A bibliometric mapping of the structure of STEM education using co-word analysis

STEM, a set of fields that includes science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; allied disciplines ranging from environmental, agricultural, and earth sciences to life science and computer science; and education and training in these fields, is clearly at the top of the list of priority funding areas for governments, including the United States government. The U.S. has 11 federal agencies dedicated to supporting programs and providing funding for research and curriculum development. The domain of STEM education has significant implications in preparing the desired workforce with the requisite knowledge, developing appropriate curricula, providing teachers the necessary professional development, focusing research dollars on areas that have maximum impact, and developing national educational policy and standards. A complex undertaking such as STEM education, which attracts interest and valuable resources from a number of stakeholders needs to be well understood. In light of this, we attempt to describe the underlying structure of STEM education, its core areas, and their relationships through co‐word analyses of the titles, keywords, and abstracts of the relevant literature using visualization and bibliometric mapping tools. Implications are drawn with respect to the nature of STEM education as well as curriculum and policy development.

[1]  C. M. Noyons.  Science Maps Within a Science Policy Context , 2004 .

[2]  Qin He,et al.  Knowledge Discovery Through Co-Word Analysis , 1999, Libr. Trends.

[3]  Trevor Williams,et al.  Highlights from TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and Science Achievement of U.S. Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Students in an International Context. NCES 2009-001. , 2008 .

[4]  Chaomei Chen,et al.  Searching for intellectual turning points: Progressive knowledge domain visualization , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[5]  Ben R. Martin,et al.  Bibliometric analysis for science policy: An evaluation of the United Kingdom's research performance in ocean currents and protein crystallography , 2005, Scientometrics.

[6]  Yuan An,et al.  Characterizing the Citation Graph as a Self-Organizing Networked Information Space , 2002, IICS.

[7]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience , 2009, Scientometrics.

[8]  Ed C. M. Noyons,et al.  Bibliometric mapping of science in a policy context , 2004, Scientometrics.

[9]  Rommert Dekker,et al.  A comparison of two techniques for bibliometric mapping: Multidimensional scaling and VOS , 2010 .

[10]  Claire François,et al.  Identification and characterisation of technological topics in the field of Molecular Biology , 2010, Scientometrics.

[11]  Tibor Braun,et al.  International collaboration in the sciences 1981–1985 , 1990, Scientometrics.

[12]  Jean King.  A review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation , 1987, J. Inf. Sci..

[13]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research , 2005 .

[14]  Anton J. Nederhof,et al.  Mapping the social and behavioral sciences world-wide: Use of maps in portfolio analysis of national research efforts , 2006, Scientometrics.

[15]  E. Garfield,et al.  The geography of science: disciplinary and national mappings , 1985 .

[16]  David B. Searls,et al.  Can literature analysis identify innovation drivers in drug discovery? , 2009, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[17]  Katherine W. McCain,et al.  Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview , 1990, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[18]  Nedjeljko Frančula.  The National Academies Press , 2013 .

[19]  Harry Rothman,et al.  An experiment in science mapping for research planning , 1986 .

[20]  Rommert Dekker,et al.  A comparison of two techniques for bibliometric mapping: Multidimensional scaling and VOS , 2010, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[21]  Henry G. Small,et al.  The relationship of information science to the social sciences: A co-citation analysis , 1981, Inf. Process. Manag..

[22]  J. Primack,et al.  Project 2061: Science for All Americans. , 1989, The Physiologist.

[23]  C. Borgman,et al.  Scholarly Communication and Bibliometrics. , 1992 .

[24]  M. Callon,et al.  Mapping the dynamics of science and technology : sociology of science in the real world , 1988 .

[25]  Jonathan Furner,et al.  Scholarly communication and bibliometrics , 2005, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[26]  M. Callon,et al.  Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology , 1986 .

[27]  Susan Morrissey,et al.  EDUCATE TO INNOVATE , 2010 .

[28]  Michel Zitt,et al.  Development of a method for detection and trend analysis of research fronts built by lexical or cocitation analysis , 1994, Scientometrics.

[29]  Rodger W. Bybee,et al.  Advancing STEM Education: A 2020 Vision , 2010 .

[30]  Carl T. Bergstrom,et al.  Differences in impact factor across fields and over time , 2009 .

[31]  M. Sanders,et al.  Integrative STEM Education: Primer , 2009 .

[32]  Ed C. M. Noyons,et al.  A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks , 2010, J. Informetrics.

[33]  E GARFIELD,et al.  Citation indexes for science; a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. , 2006, Science.

[34]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Is the United States losing ground in science? A global perspective on the world science system , 2009, Scientometrics.

[35]  Ed C. M. Noyons,et al.  Combining concept maps and bibliometric maps: First explorations , 2006, Scientometrics.

[36]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Do we need the h index and its variants in addition to standard bibliometric measures? , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[37]  J. Law,et al.  A Co-Word Study of Artificial Intelligence , 1989 .

[38]  Ron Johnston,et al.  CO-CITATION BIBLIOMETRIC MODELING AS A TOOL FOR S&T POLICY AND R&D MANAGEMENT: ISSUES, APPLICATIONS, AND DEVELOPMENTS , 1988 .

[39]  Excellence In Education.  A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform , 2013 .

[40]  Carla C. Johnson,et al.  What Is STEM? A Discussion About Conceptions of STEM in Education and Partnerships , 2012 .

[41]  E Garfield.  Citations in Popular and Interpretive Science Writing. , 1963, Science.

[42]  Ю. Гарфилд,et al.  Эволюция Science Citation Index , 2014 .

[43]  M. Sanders.  STEM, STEM Education, STEMmania , 2009 .

[44]  N. Augustine.  Rising Above The Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future , 2006 .

[45]  Henry Small.  Visualizing science by citation mapping , 1999 .

[46]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Co-words and citations relations between document sets and environments , 1988 .

[47]  Peter J. Denning,et al.  A nation at risk: the imperative for educational reform , 1983, CACM.

[48]  R. K. Buter,et al.  Bibliometric mapping as a science policy tool , 2002, Proceedings Sixth International Conference on Information Visualisation.

[49]  Irina Marshakova-Shaikevich,et al.  Bibliometric maps of field of science , 2005, Inf. Process. Manag..

[50]  D J PRICE,et al.  NETWORKS OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS. , 1965, Science.

[51]  John Whittaker,et al.  Creativity and Conformity in Science: Titles, Keywords and Co-word Analysis , 1989 .

[52]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Do we need the h index and its variants in addition to standard bibliometric measuresq , 2009 .

[53]  Howard Kimmel,et al.  Advancing the "E" in K-12 STEM Education , 2010 .