Trends and Thematic Focuses on STEM Education: Bibliometric Analysis of Quality Education with Web of Science Data (1993-2024)

Trends and Thematic Focuses on STEM Education: Bibliometric Analysis of Quality Education with Web of Science Data (1993-2024) | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Trends and Thematic Focuses on STEM Education: Bibliometric Analysis of Quality Education with Web of Science Data (1993-2024) Fatih Şeker This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6681110/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study examines the contributions of STEM education to quality education (SDG 4) at thematic and structural levels based on a bibliometric analysis of 659 publications indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) database between 1993 and 2024. Performance analysis, co-citation networks, country collaborations and keyword clusters are visualized through Biblioshiny and VOSviewer software. The findings revealed a marked increase in interest since 2016 and an increase after 2020. The analysis highlights dominant research regions (particularly the US), influential journals and authors, trending keywords such as “STEM”, “early childhood education”, “science education” and “mathematics education”. The findings show a shift from discipline-specific studies to holistic STEM/STEAM frameworks. This mapping offers insights for researchers and policymakers shaping inclusive, high-impact STEM education aligned with sustainable development goals. Social science/Education Social science/Science technology and society STEM education Quality education Sustainable development goals Bibliometrics Early childhood education Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 1 Introduction The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), established by the United Nations in 2015, outline a vision for a future characterized by global equality, justice, and prosperity, all within the planet's ecological boundaries. Offering a comprehensive roadmap, the SDGs consist of 17 main goals and 169 sub-goals. These goals aim to build a more just, inclusive and sustainable world (Opoku, 2016; Nash et al., 2020). Education plays a fundamental role in sustainable development, especially in the context of Goal 4 of the SDGs: ensuring inclusive, equitable and high-quality education (González García et al., 2020; Tian et al, 2024). Quality education, which covers a lifelong process starting from pre-school to postgraduate education, enables individuals to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills to succeed in a rapidly changing global world and at the same time encourages continuous development and learning (Elfert, 2019; Kioupi & Voulvoulis, 2019; Saini et al., 2023; UNESCO, 2015). STEM education stands out as an important tool in achieving this goal, considering that quality education plays a critical role in providing individuals with knowledge, skills and values (Tytler, 2020). STEM education is gaining increasing attention worldwide by bringing together the disciplines of science, technology, engineering and mathematics in a coherent multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary framework (Chesky & Wolfmeyer, 2015; Ha et al., 2020). Beyond improving cognitive outcomes, STEM contributes to equity, innovation, and real-life problem solving with an increasing emphasis on early childhood and inclusive education practices (Su & Yang, 2024). It also increases students' motivation and thus reduces the gender inequality gap in interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary teaching (English et al., 2017; Martín-Páez et al., 2019; Wu & Zhou, 2025). STEM education develops a deep understanding of STEM disciplines and sustainability by providing the ability to transform knowledge into meaningful and sustainable solutions (Gamage et al., 2022). In addition, it significantly contributes to the advancement of “Quality Education,” which is recognized as one of the fundamental pillars of sustainable development. The relationship between STEM education and quality education has been established not only contextually, but also with purposeful and strategic intent (AlAli et al., 2023). Through its interdisciplinary and applied nature, STEM education has played a pivotal role in fostering quality education by promoting inclusive, equitable, and forward-looking educational practices. STEM education offers a holistic learning approach by contributing to individuals' acquisition of 21st century skills such as creativity, critical thinking, and collaboration in the development of quality education; it also plays a strategic role in shaping economic development, competitiveness, and sustainable education policies at the global level (Marginson et al., 2013; Tytler et al., 2019). Despite the growing global interest, academic understanding of how STEM education specifically contributes to quality education remains fragmented (Jamali et al., 2017; Li, et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2020). This highlights a critical need for further empirical and theoretical studies to elucidate the role of STEM education in achieving the broader objectives of sustainable development. A highly effective method to gain insights into the current scope, trends, and quality of research on STEM education enhancing the quality education is to conduct bibliometric analyses. Bibliometric analyses have emerged as a common and reliable method for analyzing and making sense of scientific data. In this method, great emphasis is placed on analyzing networks such as documents, keywords, authors, or journals; revealing the developmental details of a particular discipline; and revealing potential new research topics in that field (Donthu et al., 2021; Waltman et al., 2010). In the literature, previous bibliometric analysis studies on STEM education have generally addressed STEM either in isolation or without a strong link to the SDG framework (Abdi et al., 2024; Akcan, 2024; Cai et al., 2023; Fayzullina et al., 2024; Ha et al., 2020; Hsu et al., 2024; Marín-Marín et al., 2021; Galiç & Arkün Kocadere, 2023; Özkaya, 2019; Supriyadi et al., 2023; Tas & Bolat, 2022; Yu et al., 2016; Uğuz et al., 2017; Zhan et al., 2022). Moreover, there are existing bibliometric studies in this field, such as Jamali et al. (2023), were limited to the Scopus database and only covered years up to 2020. These studies often lacked network-based analyses or were limited in reflecting the evolution of thematic clusters in the STEM education landscape. Additionally, recent years have seen an increase in STEM-related initiatives and publications, especially following major international education reforms and digital acceleration during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is limited synthesized knowledge about the intellectual and social structure of these studies. This results in a critical gap for both policymakers and educators trying to base strategic decisions on empirical data. This study addresses the need to clearly understand how STEM education supports quality education by analyzing current academic research trends, collaborations, and thematic developments in this field. A comprehensive and up-to-date bibliometric review using WoS data from 1993 to 2024 was conducted to reveal the current status of STEM education literature, collaboration patterns, and thematic focus areas aimed at improving education quality. This study provides an updated, holistic view using WoS data from 1993 to 2024, revealing social and intellectual structures and guiding future research trajectories. Within this framework, it addresses the following research questions regarding STEM education in developing quality education: RQ 1 : What are the evolving research trends in STEM education that support quality education, particularly in terms of prominent actors and countries? RQ 2 : What does the intellectual structure and the collaborative networks in the STEM field reveal about the development of interdisciplinary approaches? RQ 3 : What are the emerging conceptual trends and thematic transformations in STEM/STEAM education, especially within the SDG 4? To answer these questions, this study aims to develop a comprehensive and systematic perspective on STEM education, ultimately contributing to the improvement of educational quality. 2 Method 2.1 Research Design The bibliometric method is a systematic, theoretical, and practical approach that enables the quantitative evaluation of scientific outputs. It includes data collection, performance assessment, and visualization tools that are essential for analyzing scholarly productivity (Moral-Muñoz et al., 2020). Following the framework outlined by Zupic and Čater (2015), bibliometric analysis is selected for its systematic, transparent, and reliable nature, enabling the quantitative exploration and interpretation of extensive scientific datasets. Through this method, researchers can assess both the current status and historical evolution of a research area, detect knowledge gaps, and strategically inform future research directions (Donthu et al., 2021). In this study, bibliometric techniques were applied to map the current landscape of research on STEM education to increase the quality of education, investigate scholarly collaboration networks, and identify dominant research trends and emerging thematic clusters. Furthermore, the study assessed how STEM education contributes to improving educational quality, highlighted existing deficiencies in the field, and proposed recommendations for upcoming research. 2.2 Data collection approach The initial step in bibliometric analysis involves selecting an appropriate bibliographic database tailored to the research domain. While databases such as PubMed and ERIC exist, they may not offer the comprehensive and standardized data necessary for bibliometric evaluation. Therefore, widely recognized platforms such as Dimensions, Microsoft Academic (MA), Google Scholar (GS), Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) are commonly preferred for such analyses (Moral-Muñoz et al., 2020). Among these, WoS stands out for its extensive and reputable coverage, offering detailed citation and reference data, and indexing across specialized collections, including the “Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI)”, “Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE)” and “Arts and Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI)” (Zhu & Liu, 2020). WoS provides citation records dating back to 1900, enabling researchers to trace scientific developments over time. Moreover, it compiles bibliographic records and citation analyses across diverse disciplines ranging from science and technology to the humanities and social sciences (Sánchez et al., 2017; Singh et al., 2021). Owing to its structured, high-quality, and reliable data offerings, WoS is a preferred resource among researchers aiming to conduct robust and standardized bibliometric studies (Aghaei Chadegani et al., 2013; Gong et al., 2019; Pranckutė, 2021). Therefore, the WoS database was used to access the data in the study. After the WoS database was selected, “STEM”, “STEAM”, “quality education” and its continuations were used as keywords in the search. The time limitation in the scan was selected as 1981-2024. Since the year 2025 was not completed and would constitute missing data, early-looking and 2025 data were manually extracted in the study. Excel files for basic review and performance analysis, plaintext files for using the VOSviewer program and BibteX files for using the biblioshiny program were downloaded on February 6, 2025 using the “full record and cited references” tab. The study is based on the PRISMA protocol (Rethlefsen et al., 2021), and the stages and steps of the bibliometric analysis process are visualized in Figure 1 (Öztürk et al., 2024). 2.3 Data presentation In bibliometric studies, various methods, such as science mapping, performance and network analysis, are frequently employed (AlRyalat et al., 2019; Noyons et al., 1999). Performance analysis focuses on evaluating the scientific output of researchers, institutions, or fields by examining metrics such as citation counts, publication numbers, and the h-index. These indicators help measure the impact and productivity of scientific activity. Network analysis, on the other hand, illustrates the relationships among authors, articles, or keywords, uncovering patterns of collaboration and thematic connections within the research landscape. Science mapping techniques further contribute by visually representing the structure, interrelations, and progression of scientific knowledge across time (Öztürk et al., 2024; Zupic & Čater, 2015). For this study, VOSviewer was selected to conduct network analyses and generate bibliometric maps, whereas Biblioshiny was utilized to manage the data collection, analysis, and visualization processes. VOSviewer is a widely recognized tool for building and interpreting bibliometric networks, enabling analyses such as co-authorship, co-occurrence of keywords, citation patterns, bibliographic coupling, and co-citation through various visualization options, including networks, overlays, and density maps (Van Eck & Waltman, 2010). The selection of methods and tools for each research question and sub-question is outlined in Table 2. The findings were visualized from a bibliometric viewpoint, utilizing line and bar graphs for citation analysis; network maps to examine patterns of co-authorship, keyword co-occurrence, and co-citation; and word clouds to illustrate the distribution of key terms. Biblioshiny, an interface based on the R package "bibliometrix," served as an additional analytic platform. It supports importing and organizing bibliographic data, filtering records across databases, and producing detailed bibliometric analyses and visual outputs. Moreover, Biblioshiny facilitates the examination of conceptual, social, and intellectual dimensions by clustering sources, authors, documents, and thematic content (Ejaz et al., 2022). Throughout the study, findings were visualized via various methods, including line and bar graphs for tracking publication counts and average citation rates, along with frequency tables to support quantitative interpretations. The analytical steps, types, and software process of the study are presented in Figure 2. 3 Findings 3.1 The current state of STEM education in enhancing quality education 3.1.1 Annual distribution of publications and average yearly citations Understanding the development trends of publications and average citation rates over the years within the context of STEM's role in enhancing quality education is crucial for identifying research trends. In this context, data retrieved from the Biblioshiny program were analyzed in Excel, and the indicators related to trends in published articles and average total citations over the years are presented in Figure 3. The role of STEM education in enhancing the quality of education began with a single publication in 1993 and remained at low levels until 2005. No publications were recorded in 1995 and 1996, while only one publication was produced each year (1994, 1997, and 2000). However, the publications from these early years received high citation rates. For example, a single article published in 1994 received an average of 3.16 citations. The number of publications rose from 3 in 2004 to 11 in 2005, and the average citation count peaked during these two years. Between 2006 and 2015, there was a gradual and modest increase in both academic output and average citation rates. From 2016 to 2024, a significant and consistent increase in the number of publications was observed. Notably, there was a remarkable surge in publication numbers after 2020. In contrast, a noticeable decline in average citation rates has been observed since 2020. 3.1.2 Leading journals in the field The overall volume of publications and citations within a given research area is often seen as an indicator of scholarly interest. Therefore, evaluating journals on the basis of their total publication counts, citation numbers, and h-index values is essential for understanding their impact and prominence in the field. Within the scope of the contribution of STEM education to enhance quality education, there are a total of 181 sources. In this context, indicators related to the top 15 sources are presented in Table 1 via data from the Biblioshiny program. Table 1 Top 15 high-impact scholarly journals Source HI NP TC Country PYS WCC CQ JIF “Early Childhood Education Journal” 18 55 1086 Netherlands 2005 SSCI Q1 2,3 “International Journal of Science Education” 14 26 451 England 1993 SSCI Q1 2,2 “European Early Childhood Education Research Journal” 10 24 277 England 2009 SSCI Q2 1,8 “European Journal of Engineering Education” 10 19 340 England 2006 ESCI Q2 2,4 “International Journal of Technology and Design Education” 10 15 410 Netherlands 2009 SSCI Q2 2,03 “Journal of Research in Science Teaching” 9 9 631 USA 1998 SSCI Q1 3,6 “Research In Science Education” 9 23 302 Netherlands 2003 SSCI Q1 2,2 “Zdm-Mathematics Education” 8 20 276 Germany 2006 SSCI Q2 2 “Cultural Studies of Science Education” 7 18 171 USA 2006 SSCI Q2 1,3 “International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education” 7 13 221 Netherlands 2010 SSCI Q2 1,9 “Education and Information Technologies” 6 8 83 USA 2020 SSCI Q1 4,8 “Education Sciences” 6 30 103 Switzerland 2018 ESCI Q1 2,5 “International Journal of Early Years Education” 6 7 75 England 2009 ESCI Q2 1,3 “Journal of Information Technology Education-research” 6 16 154 USA 2006 ESCI Q2 1,9 HI: h index, TC: total citations, NP: number of publications, PYS: publication year start, WCC: WoS Core Collection, CQ: Category Quartile, JIF: journal impact.factor When Table 1 is examined, it becomes evident that the “Early Childhood Education Journal” and the “International Journal of Science Education” rank as the two most prominent journals in terms of scholarly output and impact in the field of STEM education’s contribution to quality education. They are followed by the “European Early Childhood Education Research Journal” and the “European Journal of Engineering Education”, both of which also demonstrate considerable influence through sustained research activity in STEM-related educational contexts. The “International Journal of Technology and Design Education” and the “Journal of Research in Science Teaching” continue this trend, showing consistent engagement with topics at the intersection of technology, science, and pedagogy. 3.1.3 Key Influential Authors To evaluate the development of quality education in STEM, the top 10 most influential authors were identified on the basis of criteria such as total citation count, number of publications, years of publication, and h-index values. These data were analyzed via Biblioshiny software and are presented in Table 2. Table 2 Top ten key influential authors Author h-index Number of Publication Total Citations Publication Year Start Bers, M.U. 7 7 636 2013 Iannone, P. 6 7 94 2005 Clements, D.H. 5 7 219 2016 Nardı, E. 5 6 126 2005 Papadopoulou, P. 5 5 51 2012 Parks, A.N. 5 5 59 2014 Sarama, J. 5 6 217 2016 Alsına, A. 4 6 35 2017 Areljung, S. 4 5 44 2017 Barton, A.C. 4 4 261 1997 The bibliography of the studies included a total of 1541 authors, with 10 authors evaluated in the analysis. According to Table 2, Bers, M.U. stands out as the most influential author across all criteria, with the highest h-index, the most publications, and the highest citation count. Despite having fewer publications, Barton, A.C. has a strong impact, with a high citation count. Clements, D.H. and Sarama, J. exhibit notable academic influence with their balanced performance in both publication and citation counts. 3.1.4 The most highly cited publications with significant academic impact Figure 4 shows the citation counts of the top ten most cited publications in the context of enhancing quality education through STEM education. Figure 4 shows that the most cited studies in the context of enhancing quality education through STEM are listed. The most frequently cited study is the article titled “The ABET ‘professional skills’ - can they be taught? Can they be assessed?” by Shuman et al. (2005), published in the Journal of Engineering Education. This study addresses a significant aspect of STEM education by developing engineering skills and criteria. It provides examples of teaching and assessing communication, teamwork, ethics, professionalism, engineering, and lifelong learning skills. The second most cited study is “is kindergarten the new first grade” by Bassok et al. (2016), published in the American Educational Research Association Open. This study examines how increasing school readiness pressures have led kindergartens to focus on academic skills and argues that STEM education should develop through play and exploration in early childhood. The third most cited study is “Science education as/for participation in the community” by Roth and Lee (2004), which was published in Science Education. This study discusses how scientific literacy can be made more meaningful in a social context, advocating that STEM education be redesigned as a process intertwined with community life. While all the top 15 most cited publications have received over 100 citations, each of the top 7 publications has received more than 150 citations. In contrast, 90 out of the 659 studies (13.7%) received no citations, indicating a lack of interest in these publications. 