendislik ve matematik (FETEMM) yaklaşımı ile öğretim tasarımı hazırlanmasına yönelik bir çalışma [Doktora tezi]. Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi.
8. Cobo, M. J., López‐Herrera, A. G., Herrera‐Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1382-1402. doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525

9. Culnan, M. J. (1987). Mapping the intellectual structure of MIS, 1980-1985: A co-citation analysis. Mis Quarterly, 11(3), 341-353.
10. Çavaş, B., & Huyugüzel-Çavaş, P. (2014). Fen bilimleri öğretimi (1. Baskı). Ş. S. Anagün & N. Duban (Ed.), Fen Bilimlerinde Öğrenme-Öğretme Süreci içinde (ss. 163-192). Anı Yayıncılık.
11. Daniels, J. (1983). Science anxiety. Personnel & Guidance Journal, 62(4), 248.
12. De Melo, R. J., Adams, F. W., & Nunes, S. M. T. (2020). Conceptions of the importance of science education in basic education by undergraduates of a rural education degree course. The Brazilian Scientific Journal of Rural Education, 5, 1-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.20873/uft.rbec.e7240
13. De Oliveira Barbosa, M. L., & Galembeck, E. (2022). Mapping research on biochemistry education: A bibliometric analysis. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ., 1–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21607
14. DeBoer, G. E. (2019). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practise. Amsterdam Avenue New York: Teachers College Press.
15. Doğru, M., Gençosman, T., Ataalkın, A. N., & Şeker, F. (2012). Fen bilimleri eğitiminde çalışılan yüksek lisans ve doktora tezlerinin analizi. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 9(1), 49-64.
16. 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
17. Erkuş, A.(2004). Bazı tıp dergilerinin son sayılarındaki makalelerin yöntemsel ve istatistiksel açıdan incelenmesi. Mersin Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(2), 176-181.
18. Green, A., Richards, I., Smith, S., & Hussain, I. (2016). Embedding evidence-based course design principles in curriculum design in a UK and Egyptian University. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 4(2), 46-54. https://doi.org/10.14297/jpaap.v4i2.201
19. Guo, Y. M., Huang, Z. L., Guo, J., Li, H., Guo, X. R., & Nkeli, M. J. (2019). Bibliometric analysis on smart cities research. Sustainability, 11(13), 3606. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133606
20. Hassan, S. U., & Haddawy, P. (2015). Analyzing knowledge flows of scientific literature through semantic links: A case study in the field of energy. Scientometrics, 103, 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1528-3
21. He, Q. (1999). Knowledge discovery through co-word analysis. Library Trends, 48(1), 133-159.
22. Hernandez-Torrano, D., Somerton, M., & Helmer, J. (2020). Mapping research on inclusive education since Salamanca statement: a bibliometric review of the literature over 25years. Int. J. Incl. Educ., 24, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1747555
23. Huang, C., Yang, C., Wang, S., Wu, W., Su, J., & Liang, C. (2019). Evolution of topics in education research: A systematic review using bibliometric analysis. Educational Review, 72(3), 281-297. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2019.1566212
24. Huang, M. H., & Chang, Y. W. (2011). A study of interdisciplinarity in information science: Using direct citation and co-authorship analysis. Journal of Information Science, 37(4), 369-378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551511407141
25. Hurd, P. D. (1997). Scientific literacy: New minds fora changing world. Issues and Trends. Stephen Norris, Section Editor.
26. İşman, A., Baytekin, Ç., Balkan, F., Horzum, B., & Kıyıcı, M. (2002). Fen bilgisi eğitimi ve yapısalcı yaklaşım. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 1(1), 41-47.
27. Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7(2), 75-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00230.x
28. Karamustafaoğlu, O. (2009). Fen ve teknoloji eğitiminde temel yönelimler. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 17(1), 87-102.
29. Kurutkan, M. N. & Orhan, F. (2018). Kalite prensiplerinin görsel haritalama tekniğine göre bibliyometrik analizi. Sage Yayınevi.
30. Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdés, G. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to Next Generation Science Standards and with implications for Common Core State Standards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42(4), 223-233. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13480524
31. Mansur, F., & Aydın, İ. (2021). Teletıp araştırmalarının görsel haritalama tekniği ile bibliyometrik analizi. Bilim Teknolojileri Dergisi, 14(2), 115-128. https://doi.org/10.17671/gazibtd.813629
32. Mallow, J. V. (1978). A science anxiety program. American Journal of Physics, 46(8), 862-869. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.11409
33. Martyn, J. (1964). Bibliographic coupling. Journal of Documentation, 20(4), 236. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026352
34. MEB. (2019). PISA 2018 Türkiye ön raporu, Ankara.
35. MEB. (2020). TIMSS 2019 Türkiye ön raporu, Ankara.
36. Nash, J. (2016). New curriculum design and teaching methods to enhance course performance and ıncrease motivation of saudi arabian college students. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspektives, 13(2), 66-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.18538/lthe.v13.n2.235
37. Payumo, J. G., & Sutton, T. C. (2015). A bibliometric assessment of ASEAN collaboration in plant biotechnology. Scientometrics, 103(3), 1043-1059. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1582-x
38. Siayah, S., & Setiawan, A. R. (2020). A brief explanation of science education. EdArXiv, 1-12.
39. Silva, B. N., Khan, M., & Han, K. (2018). Towards sustainable smart cities: A review of trends, architectures, components, and open challenges in smart cities. Sustainable Cities and Society, 38, 697-713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.01.053
40. Small, H. (1999). Visualizing science by citation mapping. Journal of the Amrican 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
41. Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1337-1370. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.605182
42. Sözbilir, M., & Canpolat, N. (2006). Fen ve teknoloji öğretimi. M. Bahar (Ed). Fen Eğitiminde Son Otuz Yıldaki Uluslararası Değişimler. Pegem Yayıncılık.
43. Şimşek, A., Özdamar, N., Becit, G., Kılıçer, K., Akbulut, Y., & Yıldırım, Y. (2008). Türkiye’deki eğitim teknolojisi araştırmalarında güncel eğilimler. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (19), 439-458.
44. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
45. Talan, T. (2021). Augmented reality in STEM education: Bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Technology in Education (IJTE), 4(4), 605-623. . https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.136
46. Thanuskodi, S. (2010). Journal of social sciences: A bibliometric study. Journal of Social Sciences, 24(2), 77-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/09718923.2010.11892847
47. Tsai, C. C., & Lydia Wen, M. (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. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000243727
48. Tutkun, Ö. F. (2010). The philosophic dimensions of curriculum in the 21 st century. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(3), 993-1016.
49. Ural, G., & Bümen, N. (2016). A meta-analysis on instructional applications of constructivism in science and technology teaching: A sample of Turkey. Education and Science, 41(185), 51-82. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2016.4289
50. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: Vosviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84, 523-538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
51. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2021). VOSviewer manual. Leiden: Univeristeit Leiden, 1(1), 1-54.
52. Van Raan, A. F. (2014). Advances in bibliometric analysis: Research performance assessment and science mapping. Bibliometrics Use and Abuse in the Review of Research Performance, 87, 17-28.
53. Wang, X., Fang, Z., & Sun, X. (2016). Usage patterns of scholarly articles on Web of Science: A study on Web of Science usage count. Scientometrics, 109(2), 917-926. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2093-0
54. Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Chang, H. Y., & Liang, J. C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education, 62, 41-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.024
55. Ye, J., Chen, D., & Kong, L. (2019). Bibliometric analysis of the WoS literature on research of science teacher from 2000 to 2017. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(5), 732-747.
56. Zhang, M., Gao, M., Yue, S., Zheng, T., Gao, Z., Ma, X., & Wang, Q. (2018). Global trends and future prospects of food waste research: A bibliometric analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(25), 24600-24610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2598-6