SavedAdd your journal

Journals / e-Uluslararası Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 14 Sayı: 4

Bibliometric Analysis of Educational Research on System Thinking / Sistem Düşüncesi ile İlgili Yapılan Eğitim Araştırmalarının Bibliyometrik Analizi

Sistem Düşüncesi ile İlgili Yapılan Eğitim Araştırmalarının Bibliyometrik Analizi / Bibliometric Analysis of Educational Research on System Thinking

Adnan Küçükoğlu(ATATÜRK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-8522-258X
Hasret Nuhoğlu(MALTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-9985-4203
Arzu Derya Taşçı(KAFKAS ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-3667-2020
Pages
126–145
Publication Date
2023-08-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The bibliometric analysis results show that the highest number of articles related to system thinking were published in 2022, and the most cited study was the article titled "Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms" published by Weintrop et al. in the "Journal of Science Education and Technology." It was found that the highest number of articles were published in the "International Journal of Science Education." In the WoS database, there were 717 authors who published educational research in the category of system thinking, and the most contributing authors were Assaraf, OBZ, Schechter, C., and Shaked, H.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study is to conduct a bibliometric analysis of educational research conducted on system thinking and examine the distribution of research by year, citation count, influential authors, journals, countries, institutions, collaborative authorship, co-citation authors, journal citation networks, and keywords used in the articles.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The bibliometric analysis results show that the highest number of articles related to system thinking were published in 2022, and the most cited study was the article titled "Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms" published by Weintrop et al. in the "Journal of Science Education and Technology." It was found that the highest number of articles were published in the "International Journal of Science Education." In the WoS database, there were 717 authors who published educational research in the category of system thinking, and the most contributing authors were Assaraf, OBZ, Schechter, C., and Shaked, H.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:When filtered for those that were used at least three times, 54 common keywords were identified.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2022 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Eğitim · Eğitim araştırmaları · Sistem düşüncesi

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to conduct a bibliometric analysis of educational research conducted on system thinking and examine the distribution of research by year, citation count, influential authors, journals, countries, institutions, collaborative authorship, co-citation authors, journal citation networks, and keywords used in the articles. This study was designed in the a descriptive review. The data obtained by scanning articles published in the field of educational research on system thinking in the Web of Science (WoS) database was analyzed using bibliometric analysis methods. The bibliometric analysis results show that the highest number of articles related to system thinking were published in 2022, and the most cited study was the article titled "Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms" published by Weintrop et al. in the "Journal of Science Education and Technology." It was found that the highest number of articles were published in the "International Journal of Science Education." In the WoS database, there were 717 authors who published educational research in the category of system thinking, and the most contributing authors were Assaraf, OBZ, Schechter, C., and Shaked, H. It is noteworthy that the Ben Gurion University contributed the most to the research, and the majority of research was conducted in the United States. When the VOSviewer data was analyzed within the context of collaborative authorship, the program found connections among 29 out of the 49 countries identified. The data for the co-occurring keywords analysis of articles in the category of educational research on system thinking were analyzed using the VOSviewer program, and a total of 858 different keywords were identified. When filtered for those that were used at least three times, 54 common keywords were identified.