3.1.5 Countries with the greatest influence in the world Examining the scientific production levels of countries and their average citations is crucial for understanding the scope, impact, and profundity of research conducted to increase the quality of education through STEM. In this context, a total of 60 countries have reported publications. The publication counts of the twenty most prolific countries are presented in Figure 5 via Biblioshiny software, and the citation counts per publication are shown in Figure 6 via Datawrapper. When Figure 5 is examined, the top 20 most prolific countries are revealed with both the SCP and the MCP. In the context of enhancing quality education through STEM, the United States ranks first (TP: 193) in terms of total publications. The United States has more publications than the combined total of the following countries: China (TP: 48), the United Kingdom (TP: 47), Australia (TP: 46), and Sweden (TP: 38). Additionally, the United States accounts for 29.3% of the total publications in the field of enhancing quality education through STEM, demonstrating a strong publication presence in this area. On the other hand, the fact that 17 countries have only one publication related to STEM education indicates that these countries have conducted fewer studies in this field. The citation counts of countries are presented in Figure 6. An examination of Figure 6 reveals that the United States stands out with 5,189 citations, highlighting the country's dominant role in the global research field. After the United States, countries such as the United Kingdom (TP: 840), Australia (TP: 589), China (TP: 439), Canada (TP: 402), and Sweden (TP: 384) also stand out. Greece (TP: 339), Türkiye (TP: 297), and Germany (TP: 284) are notable for their growing research capacities and rapid integration into global research networks. Despite having only one publication each, Tanzania and Egypt have received 46 and 35 citations, respectively, which is noteworthy. 3.2 Exploring the social and intellectual dynamics of stem education to improve quality education 3.2.1 An examination of cross-country collaboration A collaboration and co-authorship analysis among countries was conducted to examine the social structure of research in the context of enhancing quality education through STEM. In this process, a total of 28 countries that produced a minimum of 5 publications were considered for inclusion in the analysis. The analysis was conducted via VOSviewer software, and Figure 7 illustrates the leading countries and the nature of intercountry collaborations in terms of co-authorship. In addition, clusters representing close relationships in terms of collaboration among countries are formed, with each node representing a country. An examination of Figure 7 reveals that there are 28 countries and 8 clusters with strong relationships in terms of intercountry collaboration. The cluster with the most collaboration is marked in red, including Finland, France, Germany, South Africa, Switzerland, and Taiwan. Additionally, the green cluster includes the United Kingdom, Greece, Israel, the Netherlands, and Scotland; the blue cluster includes Ireland, Malaysia, Sweden, and the United Arab Emirates; the yellow cluster includes Belgium, Norway, and the People's Republic of China; the purple cluster includes Brazil, Canada, and Portugal; the turquoise cluster includes Chile and Spain; the orange cluster includes the United States and Türkiye; and the brown cluster includes Australia and Italy. Considering the total link strength, the United States stands out for strong collaboration. The United States has 208 scientific publications and a total link strength of 25, making it the largest node. The countries with which the United States collaborates most intensively include Türkiye, the United Kingdom, Germany, and China. These findings indicate that the U.S. plays a central role in studies related to the qualitative development of STEM education. Additionally, considering the total link strength, the United Kingdom (31), the United States (25), Germany (24), Sweden (19), and Canada (17) are identified as the countries with the strongest link strength. 3.2.2 Co-citation network structure analysis by author The co-citation network of authors was examined to explore the intellectual framework of research, with the aim of developing high-quality STEM education. Co-citation analysis is a powerful bibliometric tool for uncovering the intellectual structure of research fields on the basis of sources frequently cited together in the literature. This method measures similarities on the basis of the frequency of citations to the same publication between two documents and analyzes intellectual proximities and knowledge clusters in the literature through these measurements (Boyack & Klavans, 2010). Co-citation analysis also allows for the exploration of key topics, theories, and interactions among authors in the field. These similarities reveal which studies interact more and which topics or authors are prominent (Schildt et al., 2016). There are 19,304 authors studying the use of STEM education to enhance quality education. To explore their networks, the co-citation network of 36 authors with a minimum of 25 citations was analyzed via VOSviewer software. The global co-citation network of authors is presented in Figure 8. When Figure 8 is examined, there are red, green, and blue clusters. The numbers of authors in these clusters are 21, 7, and 7, respectively. In the red, green, and blue clusters, the nodes, the size of the nodes, and the distances between them are noteworthy. The authors who are frequently cited together are placed in the same cluster, indicating that they work on similar topics. Clements, D.H. is the most frequently co-cited author. The total link strength and citation counts among authors show that those contributing to the enhancement of quality education through STEM have extensive academic collaborations and significant impacts. Cluster 1 stands out as the largest and most influential cluster with strong connections and high citation counts. Compared with Cluster 1, Clusters 2 and 3 are smaller. Nevertheless, these clusters also include authors who have conducted significant research. On the basis of total connection strength, the following authors stand out in the green cluster: Clements, D.H. (TLS: 1289), Sarama, J. (TLS: 902), Baroody, A.J. (TLS: 394), and Ginsburg, H.P. (TLS: 372). These authors have made important contributions to the field of STEM, particularly mathematics and education. Being in the same cluster indicates their publication similarities and strong research collaboration. These authors have significantly contributed to concepts related to enhancing the quality of STEM education. In the blue cluster, the prominent authors are Bers, MU (TLS: 459), Sullivan, A (TLS: 364), and Piaget, J (TLS: 285). In the red cluster, the prominent authors are Fleer, M (TLS: 111); Vygotsky, LS (TLS: 49); and Roth, WM (TLS: 141). 3.3 Current trends and advancements in stem education for quality education improvement Biblioshiny software was used to identify popular themes and trends in research aimed at enhancing quality education through STEM. Title and abstract analyses were conducted via Biblioshiny, whereas keyword analysis was performed via VOSviewer. 3.3.1 Keyword analysis: a framework for research insights In bibliometric studies, publication keywords are essential for symbolizing knowledge concepts and are widely used to uncover the knowledge structure of various research areas. Keyword analysis involves hotspot detection, trend analysis, and keyword clustering for mapping (Chen & Xiao, 2016). In this context, the cutoff point for keyword analysis was set at a minimum of 5 repetitions. Although the frequency of keyword usage is determined through bibliometric analysis, the results of this study are presented in Figure 9. Understanding trends and the theoretical framework in research topics relies on the frequency of keywords. An examination of Figure 8 reveals that out of 1824 keywords, 61 keywords were matched when the criterion of at least 5 repetitions was selected. In this context, the nodes and the distances between them convey specific meanings related to the keywords. The size of a node represents the frequency of the keyword, the distance between nodes indicates the strength of the relationship, and the connecting lines represent the strength of the connection. A shorter distance between nodes indicates a stronger association between the corresponding keywords; conversely, a greater distance indicates a weaker relationship. Each color signifies a distinct cluster, highlighting the most interconnected and frequently occurring keywords, thus revealing 5 distinct clusters. According to the data in Figure 10, the most frequently repeated and strongest keywords, along with their occurrences and total link strength values, are as follows: early childhood education (133, 197), science education (64, 82), STEM (44, 64), mathematics education (47, 58), and early childhood (34, 55). Additionally, findings related to the evolution of these keywords over the years were examined via VOSviewer software and are presented in Figure 10. When Figure 11 is examined, keywords such as lifelong learning, e-learning, distance education, mathematics, kindergarten, play, and robotics were prominent in 2016. As we approach the present day, keywords such as early childhood education, science education, preschool, STEM, early childhood, STEAM, and STEM education have become trending. In 2019, STEM education focused more on the theoretical foundations for enhancing quality education, whereas in recent years, STEM, STEAM, and STEM education have gained a holistic perspective. Another notable trend is the increasing prominence of keywords such as early childhood education and science education, highlighting the growing importance of fundamental and integrated educational practices in various learning environments. It can be observed that STEM education has evolved toward a more inclusive and interdisciplinary framework, rather than sticking to traditional disciplines, with STEAM gaining more prominence in recent years. Additionally, while keywords such as mathematics education and preschool were previously common, the rise of STEM education and STEAM keywords indicates a shift toward innovative and more comprehensive educational approaches. 3.3.2 Insight into titles and abstracts Bibliometric analysis was performed on the titles and abstracts to uncover the theoretical interests and key areas of focused research aimed at enhancing quality education through STEM. Using Biblioshiny software, the titles and abstracts of studies related to enhancing quality education through STEM were examined. The word clouds presented in Figure 10 were created. An analysis of Figure 12a reveals that the most commonly used keywords in the titles of research aimed at enhancing quality education through STEM include education (f = 218), learning (f = 151), science (f = 146), childhood (f = 104), teachers (f = 102), mathematics (f = 96), students (f = 77), and teaching (f = 74). In Figure 12b, the abstracts of these studies highlight terms such as education (f = 1222), learning (f = 1072), students (f = 1038), science (f = 936), teachers (f = 865), study (f = 752), research (f = 593), and teaching (f = 528). When both titles and abstracts are considered together, concepts such as education, learning, and students are prominently emphasized, demonstrating a strong emphasis on educational processes. In this context, education, learning, and students stand out as key components in enhancing quality education through STEM. 4 Discussion and Conclusion Bibliometric methods rely on bibliographic data produced by other scientists through citations, collaboration, and written content to analyze researchers' findings in a specific field. This allows for the collection and analysis of data, providing an in-depth view of the structure, social networks, and current trends in a particular area. It also sheds light on new suggestions for the focused field (Ellegaard & Wallin, 2015 ; Zupic & Čater, 2015 ). This study provides an up-to-date, multidimensional view of the contribution of STEM education to quality education. Compared to Jamali et al. ( 2023 ), the data is drawn from the WoS database and includes both performance and intellectual analyses, thus offering a deeper insight. The bibliometric analysis study on STEM education enhancing quality education is evaluated under five main headings and suggestions for future research directions are presented. 4.1 STEM education trends for quality education The STEM movement began in the early 1990s (Martín-Páez et al., 2019 ); however, the first study focused on enhancing quality education through STEM was published in the Web of Science (WoS) database in 1993. As the number of publications and citations related to enhancing quality education through STEM has continuously increased, this growth can be examined in three phases: a low-activity period (1993–2005), slow growth (2006–2015), and rapid dissemination (2016–2024). Between 1993 and 2005, the field experienced a period of limited activity, as reflected by the extremely limited number of publications. The absence of any publications in 1995 and 1996, along with only a single publication recorded in 1994, 1997, and 2000, suggests that the concept of improving quality education through STEM has not yet been widely recognized or integrated into academic discourse. During this early phase, both the scope and importance of applying STEM to enhance educational quality still emerged, which likely contributed to its minimal visibility in scholarly and societal discussions. During the slow growth and awareness period from 2006–2015, there was a gradual increase in the number of publications. The concept of STEM education began to be recognized as a new area for enhancing quality education, with fundamental concepts and research topics gradually shaping over time. As the dissemination of STEM education for enhancing quality education has increased, interest in this field has increased (Cai et al., 2023 ; Özkaya, 2019 ; Zhan et al., 2022 ). Starting in 2016, the rapid dissemination and intensive research period resulted in sharp and steady growth in the volume of publications, although the rate of increase slowed in 2019 and 2020, probably because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary factor behind the increase since 2016 has been the promotion of STEM education by countries such as the USA, the UK, and Australia. These national strategies provided a significant roadmap for the development of STEM education and increased public interest, contributing to the rise in related academic studies. Additionally, this increase can be linked to the positive contributions of science, mathematics, technology, digital transformation, and engineering to enhancing quality education (Marín-Marín et al., 2021 ; McDonald, 2016 ; Zhan, 2022). A similar pattern has been reported by Hsu et al. ( 2024 ). The integration of these disciplines has contributed to making learning processes more effective and suitable for contemporary needs, highlighting STEM education as a crucial element in supporting quality education. The noticeable increase in the number of publications, especially after 2020, is significant; however, the parallel decrease in the mean citation count during the same period is also an important result. The constantly evolving dynamics of the world and the acceleration of technological change may rekindle academic interest in STEM education. Consequently, future research in STEM education is expected to deepen and develop new theoretical approaches and methodologies. A rising trend in publication output has been observed in every period, with the highest publication growth observed since 2011 (86.2%). This result aligns with previous research findings (Abdi et al., 2024 ; Fayzullina et al., 2024 ; Ha et al., 2020 ; Jamali et al., 2023 ; Marín-Marín et al., 2021 ; Supriyadi et al., 2023 ; Uğuz et al., 2017 ; Zhan et al., 2022 ). 4.2 Key journals, influential authors and sources The key journals and influential authors in the development of quality education through STEM provide important insights into the academic framework of this domain. High h-index of journals indicates that the articles published in these journals have a wide academic impact and play an important role in the development of the field (Costas & Bordons, 2007 ). Accordingly, the h-index value was taken into consideration. “Early Childhood Education Journal”, which published the first study in 2005, and “International Journal of Science Education”, which published the first study in 1993, stand out in the context of developing quality education of STEM education. Both journals have become the center of knowledge production in the field of improving the quality of STEM education and have become an important authority in this field by creating a strong scientific impact over time. Research published in the “Journal of Early Childhood Education” reveals that the implementation of STEM education at an early age contributes significantly to quality education. Here, it can be said that STEM education in early childhood contributes to quality education by developing children's creativity, problem solving skills and critical thinking skills (Su & Yang, 2024 ). This situation reveals the need to promote interdisciplinary STEM/STEAM programs in early childhood. In addition, “European Early Childhood Education Research Journal”, “European Journal of Engineering Education” and “International Journal of Technology and Design Education” have high impact. This shows the authority of STEM education in improving quality education and the acceptance of the published studies by the academic community. There are also studies in the literature that are in parallel with the finding (Özkaya, 2019 ; Yu et al., 2016 ; Uğuz et al., 2017 ). When focusing on prominent authors, Bers, M.U. emerges as the most influential, demonstrating the highest h-index, most publications, and greatest citation count. Although Barton, A.C. has produced fewer publications, their work is highly impactful, as reflected by a strong citation record. Clements, D.H. and Sarama, J. also display considerable academic influence, effectively balancing productivity and impact. These results align with Hirsch's (2007; 2010) assertion that an author's h-index serves as a critical indicator of both the quality and consistency of scholarly output. High citation counts further reinforce that these researchers' contributions are widely recognized and influential in advancing STEM education and quality learning. Among the most cited articles, Shuman et al. ( 2005 ) stand out with their publication “The ABET ‘professional skills’ – can they be taught? Can they be assessed?”, which significantly shaped the discourse on developing engineering competencies through STEM education. Their work provides practical examples of fostering communication, teamwork, ethics, professionalism, and lifelong learning within educational frameworks. Other key contributions include studies by Bassok et al. ( 2016 ) and Roth and Lee ( 2004 ), which emphasize the importance of play-based exploration in early childhood STEM education and advocate the embedding of scientific literacy within social contexts. Overall, the leading journals, authors, and studies in the field have been instrumental in shaping the intellectual foundations of STEM education research. Metrics such as high h-index scores, JIFs, and citation counts demonstrate that publications in these venues exert substantial academic influence and drive the progression of the field. Future research endeavors would benefit from engaging with these influential sources to ensure the continued qualitative development of STEM education. Collectively, these insights offer a critical roadmap for future scholarly efforts aimed at strengthening educational quality through STEM. 4.3 Cross-Country analysis of publication and citation metrics A cross-national examination of STEM education research revealed that the United States was the dominant contributor to efforts aimed at enhancing quality education. As the birthplace of the STEM framework, the U.S. has played a pioneering role in both the conceptual development and large-scale implementation of STEM education (Hu, 2023 ). The country's substantial number of publications and citations underlines its central position and strong research infrastructure. Its leadership is attributed to early adoption, substantial policy support, widespread public engagement, strategic investment, and coordinated national initiatives aimed at cultivating a skilled STEM workforce (Zhan et al., 2022 ). Furthermore, competition with other global powers, particularly China, in STEM fields has further reinforced the U.S.'s dominant position. The United States, China, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Sweden emerge as the countries with the highest volume of STEM education publications. In terms of citations, the United Kingdom, Australia, China, Canada, and Sweden rank as the most cited contributors. These patterns are consistent with earlier studies (Özkaya, 2019 ; Taş & Bolat, 2022 ; Yu et al., 2016 ; Zhan et al., 2022 ). Notably, China’s growing emphasis on integrating STEM education into its K-12 curriculum reflects its strategic focus on cultivating a technologically skilled workforce. China has adopted multidisciplinary and innovative educational approaches to align with its ambitions in scientific advancement and industrial development. STEM education policies have played a strategic role in China's transition from a production-oriented economy to an innovation-, technology-, and knowledge-based economy. This may have paved the way for China to emerge as a rising power in research, highlighting the impact of its education system on enhancing quality education (Ma, 2021 ). The US, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and Germany implement various policies to develop STEM skills. These policies typically address public perceptions and knowledge related to scientific disciplines; mathematics and science education within school settings; and trends in participation and achievement rates and higher education participation in STEM disciplines (Freeman et al., 2019 ; Taş & Bolat, 2022 ). Greece, Türkiye, and Germany are notable for their growing research capacities and rapid integration into global research networks. Compared with developing countries, developed countries allocate more resources to this field. Nevertheless, research on enhancing quality education through STEM is increasingly gaining international attention. Although STEM education research in improving quality education is receiving increasing international attention, regions that are underrepresented in this field need to invest more in STEM education research (Su & Yang, 2024 ). In conclusion, the global distribution and impact of STEM education research emphasize the leadership of the U.S. while showing that contributions from other countries are increasing, leading to a more balanced impact on global STEM research. However, some countries with low research productivity highlight the need for a more inclusive and balanced research environment. Enhancing research capacity in developing nations is essential for promoting a more equitable distribution of scientific output and for fostering the dissemination of innovative ideas. Strengthening these capacities will contribute to the development of a more diverse, dynamic, and impactful research ecosystem in STEM education. 