Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 8, 369-381 2025 Publisher: Learning Gate DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i8.9306 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate History: Received: 7 June 2025; Revised: 15 July 2025; Accepted: 18 July 2025; Published: 6 August 2025 * Correspondence: srajaprakash_04@yahoo.com Global trends in stem education research (2000–2018): A systematic journal-based study Ramadhevi M1, S. Raja Prakash2* 1Research Scholar, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Aarupadai Veedu Institute of Technology, Vinayaka Missions Research Foundation, Chennai-600100, Tamil Nadu, India; rama6dhevi15@gmail.com (R.M.). 2Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Vel Tech Rangarajan Dr. Sakunthala R&D, Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India; srajaprakash_04@yahoo.com (S.R.P.). Abstract: Researchers published in 36 publications to conduct a thorough analysis of the state of STEM education research from 2000 to 2018, according to Lin, et al. [1]. Unlike previous literature assessments that concentrated on a single discipline or journal, this review synthesizes trends in authorship geography, methodological approaches, thematic focus, and disciplinary representation. According to the study based on English [2] there has been a notable increase in STEM education research since 2010, as evidenced by the expansion of the STEM label's usage, the rise in empirical work—especially quantitative work—and the preponderance of American writers. Policy, curriculum, and K–12 education were the main areas of inquiry, and seven significant thematic groups were found based on National Research Council [3]. While highlighting the dynamic and growing nature of STEM education research, these findings also point to limitations in theme diversity and global representation. These findings' ramifications are examined in light of policy formation, educational equity, and the international exchange of knowledge. Keywords: ICT: Information and communications technology, IJ-STEM: International Journal of STEM education, K-12: Kindergarten–grade 12, SMET: Science, Mathematics, Engineering, Technology, STEAM: Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, Mathematics; STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics. 1. Introduction Understanding the trends and state of scholarship in any educational domain is essential for guiding research agendas, policy formation, and pedagogical innovation according to [4]. STEM education, though relatively new as a defined interdisciplinary field, has seen exponential growth in global interest over the past two decades. Based on statements in [5]. Governments, educators, and industries increasingly view STEM based on Kilpatrick [6] as central to equipping students with critical thinking, problem-solving, and innovation skills necessary for participation in a competitive, technology-driven world economy which is indicated in Thibaut, et al. [7]. STEM education is affected by this. In educational research at Li [8] systematic reviews are frequently conducted to examine the status and developments in particular fields. For instance, scholars examined trends in the use of technology in mathematics education [5, 9] and reviewed the historical evolution of research in mathematics education [6]. Since Tsai and Lydia Wen [10] and his colleagues have reviewed journal articles every five years to summarize research trends in scientific education (i.e., 1998–2002, 2003–2007, 2008–2012, and 2013–2017), based on entries in the Journal of Research in scientific Teaching, the International Journal of Science Education, and Science Education (e.g., [1, 10]) three major journals for scientific education. Minner, et al. [11] examined inquiry-based science instruction from 1984 to 2002, whereas Erduran, et al. [4] examined argumentation in science education research from 1998 to https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2237-5850 370 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 8: 369-381, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i8.9306 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 2014. In engineering and technology education, there are also a lot of literature reviews and syntheses (e.g., [12, 13]). However, based on Gonzalez and Kuenzi [14]. STEM education remains a complex and contested domain. It encompasses a broad spectrum of disciplines—science, technology, engineering, and mathematics—but there is no universally accepted framework for integration across these areas based on Borrego, et al. [12]. According to National Research Council [3]. Debates continue over what qualifies as “authentic” STEM learning, how to measure STEM competence, and how to balance disciplinary depth with interdisciplinary breadth based on Brown [15]. Moreover, emerging variants like STEAM (which adds the arts) and STEMM (including medicine) further complicate definitions. Previous reviews based on Henderson, et al. [16] have contributed valuable insights into aspects of STEM education. For example, Henderson, et al. [16] explored instructional reform in post-secondary STEM, while Margot and Kettler [17] examined teacher attitudes. Yet, most of these studies focus on narrow themes, single journals, or limited timeframes. As a result, the broader contours of the field— especially its thematic diversity, methodological trends, and global authorship—remain underexplored. When a discipline is established and its scope is well defined, reviewing the research advancement in that field is quite simple. STEM education is not a clearly defined field, in contrast to discipline-based education research [3]. This study addresses this gap by offering a journal-based, multi-dimensional