From Curiosity to Careers: Tracking Student Interest in Biology through Bibliometric Data

From Curiosity to Careers: Tracking Student Interest in Biology through Bibliometric Data

Nurashikin Muzafar_, Nur Jahan Ahmad^*

School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.9020279

Received: 15 February 2025; Accepted: 19 February 2025; Published: 18 March 2025

ABSTRACT

To truly invest in the future of the life sciences, we need to understand how and when students become interested in biology and how their interests shift as they progress. Here, a bibliometric analysis is performed to examine the trends in research and education related to biology, focusing on how learning driven by curiosity evolves into professional engagement or career paths. Using data retrieved from the Scopus database and analyzed with Scopus Analyzer and VOSviewer software, we examined 218 relevant publications spanning key themes in biology education and career development. The analysis highlights significant patterns in publication volume, keyword co-occurrence, and citation networks, revealing an increasing focus on interdisciplinary approaches and the incorporation of technology in biology education. Our findings indicate that student interest in biology is increasingly influenced by emerging fields such as bioinformatics, biotechnology, and environmental science, which align with evolving career opportunities. The results also underscore the importance of fostering early engagement in biology through innovative teaching methods and research exposure, as these factors strongly correlate with sustained academic and professional interest. By mapping the trajectory of student interest from curiosity to careers, this research offers meaningful insights for educators, policymakers, and researchers striving to bridge the gap between education and workforce demands in the biological sciences. These findings enhance our understanding of how bibliometric tools can be utilized to inform educational practices and career planning in STEM fields.

Keywords: student, interest, biology education, bibliometric analysis, career

INTRODUCTION

The exploration of student interest in biology is a critical area of research that can significantly impact educational strategies and career pathways in the sciences. Gaining insight into how students cultivate an interest in biology and how this interest can be nurtured is essential for educators aiming to enhance motivation and persistence in STEM fields. Despite the importance of this topic, there is a lack of clarity in how interest is defined and measured within the biology education research community. Studies have shown interest is often described as a relationship involving positive feelings towards a subject. Yet, many researchers do not explicitly define interest or consult theoretical frameworks when measuring it (Rowland et al., 2019). This gap highlights the need for more comprehensive tools and approaches to effectively assess and foster student interest in biology.

Tracking student interest in biology through bibliometric data offers a novel approach to understanding the dynamics of interest development and its implications for career choices. By analyzing self-generated questions from students across various educational levels, researchers can recognize trends and shifts in interest, providing valuable guidance for curriculum development and teaching methods (Baram‐Tsabari et al., 2010). Additionally, developing instruments based on theoretical frameworks, such as Hidi and Renninger’s conceptualization of individual interest, provides educators with validated tools to measure changes in student interest over time (Knekta et al., 2020). These insights are crucial for designing interventions that engage students and guide them toward biology-related careers, addressing the broader challenge of sustaining interest in science education (Uitto, 2014).

LITERATURE REVIEW

Recent advancements in biology education have focused on innovative teaching approaches to boost student engagement and improve learning outcomes. Hsu et al. (2024) developed a weeklong curricular module for high school students, focusing on phytohormones and circadian rhythms through hands-on experiments with postharvest cabbage. This approach demonstrated significant learning gains and increased interest in plant biology among over 600 students. Similarly, Ma & Ma (2024) introduced an innovative teaching model in genetics education, emphasizing pre-class experimental planning and interactive tasks, which improved students’ independent thinking and practical skills. Golke & Wittwer (2024) explored the use of informative narratives in biology education, finding that such narratives significantly increased situational interest. However, they did not improve text comprehension in comparison to expository texts. These studies collectively highlight the potential of interactive and narrative-based teaching strategies to foster curiosity and engagement in biology.