4.4 Intercountry and interauthor collaboration in STEM education to enhance quality education The results of this research suggest that collaboration with international partners has contributed to the development of quality education through STEM education. The United States, with 208 publications and a total link strength of 25, has emerged as a central hub for global knowledge exchange. This prominent position is likely driven by factors such as substantial research funding, strong institutional infrastructures, and open science policies that actively support international partnerships. A collaborative network structured around the U.S. demonstrates its leadership in the global STEM education research community. Strong U.S. ties to countries such as Türkiye, the UK, Germany, and China underscore the importance of diversity and cross-border knowledge transfer. Research shows that large, internationally coordinated research teams tend to produce higher-impact outputs (Zhan et al., 2022 ; Wuchty et al., 2007 ). Moreover, the strength of partnerships between the United States and countries such as Türkiye, the United Kingdom, Germany, and China reflects the pivotal role the U.S. plays in fostering quality education through STEM at a global scale (Özkaya, 2019 ). Nonetheless, it is important to note that, despite participating in strong collaborative efforts, some countries still exhibit relatively lower total link strengths, indicating potential areas for improving their influence within the global academic network. For example, the limited collaborations of Australia and Italy in the brown cluster suggest that their contributions to STEM education may be more national in scope. This finding aligns with studies highlighting that some developing countries are still not sufficiently visible on the international stage in STEM research. On the other hand, the clusters identified in the analysis are based not only on geographical proximity but also on sociopolitical and academic proximity. For example, Türkiye's placement in the same cluster (orange) as the US may be related to recent joint projects developed by both countries in educational technologies and STEM pedagogy. This finding indicates that regional actors can integrate into global scientific networks. However, this study is based solely on bibliometric data and does not provide direct information on the quality, sustainability, or content focus of collaborations. Therefore, future research should also evaluate qualitative aspects such as the type, duration, and thematic areas of intercountry projects. In conclusion, the qualitative development of STEM education on a global scale is directly related to multilayered intercountry collaboration. While countries such as the US, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Sweden are at the center of the network, it is crucial for developing countries to participate more actively and strategically in these collaborations to ensure equity in global knowledge production. In this context, making international funding mechanisms more inclusive and supporting multilingual, multicultural research teams are necessary for more balanced global development in STEM education. In this context, promoting global research collaboration, especially involving developing countries, making international funding mechanisms more inclusive and supporting multilingual, multicultural research teams are essential for a more balanced global development in STEM education. The analysis of the qualitative development of STEM education reveals the theoretical diversity and collaborative nature of the field through strong co-citation relationships among authors. In the red cluster, authors focusing on constructivist and sociocultural learning approaches, such as Fleer, M., Vygotsky, L.S., and Roth, W.M., stand out. This finding indicates that the pedagogical foundation of STEM education is strengthened by theoretical foundations. In the green cluster, authors such as Clements, D.H., Sarama, J., and Ginsburg, H.P. are notable for their high citation and link strength in early childhood mathematics education. These authors have developed influential models in STEM both theoretically and practically. In the blue cluster, authors such as Bers, M.U., Papadakis, S., and Lee, J. focus on technology-supported STEM education, robotics, and digital game-based learning. This cluster represents the evolution of the field toward digitalization and early childhood technological literacy. In conclusion, the growth of STEM education can be achieved through the simultaneous progress of theoretical diversity, practical orientation, and technology-focused research. This multilayered structure forms the foundation of a sustainable and inclusive educational approach. In the future, expanding these author networks through more international collaborations will further deepen the field at a universal level. 4.5 Thematic trends and concepts in STEM education for quality education Keywords serve as an essential means to explore the knowledge framework and emerging trends within research domains. The keyword data obtained in this study provide important insights into how STEM education has evolved over time and the themes around which it has concentrated. In 2016, concepts such as “lifelong learning”, “e-learning”, “distance education”, “mathematics”, “kindergarten”, “play” and “robotics” were prominent, indicating a focus on technology-supported learning environments and mathematics-based applications, especially at the kindergarten level (Su & Yang, 2024 ; Zhan, 2022). However, over the years, these trends have shifted, with concepts such as “early childhood education”, “science education”, “STEM”, “STEAM”, and “STEM education” becoming more prominent. This evolution reflects a departure from traditional educational models toward a more comprehensive, interdisciplinary, and inclusive understanding of STEM education. The growing emphasis on early childhood education underscores the role of STEM in fostering computational thinking and problem-solving skills from an early age. Furthermore, with technological progress, tools such as robotics and educational games have been increasingly utilized to increase young learners’ self-efficacy. STEM education also promotes the development of communication and collaboration skills among children, equipping them with more complex and abstract concepts during their elementary years. These trends collectively illustrate the critical role of STEM education in supporting high-quality early childhood learning experiences (Jamali et al. 2023 ; Su & Yang, 2024 ). Following early childhood, “science education” stands out as a key area within the broader STEM framework. Additionally, research on topics such as “STEM”, “STEAM”, and “STEM education” itself continues to dominate scholarly efforts aimed at advancing the quality of education. This finding aligns with other studies in the literature (Akcan, 2024 ; Galiç & Arkün Kocadere, 2023 ; Ha et al., 2020 ; Özkaya, 2019 ; Taş & Bolat, 2022 ; Uğuz et al., 2017 ; Yu et al., 2016 ). The growing emphasis on the concept of “STEAM” after 2020 highlights the increasing embedding of the arts into core STEM education, highlighting the significance of nurturing students' creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving abilities. The increasing focus on the STEM and STEAM approaches has enhanced students' comprehension of scientific concepts while empowering them to engage with and address pressing societal challenges. By combining the disciplines of technology, science, mathematics, and engineering, STEM education plays a pivotal role in tackling ecological, economic, and social issues, thereby contributing to the goals of sustainable development (Gavari-Starkie et al., 2022 ; Maass et al., 2019 ). An analysis of the frequency of terms in titles and abstracts further supports this shift. The repeated appearance of keywords such as “education”, “learning”, “students” and “teachers” indicates a strong emphasis on educational aspects within STEM-related research aimed at improving quality education (Ha et al., 2020 ). These patterns suggest that STEM education research not only focuses on technical skill acquisition but also highlights the importance of learning processes, the role of educators, and student-centered pedagogies. Similar conclusions were drawn in the study by Assefa and Rorissa ( 2013 ), who carried out a bibliometric investigation of STEM education. Their study identified keywords such as “education”, “science education”, “mathematics education”, “elementary education”, “higher education” and “technology education” as among the most frequently occurring. Title analyses highlighted the prominence of terms such as “science education”, “technology education”, “mathematics education” and “engineering education”, whereas abstract reviews highlighted a focus on “science education”, “student”, “technology education”, “mathematics education” and “general education”. Policy and education implications The findings of this study suggest that education policies should be restructured with a focus on STEM education. The dissemination of interdisciplinary STEM/STEAM programs especially in early childhood will contribute to the development of 21st century skills such as problem solving, digital literacy and creativity. In faculties of education, programs aimed at increasing pre-service teachers' interdisciplinary content production and technological pedagogical competencies should be expanded. In addition, a more equitable and inclusive structure can be established in global knowledge production by supporting funding for STEM research and multilingual academic publishing in developing countries. Limitations and recommendations This study has some limitations that affect the generalizability and scope of the results. First of all, since the study focused only on English language publications in the WoS database, some important research published in different disciplines or local contexts was excluded. The inclusion of databases such as Scopus, ERIC, Google Scholar and publications in different languages in future research would provide a more holistic analysis. Secondly, the study was limited to the period 1993–2024. Since the year 2025 was not completed in the study, the year 2025 was not included in the study. It may be suggested to include 2025 and later years in future studies. In a rapidly developing field such as STEM education, such time limitations may make it difficult for research results to fully respond to dynamic developments. Additionally, the review is limited to peer-reviewed academic publications. The inclusion of conference proceedings, practice-based reports, government policies, industry analyses, or projects aimed at community development may offer important contributions toward a better understanding of the real-world implications of STEM education. Considering these limitations, future studies should include different databases and multilingual literature. It is also emphasized that practice-oriented sources should be analyzed. On the basis of these results, it is recommended that policymakers, educators, and practitioners conduct more efforts to support quality education in STEM subjects and achieve sustainable development goals (especially quality education). In this way, valuable insights into the role of STEM education in enhancing quality education can be obtained. Declarations Informed consent This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by the Ethical approval This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of Funding The author declares that no funding was received to support the research, authorship, or publication of this article. Author Contribution The author is the sole contributor to this manuscript. Data availability The dataset analyzed in this study was retrieved from the Web of Science, which is a publicly accessible resource available through institutional subscriptions. No new datasets were generated during this research. References Abdi AI, Omar AM, Mahdi AO, Asiimwe C, Osman MA (2024) Tracing the evolution of STEM education: A bibliometric analysis. Frontiers in Education 9:1457938 https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1457938 Aghaei Chadegani AA, Salehi H, Yunus MM, Farhadi H, Fooladi M, Farhadi M, Ebrahim, N A (2013) A comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of Science and Scopus databases. Asian Social Science 9(5):18–26. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n5p18 Akcan AV (2024) Bibliometric analysis and content evaluation: Relationship between STEM education and Islam and other religions. Journal of STEM Teacher Institutes 4(2):139-158. https://jstei.com/index.php/jsti/article/view/71 AlAli R, Alsoud K, Athamneh F (2023) Towards a sustainable future: Evaluating the ability of STEM-based teaching in achieving sustainable development goals in learning. Sustainability 15(16) :12542. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612542 AlRyalat SAS, Malkawi LW, Momani SM (2019) Comparing bibliometric analysis using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Journal of Visualized Experiments 152 e58494. https://doi.org/10.3791/58494 Assefa SG, Rorissa A (2013) A bibliometric mapping of the structure of STEM education using co‐word analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64(12):2513-2536. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22917 Bassok D, Latham S, Rorem A (2016) Is kindergarten the new first grade?. AERA open 2(1) 2332858415616358. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415616358 Boyack KW, Klavans R (2010) Co‐citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61(12):2389–2404. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21419 Cai Z, Zhu J, Tian S (2023) Research progress of STEM education based on visual bibliometric analysis. SAGE Open 13(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231200157 Chen G, Xiao L (2016) Selecting publication keywords for domain analysis in bibliometrics: A comparison of three methods. Journal of Informetrics 10(1):212-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.01.006 Chesky NZ, Wolfmeyer MR (2015) Philosophy of STEM education: A critical investigation. Springer. Costas R, Bordons M (2007) The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. Journal of Informetrics 1(3):193-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2007.02.001 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 Ejaz H, Zeeshan HM, Ahmad F, Bukhari SNA, Anwar N, Alanazi A, … Younas S (2022) Bibliometric analysis of publications on the omicron variant from 2020 to 2022 in the Scopus database using R and VOSviewer. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19(19) 12407. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912407 Elfert M (2019) Lifelong learning in Sustainable Development Goal 4: What does it mean for UNESCO’s rights-based approach to adult learning and education? International Review of Education 65(4):537-556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-019-09788-z Ellegaard O, Wallin J A (2015) The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact?. Scientometrics 105:1809-1831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z English LD, King D, Smeed J (2017) Advancing integrated STEM learning through engineering design: Sixth-grade students’ design and construction of earthquake resistant buildings. The Journal of Educational Research 110(3):255-271. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1264053 Fayzullina AR, Zulfugarzade TE, Kondakchian NA, Aytuganova JI, Khvatova MA, Kelina K G (2024) A review of STEM education research in BRICS countries: An analysis of research trends. Frontiers in Education, 9:1410069. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1410069 Freeman B, Marginson S, Tytler R (2019) An international view of STEM education. In STEM Education 2.0 (pp. 350-363). https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004405400_019 Galiç S, Arkün Kocadere S (2023) Current trends and challenges in STEM education. STEAM-BOX. Gamage KA, Ekanayake SY, Dehideniya SC (2022) Embedding sustainability in learning and teaching: Lessons learned and moving forward—Approaches in STEM higher education programmes. Education Sciences 12(3):225. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030225 Gavari-Starkie E, Espinosa-Gutiérrez PT, Lucini-Baquero C (2022) Sustainability through STEM and STEAM education creating links with the land for the improvement of the rural world. Land 11(10) :1869. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11101869 Gong R, Xue J, Zhao L, Zolotova O, Ji X, Xu Y (2019) A bibliometric analysis of green supply chain management based on the Web of Science (WOS) platform. Sustainability 11(12):3459. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123459 González García E, Colomo Magaña E, Cívico Ariza A (2020) Quality education as a sustainable development goal in the context of the 2030 agenda: Bibliometric approach. Sustainability 12(15):5884. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12155884 Ha CT, Thao TTP, Trung NT, Huong LTT, Van Dinh N, Trung T (2020) A bibliometric review of research on STEM education in ASEAN: Science mapping the literature in Scopus database, 2000 to 2019. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 16(10) em1889. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/8500 Hirsch JE (2007) Does the h index have predictive power? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(49) 19193–19198. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0707962104 Hirsch JE (2010) An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship. Scientometrics 85:741–754. https://doiorg/10.1007/s11192-010-0193-9 Hsu YS, Tang KY, Lin TC (2024) Trends and hot topics of STEM and STEM education: A co-word analysis of literature published in 2011–2020. Science Education 33(4):1069-1092. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-023-00419-6 Hu H (2023) Development of STEM education in China. In International Conference on Education, Humanities, and Management (ICEHUM 2022) (pp. 75-88). Atlantis Press. Jamali SM, Md Zain AN, Samsudin MA, Ale Ebrahim N (2017) Self-efficacy, scientific reasoning, and learning achievement in the STEM project-based learning literature. Journal of Nusantara Studies (JONUS) 2(2):29–43. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.5923585.v1 Jamali SM, Ale Ebrahim N, Jamali F (2023) The role of STEM Education in improving the quality of education: a bibliometric study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 33(3):819-840. Kioupi V, Voulvoulis N (2019) Education for sustainable development: A systemic framework for connecting the SDGs to educational outcomes. Sustainability 11(21):6104. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216104 Li Y, Wang K, Xiao Y, Froyd JE (2020) Research and trends in STEM education: a systematic review of journal publications. International Journal of STEM Education 7 :11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00207-6 Ma Y (2021) Reconceptualizing stem education in China as praxis: A curriculum turn. Sustainability 13(9):4961. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094961 Maass K, Geiger V, Ariza MR, Goos M (2019) The role of mathematics in interdisciplinary STEM education. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education 51 869-884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01100-5 Marginson S, Freeman B, Tytler R, Roberts K (2013) STEM: Country comparisons. International comparisons of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Australian Council of Learned Academies. https://acola.org/wp/PDF/SAF02Consultants/SAF02_STEM_%20FINAL.pdf Martín-Páez T, Aguilera D, Perales-Palacios FJ, Vílchez-González JM (2019) What are we talking about when we talk about STEM education? A review of literature. Science Education 103(4):799-822. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21522 Marín-Marín JA, Moreno-Guerrero AJ, Dúo-Terrón P, López-Belmonte J (2021) STEAM in education: a bibliometric analysis of performance and co-words in Web of Science. International Journal of STEM Education 8(1):41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021- McDonald CV (2016) STEM Education: A review of the contribution of the disciplines of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Science Education International 27(4):530-569. Moral-Muñoz JA, Herrera-Viedma E, Santisteban-Espejo A, Cobo MJ (2020) Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: An up-to-date review. Profesional de la Información 29(1). https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.ene.03 Nash KL, Blythe JL, Cvitanovic C, Fulton EA, Halpern BS, Milner-Gulland EJ, ... Blanchard J L (2020) To achieve a sustainable blue future, progress assessments must include interdependencies between the sustainable development goals. One Earth 2(2):161-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.01.008 Nguyen TPL, Nguyen TH, Tran TK (2020) STEM education in secondary schools: Teachers’ perspective towards sustainable development. Sustainability 12(21):8865. Noyons EC, Moed HF, Van Raan AF (1999) Integrating research performance analysis and science mapping. Scientometrics 46 591-604. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02459614 Opoku A (2016, September) SDG2030: A sustainable built environment’s role in achieving the post-2015 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference (Vol. 2, pp. 1149-1158). Manchester, UK: Association of Researchers in Construction Management. Özkaya A (2019) Bibliometric Analysis of the Publications Made in STEM Education Area. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education 8(2):590-628. Öztürk O, Kocaman R, Kanbach DK (2024) How to design bibliometric research: An overview and a framework proposal. Review of Managerial Science 18:3333–3361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-024-00738-0 Pranckutė R (2021) Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The titans of bibliographic information in today’s academic world. Publications 9(1):12. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010012 Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala AP, Moher D, Page MJ, Koffel JB (2021) PRISMA-S: An extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews 10 (1):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z Roth WM, Lee S (2004) Science education as/for participation in the community. Science education 88(2):263-291. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10113 Saini M, Sengupta E, Singh M, Singh H, Singh J (2023) Sustainable Development Goal for Quality Education (SDG 4): A study on SDG 4 to extract the pattern of association among the indicators of SDG 4 employing a genetic algorithm. Education and Information Technologies 28:2031–2069. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11265-4 Schildt HA, Zahra SA, Sillanpää A (2006) Scholarly communities in entrepreneurship research: A co–citation analysis. Entrepreneurship theory and practice 30(3):399-415. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00126.x Shuman LJ, Besterfield‐Sacre M, McGourty J (2005) The ABET “professional skills”—Can they be taught? Can they be assessed?. Journal of engineering education 94(1):41-55. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00828.x Singh VK, Singh P, Karmakar M, Leta J, Mayr P (2021) The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 126:5113–5142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5 Su J, Yang W (2024) STEM in early childhood education: A bibliometric analysis. Research in Science & Technological Education 42(4):1020-1041. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2023.2201673 Supriyadi E, Turmudi T, Dahlan JA, Juandi D (2023) Publication trends from STEAM in education from Scopus database: Bibliometric analysis. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA 9(6):104-111. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v9i6.3576 Sánchez AD, Del Río-Rama MDLC, García JÁ (2017) Bibliometric analysis of publications on wine tourism in the databases Scopus and WoS. European Research on Management and Business Economics 23(1):8-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2016.02.001 Taş N, Bolat YI (2022) An examination of the studies on STEM in education: A bibliometric mapping analysis. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science (IJTES) 6(3):477-494. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijtes.401 Tian W, Ge J, Zheng X, Zhao Y, Deng T, Yan H (2024) Understanding the landscape of education for sustainable development in China: A bibliometric review and trend analysis of multicluster topics (1998–2023). Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11(1):1-20. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03713-y Tytler R, Williams G, Hobbs L, Anderson J (2019) Challenges and opportunities for a STEM interdisciplinary agenda. Research in Science Education 49(6):889–903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09899-x Tytler R (2020) STEM education for the twenty-first century. In J. Anderson Y. Li (Eds.), Integrated approaches to STEM education (pp. 43-60). Advances in STEM education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52229-2_3 Uğuz S, Aksoy B, Oral O (2017) The analysis of conceptual development of stem education by bibliometry. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in The World 7(4):118-128. UNESCO (2015) Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the Implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/education-2030-incheon-framework-for-action-implementation-of-sdg4-2016-en_2.pdf Van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping [journalarticle]. Scientometrics 84(2):523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3 Waltman L, Van Eck NJ, Noyons EC (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 Wu ML, Zhou Y (2025) Strengthening teachers’ STEM preparedness through a technology integration online course. Education and Information Technologies 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13479-8 Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B (2007) The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316(5827):1036–1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/scien ce.1136099 Yu YC, Chang SH, Yu LC (2016) An academic trend in STEM education from bibliometric and co-citation method. International Journal of Information and Education Technology 6(2):113-116. Zhan Z, Shen W, Xu Z, Niu S, You G (2022) A bibliometric analysis of the global landscape on STEM education (2004-2021): Towards global distribution, subject integration, and research trends. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 16(2):171-203. Zhu J, Liu W (2020) A tale of two databases: The use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers. Scientometrics 123(1):321-335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03387-8 Zupic I, Čater T (2015) Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods 18(3):429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6681110","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":495236459,"identity":"a6ca2700-56c0-4287-a8ad-8a8369ff6927","order_by":0,"name":"Fatih Şeker","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Fatih","middleName":"","lastName":"Şeker","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-05-16 13:23:14","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6681110/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6681110/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":88499962,"identity":"92f48811-d38c-4ccb-8906-7ccd241d1830","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-07 06:48:23","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":326896,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eWorkflow for the study (adaptedfrom Öztürk et al.2024).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6681110/v1/50982532fb021877f73a6917.png"},{"id":88499428,"identity":"a6a7f655-2c1e-463f-9ac2-030b4316e1e7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-07 06:40:23","extension":"jpeg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":273100,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAnalysis steps, types and software program process of the study.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6681110/v1/12b20758ee61f64ddfd19371.jpeg"},{"id":88499424,"identity":"036b2c6e-dcfc-4a77-aeb7-213bf17fcc13","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-07 06:40:23","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":133819,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTrends in published articles and average total citations over the years 1993–2024.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6681110/v1/5446867ac9e1fd4085d18335.png"},{"id":88499430,"identity":"b20d5801-c94b-4023-a4a3-85515ef1580d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-07 06:40:23","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":55737,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTop ten highly cited publications by citation impact.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6681110/v1/749d5ede3f4094fcf2ee7515.png"},{"id":88499426,"identity":"04722838-2c64-4131-aa64-8ebae3b5d1ba","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-07 06:40:23","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":48156,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePublication counts of the twenty most prolific countries. MCP: Multiple country publication, SCP: Single country publication.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6681110/v1/7d5fe3de6d2fb2dde50b5f4c.png"},{"id":88499435,"identity":"2e0815e6-1c56-411a-af96-0144d9df5579","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-07 06:40:23","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":177793,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCountries ranked by total number of citations.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6681110/v1/44b1ecf41f8aa4668b9d5fd7.png"},{"id":88499444,"identity":"efe7acab-773d-41d7-9283-55592a1e1633","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-07 06:40:23","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":658940,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eGlobal network of coauthorship by country.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6681110/v1/b8c2f25710f22388b019d563.png"},{"id":88499431,"identity":"d69bc194-aee4-4bba-a14d-06e00e5f348f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-07 06:40:23","extension":"jpeg","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":404035,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eGlobal network of co-citation networks by author.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage8.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6681110/v1/5c56e0204f9295d6595357b0.jpeg"},{"id":88499441,"identity":"7b4be273-fc97-40ba-be9e-04db30b2d03e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-07 06:40:23","extension":"jpeg","order_by":9,"title":"Figure 9","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":388325,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eScience mapping: keyword network visualization\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage9.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6681110/v1/5f3b9b257ef428ced1cda218.jpeg"},{"id":88502585,"identity":"5b351431-9a92-474b-8de0-d79491055c07","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-07 06:56:23","extension":"jpeg","order_by":10,"title":"Figure 10","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":279999,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eKeyword distribution over the years.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage10.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6681110/v1/68d1e2019d336ec43b36bb89.jpeg"},{"id":88499971,"identity":"a6ffffbe-a664-4150-997f-00dcb0b14ac5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-07 06:48:24","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"Figure 11","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":163149,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFig 10 a) \u003c/strong\u003eWord cloud (study title)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eb) \u003c/strong\u003eWord cloud (study abstract)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"11.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6681110/v1/196ec2219f48602c02e42d83.png"},{"id":90507724,"identity":"21b2a9ff-8462-469f-8c71-b3b613e7b0f8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-03 13:02:11","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":3788174,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6681110/v1/c0ebaf2b-3c72-4eaa-8b07-c59c474d2868.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Trends and Thematic Focuses on STEM Education: Bibliometric Analysis of Quality Education with Web of Science Data (1993-2024)","fulltext":[{"header":"1 Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), established by the United Nations in 2015, outline a vision for a future characterized by global equality, justice, and prosperity, all within the planet\u0026apos;s ecological boundaries. Offering a comprehensive roadmap, the SDGs consist of 17 main goals and 169 sub-goals. These goals aim to build a more just, inclusive and sustainable world (Opoku, 2016; Nash et al., 2020). Education plays a fundamental role in sustainable development, especially in the context of Goal 4 of the SDGs: ensuring inclusive, equitable and high-quality education (Gonz\u0026aacute;lez Garc\u0026iacute;a et al., 2020; Tian et al, 2024). Quality education, which covers a lifelong process starting from pre-school to postgraduate education, enables individuals to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills to succeed in a rapidly changing global world and at the same time encourages continuous development and learning (Elfert, 2019; Kioupi \u0026amp; Voulvoulis, 2019; Saini et al., 2023; UNESCO, 2015). STEM education stands out as an important tool in achieving this goal, considering that quality education plays a critical role in providing individuals with knowledge, skills and values (Tytler, 2020). STEM education is gaining increasing attention worldwide by bringing together the disciplines of science, technology, engineering and mathematics in a coherent multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary framework (Chesky \u0026amp; Wolfmeyer, 2015; Ha et al., 2020). Beyond improving cognitive outcomes, STEM contributes to equity, innovation, and real-life problem solving with an increasing emphasis on early childhood and inclusive education practices (Su \u0026amp; Yang, 2024). It also increases students\u0026apos; motivation and thus reduces the gender inequality gap in interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary teaching (English et al., 2017; Mart\u0026iacute;n-P\u0026aacute;ez et al., 2019; Wu \u0026amp; Zhou, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSTEM education develops a deep understanding of STEM disciplines and sustainability by providing the ability to transform knowledge into meaningful and sustainable solutions (Gamage et al., 2022). In addition, it significantly contributes to the advancement of \u0026ldquo;Quality Education,\u0026rdquo; which is recognized as one of the fundamental pillars of sustainable development. The relationship between STEM education and quality education has been established not only contextually, but also with purposeful and strategic intent (AlAli et al., 2023). Through its interdisciplinary and applied nature, STEM education has played a pivotal role in fostering quality education by promoting inclusive, equitable, and forward-looking educational practices. STEM education offers a holistic learning approach by contributing to individuals\u0026apos; acquisition of 21st century skills such as creativity, critical thinking, and collaboration in the development of quality education; it also plays a strategic role in shaping economic development, competitiveness, and sustainable education policies at the global level (Marginson et al., 2013; Tytler et al., 2019). Despite the growing global interest, academic understanding of how STEM education specifically contributes to quality education remains fragmented (Jamali et al., 2017; Li, et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2020). This highlights a critical need for further empirical and theoretical studies to elucidate the role of STEM education in achieving the broader objectives of sustainable development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA highly effective method to gain insights into the current scope, trends, and quality of research on STEM education enhancing the quality education is to conduct bibliometric analyses. Bibliometric analyses have emerged as a common and reliable method for analyzing and making sense of scientific data. In this method, great emphasis is placed on analyzing networks such as documents, keywords, authors, or journals; revealing the developmental details of a particular discipline; and revealing potential new research topics in that field (Donthu et al., 2021; Waltman et al., 2010). In the literature, previous bibliometric analysis studies on STEM education have generally addressed STEM either in isolation or without a strong link to the SDG framework (Abdi et al., 2024; Akcan, 2024; Cai et al., 2023; Fayzullina et al., 2024; Ha et al., 2020; Hsu et al., 2024; Mar\u0026iacute;n-Mar\u0026iacute;n et al., 2021; Gali\u0026ccedil; \u0026amp; Ark\u0026uuml;n Kocadere, 2023; \u0026Ouml;zkaya, 2019; Supriyadi et al., 2023; Tas \u0026amp; Bolat, 2022; Yu et al., 2016; Uğuz et al., 2017; Zhan et al., 2022). Moreover, there are existing bibliometric studies in this field, such as Jamali et al. (2023), were limited to the Scopus database and only covered years up to 2020. These studies often lacked network-based analyses or were limited in reflecting the evolution of thematic clusters in the STEM education landscape. Additionally, recent years have seen an increase in STEM-related initiatives and publications, especially following major international education reforms and digital acceleration during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is limited synthesized knowledge about the intellectual and social structure of these studies. This results in a critical gap for both policymakers and educators trying to base strategic decisions on empirical data. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study addresses the need to clearly understand how STEM education supports quality education by analyzing current academic research trends, collaborations, and thematic developments in this field. A comprehensive and up-to-date bibliometric review using WoS data from 1993 to 2024 was conducted to reveal the current status of STEM education literature, collaboration patterns, and thematic focus areas aimed at improving education quality. This study provides an updated, holistic view using WoS data from 1993 to 2024, revealing social and intellectual structures and guiding future research trajectories. Within this framework, it addresses the following research questions regarding STEM education in developing quality education:\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRQ\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e: \u003c/strong\u003eWhat are the evolving research trends in STEM education that support quality education, particularly in terms of prominent actors and countries?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRQ\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e: \u003c/strong\u003eWhat does the intellectual structure and the collaborative networks in the STEM field reveal about the development of interdisciplinary approaches?