analysis of 798 STEM education articles published from 2000 to 2018. By examining patterns across journals, disciplines, regions, and topics based on Howard, et al. [18] this research provides a comprehensive snapshot of how STEM education scholarship has evolved and where future research efforts should be directed. Different viewpoints on STEM and STEM education, the history of STEM education as the name describes is rather recent. The United States National Science Foundation (NSF) first included engineering and technology alongside science and mathematics in undergraduate and K–12 education in the 1990s, which sparked interest in assisting students in learning across STEM subjects [3]. Other organizations, like the US Congress, adopted the abbreviation SMET (science, mathematics, engineering, and technology), which it created (e.g., [19]). To replace SMET, NSF also created the abbreviation STEM, which has since become standard (e.g., [2]). There isn't, however, agreement on which fields belong in STEM. The STEM fields listed by NSF, however, differ from those listed by other federal organizations. At least two US organizations, the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, employ a more restrictive definition that leaves out social sciences, according to Gonzalez and Kuenzi [14]. Using words like multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary, researchers also have varied perspectives on integration across STEM fields [20]. These are but two illustrations of the ambiguity and difficulty in defining and characterizing what STEM is. Education in the individual STEM disciplines, such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, as well as interdisciplinary or cross-disciplinary combinations of the individual STEM disciplines, can be considered STEM education from a broad and inclusive perspective [2, 8]. However, some people may believe that STEM education exclusively refers to cross- disciplinary or interdisciplinary combinations of the many STEM fields [21-23] As long as publications are ready to accept the position as related to STEM education, these diverse viewpoints enable scholars to publish articles in a wide range of diverse journals. reviews on STEM Education A search for reviews of research on STEM education turned up several reviews (e.g., [7, 15, 16, 24- 26]) that might offer methods for identifying publications. Brown [15] review looked at the body of research on STEM education. By limiting the review to publications in eight journals—two in each subject, one academic research journal (like the Journal of Research in Science Teaching), and one practitioner journal (like Science Teacher)—he was able to address the ambiguity and complexity. To find and include papers that writers self-identified as being related to STEM education, Mizell and Brown employed the same criterion, i.e., whether the authors included STEM in the title or author- 371 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 8: 369-381, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i8.9306 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate supplied keywords. They discovered that, in contrast to Brown's findings, a significantly greater number of STEM articles were published in a shorter amount of time and by academics from a wider range of institutions. While Brown [15] both tended to imply that STEM education primarily consists of interdisciplinary or cross-disciplinary combinations of the various STEM disciplines, their methodology involved choosing a small number of journals based on individual disciplines and then choosing articles that the authors self-identified as being related to STEM education. Other reviews (e.g., [26]) concentrated on difficulties in STEM education as opposed to reviews on STEM education generally. Henderson, et al. [16] for instance, conducted a review of 191 conceptual and empirical journal articles published between 1995 and 2008 that concentrated on instructional changes in undergraduate STEM courses. Margot and Kettler [17] examined 25 empirical journal publications published between 2000 and 2016 to determine what is known about teachers' values, beliefs, perceived obstacles, and support needs in relation to STEM teaching. The researchers were able to restrict the number of publications they looked at because of the emphasis of these studies, and they typically utilized keyword searches of specific databases to find articles about STEM education. This method was employed by some researchers to find only journal publications [27] while others chose and examined sources outside of journals [25]. This section's discussion offers several potential explanations for why there isn't a comprehensive literature assessment of STEM education research and development: (1) There are a variety of viewpoints regarding STEM and STEM education that make it challenging to define the scope of a literature review; (2) STEM education has a brief but quick development history when compared to other discipline-based education (such as science education); and (3) it can be challenging to determine how to define the scope of the literature review. However, based on current journal publications, neither the first strategy of choosing a small number of distinct discipline-based journals nor the second strategy of choosing a particular focus for the review results in a method that offers a broad overview of the development of STEM education scholarship. 1.1. Current Reviews When defining the parameters of this review, two problems were found. What time frame ought to be considered? Which publications are going to be chosen for review? 