USE OF TECHNOLOGY AND DIGITAL TOOLS IN SECONDARY BIOLOGY TEACHING FROM 2016 TO 2025: INSIGHTS FROM A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v13i7.6755کلمات کلیدی:
technology integration, digital tools, secondary biology teaching, bibliometric analysis, science education, Scopusچکیده
The rapid integration of technology and digital tools has significantly transformed secondary biology teaching, reshaping instructional practices and learning environments worldwide. This study examined global research trends on the use of technology and digital tools in secondary biology teaching from 2016 to 2025 through a bibliometric analysis of Scopus-indexed publications. Using a descriptive bibliometric research design, the study analyzed publication growth, authorship patterns, country and institutional productivity, thematic trends, keyword co-occurrence, and collaboration networks, all analyzed using VOSviewer software. Findings revealed a consistent increase in research productivity, particularly after 2020, reflecting the growing global emphasis on digital learning and technology-enhanced science instruction. Frequently occurring themes included digital learning tools, virtual laboratories, online and blended learning, student engagement, inquiry-based learning, and pedagogical innovation. Emerging themes highlighted artificial intelligence (AI), augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), learning analytics, and teacher professional development. Collaboration analysis showed that developed countries dominated scholarly production, while developing regions demonstrated limited participation, indicating disparities in technological access and research capacity. The study further revealed that technology integration positively influenced conceptual understanding, learner motivation, inquiry skills, and interactive learning experiences in secondary biology education. However, challenges such as inadequate infrastructure, limited teacher digital competence, insufficient professional development, and unequal access to digital resources remained significant barriers. The findings emphasized the need for curriculum reforms, sustained teacher training, and stronger institutional support systems to maximize the educational potential of digital technologies. Overall, this study provided a comprehensive mapping of global research patterns and gaps in technology-enhanced secondary biology education. The results provided evidence-based insights for policymakers, curriculum developers, educators, and future researchers to improve instructional practices and strengthen digital integration in biology teaching, particularly within the Philippine educational context.مراجع
Akçayır, M., & Akçayır, G. (2017). The impact of augmented reality on students’ academic achievement and motivation in science education. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 17(1), 131–139. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2017.1.0064
Bai, H., & Guo, Y. (2021). Technology-enhanced biology learning: Effects on students’ conceptual understanding and motivation. Computers & Education, 168, 104199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104199
Baxter, P., & Sommerville, I. (2011). Socio-technical systems: From design methods to systems engineering. Interacting with Computers, 23(1), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.07.003
Bybee, R. W. (2013). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Creating teachable moments. National Science Teachers Association. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281412517_The_BSCS_5E_instructional_model_Origins_and_effectiveness
Chien, Y. T., Chang, C. Y., & Fang, Y. H. (2020). Augmented reality in science education: A meta-analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(6), 3329–3356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09818-9
Chou, P. N., et al. (2020). Integrating digital tools into science teaching: Effects on student learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(5), 1015–1038. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119877184
Department of Education. (2024). DepEd Order No. 010, s. 2024: Policy guidelines on the implementation of the MATATAG curriculum. DepEd Philippines.
Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., & Angelova, G. (2015). Gamification in education: A systematic mapping study. Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 75–88. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270273830_Gamification_in_Education_A_Systematic_Mapping_Study
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
Hsu, C. Y., Cheah, H. M., & Hughes, J. E. (2023). Teachers’ adoption of digital tools in science classrooms: A systematic review. Computers & Education Open, 4, 100118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100118
Ibáñez, M. B., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2018). Augmented reality for STEM learning: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 123, 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.002
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
Lacey, T. A., Francis, R., & Smith, J. (2024). Digital transformation in secondary science education: A bibliometric analysis. Computers & Education, 200, 104789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.104789
Lee, J., & Han, I. (2017). The effects of technology integration on students’ learning achievement in science classrooms. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(6), 1625–1645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9531-4
Makransky, G., Petersen, G. B., & Immersive Learning Research Group. (2019). Immersive virtual reality and learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 31(4), 989–1010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09495-9
Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T. S., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learning and Instruction, 60, 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.007
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Philipsen, B., Tondeur, J., Pareja Roblin, N., Vanslambrouck, S., & Zhu, C. (2019). Improving teacher professional development for online and blended learning: A systematic meta-aggregative review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(5), 1145–1174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09645-8
Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. Orion Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Science_of_Education_and_the_Psychology.html?id=ZwedAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y
Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., & Wohlgenannt, I. (2020). A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education. Computers & Education, 147, 103778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103778
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203710753-35
Scherer, R., Howard, S. K., & Tondeur, J. (2021). Profiling teachers’ readiness for online teaching and learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 118, 106675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106675
Spatioti, M., Kazanidis, I., & Pange, J. (2022). Digital technologies in science education: A systematic literature review. Education and Information Technologies, 27(5), 6589–6612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10855-3
Tekkaya, C., Ozkan, O., & Sungur, S. (2001). Biology concepts perceived as difficult by Turkish high school students. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21, 145–150. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284627296_Biology_concepts_perceived_as_difficult_by_turkish_high_school_students_Lise_ogrencilerinin_zor_olarak_algidotlessladidotlessklaridotless_biyoloji_kavramlaridotless
Trist, E. L., & Bamforth, K. W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal-getting: An examination of the psychological situation and defenses of a work group in relation to the social structure and technological content of the work system. Human Relations, 4(1), 3–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675100400101
Trust, T., Krutka, D. G., & Carpenter, J. P. (2016). Together we are better: Professional learning networks for teachers. Computers & Education, 102, 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.06.007
UNESCO. (2018). ICT competency framework for teachers (Version 3). UNESCO. Retrieved from https://teachertaskforce.org/sites/default/files/2020-07/ict_framework.pdf
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Mind in society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/Mind_in_Society.html?id=RxjjUefze_oC&redir_esc=y
دانلودها
چاپ شده
شماره
نوع مقاله
مجوز
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