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRQ\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e: \u003c/strong\u003eWhat are the emerging conceptual trends and thematic transformations in STEM/STEAM education, especially within the SDG 4? \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo answer these questions, this study aims to develop a comprehensive and systematic perspective on STEM education, ultimately contributing to the improvement of educational quality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2 Method","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.1 Research Design\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe bibliometric method is a systematic, theoretical, and practical approach that enables the quantitative evaluation of scientific outputs. It includes data collection, performance assessment, and visualization tools that are essential for analyzing scholarly productivity (Moral-Mu\u0026ntilde;oz et al., 2020). Following the framework outlined by Zupic and Čater (2015), bibliometric analysis is selected for its systematic, transparent, and reliable nature, enabling the quantitative exploration and interpretation of extensive scientific datasets. Through this method, researchers can assess both the current status and historical evolution of a research area, detect knowledge gaps, and strategically inform future research directions (Donthu et al., 2021). In this study, bibliometric techniques were applied to map the current landscape of research on STEM education to increase the quality of education, investigate scholarly collaboration networks, and identify dominant research trends and emerging thematic clusters. Furthermore, the study assessed how STEM education contributes to improving educational quality, highlighted existing deficiencies in the field, and proposed recommendations for upcoming research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.2 Data collection approach\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe initial step in bibliometric analysis involves selecting an appropriate bibliographic database tailored to the research domain. While databases such as PubMed and ERIC exist, they may not offer the comprehensive and standardized data necessary for bibliometric evaluation. Therefore, widely recognized platforms such as Dimensions, Microsoft Academic (MA), Google Scholar (GS), Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) are commonly preferred for such analyses (Moral-Mu\u0026ntilde;oz et al., 2020). Among these, WoS stands out for its extensive and reputable coverage, offering detailed citation and reference data, and indexing across specialized collections, including the \u0026ldquo;Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI)\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE)\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Arts and Humanities Citation Index (A\u0026amp;HCI)\u0026rdquo; (Zhu \u0026amp; Liu, 2020). WoS provides citation records dating back to 1900, enabling researchers to trace scientific developments over time. Moreover, it compiles bibliographic records and citation analyses across diverse disciplines ranging from science and technology to the humanities and social sciences (S\u0026aacute;nchez et al., 2017; Singh et al., 2021). Owing to its structured, high-quality, and reliable data offerings, WoS is a preferred resource among researchers aiming to conduct robust and standardized bibliometric studies (Aghaei Chadegani et al., 2013; Gong et al., 2019; Pranckutė, 2021). Therefore, the WoS database was used to access the data in the study. After the WoS database was selected, \u0026ldquo;STEM\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;STEAM\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;quality education\u0026rdquo; and its continuations were used as keywords in the search. The time limitation in the scan was selected as 1981-2024. Since the year 2025 was not completed and would constitute missing data, early-looking and 2025 data were manually extracted in the study. Excel files for basic review and performance analysis, plaintext files for using the VOSviewer program and BibteX files for using the biblioshiny program were downloaded on February 6, 2025 using the \u0026ldquo;full record and cited references\u0026rdquo; tab. The study is based on the PRISMA protocol (Rethlefsen et al., 2021), and the stages and steps of the bibliometric analysis process are visualized in Figure 1 (\u0026Ouml;zt\u0026uuml;rk et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.3 Data\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003epresentation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn bibliometric studies, various methods, such as science mapping, performance and network analysis, are frequently employed (AlRyalat et al., 2019; Noyons et al., 1999). Performance analysis focuses on evaluating the scientific output of researchers, institutions, or fields by examining metrics such as citation counts, publication numbers, and the h-index. These indicators help measure the impact and productivity of scientific activity. Network analysis, on the other hand, illustrates the relationships among authors, articles, or keywords, uncovering patterns of collaboration and thematic connections within the research landscape. Science mapping techniques further contribute by visually representing the structure, interrelations, and progression of scientific knowledge across time (\u0026Ouml;zt\u0026uuml;rk et al., 2024; Zupic \u0026amp; Čater, 2015).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor this study, VOSviewer was selected to conduct network analyses and generate bibliometric maps, whereas Biblioshiny was utilized to manage the data collection, analysis, and visualization processes. VOSviewer is a widely recognized tool for building and interpreting bibliometric networks, enabling analyses such as co-authorship, co-occurrence of keywords, citation patterns, bibliographic coupling, and co-citation through various visualization options, including networks, overlays, and density maps (Van Eck \u0026amp; Waltman, 2010). The selection of methods and tools for each research question and sub-question is outlined in Table 2. The findings were visualized from a bibliometric viewpoint, utilizing line and bar graphs for citation analysis; network maps to examine patterns of co-authorship, keyword co-occurrence, and co-citation; and word clouds to illustrate the distribution of key terms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBiblioshiny, an interface based on the R package \u0026quot;bibliometrix,\u0026quot; served as an additional analytic platform. It supports importing and organizing bibliographic data, filtering records across databases, and producing detailed bibliometric analyses and visual outputs. Moreover, Biblioshiny facilitates the examination of conceptual, social, and intellectual dimensions by clustering sources, authors, documents, and thematic content (Ejaz et al., 2022). Throughout the study, findings were visualized via various methods, including line and bar graphs for tracking publication counts and average citation rates, along with frequency tables to support quantitative interpretations. The analytical steps, types, and software process of the study are presented in Figure 2.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3 Findings","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.1 \u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe current state of STEM education in enhancing quality education\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.1.1 \u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAnnual distribution of publications and average yearly citations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUnderstanding the development trends of publications and average citation rates over the years within the context of STEM\u0026apos;s role in enhancing quality education is crucial for identifying research trends. In this context, data retrieved from the Biblioshiny program were analyzed in Excel, and the indicators related to trends in published articles and average total citations over the years are presented in Figure 3.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe role of STEM education in enhancing the quality of education began with a single publication in 1993 and remained at low levels until 2005. No publications were recorded in 1995 and 1996, while only one publication was produced each year (1994, 1997, and 2000). However, the publications from these early years received high citation rates. For example, a single article published in 1994 received an average of 3.16 citations. The number of publications rose from 3 in 2004 to 11 in 2005, and the average citation count peaked during these two years. Between 2006 and 2015, there was a gradual and modest increase in both academic output and average citation rates. From 2016 to 2024, a significant and consistent increase in the number of publications was observed. Notably, there was a remarkable surge in publication numbers after 2020. In contrast, a noticeable decline in average citation rates has been observed since 2020. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.1.2 Leading \u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ejournals\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e in the \u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003efield\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe overall volume of publications and citations within a given research area is often seen as an indicator of scholarly interest. Therefore, evaluating journals on the basis of their total publication counts, citation numbers, and h-index values is essential for understanding their impact and prominence in the field. Within the scope of the contribution of STEM education to enhance quality education, there are a total of 181 sources. In this context, indicators related to the top 15 sources are presented in Table 1 via data from the Biblioshiny program. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u003c/strong\u003e Top 15 high-impact scholarly journals\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSource\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCountry\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePYS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWCC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCQ\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJIF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Early Childhood Education Journal\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1086\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNetherlands\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2005\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSSCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQ1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2,3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;International Journal of Science Education\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e451\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEngland\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1993\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSSCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQ1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2,2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;European Early Childhood Education Research Journal\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e277\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEngland\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2009\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSSCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQ2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;European Journal of Engineering Education\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e340\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEngland\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2006\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eESCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQ2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2,4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;International Journal of Technology and Design Education\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e410\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNetherlands\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2009\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSSCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQ2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2,03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Journal of Research in Science Teaching\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e631\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1998\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSSCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQ1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3,6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Research In Science Education\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e302\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNetherlands\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2003\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSSCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQ1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2,2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Zdm-Mathematics Education\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e276\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGermany\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2006\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSSCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQ2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Cultural Studies of Science Education\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e171\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2006\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSSCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQ2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e221\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNetherlands\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2010\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSSCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQ2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Education and Information Technologies\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2020\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSSCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQ1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4,8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Education Sciences\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e103\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSwitzerland\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2018\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eESCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQ1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2,5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;International Journal of Early Years Education\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEngland\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2009\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eESCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQ2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Journal of Information Technology Education-research\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e154\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2006\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eESCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQ2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHI: h index, TC: total citations, NP: number of publications, PYS: publication year start, WCC: WoS Core Collection, CQ: Category Quartile, JIF: journal impact.factor \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen Table 1 is examined, it becomes evident that the \u0026ldquo;Early Childhood Education Journal\u0026rdquo; and the \u0026ldquo;International Journal of Science Education\u0026rdquo; rank as the two most prominent journals in terms of scholarly output and impact in the field of STEM education\u0026rsquo;s contribution to quality education. They are followed by the \u0026ldquo;European Early Childhood Education Research Journal\u0026rdquo; and the \u0026ldquo;European Journal of Engineering Education\u0026rdquo;, both of which also demonstrate considerable influence through sustained research activity in STEM-related educational contexts. The \u0026ldquo;International Journal of Technology and Design Education\u0026rdquo; and the \u0026ldquo;Journal of Research in Science Teaching\u0026rdquo; continue this trend, showing consistent engagement with topics at the intersection of technology, science, and pedagogy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.1.3 Key Influential Authors\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo evaluate the development of quality education in STEM, the top 10 most influential authors were identified on the basis of criteria such as total citation count, number of publications, years of publication, and h-index values. These data were analyzed via Biblioshiny software and are presented in Table 2. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2 \u003c/strong\u003eTop ten key influential authors\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAuthor\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eh-index\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumber of Publication\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal Citations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePublication Year Start\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBers, M.U.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e636\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2013\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIannone, P.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2005\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eClements, D.H.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e219\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2016\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNardı, E.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e126\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2005\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePapadopoulou, P.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2012\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParks, A.N.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2014\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSarama, J.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e217\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2016\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAlsına, A.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2017\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAreljung, S.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2017\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBarton, A.C.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e261\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1997\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe bibliography of the studies included a total of 1541 authors, with 10 authors evaluated in the analysis. According to Table 2, Bers, M.U. stands out as the most influential author across all criteria, with the highest h-index, the most publications, and the highest citation count. Despite having fewer publications, Barton, A.C. has a strong impact, with a high citation count. Clements, D.H. and Sarama, J. exhibit notable academic influence with their balanced performance in both publication and citation counts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.1.4 The most highly cited publications with significant academic impact\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 4 shows the citation counts of the top ten most cited publications in the context of enhancing quality education through STEM education.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 4 shows that the most cited studies in the context of enhancing quality education through STEM are listed. The most frequently cited study is the article titled \u0026ldquo;The ABET \u0026lsquo;professional skills\u0026rsquo; - can they be taught? Can they be assessed?\u0026rdquo; by Shuman et al. (2005), published in the Journal of Engineering Education. This study addresses a significant aspect of STEM education by developing engineering skills and criteria. It provides examples of teaching and assessing communication, teamwork, ethics, professionalism, engineering, and lifelong learning skills. The second most cited study is \u0026ldquo;is kindergarten the new first grade\u0026rdquo; by Bassok et al. (2016), published in the American Educational Research Association Open. This study examines how increasing school readiness pressures have led kindergartens to focus on academic skills and argues that STEM education should develop through play and exploration in early childhood. The third most cited study is \u0026ldquo;Science education as/for participation in the community\u0026rdquo; by Roth and Lee (2004), which was published in Science Education. This study discusses how scientific literacy can be made more meaningful in a social context, advocating that STEM education be redesigned as a process intertwined with community life. While all the top 15 most cited publications have received over 100 citations, each of the top 7 publications has received more than 150 citations. In contrast, 90 out of the 659 studies (13.7%) received no citations, indicating a lack of interest in these publications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.1.5 Countries with the greatest influence in the world\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExamining the scientific production levels of countries and their average citations is crucial for understanding the scope, impact, and profundity of research conducted to increase the quality of education through STEM. In this context, a total of 60 countries have reported publications. The publication counts of the twenty most prolific countries are presented in Figure 5 via Biblioshiny software, and the citation counts per publication are shown in Figure 6 via Datawrapper.