The integration of virtual reality (VR) and immersive technologies has shown promise in transforming biology education. Ferdinand et al. (2023) demonstrated that priming students with information about the benefits of VR improved learning outcomes, although it had little impact on their interest in the virtual lesson. Wallgrün et al. (2024) examined VR field trips in undergraduate ecology classes, finding that they improved spatial awareness and motivation but did not significantly impact perceived educational outcomes compared to conventional field trips. In a similar manner, Christopoulos et al. (2023) compared stereoscopic 360° VR with video learning resources in high school biology, revealing that while both methods enhanced knowledge acquisition, VR significantly boosted learning motivation and long-term memory retention. These findings suggest that while VR can increase engagement and motivation, its impact on learning outcomes requires further exploration.

Gender disparities and early interest in biology remain critical areas of concern. Toma (2024) identified gender-stereotypical patterns in elementary school students, with girls showing higher interest in biology and boys favoring physics, reflecting career enrolment trends. Bulić (2023) emphasized the need to foster interest in environmental topics, noting that boys showed greater interest in energy-related topics, while girls were more inclined towards human health.

Despite these advancements, challenges and gaps persist in biology education research. For instance, while virtual laboratories (VLs) have gained popularity, research, like the one conducted by Navarro et al. (2024) and Reeves et al. (2024), reveals technical limitations and accessibility issues, with students preferring VLs as preparatory material rather than replacements for traditional labs. Meşe (2023) noted a growing interest in situational interest research but highlighted a lack of focus on its application in biology education. These results emphasize the need for longitudinal studies to understand the lasting effects of innovative teaching methods, immersive technologies, and inclusive strategies on student interest and career trajectories in biology.

Research Question

1. What are the research trends in interest in biology education according to the year of publication?
2. What type of documents are used for the subject of research?
3. What are the source titles of interest in biology education literature?
4. Who are the top 10 productive authors of research?
5. Who are the top 10 authors based on citation by research?
6. What are the popular keywords related to the study?
7. What are co-authorship countries’ collaboration?
8. What network mapping is based on citation by document type?

METHODOLOGY

Bibliometrics entails the collection, organization as well as bibliographic data analysis from scientific publications (Alves et al., 2021; Assyakur & Rosa, 2022; Verbeek et al., 2002). This includes basic descriptive statistics, such as the journals where articles are published, publication years, and primary authorship classifications (Wu & Wu, 2017). Moreover, it also incorporates advanced techniques like document co-citation analysis. Here, a successful literature review requires an iterative process of identifying appropriate keywords, conducting thorough searches, and performing in-depth analyses to create a comprehensive bibliography and ensure reliable outcomes (Fahimnia et al., 2015). This research focused on high-quality publications, offering critical insights into the theoretical frameworks shaping the research field. To ensure data reliability, the SCOPUS database was utilized for data collection (Al-Khoury et al., 2022; Di Stefano et al., 2010; Khiste & Paithankar, 2017). Only rigorously peer-reviewed journal articles were included to uphold publication quality, excluding books as well as lecture notes (Gu et al., 2019). The analysis drew on data from Elsevier’s Scopus, well-known for its extensive scope, encompassing publications from 2014 to December 2024.

Data search strategy

The tables outline the methodology used for a bibliometric search on the student interest in biology using the Scopus database. Table 1 presents the search string, which includes keywords such as “interest,” “students,” “biology,” and “education,” and limits the search to publications from 2014 to 2024. Table 2 details the selection criteria, specifying that only journal articles, books, book chapters, and conference papers published between 2014 and 2024 were included, while notes, erratum, conference reviews, editorials, reviews, short surveys, letters, notes, data paper were excluded they by assembling 290 articles. A total of 218 articles were selected for bibliometric analysis after refinement. This approach ensures a focused and relevant dataset for analyzing trends and developments in the student interest in biology.

Table 1: The search string

Table 2: The selection criterion is searching

Data analysis

VOSviewer is a user-friendly yet powerful bibliometric software established by Nees Jan van Eck and Ludo Waltman at Leiden University in the Netherlands (Van Eck & Waltman, 2010). It is broadly recognized for its capabilities in visualizing as well as analyzing scientific literature, excelling in the creation of intuitive network visualizations, clustering related items, and producing density maps. Its versatility allows researchers to investigate co-authorship, co-citation as well as keyword co-occurrence networks, providing a detailed overview of research landscapes. With its interactive interface and regular updates, VOSviewer efficiently handles large datasets, allowing dynamic exploration. Its capability to calculate metrics, customize visualizations, and integrate with a variety of bibliometric data sources makes it an indispensable tool for scholars aiming to delve into complex research domains.