1.2. Time Period First, we tackle the simple one. The abbreviation STEM did exist until the early 2000s, as was previously mentioned. The acronym is symbolic and aids in drawing attention to initiatives in STEM education, even though its existence does not produce scholarship on students' learning in STEM fields. It makes sense to begin with the year 2000 since we wish to look at the state and developments in STEM education. After that, we may locate certain research articles using the STEM acronym as an identification, just like other people have done (e.g., [15]). We decided to conclude our review, which started in 2019, at the end of 2018. 2. Methods To capture a holistic picture of STEM education research, we adopted a journal-based systematic review methodology. This approach avoids the limitations of database keyword searches, which can overlook relevant studies due to inconsistent indexing and variable terminology. Therefore, we searched Google to find all education journals whose titles included two, three, or all four STEM subjects. For instance, we searched Google for any possible combination of the three fields of science, engineering, mathematics, and technology1 that could be found in the title of a publication. Furthermore, we looked for potential publications using the term STEAM in the title. Traditional discipline-based education journals, like the Journal of Research in Science Teaching, may have published articles on STEM 372 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 8: 369-381, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i8.9306 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate education research since STEM education is sometimes seen as including discipline-based education research. As a result, we added a few more popular discipline-based education research publications, such the Journal of Engineering Education, to the list in addition to choosing a couple from the list. Because some general education research publications, particularly those that are well-known, have published articles about STEM education research. As a result, we found and chose a handful of the journals where we found some articles about STEM education research. Table 1. List of 36 authorised journals applied in various subjects using STEM Technology. No Journal name No of subjects* Start year OA or not 1. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 3 1997 No 2. American Educational Research Journal 0 1964 No 3. British Journal of Educational Technology 1 1970 No 4. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education 3 2001 No 5. Computers & Education 1 1976 No 6. Educational Technology Research and Development 1 1953 No 7. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 3 2005 Yes 8. European Journal of Engineering Education 1 1975 No 9. European Journal of STEM Education 4 2016 Yes 10. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education 2 2013 Yes 11. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology 3 2013 Yes 12. International Journal of Engineering Education 1 1985 No 13. International Journal of Innovation in Science & Mathematics Education 2 1997 Yes 14. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 3 1970 No 15. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 2 2003 No 16. International Journal of Science Education 1 1979 No 17. International Journal of STEM Education 4 2014 Yes 18. Journal for STEM Education Research 4 2018 N o 19. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 3 1981 N o 20. Journal of Engineering Education 1 1912 N o 21. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research 1 2011 Yes 22. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice 1 1956 No 23. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1 1963 N o 24. Journal of Research in STEM Education 4 2015 Yes 25. Journal of Science Education and Technology 2 1992 N o 26. Journal of STEM Education 4 2000 Yes 27. Journal of STEM Outreach 4 2018 Yes 28. Journal of STEM Teacher Education 4 1998 Yes 29. Journal of Technology and Science Education 2 2011 Yes 30. Research in Science and Technological Education 2 1983 N o 31. School Science and Mathematics 2 1901 N o 32. Science Education 1 1916 N o 33. Technology, Pedagogy and Education 1 1992 N o 34. The Journal of Educational Research 0 1920 N o 35. The STEAM Journal 5 2013 N o 36. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education 2 2002 Yes Following the above three steps, we identified 45 journals (see Table 1). Journal and article Identification: A list of 45 journals was compiled through a combination of expert consultation, citation tracking, and web-based searches. Journals were selected if they had a history of publishing articles in STEM or STEM-related fields and if they were peer-reviewed and published in English. Inclusion Criteria: Articles were included if they explicitly referred to STEM, STEAM, or related acronyms in the title or abstract which are included in Sochacka, et al. [28]. Only full-length peer- 373 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 8: 369-381, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i8.9306 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate reviewed journal articles published between January 2000 and December 2018 were considered. Editorials, book reviews, and conference abstracts were excluded. Data Collection and Coding: The final dataset included 798 articles from 36 journals. Each article was coded independently by two reviewers in five dimensions: • Disciplinary Scope – – Articles were categorized based on the number of STEM domains addressed (1 to 4) and whether non-STEM fields were included (e.g., arts or medicine) based on [19]. • Thematic Focus – Articles were classified into seven pre-defined thematic categories, such as curriculum and assessment, teacher education, learning environments, equity issues, and higher education. • Methodology – – Each article was labeled as quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, or non- empirical. • Authorship Geography- Two models were used: one attributing equal credit to all countries represented by authors, and one giving full credit to the first or corresponding author. • Collaboration Type – – Articles were coded as single-author, domestic collaboration, or international collaboration. Reliability Measures The inter-rater agreement was 89.5%, with discrepancies resolved through collaborative review and consensus discussion. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, thematic mapping, and cross-tabulation. 3. Results 3.1. Growth in Publications The review revealed a dramatic increase in the volume of STEM education research over the 18- year period. From fewer than 20 articles annually in the early 2000s, the output surged to over 120 articles in 2018. As shown in Figure 1, the number of STEM education publications increased dramatically, especially after 2010. This trend mirrors increased government investment in STEM education and growing scholarly interest in interdisciplinary education. Figure 1. Growth in publications in the years between 2000-2018. 374 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 8: 369-381, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i8.9306 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 3.2. Use of the Term STEM Of the 798 articles, 549 (69%) used "STEM" in the title, while 249 (31%) used it in the abstract only based on Margot and Kettler [17]. This pattern suggests that while the term is widely adopted, its use may be more strategic or rhetorical than reflective of integrated content indicated in Li and Schoenfeld [29]. Articles according to Singer, et al. [30] which has included the term only in the abstract often focused on single disciplines, raising concerns about overextension of the label. 3.3. Disciplinary Breadth Figure 2 illustrates that a majority of studies incorporated all four STEM domains, indicating a trend toward integrated approaches. A majority of the articles (61.2%) addressed all four STEM domains, showing a trend toward integrative approaches. However, 17.7% addressed only one STEM discipline, and 10.6% addressed two or three. An additional 10.5% of the articles incorporated non- STEM elements, such as arts or medicine, suggesting a broadening of the STEM conceptual umbrella. Figure 2. list of publications based on the analysis of articles, chapter presented and proceedings. 3.4. Journal Characteristics Journals were grouped into categories based on how many STEM disciplines they typically published. Subject-1 journals (focused on one STEM field) contributed the most articles (32.5%), followed by interdisciplinary journals (subject-4, 21.7%) and subject-2 journals (18.6%). This distribution shows the central role of traditional disciplinary journals in shaping STEM education scholarship. 3.5. Geographic Authorship As shown in Figure 3, the United States overwhelmingly leads in STEM education research contributions which is included in Li [23]. The United States dominated authorship, accounting for approximately 75% of all contributions regardless of attribution method. Other notable contributors based on Kim, et al. [24] it is included Australia, the UK, Canada, and Taiwan. Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia were severely underrepresented, underscoring global disparities in scholarly production and dissemination which is represented in the paper [8]. 375 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 8: 369-381, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i8.9306 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Figure 3. Analytical review on STEM education research in BRICS countries. 3.6. Thematic Trends Analysis of thematic focus showed that nearly half of the articles (47%) addressed curriculum, policy, or assessment. This was followed by K–12 teaching (12.9%), K–12 learning environments (12.2%), post-secondary education (9.5%), and cultural/gender issues (9.8%). Less common themes included professional development, epistemology, and interdisciplinary theory-building. 3.7. Research Methodology Based on Li [31] Quantitative research was the fastest growing category, reflecting broader educational trends favoring evidence-based decision-making. Qualitative and mixed-methods research grew steadily but remained less dominant. Non-empirical work, including in Li, et al. [32] theoretical articles and literature reviews, declined as a percentage of total output over time. 3.8. Collaboration Patterns Multi-authored articles accounted for over 83% of the sample, with domestic collaborations being more frequent than international ones which are included in Ring-Whalen, et al. [33]. However, the number of international co-authored papers increased steadily, suggesting gradual expansion of global research networks in STEM education. 