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen Figure 5 is examined, the top 20 most prolific countries are revealed with both the SCP and the MCP. In the context of enhancing quality education through STEM, the United States ranks first (TP: 193) in terms of total publications. The United States has more publications than the combined total of the following countries: China (TP: 48), the United Kingdom (TP: 47), Australia (TP: 46), and Sweden (TP: 38). Additionally, the United States accounts for 29.3% of the total publications in the field of enhancing quality education through STEM, demonstrating a strong publication presence in this area. On the other hand, the fact that 17 countries have only one publication related to STEM education indicates that these countries have conducted fewer studies in this field. The citation counts of countries are presented in Figure 6.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn examination of Figure 6 reveals that the United States stands out with 5,189 citations, highlighting the country\u0026apos;s dominant role in the global research field. After the United States, countries such as the United Kingdom (TP: 840), Australia (TP: 589), China (TP: 439), Canada (TP: 402), and Sweden (TP: 384) also stand out. Greece (TP: 339), T\u0026uuml;rkiye (TP: 297), and Germany (TP: 284) are notable for their growing research capacities and rapid integration into global research networks. Despite having only one publication each, Tanzania and Egypt have received 46 and 35 citations, respectively, which is noteworthy. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.2 Exploring the social and intellectual dynamics of stem education to improve quality education\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.2.1 An examination of cross-country collaboration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA collaboration and co-authorship analysis among countries was conducted to examine the social structure of research in the context of enhancing quality education through STEM. In this process, a total of 28 countries that produced a minimum of 5 publications were considered for inclusion in the analysis. The analysis was conducted via VOSviewer software, and Figure 7 illustrates the leading countries and the nature of intercountry collaborations in terms of co-authorship. In addition, clusters representing close relationships in terms of collaboration among countries are formed, with each node representing a country.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn examination of Figure 7 reveals that there are 28 countries and 8 clusters with strong relationships in terms of intercountry collaboration. The cluster with the most collaboration is marked in red, including Finland, France, Germany, South Africa, Switzerland, and Taiwan. Additionally, the green cluster includes the United Kingdom, Greece, Israel, the Netherlands, and Scotland; the blue cluster includes Ireland, Malaysia, Sweden, and the United Arab Emirates; the yellow cluster includes Belgium, Norway, and the People\u0026apos;s Republic of China; the purple cluster includes Brazil, Canada, and Portugal; the turquoise cluster includes Chile and Spain; the orange cluster includes the United States and T\u0026uuml;rkiye; and the brown cluster includes Australia and Italy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsidering the total link strength, the United States stands out for strong collaboration. The United States has 208 scientific publications and a total link strength of 25, making it the largest node. The countries with which the United States collaborates most intensively include T\u0026uuml;rkiye, the United Kingdom, Germany, and China. These findings indicate that the U.S. plays a central role in studies related to the qualitative development of STEM education. Additionally, considering the total link strength, the United Kingdom (31), the United States (25), Germany (24), Sweden (19), and Canada (17) are identified as the countries with the strongest link strength.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.2.2 Co-citation network structure analysis by author\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe co-citation network of authors was examined to explore the intellectual framework of research, with the aim of developing high-quality STEM education. Co-citation analysis is a powerful bibliometric tool for uncovering the intellectual structure of research fields on the basis of sources frequently cited together in the literature. This method measures similarities on the basis of the frequency of citations to the same publication between two documents and analyzes intellectual proximities and knowledge clusters in the literature through these measurements (Boyack \u0026amp; Klavans, 2010). Co-citation analysis also allows for the exploration of key topics, theories, and interactions among authors in the field. These similarities reveal which studies interact more and which topics or authors are prominent (Schildt et al., 2016).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere are 19,304 authors studying the use of STEM education to enhance quality education. To explore their networks, the co-citation network of 36 authors with a minimum of 25 citations was analyzed via VOSviewer software. The global co-citation network of authors is presented in Figure 8.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen Figure 8 is examined, there are red, green, and blue clusters. The numbers of authors in these clusters are 21, 7, and 7, respectively. In the red, green, and blue clusters, the nodes, the size of the nodes, and the distances between them are noteworthy. The authors who are frequently cited together are placed in the same cluster, indicating that they work on similar topics. Clements, D.H. is the most frequently co-cited author. The total link strength and citation counts among authors show that those contributing to the enhancement of quality education through STEM have extensive academic collaborations and significant impacts. Cluster 1 stands out as the largest and most influential cluster with strong connections and high citation counts. Compared with Cluster 1, Clusters 2 and 3 are smaller. Nevertheless, these clusters also include authors who have conducted significant research. On the basis of total connection strength, the following authors stand out in the green cluster: Clements, D.H. (TLS: 1289), Sarama, J. (TLS: 902), Baroody, A.J. (TLS: 394), and Ginsburg, H.P. (TLS: 372). These authors have made important contributions to the field of STEM, particularly mathematics and education. Being in the same cluster indicates their publication similarities and strong research collaboration. These authors have significantly contributed to concepts related to enhancing the quality of STEM education. In the blue cluster, the prominent authors are Bers, MU (TLS: 459), Sullivan, A (TLS: 364), and Piaget, J (TLS: 285). In the red cluster, the prominent authors are Fleer, M (TLS: 111); Vygotsky, LS (TLS: 49); and Roth, WM (TLS: 141). \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.3 Current trends and advancements in stem education for quality education improvement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBiblioshiny software was used to identify popular themes and trends in research aimed at enhancing quality education through STEM. Title and abstract analyses were conducted via Biblioshiny, whereas keyword analysis was performed via VOSviewer. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.3.1 Keyword analysis: a framework for research insights\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn bibliometric studies, publication keywords are essential for symbolizing knowledge concepts and are widely used to uncover the knowledge structure of various research areas. Keyword analysis involves hotspot detection, trend analysis, and keyword clustering for mapping (Chen \u0026amp; Xiao, 2016). In this context, the cutoff point for keyword analysis was set at a minimum of 5 repetitions. Although the frequency of keyword usage is determined through bibliometric analysis, the results of this study are presented in Figure 9. Understanding trends and the theoretical framework in research topics relies on the frequency of keywords.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn examination of Figure 8 reveals that out of 1824 keywords, 61 keywords were matched when the criterion of at least 5 repetitions was selected. In this context, the nodes and the distances between them convey specific meanings related to the keywords. The size of a node represents the frequency of the keyword, the distance between nodes indicates the strength of the relationship, and the connecting lines represent the strength of the connection. A shorter distance between nodes indicates a stronger association between the corresponding keywords; conversely, a greater distance indicates a weaker relationship. Each color signifies a distinct cluster, highlighting the most interconnected and frequently occurring keywords, thus revealing 5 distinct clusters. According to the data in Figure 10, the most frequently repeated and strongest keywords, along with their occurrences and total link strength values, are as follows: early childhood education (133, 197), science education (64, 82), STEM (44, 64), mathematics education (47, 58), and early childhood (34, 55). Additionally, findings related to the evolution of these keywords over the years were examined via VOSviewer software and are presented in Figure 10.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen Figure 11 is examined, keywords such as lifelong learning, e-learning, distance education, mathematics, kindergarten, play, and robotics were prominent in 2016. As we approach the present day, keywords such as early childhood education, science education, preschool, STEM, early childhood, STEAM, and STEM education have become trending. In 2019, STEM education focused more on the theoretical foundations for enhancing quality education, whereas in recent years, STEM, STEAM, and STEM education have gained a holistic perspective. Another notable trend is the increasing prominence of keywords such as early childhood education and science education, highlighting the growing importance of fundamental and integrated educational practices in various learning environments. It can be observed that STEM education has evolved toward a more inclusive and interdisciplinary framework, rather than sticking to traditional disciplines, with STEAM gaining more prominence in recent years. Additionally, while keywords such as mathematics education and preschool were previously common, the rise of STEM education and STEAM keywords indicates a shift toward innovative and more comprehensive educational approaches. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.3.2 Insight into titles and abstracts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBibliometric analysis was performed on the titles and abstracts to uncover the theoretical interests and key areas of focused research aimed at enhancing quality education through STEM. Using Biblioshiny software, the titles and abstracts of studies related to enhancing quality education through STEM were examined. The word clouds presented in Figure 10 were created. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn analysis of Figure 12a reveals that the most commonly used keywords in the titles of research aimed at enhancing quality education through STEM include education (f = 218), learning (f = 151), science (f = 146), childhood (f = 104), teachers (f = 102), mathematics (f = 96), students (f = 77), and teaching (f = 74). In Figure 12b, the abstracts of these studies highlight terms such as education (f = 1222), learning (f = 1072), students (f = 1038), science (f = 936), teachers (f = 865), study (f = 752), research (f = 593), and teaching (f = 528). When both titles and abstracts are considered together, concepts such as education, learning, and students are prominently emphasized, demonstrating a strong emphasis on educational processes. In this context, education, learning, and students stand out as key components in enhancing quality education through STEM.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4 Discussion and Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eBibliometric methods rely on bibliographic data produced by other scientists through citations, collaboration, and written content to analyze researchers' findings in a specific field. This allows for the collection and analysis of data, providing an in-depth view of the structure, social networks, and current trends in a particular area. It also sheds light on new suggestions for the focused field (Ellegaard \u0026amp; Wallin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Zupic \u0026amp; Čater, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). This study provides an up-to-date, multidimensional view of the contribution of STEM education to quality education. Compared to Jamali et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), the data is drawn from the WoS database and includes both performance and intellectual analyses, thus offering a deeper insight. The bibliometric analysis study on STEM education enhancing quality education is evaluated under five main headings and suggestions for future research directions are presented.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1 STEM education trends for quality education\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe STEM movement began in the early 1990s (Mart\u0026iacute;n-P\u0026aacute;ez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e); however, the first study focused on enhancing quality education through STEM was published in the Web of Science (WoS) database in 1993. As the number of publications and citations related to enhancing quality education through STEM has continuously increased, this growth can be examined in three phases: a low-activity period (1993\u0026ndash;2005), slow growth (2006\u0026ndash;2015), and rapid dissemination (2016\u0026ndash;2024). Between 1993 and 2005, the field experienced a period of limited activity, as reflected by the extremely limited number of publications. The absence of any publications in 1995 and 1996, along with only a single publication recorded in 1994, 1997, and 2000, suggests that the concept of improving quality education through STEM has not yet been widely recognized or integrated into academic discourse. During this early phase, both the scope and importance of applying STEM to enhance educational quality still emerged, which likely contributed to its minimal visibility in scholarly and societal discussions. During the slow growth and awareness period from 2006\u0026ndash;2015, there was a gradual increase in the number of publications. The concept of STEM education began to be recognized as a new area for enhancing quality education, with fundamental concepts and research topics gradually shaping over time. As the dissemination of STEM education for enhancing quality education has increased, interest in this field has increased (Cai et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; \u0026Ouml;zkaya, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Zhan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStarting in 2016, the rapid dissemination and intensive research period resulted in sharp and steady growth in the volume of publications, although the rate of increase slowed in 2019 and 2020, probably because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary factor behind the increase since 2016 has been the promotion of STEM education by countries such as the USA, the UK, and Australia. These national strategies provided a significant roadmap for the development of STEM education and increased public interest, contributing to the rise in related academic studies. Additionally, this increase can be linked to the positive contributions of science, mathematics, technology, digital transformation, and engineering to enhancing quality education (Mar\u0026iacute;n-Mar\u0026iacute;n et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; McDonald, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Zhan, 2022). A similar pattern has been reported by Hsu et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). The integration of these disciplines has contributed to making learning processes more effective and suitable for contemporary needs, highlighting STEM education as a crucial element in supporting quality education.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe noticeable increase in the number of publications, especially after 2020, is significant; however, the parallel decrease in the mean citation count during the same period is also an important result. The constantly evolving dynamics of the world and the acceleration of technological change may rekindle academic interest in STEM education. Consequently, future research in STEM education is expected to deepen and develop new theoretical approaches and methodologies. A rising trend in publication output has been observed in every period, with the highest publication growth observed since 2011 (86.2%). This result aligns with previous research findings (Abdi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Fayzullina et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Ha et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Jamali et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Mar\u0026iacute;n-Mar\u0026iacute;n et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Supriyadi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Uğuz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Zhan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2 Key journals, influential authors and sources\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe key journals and influential authors in the development of quality education through STEM provide important insights into the academic framework of this domain. High h-index of journals indicates that the articles published in these journals have a wide academic impact and play an important role in the development of the field (Costas \u0026amp; Bordons, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Accordingly, the h-index value was taken into consideration. \u0026ldquo;Early Childhood Education Journal\u0026rdquo;, which published the first study in 2005, and \u0026ldquo;International Journal of Science Education\u0026rdquo;, which published the first study in 1993, stand out in the context of developing quality education of STEM education. Both journals have become the center of knowledge production in the field of improving the quality of STEM education and have become an important authority in this field by creating a strong scientific impact over time. Research published in the \u0026ldquo;Journal of Early Childhood Education\u0026rdquo; reveals that the implementation of STEM education at an early age contributes significantly to quality education. Here, it can be said that STEM education in early childhood contributes to quality education by developing children's creativity, problem solving skills and critical thinking skills (Su \u0026amp; Yang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). This situation reveals the need to promote interdisciplinary STEM/STEAM programs in early childhood. In addition, \u0026ldquo;European Early Childhood Education Research Journal\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;European Journal of Engineering Education\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;International Journal of Technology and Design Education\u0026rdquo; have high impact. This shows the authority of STEM education in improving quality education and the acceptance of the published studies by the academic community. There are also studies in the literature that are in parallel with the finding (\u0026Ouml;zkaya, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Yu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Uğuz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen focusing on prominent authors, Bers, M.U. emerges as the most influential, demonstrating the highest h-index, most publications, and greatest citation count. Although Barton, A.C. has produced fewer publications, their work is highly impactful, as reflected by a strong citation record. Clements, D.H. and Sarama, J. also display considerable academic influence, effectively balancing productivity and impact. These results align with Hirsch's (2007; 2010) assertion that an author's h-index serves as a critical indicator of both the quality and consistency of scholarly output. High citation counts further reinforce that these researchers' contributions are widely recognized and influential in advancing STEM education and quality learning.