Özet

Bu çalışma, sistem düşüncesi ile ilgili yapılan eğitim araştırmalarının bibliyometrik analizini yaparak, bu alandaki araştırmaların yıllara göre dağılımını, atıf sayısını, alana katkı sağlayan yazarlarını, etkili dergileri, etkili ülkeleri, etkili kurumları, ortak yazarlık işbirliklerini, ortak atıf yazarlarını, dergilerin atıf ağlarını ve makalelerde kullanılan anahtar kelimeleri incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma betimsel tarama modelinde tasarlanmıştır. Web of Science (WoS) veri tabanında sistem düşüncesi ile ilgili eğitim araştırmaları kapsamında yayınlanan makalelerin taranması sonucu elde edilen veriler bibliyometrik analiz yöntemi ile incelenmiştir. Bibliyometrik analiz sonuçları sistem düşüncesi ile ilgili en fazla makalenin 2022 yılında yayınlandığını, en çok atıf alan çalışmanın “Journal Of Scıence Educatıon And Technology” dergisinde Weintrop vd., tarafından yayınlanan “Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms” başlıklı makale olduğu, en fazla makalenin “International Journal of Science Education” dergisinde yayımlandığını ortaya koymaktadır. WoS veri tabanında sistem düşüncesi alanında eğitim araştırmaları kategorisinde yayın yapan 717 yazar bulunduğu ve en fazla katkı sağlayan yazarların sırasıyla Assaraf, OBZ, Schechter, C. ve Shaked, H. olduğu tespit edilmiştir. En fazla çalışmanın yayınlandığı kurumun Ben Gurion Üniversitesi olduğu ve en çok yayının Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’ nde yapıldığı dikkat çekmektedir. VOSwiever verileri ülkelerin ortak yazarlık iş birliği çerçevesinde incelendiğinde program 49 ülke tespit etmiş ve bu ülkelerden 29’ u arasında bağlantı gücü saptamıştır. Sistem düşüncesi ile ilgili eğitim araştırmaları kategorisindeki makalelerin ortak anahtar kelime analizi için veriler VOSviewer programı aracılığıyla analiz edilmiş ve toplam 858 tane farklı anahtar kelime saptanmıştır. En az 3 kez kullanılmış olma şeklinde filitreleme yapıldığında 54 ortak kelimenin ortaya çıktığı görülmüştür.

🔖

Cite This Article

Küçükoğlu, A., Nuhoğlu, H., Taşçı, A. D. (2023). Bibliometric Analysis of Educational Research on System Thinking / Sistem Düşüncesi ile İlgili Yapılan Eğitim Araştırmalarının Bibliyometrik Analizi. e-Uluslararası Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 4, 126–145. https://doi.org/10.19160/e-ijer.1281742

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (79)