3.9. Publication Used by Other Journals Two general education research journals (referred to as "subject-0"), twelve journals with titles that contain one STEM discipline ("subject-1"), eight journals with titles that cover two STEM disciplines ("subject-2"), six that cover three STEM disciplines ("subject-3"), seven that contain the word STEM ("subject-4"), and one that focuses on STEAM education ("subject-5"). With the exception of the Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, a subject-1 journal founded in 2011 that offered open access (OA), Table 2 demonstrates that both subject-0 and subject-1 journals were typically established, long-standing, and subscription-based. Although subject- 2 and subject-3 journals were more recent than subject-0 and subject-1 journals, they still had a 376 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 8: 369-381, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i8.9306 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate significant amount of mediocre history. Additionally, a few additional journals in these two categories offered open access. The majority of subject-4 and subject-5 journals had open access, and they had a brief history. The findings indicate that reputable journals tend to concentrate on specific fields of study or education research in general. A few years later, interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary education journals were established, and more recently, several STEM or STEAM publications were established. Additionally, Table 2 reveals that around a quarter of the papers were published by subject-1, subject- 2, and subject-4 journals. Since we only chose a small number of journals in this category, the quantity of publications in subject-1 journals is intriguing. We probably did not include some STEM education articles published in subject-0 or subject-1 journals that we did not include in our study because we did not choose many of the other journals in the subject-1 category (as well as subject-0 journals) mediocre history. Table 2. Information about journals in different subject categories. #of subjects # of journals # of OA journals Years of history (On average) * # of STEM articles (%) Subject-0 2 0 77 36 (4.5%) Subject-1 12 1 53.3 259 (32.5%) Subject-2 8 4 31.3 185 (23.2%) Subject-3 6 2 24.5 92 (11.5%) Subject-4 7 6 7.7 205 (25.7%) Subject-5 1 0 6 21 (2.6%) Additionally, a few additional journals in these two categories offered open access. The majority of subject-4 and subject-5 journals had open access, and they had a brief history. The findings indicate that reputable journals tend to concentrate on specific fields of study or education research in general. A few years later, interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary education journals were established, and more recently, several STEM or STEAM publications were established. Additionally, Table 2 reveals that around a quarter of the papers were published by subject-1, subject- 2, and subject-4 journals. Since we only chose a small number of journals in this category, the quantity of publications in subject-1 journals is intriguing. We probably did not include some STEM education articles published in subject-0 or subject-1 journals that we did not include in our study because we did not choose many of the other journals in the subject-1 category (as well as subject-0 journals). The number of publications annually in each of the five previously mentioned categories (subjects 0 through 5) is displayed in Figure 5. The annual number of articles in subject-0 and subject-5 journals remained relatively constant during the study period. However, by the end of the study period, the annual number of publications in subject-2, subject-1, and subject-4 journals (all four domains) exceeded 40Though it increased, the annual number of publications in subject-3 journals was still below thirty. It can seem a little odd at first that during the past few years, the number of STEM education publications published annually in subject-1 journals has increased significantly faster than those in subject-2 journals. However, as Table 2 shows, these publications have a lengthy history and a solid reputation, so researchers want to publish their work there. The growth in subject-4 journals, as opposed to the trend in subject-1 journals, indicates that STEM education journals began to establish a distinct identity for disseminating and publishing STEM education research. The number of publications on STEM education in each journal is displayed in Figure 6 with color- coded bars (yellow for subject 0; light blue for subject 1; green for subject 2; purple for subject 3; dark blue for subject 4; and black for subject 5). Regarding the total quantity of STEM education articles across categories or journals, there is no discernible trend; instead, performance varies greatly by 377 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 8: 369-381, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i8.9306 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate journal. The findings suggest that the quantity of publications on STEM education may be significantly influenced by the capacity and willingness of each individual journal. The number of publications on STEM education in each journal is displayed in Figure 6 with color- coded bars (yellow for subject 0; light blue for subject 1; green for subject 2; purple for subject 3; dark blue for subject 4; and black for subject 5). Regarding the total quantity of STEM education articles across categories or journals, there is no discernible trend; instead, performance varies greatly by journal. The findings suggest that the quantity of publications on STEM education may be significantly influenced by the capacity and willingness of each individual journal. The top nations and areas by number of publications are displayed in Table 3, where the authorship used the two previously mentioned ways to determine the nation or location. Depending on the approach, authors from the USA contributed roughly 75% of the work, with Australia, Canada, Taiwan, and the UK following closely after. The only continent not represented in the top ten nations or regions was Africa. The findings mostly align with trends documented in the IJ-STEM research [32]. A closer look at Table 3 shows that there are some differences between the two approaches in addition to the findings being reasonably consistent. For instance, Israel and If only the corresponding author was taken into account, Germany had greater publication