Technology-Enhanced Design Learning in STEM/STEAM Education

A Bibliometric Analysis

Authors

  • Norashiken Othman Fakulti Pengurusan Teknologi dan Teknousahawanan, Centre of Technopreneurship Development, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka, Hang Tuah Jaya, Malaysia.
  • N.M. Dasuki Fakulti Pengurusan Teknologi dan Teknousahawanan, Centre of Technopreneurship Development, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka, Hang Tuah Jaya, Malaysia.
  • Normah Kassim Fakulti Pengurusan Teknologi dan Teknousahawanan, Centre of Technopreneurship Development, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka, Hang Tuah Jaya, Malaysia.
  • Zainon Nooraizedfiza Fakulti Pengurusan Teknologi dan Teknousahawanan, Centre of Technopreneurship Development, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka, Hang Tuah Jaya, Malaysia.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33830/ijrse.v8i1-1.15193

Keywords:

Technology-enhanced design learning, Engineering design education, Technology education, STEM/STEAM education, Bibliometric analysis

Abstract

This study aims to examine the development, intellectual structure, and thematic configuration of research on technology-enhanced design learning, with particular attention to the intersection of technology education, engineering education, design learning, and STEM/STEAM education. A bibliometric and science-mapping approach was employed using Scopus-indexed journal articles published between 2016 and 2026. The search was conducted within the title, abstract, and keyword fields and was limited to English-language journal articles. After screening and eligibility assessment, 470 documents were retained for analysis. Bibliometric performance indicators were generated using biblioMagika, while Biblioshiny was used to examine author keyword co-occurrence networks and thematic structures. Data cleaning and keyword harmonisation were conducted before analysis to improve consistency and reliability. The findings show that technology design education has developed into an active interdisciplinary research area with visible publication growth, citation reception, and collaborative authorship. The field is strongly anchored in technology education, engineering education, students, curricula, teaching, and design processes. However, STEM/STEAM education, educational technology, e-learning, artificial intelligence, and computational thinking remain only partially integrated into the field’s central structure. The thematic analysis indicates a developed pedagogical core but weaker interdisciplinary integration. The study is limited to Scopus-indexed English-language journal articles; therefore, relevant studies from other databases, languages, and non-journal sources may be excluded. Future research should expand database coverage and examine classroom-level implementation of technology-enhanced design learning. This study contributes by mapping the knowledge structure of technology-enhanced design learning and clarifying its dominant, emerging, and underdeveloped themes.

References

Ahmi, A., Hassan, H., Abdullah, M., & Jamalurus, H. L. Concentrating Power: A Bibliometric Analysis of Ownership Structures.

Ahmi, A. (2023). OpenRefine: An approachable tool for cleaning and harmonizing bibliographical data. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2827, Article 030006. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0164724

Ahmi, Aidi. "Bibliometric Analysis using biblioMagika®." Academic Research Society of Malaysia (2024).

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

Bevan, B. (2017). The promise and the promises of Making in science education. Studies in Science Education, 53(1), 75–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1275380

Budhyani, I. D. A. M., Nitiasih, P. K., Sila, I. N., & Mahayanti, N. W. S. (2025). Bibliometric Analysis of Experiential and Technology-Integrated Pedagogy in Vocational Design Education. Journal of Cultural Analysis and Social Change, 2890-2897.

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. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525

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

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

English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K–12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3, Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1

Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338–342. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF

Fan, S.-C., & Yu, K.-C. (2017). How an integrative STEM curriculum can benefit students in engineering design practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(1), 107–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9328-x

Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(2), 181–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378

Harzing, A.-W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106(2), 787–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9

Hillmayr, D., Ziernwald, L., Reinhold, F., Hofer, S. I., & Reiss, K. M. (2020). The potential of digital tools to enhance mathematics and science learning in secondary schools: A context-specific meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 153, Article 103897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103897

Jia, H., Zhong, Y., Lin, C. L. S., Mandrinos, S., Woon, F. C., Cao, Z., & Gong, Y. (2026). Charting the blueprint: a bibliometric analysis reveals future strategies in lung cancer targeted therapy (2003–2025). Journal of Thoracic Disease, 18(3), 195.

Johann, D. A., Nunes, A. D. F. P., Santos, G. B. D., Silva, D. J. C. D., Bresciani, S. A. T., & Lopes, L. F. D. (2020). Mapping of scientific production on design thinking as a tool for entrepreneurship education: a bibliometric study of a decade. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 16(4), 271-285.

Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3, Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z

Küçükyağcı, P. Ö. (2025). Bibliometric Analysis of Basic Design Education. Online Journal of Art & Design, 13(3).

Lai, J. W. M., & Bower, M. (2019). How is the use of technology in education evaluated? A systematic review. Computers & Education, 133, 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.01.010

Li, T., & Zhan, Z. (2022). A systematic review on design thinking integrated learning in K–12 education. Applied Sciences, 12(16), Article 8077. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12168077

Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., diSessa, A. A., Graesser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., & Duschl, R. A. (2019). Design and design thinking in STEM education. Journal for STEM Education Research, 2, 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-019-00020-z

Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y., & Froyd, J. E. (2020). Research and trends in STEM education: A systematic review of journal publications. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00207-6

Lim, W. M., Kumar, S., & Donthu, N. (2024). How to combine and clean bibliometric data and use bibliometric tools synergistically: Guidelines using metaverse research. Journal of Business Research, 182, Article 114760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114760

Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6, Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2

Mohd Shahali, E. H., Halim, L., Rasul, M. S., Osman, K., & Zulkifeli, M. A. (2017). STEM learning through engineering design: Impact on middle secondary students’ interest towards STEM. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(5), 1189–1211. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00667a

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ, 339, Article b2535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535

Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5

Mukherjee, D., Lim, W. M., Kumar, S., & Donthu, N. (2022). Guidelines for advancing theory and practice through bibliometric research. Journal of Business Research, 148, 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.04.042

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, Article n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Perianes-Rodriguez, A., Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2016). Constructing bibliometric networks: A comparison between full and fractional counting. Journal of Informetrics, 10(4), 1178–1195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.10.006

Perignat, E., & Katz-Buonincontro, J. (2019). STEAM in practice and research: An integrative literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.10.002

Sung, E., & Kelley, T. R. (2019). Identifying design process patterns: A sequential analysis study of design thinking. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(2), 283–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9448-1

Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4–28. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310393361

van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., & Noyons, E. C. M. (2010). A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 629–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.07.002

Yata, C., Ohtani, T., & Isobe, M. (2020). Conceptual framework of STEM based on Japanese subject principles. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, Article 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00205-8

Zupic, I., & Cater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629

Downloads

Published

01-08-2026

How to Cite

Othman, N., M. Dasuki, N., Kassim, N., & Zainon, N. (2026). Technology-Enhanced Design Learning in STEM/STEAM Education: A Bibliometric Analysis. International Journal of Research in STEM Education, 8(1-1), 91–114. https://doi.org/10.33830/ijrse.v8i1-1.15193

Issue

Section

Systematic Review