  1. Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., Casanueva, C., & Galan, J. L. (2006). Co-authorship in management and organizational studies: An empirical and network analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 43(5), 957–983.
  2. Arnold, R. D., & Wade, J. P. (2015). A definition of systems thinking: A systems approach. Procedia Computer Science, 44, 669-678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.03.050
  3. Baker, H. K., Kumar, S., & Pandey, N. (2021). Forty years of the journal of futures markets: a bibliometric overview. Journal of Futures Markets, 41(7), 1027-1054.
  4. Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., & Orion, N. (2005). Development of systems thinking skills in the context of earth system Education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 42(5), 518–560. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20061
  5. Ben‐Zvi‐Assaraf, O., & Orion, N. (2010). Four case studies, six years later: Developing system thinking skills in junior high school and sustaining them over time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(10), 1253-1280. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20383
  6. Benson, T. A. (2007). Developing a systems thinking capacity in learners of all ages. Systems Thinking in Schools Program. https://www.alnap.org/system/files/content/resource/files/main/10.1.1.535.9175.pdf
  7. Boersma, K., Waarlo, A. J., & Klaassen, K. (2011). The feasibility of systems thinking in biology Education. Journal of Biological Education, 45(4), 190-197.
  8. Boyraz, D. (2022). IB okullarında okutulan Türkçe öykü kitaplarının sistem düşüncesi yaklaşımı ile incelenmesi (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Maltepe Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Türkiye.
  9. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E.K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2018). Eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (25. Baskı). Pegem A.
  10. Capra, F., & Luisi, P. L. (2014). The systems view of life: A unifying vision. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511895555
  11. Chang, C. Y. (2001). Comparing the impacts of a problem-based computer-assisted instruction and the direct-interactive teaching method on student science achievement. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(2), 147-153.
  12. Cisneros, L., Ibanescu, M., Keen, C., Lobato-Calleros, O., & Niebla-Zatarain, J. (2018). Bibliometric study of family business succession between 1939 and 2017: Mapping and analyzing authors’ networks. Scientometrics, 117(2), 919–951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2889-1
  13. Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory field. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 146-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.002
  14. Costello, W. (2001). Computer-based simulations as learning tools: changing student mental models of real-world dynamical systems. Creative Learning Exchange.
  15. Çelik, C., Kaymakçı, G., & Can, Ş, (2023). Bibliometric analysis of research on career development of gifted students. E-International Journal of Educational Research, 14(2), 68-82. https://doi.org/10.19160/e-ijer.1206389
  16. Çelikten, A. (2022). Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı dersinde eğitimde sistem düşüncesi araçlarının kullanılmasının eser analizinde derin okumaya etkisi (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Maltepe Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Türkiye.
  17. 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
  18. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Pattnaik, D., & Lim, W. M. (2021). A bibliometric retrospection of marketing from the lens of psychology: Insights from psychology & marketing. Psychology & Marketing, 38(5), 834-865. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21472
  19. Elmas, R., Arslan, H. Ö., Pamuk, S., Pesman, H. ve Sözbilir, M. (2021). Fen eğitiminde yeni bir yaklaşım olarak sistemsel düşünme. Turkiye Kimya Dernegi Dergisi Kısım C: Kimya Egitimi, 6(1), 107-132. https://doi.org/10.37995/jotcsc.889340
  20. Erkenekli, M. (2011). Bilimsel yöntemlerin tarihi ve sistem dinamiklerinin doğuşu. B. Çelik, M. Erkenekli, H. Şeşen ve M. Polat (Ed.), Sistem dinamikleri içinde (1. baskı, ss. 1-41). Detay Yayıncılık.
  21. Evagorou, M., Korfiatis, K., Nicolaou, C., & Constantinou, C. (2009). An investigation of the potential of interactive simulations for developing system thinking skills in elementary school: A case study with fifth‐graders and sixth‐graders. International Journal of Science Education, 31(5), 655-674.
  22. Feriver, Ş., Olgan, R., Teksöz, G., & Barth, M. (2019). Systems thinking skills of preschool children in early childhood education contexts from Turkey and Germany. Sustainability, 11(5), 1478.
  23. Flood, R. L. (2010). The relationship of ‘systems thinking’to action research. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 23(4), 269-284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-010-9169-1
  24. Forrester, J. W. (1992). Policies, decisions and information sources for modeling. European Journal of Operational Research, 59(1), 42-63.
  25. Fullan, M. (2006). The future of Educational change: System thinkers in action. Journal of Educational change, 7(3), 113-122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-006-9003-9
