USE OF TECHNOLOGY AND DIGITAL TOOLS IN SECONDARY BIOLOGY TEACHING FROM 2016 TO 2025: INSIGHTS FROM A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS

Cynthia Vey S. Cavan

Abstract


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.

Keywords


technology integration; digital tools; secondary biology teaching; bibliometric analysis; science education; Scopus

Full Text:

PDF

References


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




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v13i7.6755

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2026 Cynthia Vey S. Cavan

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2015-2026. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).