credit; but, when co-authors were taken into account, South Korea and Turkey had more publication credit. Table 3's findings demonstrate the usefulness of each approach for examining and contrasting publications by nation, area, or organization according to authorship. Table 3. Top 10 authorship countries/regions for all 798 publications (2000-2018) using the two methods. Rank Method 1a Rank Method 2 Country Score (%) Country Scores (%) 1 USA 603 (75.75%) 1 USA 596.28 (74.91%) 2 Australia 37 (4.65%) 2 Australia 38.29 (4.81%) 3 Canada 18 (2.26%) 3 Canada 18.42 (2.31%) 4 Taiwan 14 (1.76%) 4 Taiwan 13.76 (1.73%) 4 UK 14 (1.76%) 5 UK 12.83 (1.61%) 6 Spain 12 (1.51%) 6 Spain 12.53 (1.57%) 7 Israel 9 (1.13%) 7 South Korea 9.55 (1.20%) 7 South Korea 9 (1.13%) 8 Turkey 9.02 (1.13%) 9 Germany 8 (1.01%) 9 Israel 8.68 (1.09%) 9 Netherlands ands 8 (1.01%) 10 Netherlands ands 7.69 (0.97%) 9 Turkey 8 (1.01%) aMethod 1 refers to the method where only the corresponding author (or the first author, if no specific indication was provided about the corresponding author) was credited, whereas method 2 refers to the case when all co-authors were credited. The same notations are used in Tables 4 and 5 Given that, as Fig. 1 illustrates, the number of publications annually has grown significantly since 2010, Table 4 displays the number of publications by country/region throughout the 2009–2018 timeframe, and Table 5 displays the number of publications by country/region during the 2014–2018 378 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 8: 369-381, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i8.9306 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate timeframe. Given that there have been more publications in STEM education in recent years, it is not surprising that the rankings in Tables 3, 4, and 5 are largely consistent. Meanwhile, it Table 4. Top 10 authorship countries/regions for 772 publications (2009-2018) using the two methods. Rank Method 1 Rank Method 2 Country Score (%) Country Scores (%) 1 USA 580 (75.13%) 1 USA 573.04 (74.23%) 2 Australia 37 (4.79%) 2 Australia 37.89 (4.91%) 3 Canada 18 (2.33%) 3 Canada 18.42 (2.39%) 4 Taiwan 14 (1.81%) 4 Taiwan 13.76 (1.78%) 5 UK 14 (1.81%) 5 UK 12.83 (1.66%) 6 Spain 12 (1.55%) 6 Spain 12.53 (1.62%) 7 South Korea 9 (1.17%) 7 South Korea 9.55 (1.24%) 8 Germany 8 (1.04%) 8 Turkey 9.02 (1.17%) 9 Israel 8 (1.04%) 9 Israel 8 (1.04%) 10 Nether lands ands 8 (1.04%) 10 Nether lands ands 7.69 (1.00%) 11 Turkey 8 (1.04%) Table 5. Top 10 authorship countries/regions for 641 publications (2014-2018) using the two methods. Rank Method 1 Rank Method 2 Country Score (%) Country Scores (%) 1 USA 473 (73.79%) 1 USA 466.78 (72.82%) 2 Australia 30 (4.68%) 2 Australia 30.89 (4.82%) 3 Canada 17 (2.65%) 3 Canada 17.82 (2.78%) 4 UK 13 (2.03%) 4 Spain 12.53 (1.95%) 5 Spain 12 (1.87%) 5 UK 11.99 (1.87%) 6 Taiwan 11 (1.72%) 6 Taiwan 10.71 (1.67%) 7 South Korea 9 (1.40%) 7 South Korea 9.15 (1.43%) 8 Turkey 8 (1.25%) 8 Turkey 9.02 (1.41%) 9 German y 7 (1.09%) 9 Germany 6.89 (1.07%) 9 Malaysia 7 (1.09%) 10 Malaysia 6.68 (1.04%) 9 Netherlands 7 (1.09%) 379 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 8: 369-381, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i8.9306 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Interestingly, Table 5 shows some changes over the past few years, with Malaysia—but not Israel—entering the top 10 list when author credit was calculated using either approach. 4. Discussion This study confirms the rapid expansion and increasing complexity of STEM education research. The rise in publication volume indicates growing institutional support and perceived relevance, but it also raises questions about coherence and quality across the field. The broad use of the STEM label, especially in articles focused on single disciplines, suggests a need for more rigorous definitions and standards which are insisted in Schreffler, et al. [27]. 1. According to the paper [31, 34]. Curricular and policy concerns dominate the literature, reflecting the strategic importance of STEM education in national education reforms. Yet, the relatively low representation of equity, cultural issues, and postsecondary learning points to important gaps which are included in [27]. Expanding research in these areas is critical for ensuring that STEM education meets the needs of diverse learners and societies. 2. Methodologically, the shift toward quantitative approaches aligns with trends in evidence-based policy but may inadvertently marginalize rich qualitative insights indicated in Tsai and Lydia Wen [10]. Encouraging methodological pluralism and embracing mixed-methods research can offer more holistic understandings of STEM education phenomena. 3. The geographic skew in authorship highlights structural inequities in global knowledge production. Addressing this requires intentional efforts to support scholars in underrepresented regions through funding, collaboration, and equitable publishing practices. 5. Conclusion This journal-based analysis of STEM education research over an 18-year period provides critical insights into the field’s development, thematic orientation, and global reach included in Vasquez, et al. [20]. Our findings demonstrate that while the field is maturing in terms of volume and methodological rigor, it remains challenged by definitional ambiguity and geographic concentration. To sustain and deepen the impact of STEM education research, future efforts must aim for greater inclusivity—both in terms of geographic representation and thematic diversity. According to Xu, et al. [13] and Thomas, et al. [35] it is promoting interdisciplinary integration, fostering methodological richness, and amplifying underrepresented voices are essential for the continued advancement of the field. As STEM education continues to evolve, ongoing meta-research such as this review will be crucial for ensuring that scholarly inquiry remains responsive to the complex demands of education in the 21st century. Transparency: The authors confirm that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study; that no vital features of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained. This study followed all ethical practices during writing. Copyright: © 2025 by the authors. This open-access article is distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). References [1] T.