  26. Gilissen, M. G., Knippels, M. C. P., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2020). Bringing systems thinking into the classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 42(8), 1253-1280.
  27. Grant, W. E. (1998). Ecology and natural resource management: reflections from a systems perspective. Ecological Modelling, 108(1-3), 67-76.
  28. Gülüm, B. (2023). Bibliometric analysis of researches on values education in visual arts lesson. E-International Journal of Educational Research, 14(2), 350-365. https://doi.org/10.19160/e-ijer.1231517
  29. Güzeller, C. O., & Çeliker, N. (2018). Bibliometric analysis of tourism research for the period 2007-2016. Advances in Hospitality and Tourism Research, 6(1), 1-22.
  30. Hogan, K. (2000). Assessing students' systems reasoning in ecology. Journal of Biological Education, 35(1), 22-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2000.9655731
  31. Hmelo, C., Holton, D., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. Journal of Learning Sciences, 9, 247–298.
  32. Hossain, N. U. I., Dayarathna, V. L., Nagahi, M., & Jaradat, R. (2020). Systems thinking: A review and bibliometric analysis. Systems, 8(3), 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems8030023
  33. Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11–34. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1501_4
  34. Karagöz, B. ve Ardıç, İ. K. (2019). Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisinde yayımlanan makalelerin bibliyometrik analizi. Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisi, 7(2), 419-435.
  35. Kaya, N., Ellez, A. M., & Ellez, N. (2019). The effect of system thınkıng approach on the envıronmental conscıousness of pre-school chıldren. Route Educational and Social Science Journal, 6(5), 36-50.
  36. Keynan, A., Assaraf, O. B. Z., & Goldman, D. (2014). The repertory grid as a tool for evaluating the development of students’ ecological system thinking abilities. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 41, 90-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.09.012
  37. Kılınç, B. (2022). Çevre sosyolojisi ile ilgili yapılan çalışmaların bibliyometrik analizi. Türkiye Bilimsel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 7(1), 205-227.
  38. Koseoglu, M. A., Rahimi, R., Okumus, F., & Liu, J. (2016). Bibliometric studies in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 61, 180-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2016.10.006
  39. Lannon-Kim, C. (1991). Revitalizing the schools: a systems thinking approach. The Systems Thinker, 2(5), 1-4.
  40. Lu, K., & Wolfram, D. (2012). Measuring author research relatedness: A comparison of word‐based, topic‐based, and author cocitation approaches. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(10), 1973-1986. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22628
  41. Lyneis, D. A., & Fox-Melanson, D. (2001, July). The challenge of infusing system dynamics into a K-8 curriculum [Paper presentation].19th International System Dynamics Society Conference. Atlanta, Georgia.
  42. Maani K., & Maharraj V. (2004). Links between systems thinking and complex decision-making. System Dynamics Review, 20(1), 21–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.281
  43. Mambrey, S., Timm, J., Landskron, J. J., & Schmiemann, P. (2020). The impact of system specifics on systems thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(10), 1632-1651. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21649
  44. Mambrey, S., Schreiber, N., & Schmiemann, P. (2022). Young students’ reasoning about ecosystems: The role of systems thinking, knowledge, conceptions, and representation. Research in Science Education, 52(1), 79-98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09917-x
  45. Meadows, D. (2021). Sistemlerle düşünmek. (K. Bolay Özemre & E. Göktepe, Çev. Ed.). Pegem Akademi. (Çalışmanın orijinali 2013`te yayımlanmıştır)
  46. Mehren, R., Rempfler, A., Buchholz, J., Hartig, J., & Ulrich-Riedhammer, E. M. (2018). System competence modelling: Theoretical foundation and empirical validation of a model involving natural, social, and human-environment systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55, 685–711. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21436
  47. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
  48. Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290
  49. Nuhoğlu, H. (2009). Evaluation of the middle school students' understanding level of basic system concepts. Elementary Education Online, 8(3). 866-882.
  50. Nuhoğlu, H. (2014). Evaluation of student models of current socio-scientific topics based on systems dynamics. Educational Sciences Theory Practice, 14(5), 1957-1975. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2014.5.2091
  51. Nuhoğlu, H. (2020). The effect of deduction and induction methods used in modelling current environmental issues with system dynamics approach in science education. Participatory Educational Research, 7(1), 111-126. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.20.7.7.1
  52. Nguyen, N. C., Graham, D., Ross, H., Maani, K., & Bosch, O. (2012). Educating systems thinking for sustainability: Experience with a developing country. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 29(1), 14-29. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.1097
  53. Ormancı, Ü., Çepni, S. ve Balım, A.G. (2018). Ortaokul 6. sınıf öğrencilerinin sistem düşünme becerilerine ilişkin durumlarının belirlenmesi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 44, 15-27. https://doi.org/10.9779/PUJE.2018.203