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAmong the most cited articles, Shuman et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) stand out with their publication \u0026ldquo;The ABET \u0026lsquo;professional skills\u0026rsquo; \u0026ndash; can they be taught? Can they be assessed?\u0026rdquo;, which significantly shaped the discourse on developing engineering competencies through STEM education. Their work provides practical examples of fostering communication, teamwork, ethics, professionalism, and lifelong learning within educational frameworks. Other key contributions include studies by Bassok et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) and Roth and Lee (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e), which emphasize the importance of play-based exploration in early childhood STEM education and advocate the embedding of scientific literacy within social contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOverall, the leading journals, authors, and studies in the field have been instrumental in shaping the intellectual foundations of STEM education research. Metrics such as high h-index scores, JIFs, and citation counts demonstrate that publications in these venues exert substantial academic influence and drive the progression of the field. Future research endeavors would benefit from engaging with these influential sources to ensure the continued qualitative development of STEM education. Collectively, these insights offer a critical roadmap for future scholarly efforts aimed at strengthening educational quality through STEM.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.3 Cross-Country analysis of publication and citation metrics\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA cross-national examination of STEM education research revealed that the United States was the dominant contributor to efforts aimed at enhancing quality education. As the birthplace of the STEM framework, the U.S. has played a pioneering role in both the conceptual development and large-scale implementation of STEM education (Hu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The country's substantial number of publications and citations underlines its central position and strong research infrastructure. Its leadership is attributed to early adoption, substantial policy support, widespread public engagement, strategic investment, and coordinated national initiatives aimed at cultivating a skilled STEM workforce (Zhan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, competition with other global powers, particularly China, in STEM fields has further reinforced the U.S.'s dominant position.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe United States, China, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Sweden emerge as the countries with the highest volume of STEM education publications. In terms of citations, the United Kingdom, Australia, China, Canada, and Sweden rank as the most cited contributors. These patterns are consistent with earlier studies (\u0026Ouml;zkaya, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Taş \u0026amp; Bolat, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Yu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Zhan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Notably, China\u0026rsquo;s growing emphasis on integrating STEM education into its K-12 curriculum reflects its strategic focus on cultivating a technologically skilled workforce. China has adopted multidisciplinary and innovative educational approaches to align with its ambitions in scientific advancement and industrial development. STEM education policies have played a strategic role in China's transition from a production-oriented economy to an innovation-, technology-, and knowledge-based economy. This may have paved the way for China to emerge as a rising power in research, highlighting the impact of its education system on enhancing quality education (Ma, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe US, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and Germany implement various policies to develop STEM skills. These policies typically address public perceptions and knowledge related to scientific disciplines; mathematics and science education within school settings; and trends in participation and achievement rates and higher education participation in STEM disciplines (Freeman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Taş \u0026amp; Bolat, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Greece, T\u0026uuml;rkiye, and Germany are notable for their growing research capacities and rapid integration into global research networks. Compared with developing countries, developed countries allocate more resources to this field. Nevertheless, research on enhancing quality education through STEM is increasingly gaining international attention. Although STEM education research in improving quality education is receiving increasing international attention, regions that are underrepresented in this field need to invest more in STEM education research (Su \u0026amp; Yang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, the global distribution and impact of STEM education research emphasize the leadership of the U.S. while showing that contributions from other countries are increasing, leading to a more balanced impact on global STEM research. However, some countries with low research productivity highlight the need for a more inclusive and balanced research environment. Enhancing research capacity in developing nations is essential for promoting a more equitable distribution of scientific output and for fostering the dissemination of innovative ideas. Strengthening these capacities will contribute to the development of a more diverse, dynamic, and impactful research ecosystem in STEM education.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.4 Intercountry and interauthor collaboration in STEM education to enhance quality education\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results of this research suggest that collaboration with international partners has contributed to the development of quality education through STEM education. The United States, with 208 publications and a total link strength of 25, has emerged as a central hub for global knowledge exchange. This prominent position is likely driven by factors such as substantial research funding, strong institutional infrastructures, and open science policies that actively support international partnerships. A collaborative network structured around the U.S. demonstrates its leadership in the global STEM education research community. Strong U.S. ties to countries such as T\u0026uuml;rkiye, the UK, Germany, and China underscore the importance of diversity and cross-border knowledge transfer. Research shows that large, internationally coordinated research teams tend to produce higher-impact outputs (Zhan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Wuchty et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, the strength of partnerships between the United States and countries such as T\u0026uuml;rkiye, the United Kingdom, Germany, and China reflects the pivotal role the U.S. plays in fostering quality education through STEM at a global scale (\u0026Ouml;zkaya, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Nonetheless, it is important to note that, despite participating in strong collaborative efforts, some countries still exhibit relatively lower total link strengths, indicating potential areas for improving their influence within the global academic network. For example, the limited collaborations of Australia and Italy in the brown cluster suggest that their contributions to STEM education may be more national in scope. This finding aligns with studies highlighting that some developing countries are still not sufficiently visible on the international stage in STEM research. On the other hand, the clusters identified in the analysis are based not only on geographical proximity but also on sociopolitical and academic proximity. For example, T\u0026uuml;rkiye's placement in the same cluster (orange) as the US may be related to recent joint projects developed by both countries in educational technologies and STEM pedagogy. This finding indicates that regional actors can integrate into global scientific networks. However, this study is based solely on bibliometric data and does not provide direct information on the quality, sustainability, or content focus of collaborations. Therefore, future research should also evaluate qualitative aspects such as the type, duration, and thematic areas of intercountry projects. In conclusion, the qualitative development of STEM education on a global scale is directly related to multilayered intercountry collaboration. While countries such as the US, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Sweden are at the center of the network, it is crucial for developing countries to participate more actively and strategically in these collaborations to ensure equity in global knowledge production. In this context, making international funding mechanisms more inclusive and supporting multilingual, multicultural research teams are necessary for more balanced global development in STEM education. In this context, promoting global research collaboration, especially involving developing countries, making international funding mechanisms more inclusive and supporting multilingual, multicultural research teams are essential for a more balanced global development in STEM education.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis of the qualitative development of STEM education reveals the theoretical diversity and collaborative nature of the field through strong co-citation relationships among authors. In the red cluster, authors focusing on constructivist and sociocultural learning approaches, such as Fleer, M., Vygotsky, L.S., and Roth, W.M., stand out. This finding indicates that the pedagogical foundation of STEM education is strengthened by theoretical foundations. In the green cluster, authors such as Clements, D.H., Sarama, J., and Ginsburg, H.P. are notable for their high citation and link strength in early childhood mathematics education. These authors have developed influential models in STEM both theoretically and practically. In the blue cluster, authors such as Bers, M.U., Papadakis, S., and Lee, J. focus on technology-supported STEM education, robotics, and digital game-based learning. This cluster represents the evolution of the field toward digitalization and early childhood technological literacy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, the growth of STEM education can be achieved through the simultaneous progress of theoretical diversity, practical orientation, and technology-focused research. This multilayered structure forms the foundation of a sustainable and inclusive educational approach. In the future, expanding these author networks through more international collaborations will further deepen the field at a universal level.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.5 Thematic trends and concepts in STEM education for quality education\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eKeywords serve as an essential means to explore the knowledge framework and emerging trends within research domains. The keyword data obtained in this study provide important insights into how STEM education has evolved over time and the themes around which it has concentrated. In 2016, concepts such as \u0026ldquo;lifelong learning\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;e-learning\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;distance education\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;mathematics\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;kindergarten\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;play\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;robotics\u0026rdquo; were prominent, indicating a focus on technology-supported learning environments and mathematics-based applications, especially at the kindergarten level (Su \u0026amp; Yang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Zhan, 2022). However, over the years, these trends have shifted, with concepts such as \u0026ldquo;early childhood education\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;science education\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;STEM\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;STEAM\u0026rdquo;, and \u0026ldquo;STEM education\u0026rdquo; becoming more prominent. This evolution reflects a departure from traditional educational models toward a more comprehensive, interdisciplinary, and inclusive understanding of STEM education. The growing emphasis on early childhood education underscores the role of STEM in fostering computational thinking and problem-solving skills from an early age. Furthermore, with technological progress, tools such as robotics and educational games have been increasingly utilized to increase young learners\u0026rsquo; self-efficacy. STEM education also promotes the development of communication and collaboration skills among children, equipping them with more complex and abstract concepts during their elementary years. These trends collectively illustrate the critical role of STEM education in supporting high-quality early childhood learning experiences (Jamali et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Su \u0026amp; Yang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Following early childhood, \u0026ldquo;science education\u0026rdquo; stands out as a key area within the broader STEM framework. Additionally, research on topics such as \u0026ldquo;STEM\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;STEAM\u0026rdquo;, and \u0026ldquo;STEM education\u0026rdquo; itself continues to dominate scholarly efforts aimed at advancing the quality of education. This finding aligns with other studies in the literature (Akcan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Gali\u0026ccedil; \u0026amp; Ark\u0026uuml;n Kocadere, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Ha et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; \u0026Ouml;zkaya, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Taş \u0026amp; Bolat, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Uğuz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Yu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). The growing emphasis on the concept of \u0026ldquo;STEAM\u0026rdquo; after 2020 highlights the increasing embedding of the arts into core STEM education, highlighting the significance of nurturing students' creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving abilities. The increasing focus on the STEM and STEAM approaches has enhanced students' comprehension of scientific concepts while empowering them to engage with and address pressing societal challenges. By combining the disciplines of technology, science, mathematics, and engineering, STEM education plays a pivotal role in tackling ecological, economic, and social issues, thereby contributing to the goals of sustainable development (Gavari-Starkie et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Maass et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAn analysis of the frequency of terms in titles and abstracts further supports this shift. The repeated appearance of keywords such as \u0026ldquo;education\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;learning\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;students\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;teachers\u0026rdquo; indicates a strong emphasis on educational aspects within STEM-related research aimed at improving quality education (Ha et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). These patterns suggest that STEM education research not only focuses on technical skill acquisition but also highlights the importance of learning processes, the role of educators, and student-centered pedagogies. Similar conclusions were drawn in the study by Assefa and Rorissa (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), who carried out a bibliometric investigation of STEM education. Their study identified keywords such as \u0026ldquo;education\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;science education\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;mathematics education\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;elementary education\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;higher education\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;technology education\u0026rdquo; as among the most frequently occurring. Title analyses highlighted the prominence of terms such as \u0026ldquo;science education\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;technology education\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;mathematics education\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;engineering education\u0026rdquo;, whereas abstract reviews highlighted a focus on \u0026ldquo;science education\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;student\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;technology education\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;mathematics education\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;general education\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Policy and education implications","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study suggest that education policies should be restructured with a focus on STEM education. The dissemination of interdisciplinary STEM/STEAM programs especially in early childhood will contribute to the development of 21st century skills such as problem solving, digital literacy and creativity. In faculties of education, programs aimed at increasing pre-service teachers' interdisciplinary content production and technological pedagogical competencies should be expanded. In addition, a more equitable and inclusive structure can be established in global knowledge production by supporting funding for STEM research and multilingual academic publishing in developing countries.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Limitations and recommendations","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study has some limitations that affect the generalizability and scope of the results. First of all, since the study focused only on English language publications in the WoS database, some important research published in different disciplines or local contexts was excluded. The inclusion of databases such as Scopus, ERIC, Google Scholar and publications in different languages in future research would provide a more holistic analysis. Secondly, the study was limited to the period 1993\u0026ndash;2024. Since the year 2025 was not completed in the study, the year 2025 was not included in the study. It may be suggested to include 2025 and later years in future studies. In a rapidly developing field such as STEM education, such time limitations may make it difficult for research results to fully respond to dynamic developments. Additionally, the review is limited to peer-reviewed academic publications. The inclusion of conference proceedings, practice-based reports, government policies, industry analyses, or projects aimed at community development may offer important contributions toward a better understanding of the real-world implications of STEM education. Considering these limitations, future studies should include different databases and multilingual literature. It is also emphasized that practice-oriented sources should be analyzed. On the basis of these results, it is recommended that policymakers, educators, and practitioners conduct more efforts to support quality education in STEM subjects and achieve sustainable development goals (especially quality education). In this way, valuable insights into the role of STEM education in enhancing quality education can be obtained.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003ch2\u003eInformed consent\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by the\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ch2\u003eEthical approval\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe author declares that no funding was received to support the research, authorship, or publication of this article.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe author is the sole contributor to this manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe dataset analyzed in this study was retrieved from the Web of Science, which is a publicly accessible resource available through institutional subscriptions. No new datasets were generated during this research.