-J. Lin, T.-C. Lin, P. Potvin, and C.-C. Tsai, "Research trends in science education from 2013 to 2017: A systematic content analysis of publications in selected journals," International Journal of Science Education, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 367- 387, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1550274 [2] L. D. English, "STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration," International Journal of STEM education, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 3, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1550274 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1 380 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 8: 369-381, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i8.9306 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate [3] National Research Council, STEM integration in K-12 education. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press, 2014. [4] S. Erduran, Y. Ozdem, and J.-Y. Park, "Research trends on argumentation in science education: A journal content analysis from 1998–2014," International Journal of STEM Education, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 5, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0020-1 [5] A. Bray and B. Tangney, "Technology usage in mathematics education research–A systematic review of recent trends," Computers & Education, vol. 114, pp. 255-273, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.004 [6] J. Kilpatrick, "History of research in mathematics education." Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2014, pp. 267-272. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4978-8_71 [7] L. Thibaut et al., "Integrated STEM education: A systematic review of instructional practices in secondary education," European Journal of STEM Education, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 2, 2018. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/85525 [8] Y. Li, "International journal of STEM Education - a platform to promote STEM education and research worldwide," International Journal of STEM Education, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 1, 2014/08/27 2014. https://doi.org/10.1186/2196-7822-1- 1 [9] A. Sokolowski, Y. Li, and V. Willson, "The effects of using exploratory computerized environments in grades 1 to 8 mathematics: A meta-analysis of research," International Journal of STEM Education, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 8, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0022-z [10] C. C. Tsai and M. Lydia Wen, "Research and trends in science education from 1998 to 2002: a content analysis of publication in selected journals," International Journal of Science Education, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 3-14, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000243727 [11] D. D. Minner, A. J. Levy, and J. Century, "Inquiry‐based science instruction—what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002," Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 474-496, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20347 [12] M. Borrego, M. J. Foster, and J. E. Froyd, "What is the state of theArt of systematic reviewin engineering education?," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 104, no. 2, pp. 212-242, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20069 [13] M. Xu, P. J. Williams, J. Gu, and H. Zhang, "Hotspots and trends of technology education in," International Journal of Technology and Design Education, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 207-224, 2020/04/01 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019- 09508-6 [14] H. B. Gonzalez and J. J. Kuenzi, Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: A primer. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 2012. [15] J. Brown, "The current status of STEM education research," Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 123-145, 2012. [16] C. Henderson, A. Beach, and N. Finkelstein, "Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 48, no. 8, pp. 952-984, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20439 [17] K. C. Margot and T. Kettler, "Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: a systematic literature review," International Journal of STEM education, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1-16, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018- 0151-2 [18] G. S. Howard, D. A. Cole, and S. E. Maxwell, "Research productivity in psychology based on publication in the journals of the American psychological association," American Psychologist, vol. 42, no. 11, pp. 975-986, 1987. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.42.11.975 [19] United States, "The state of science, math, engineering, and technology (SMET) education in America, parts I-IV, including the results of the third international mathematics and science study (TIMSS). U.S," Department of Education, 1998. [20] J. A. Vasquez, C. Sneider, and M. Comer, STEM lesson essentials, grades 3-8: Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2013. [21] C. C. Johnson, E. E. Peters-Burton, and T. J. Moore, STEM road map. New York: Routledge, 2015. [22] T. R. Kelley and J. G. Knowles, "A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education," International Journal of STEM Education, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 11, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z [23] Y. Li, "Journal for STEM education research – promoting the development of interdisciplinary research in stem education," Journal for STEM Education Research, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-018- 0009-z [24] A. Y. Kim, G. M. Sinatra, and V. Seyranian, "Developing a STEM identity among young women: A social identity perspective," Review of Educational Research, vol. 88, no. 4, pp. 589-625, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318779957 [25] A. Minichiello, J. R. Hood, and D. S. Harkness, "Bringing user experience design to bear on stem education: A narrative literature review," Journal for STEM Education Research, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 7-33, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-018-0005-3 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0020-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.004 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4978-8_71 https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/85525 https://doi.org/10.1186/2196-7822-1-1 https://doi.org/10.1186/2196-7822-1-1 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0022-z https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000243727 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20347 https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20069 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09508-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09508-6 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20439 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2 https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.42.11.975 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-018-0009-z https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-018-0009-z https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318779957 https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-018-0005-3 381 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 8: 369-381, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i8.9306 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate [26] S. P. W. Wu and M. A. Rau, "How students learn content in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) Through drawing activities," Educational Psychology Review, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 87-120, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09467-3 [27] J. Schreffler, E. Vasquez Iii, J. Chini, and W. James, "Universal design for learning in postsecondary STEM education for students with disabilities: A systematic literature review," International Journal of STEM Education, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 8, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0161-8 [28] N. W. Sochacka, K. W. Guyotte, and J. Walther, "Learning together: A collaborative autoethnographic exploration of STEAM (STEM+ the Arts) education," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 105, no. 1, pp. 15-42, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20112 [29] Y. Li and A. H. Schoenfeld, "Problematizing teaching and learning mathematics as “given” in STEM education," International Journal of STEM Education, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1-13, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0197-9 [30] S. R. Singer, N. R. Nielsen, and H. A. Schweingruber, Discipline-based education research. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press, 2012. [31] Y. Li, "Four years of development as a gathering place for international researchers and readers in STEM education," International Journal of STEM Education, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 54, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0153-0 [32] Y. Li, J. E. Froyd, and K. Wang, "Learning about research and readership development in STEM education: A systematic analysis of the journal’s publications from 2014 to 2018," International Journal of STEM Education, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 19, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0176-1 [33] E. Ring-Whalen, E. Dare, G. Roehrig, P. Titu, and E. Crotty, "From conception to curricula: the role of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in integrated STEM units," International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 343-362, 2018. [34] Y. Li, "Five years of development in pursuing excellence in quality and global impact to become the first journal in STEM education covered in SSCI," International Journal of STEM Education, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 42, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0198-8 [35] C. K. F. Thomas, Y. Li, M. Ding, J. Hallström, and M. D. Koretsky, "A decade of research contributions and emerging trends in the international journal of stem education," International Journal of STEM Education, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 12, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-025-00533-7 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09467-3 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0161-8 https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20112 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0197-9 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0153-0 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0176-1 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0198-8 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-025-00533-7