  54. Pauna, V. H., Picone, F., Le Guyader, G., Buonocore, E., & Franzese, P. P. (2018). The scientific research on ecosystem services: A bibliometric analysis. Ecological Questions, 29(3), 53-62. https://doi.org/10.12775/EQ.2018.022
  55. Plate, R. (2010). Assessing individuals’ understanding of nonlinear causal structures in complex systems. System Dynamics Review, 26(1), 19–33. http://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.432
  56. Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal Of Documentation, 25(4), 348-349.
  57. Ramos‐Rodríguez, A. R., & Ruíz‐Navarro, J. (2004). Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: A bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980–2000. Strategic management journal, 25(10), 981-1004. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.397
  58. Richmond, B. (1994). System dynamics/systems thinking: Let’s just get on with it. System Dynamics Review, 10(2-3), 135-157.
  59. Riess, W., & Mischo, C. (2010). Promoting systems thinking through biology lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 705–725. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902769946
  60. Pieters, R., & Baumgartner, H. (2002). Who talks to whom? Intra-and interdisciplinary communication of economics journals. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 483–509. https://doi.org/10.1257/002205102320161348
  61. Rosenkränzer, F., Hörsch, C., Schuler, S., & Riess, W. (2017). Student teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for teaching systems thinking: Effects of different interventions. International Journal of Science Education, 39(14), 1932-1951. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1362603
  62. Schoen, L., & Fusarelli, L. D. (2008). Innovation, NCLB, and the fear factor: The challenge of leading 21st-century schools in an era of accountability. Educational Policy, 22(1), 181-203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904807311291
  63. Senge, P. M. (2002). Beşinci Disiplin. (A. İldeniz & A. Doğukan, Çev. Ed.). Yapı Kredi Yayınları. (Çalışmanın orijinali 1990’ da yayımlanmıştır)
  64. Sönmez, Ö. F. (2020). Bibliometric analysis of Educational research articles published in the field of social study Education based on Web of Science database. Participatory Educational Research, 7(2), 216-229. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.20.30.7.2
  65. Stremersch, S., Verniers, I., & Verhoef, P. C. (2007). The quest for citations: Drivers of article impact. Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.71.3.171
  66. Stuntz, L. N., Lyneis, D. A., & Richardson, G. P. (2001, July). The future of system dynamics and learner-centered learning in K-12 Education [Paper presentation].19th International System Dynamics Society Conference. Atlanta, Georgia.
  67. Sweeney, L. B., & Sterman, J. D. (2007). Thinking about systems: Student and teacher conceptions of natural and social systems. System Dynamics Review: The Journal of the System Dynamics Society, 23(2‐3), 285-311. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.366
  68. Şahin, F. (2021). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının sistem düşünme düzeylerinin incelenmesi: Biyoçeşitlilik. Türkiye Bilimsel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 6(1), 176-200.
  69. Şeref, İ., & Karagöz, B. (2019). An evaluation of turkish education academic field: bibliometric analysis based on web of Science database. Journal of Language Education and Research, 5(2), 213-231. https://doi.org/10.31464/jlere.578224
  70. Tabak, A., Sığrı, Ü., Polat, M., Şeşen, H., & Çelik, B. (2011). Yönetim bilimi açısından sistem teorisi. B. Çelik, M. Erkenekli, H. Şeşen ve M. Polat (Ed.), Sistem dinamikleri içinde (1. baskı, ss. 71-141). Detay Yayıncılık.
  71. Tecim, V. (2004). Sistem yaklaşımı ve soft sistem düşüncesi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(2), 75-100.
  72. Toprakçı, E. (2017). Sınıf yönetimi (3. Baskı). Pegem Akademi.
  73. Tripto, J., Assaraf, O. B. Z., & Amit, M. (2013). Mapping what they know: Concept maps as an effective tool for assessing students’ systems thinking. American Journal of Operations Research, 15(3), 245-258. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ajor.2013.31A022
  74. Yeşiltaş, E., & Şeker, G. (2021). Sosyal medya ile ilgili yapılan eğitim araştırmalarının bibliyometrik analizi. Journal of World Of Turks/Zeitschrift Für Die Welt Der Türken, 13(2), 169-189. https://doi.org/10.46291/ZfWT/130209
  75. Verhoeff, R. P., Knippels, M.-C. P. J., Gilissen, M. G. R., & Boersma, K. T. (2018). The theoretical nature of systems thinking. Perspectives on systems thinking in biology Education. Frontiers in Education, 3, 518–560. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00040
  76. Waters Foundation, (2006). Systems thinking in schools: a Water Foundation Project. www.watersfoundation.org.
  77. Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and Science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and technology, 25, 127-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5
  78. Zupic, I., & Cater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442811456262
  79. Erkenekli, M. (2011). Bilimsel yöntemlerin tarihi ve sistem dinamiklerinin doğuşu. B. Çelik, M. Erkenekli, H. Şeşen ve M. Polat (Ed.), Sistem dinamikleri içinde (1. baskı, ss. 1-41). Detay Yayıncılık.