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbdi AI, Omar AM, Mahdi AO, Asiimwe C, Osman MA (2024) Tracing the evolution of STEM education: A bibliometric analysis. Frontiers in Education 9:1457938 https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1457938\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAghaei Chadegani AA, Salehi H, Yunus MM, Farhadi H, Fooladi M, Farhadi M, Ebrahim, N A (2013) A comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of Science and Scopus databases. Asian Social Science 9(5):18\u0026ndash;26. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n5p18 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAkcan AV (2024) Bibliometric analysis and content evaluation: Relationship between STEM education and Islam and other religions. Journal of STEM Teacher Institutes 4(2):139-158. https://jstei.com/index.php/jsti/article/view/71 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlAli R, Alsoud K, Athamneh F (2023) Towards a sustainable future: Evaluating the ability of STEM-based teaching in achieving sustainable development goals in learning. Sustainability 15(16) :12542. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612542 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlRyalat SAS, Malkawi LW, Momani SM (2019) Comparing bibliometric analysis using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Journal of Visualized Experiments 152 e58494. https://doi.org/10.3791/58494 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAssefa SG, Rorissa A (2013) A bibliometric mapping of the structure of STEM education using co‐word analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64(12):2513-2536. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22917 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBassok D, Latham S, Rorem A (2016) Is kindergarten the new first grade?. AERA open 2(1) 2332858415616358. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415616358 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoyack KW, Klavans R (2010) Co‐citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61(12):2389\u0026ndash;2404. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21419\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCai Z, Zhu J, Tian S (2023) Research progress of STEM education based on visual bibliometric analysis. SAGE Open 13(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231200157 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen G, Xiao L (2016) Selecting publication keywords for domain analysis in bibliometrics: A comparison of three methods. Journal of Informetrics 10(1):212-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.01.006 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChesky NZ, Wolfmeyer MR (2015) Philosophy of STEM education: A critical investigation. Springer.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCostas R, Bordons M (2007) The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. Journal of Informetrics 1(3):193-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2007.02.001 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDonthu 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 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEjaz H, Zeeshan HM, Ahmad F, Bukhari SNA, Anwar N, Alanazi A, \u0026hellip; Younas S (2022) Bibliometric analysis of publications on the omicron variant from 2020 to 2022 in the Scopus database using R and VOSviewer. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19(19) 12407. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912407 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eElfert M (2019) Lifelong learning in Sustainable Development Goal 4: What does it mean for UNESCO\u0026rsquo;s rights-based approach to adult learning and education? International Review of Education 65(4):537-556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-019-09788-z \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEllegaard O, Wallin J A (2015) The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact?. Scientometrics 105:1809-1831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEnglish LD, King D, Smeed J (2017) Advancing integrated STEM learning through engineering design: Sixth-grade students\u0026rsquo; design and construction of earthquake resistant buildings. The Journal of Educational Research 110(3):255-271. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1264053 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFayzullina AR, Zulfugarzade TE, Kondakchian NA, Aytuganova JI, Khvatova MA, Kelina K G (2024) A review of STEM education research in BRICS countries: An analysis of research trends. Frontiers in Education, 9:1410069. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1410069 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFreeman B, Marginson S, Tytler R (2019) An international view of STEM education. In STEM Education 2.0 (pp. 350-363). https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004405400_019 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGali\u0026ccedil; S, Ark\u0026uuml;n Kocadere S (2023) Current trends and challenges in STEM education. STEAM-BOX.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGamage KA, Ekanayake SY, Dehideniya SC (2022) Embedding sustainability in learning and teaching: Lessons learned and moving forward\u0026mdash;Approaches in STEM higher education programmes. Education Sciences 12(3):225. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030225 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGavari-Starkie E, Espinosa-Guti\u0026eacute;rrez PT, Lucini-Baquero C (2022) Sustainability through STEM and STEAM education creating links with the land for the improvement of the rural world. Land 11(10) :1869. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11101869 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGong R, Xue J, Zhao L, Zolotova O, Ji X, Xu Y (2019) A bibliometric analysis of green supply chain management based on the Web of Science (WOS) platform. Sustainability 11(12):3459. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123459 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGonz\u0026aacute;lez Garc\u0026iacute;a E, Colomo Maga\u0026ntilde;a E, C\u0026iacute;vico Ariza A (2020) Quality education as a sustainable development goal in the context of the 2030 agenda: Bibliometric approach. Sustainability 12(15):5884. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12155884 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHa CT, Thao TTP, Trung NT, Huong LTT, Van Dinh N, Trung T (2020) A bibliometric review of research on STEM education in ASEAN: Science mapping the literature in Scopus database, 2000 to 2019. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 16(10) em1889. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/8500 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHirsch JE (2007) Does the h index have predictive power? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(49) 19193\u0026ndash;19198. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0707962104\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHirsch JE (2010) An index to quantify an individual\u0026rsquo;s scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship. Scientometrics 85:741\u0026ndash;754. https://doiorg/10.1007/s11192-010-0193-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHsu YS, Tang KY, Lin TC (2024) Trends and hot topics of STEM and STEM education: A co-word analysis of literature published in 2011\u0026ndash;2020. Science Education 33(4):1069-1092. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-023-00419-6 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHu H (2023) Development of STEM education in China. In International Conference on Education, Humanities, and Management (ICEHUM 2022) (pp. 75-88). Atlantis Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJamali SM, Md Zain AN, Samsudin MA, Ale Ebrahim N (2017) Self-efficacy, scientific reasoning, and learning achievement in the STEM project-based learning literature. Journal of Nusantara Studies (JONUS) 2(2):29\u0026ndash;43. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.5923585.v1 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJamali SM, Ale Ebrahim N, Jamali F (2023) The role of STEM Education in improving the quality of education: a bibliometric study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 33(3):819-840.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKioupi V, Voulvoulis N (2019) Education for sustainable development: A systemic framework for connecting the SDGs to educational outcomes. Sustainability 11(21):6104. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216104 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi Y, Wang K, Xiao Y, Froyd JE (2020) Research and trends in STEM education: a systematic review of journal publications. International Journal of STEM Education \u003cstrong\u003e7\u003c/strong\u003e:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00207-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMa Y (2021) Reconceptualizing stem education in China as praxis: A curriculum turn. Sustainability 13(9):4961. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094961 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaass K, Geiger V, Ariza MR, Goos M (2019) The role of mathematics in interdisciplinary STEM education. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education 51 869-884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01100-5 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarginson S, Freeman B, Tytler R, Roberts K (2013) STEM: Country comparisons. International comparisons of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Australian Council of Learned Academies. https://acola.org/wp/PDF/SAF02Consultants/SAF02_STEM_%20FINAL.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMart\u0026iacute;n-P\u0026aacute;ez T, Aguilera D, Perales-Palacios FJ, V\u0026iacute;lchez-Gonz\u0026aacute;lez JM (2019) What are we talking about when we talk about STEM education? A review of literature. Science Education 103(4):799-822. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21522 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMar\u0026iacute;n-Mar\u0026iacute;n JA, Moreno-Guerrero AJ, D\u0026uacute;o-Terr\u0026oacute;n P, L\u0026oacute;pez-Belmonte J (2021) STEAM in education: a bibliometric analysis of performance and co-words in Web of Science. International Journal of STEM Education 8(1):41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021- \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcDonald CV (2016) STEM Education: A review of the contribution of the disciplines of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Science Education International 27(4):530-569.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoral-Mu\u0026ntilde;oz JA, Herrera-Viedma E, Santisteban-Espejo A, Cobo MJ (2020) Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: An up-to-date review. Profesional de la Informaci\u0026oacute;n 29(1). https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.ene.03 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNash KL, Blythe JL, Cvitanovic C, Fulton EA, Halpern BS, Milner-Gulland EJ, ... Blanchard J L (2020) To achieve a sustainable blue future, progress assessments must include interdependencies between the sustainable development goals. One Earth 2(2):161-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.01.008 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNguyen TPL, Nguyen TH, Tran TK (2020) STEM education in secondary schools: Teachers\u0026rsquo; perspective towards sustainable development. Sustainability 12(21):8865.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNoyons EC, Moed HF, Van Raan AF (1999) Integrating research performance analysis and science mapping. Scientometrics 46 591-604. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02459614 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOpoku A (2016, September) SDG2030: A sustainable built environment\u0026rsquo;s role in achieving the post-2015 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference (Vol. 2, pp. 1149-1158). Manchester, UK: Association of Researchers in Construction Management.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026Ouml;zkaya A (2019) Bibliometric Analysis of the Publications Made in STEM Education Area. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education 8(2):590-628.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026Ouml;zt\u0026uuml;rk O, Kocaman R, Kanbach DK (2024) How to design bibliometric research: An overview and a framework proposal. Review of Managerial Science 18:3333\u0026ndash;3361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-024-00738-0 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePranckutė R (2021) Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The titans of bibliographic information in today\u0026rsquo;s academic world. Publications 9(1):12. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010012 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala AP, Moher D, Page MJ, Koffel JB (2021) PRISMA-S: An extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. \u003cem\u003eSystematic Reviews 10\u003c/em\u003e(1):1\u0026ndash;19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoth WM, Lee S (2004) Science education as/for participation in the community. Science education 88(2):263-291. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10113 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaini M, Sengupta E, Singh M, Singh H, Singh J (2023) Sustainable Development Goal for Quality Education (SDG 4): A study on SDG 4 to extract the pattern of association among the indicators of SDG 4 employing a genetic algorithm. Education and Information Technologies 28:2031\u0026ndash;2069. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11265-4 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchildt HA, Zahra SA, Sillanp\u0026auml;\u0026auml; A (2006) Scholarly communities in entrepreneurship research: A co\u0026ndash;citation analysis. Entrepreneurship theory and practice 30(3):399-415. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00126.x \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShuman LJ, Besterfield‐Sacre M, McGourty J (2005) The ABET \u0026ldquo;professional skills\u0026rdquo;\u0026mdash;Can they be taught? Can they be assessed?. Journal of engineering education 94(1):41-55. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00828.x \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSingh VK, Singh P, Karmakar M, Leta J, Mayr P (2021) The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 126:5113\u0026ndash;5142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSu J, Yang W (2024) STEM in early childhood education: A bibliometric analysis. Research in Science \u0026amp; Technological Education 42(4):1020-1041. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2023.2201673 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSupriyadi E, Turmudi T, Dahlan JA, Juandi D (2023) Publication trends from STEAM in education from Scopus database: Bibliometric analysis. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA 9(6):104-111. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v9i6.3576 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS\u0026aacute;nchez AD, Del R\u0026iacute;o-Rama MDLC, Garc\u0026iacute;a J\u0026Aacute; (2017) Bibliometric analysis of publications on wine tourism in the databases Scopus and WoS. European Research on Management and Business Economics 23(1):8-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2016.02.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTaş N, Bolat YI (2022) An examination of the studies on STEM in education: A bibliometric mapping analysis. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science (IJTES) 6(3):477-494. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijtes.401 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTian W, Ge J, Zheng X, Zhao Y, Deng T, Yan H (2024) Understanding the landscape of education for sustainable development in China: A bibliometric review and trend analysis of multicluster topics (1998\u0026ndash;2023). Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11(1):1-20. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03713-y \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTytler R, Williams G, Hobbs L, Anderson J (2019) Challenges and opportunities for a STEM interdisciplinary agenda. Research in Science Education 49(6):889\u0026ndash;903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09899-x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTytler R (2020) STEM education for the twenty-first century. In J. Anderson Y. Li (Eds.), Integrated approaches to STEM education (pp. 43-60). Advances in STEM education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52229-2_3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUğuz S, Aksoy B, Oral O (2017) The analysis of conceptual development of stem education by bibliometry. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in The World 7(4):118-128.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUNESCO (2015) Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the Implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/education-2030-incheon-framework-for-action-implementation-of-sdg4-2016-en_2.pdf \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Eck NJ, Waltman L (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping [journalarticle]. Scientometrics 84(2):523\u0026ndash;538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWaltman L, Van Eck NJ, Noyons EC (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 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWu ML, Zhou Y (2025) Strengthening teachers\u0026rsquo; STEM preparedness through a technology integration online course. Education and Information Technologies 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13479-8 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B (2007) The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316(5827):1036\u0026ndash;1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/scien ce.1136099 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYu YC, Chang SH, Yu LC (2016) An academic trend in STEM education from bibliometric and co-citation method. International Journal of Information and Education Technology 6(2):113-116.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhan Z, Shen W, Xu Z, Niu S, You G (2022) A bibliometric analysis of the global landscape on STEM education (2004-2021): Towards global distribution, subject integration, and research trends. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 16(2):171-203.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhu J, Liu W (2020) A tale of two databases: The use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers. Scientometrics 123(1):321-335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03387-8 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZupic I, Čater T (2015) Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods 18(3):429\u0026ndash;472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"STEM education, Quality education, Sustainable development goals, Bibliometrics, Early childhood education","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6681110/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6681110/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examines the contributions of STEM education to quality education (SDG 4) at thematic and structural levels based on a bibliometric analysis of 659 publications indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) database between 1993 and 2024. Performance analysis, co-citation networks, country collaborations and keyword clusters are visualized through Biblioshiny and VOSviewer software. The findings revealed a marked increase in interest since 2016 and an increase after 2020. The analysis highlights dominant research regions (particularly the US), influential journals and authors, trending keywords such as \u0026ldquo;STEM\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;early childhood education\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;science education\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;mathematics education\u0026rdquo;. The findings show a shift from discipline-specific studies to holistic STEM/STEAM frameworks. This mapping offers insights for researchers and policymakers shaping inclusive, high-impact STEM education aligned with sustainable development goals.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Trends and Thematic Focuses on STEM Education: Bibliometric Analysis of Quality Education with Web of Science Data (1993-2024)","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-08-07 06:40:18","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6681110/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"4d8248a7-48b5-4a9c-a6b6-370f4e052052","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 7th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":52589301,"name":"Social science/Education"},{"id":52589302,"name":"Social science/Science technology and society"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-09-03T12:53:49+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-08-07 06:40:18","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6681110","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6681110","identity":"rs-6681110","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}