VOSviewer’s key strength lies in its capability to transform complex bibliometric datasets into clear and visually engaging maps and charts. Specializing in network visualization, it excels at clustering related items, analyzing keyword co-occurrence, and creating density maps. Its intuitive interface makes it accessible to both experienced and novice researchers, allowing them to explore research landscapes effectively. Continuous development keeps VOSviewer at the cutting edge of bibliometric analysis, offering valuable insights through metrics calculations and customizable visualizations. Its flexibility in handling a variety of bibliometric data, which includes co-authorship as well as citation networks, makes it an indispensable and versatile tool for researchers seeking deeper insights and a comprehensive understanding of their fields.

PlainText datasets, including information such as publication year, title, author names, journal, citations, and keywords, were obtained from the Scopus database covering the years 2012 to 2024. These datasets were examined using VOSviewer software version 1.6.19. Utilizing VOS clustering and mapping techniques, the software facilitated detailed analysis and the generation of comprehensive maps. Unlike the Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) approach, VOSviewer emphasizes arranging items in low-dimensional spaces to accurately represent the relatedness and similarity between items based on their proximity (Van Eck & Waltman, 2010). In this way, VOSviewer is similar to the MDS approach (Appio et al., 2014). Unlike MDS, which mainly focuses on computing similarity metrics like cosine and Jaccard indices, VOS employs a more suitable approach for normalizing co-occurrence frequencies, utilizing methods like the association strength (ASij), which is calculated (Van Eck & Waltman, 2007):

which is proportional to the ratio between the observed number of co-occurrences of i and j and the expected number of co-occurrences of i and j under the assumption that co-occurrences of i and j are statistically independent (Van Eck & Waltman, 2007).

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

What are the research trends in interest in biology education according to the year of publication?

Figure 1: Document publication by years

The bibliometric data reveals a dynamic pattern in biology education research publications over the past decade (2014-2024). Starting from 15 publications in 2014, research output saw a significant rise, peaking at 34 publications in 2020. The growth trajectory showed particular momentum from 2017-2020, where annual publications consistently exceeded 20 papers per year, suggesting intensified research interest in biology education during this period.

However, the post-2020 period shows an interesting shift in publication patterns. Meanwhile, remaining robust, with 31 publications in 2021, there was a steady decrease, with 24 publications in 2022 and 13 publications in both 2023 and 2024. This recent trend might reflect several factors, including the maturation of certain research themes, shifts in funding priorities, or changes in educational focus following the global pandemic. Despite this decline, the consistent presence of publications throughout the period indicates sustained scholarly interest in understanding and improving biology education.

What type of documents are used for the subject of research?

Figure 2: Distribution of documents by type in Scopus

The analysis of document types in biology education research reveals a strong predominance of traditional research articles, which constitute 83.5% of all published documents. This overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed articles suggests a robust foundation of empirical research and scholarly discourse in the field. The significant proportion of articles indicates that researchers in biology education are actively engaged in producing original research, experimental studies, and theoretical frameworks that undergo rigorous peer review processes.

The remaining document types show a diverse but smaller distribution, with conference papers representing 10.6% of the publications, followed by book chapters at 4.6%, and books at 1.4%. This distribution pattern suggests that while the field primarily communicates through journal articles, there is still meaningful contribution through conference presentations, indicating active scholarly discourse and networking within the academic community. The presence of book chapters and books, though smaller in percentage, demonstrates efforts to consolidate knowledge and provide comprehensive treatments of specific topics in biology education, potentially serving as valuable resources for educators and researchers alike.

 Who are the top 10 productive authors of research?

Figure 3: Plotting the most productive authors about research

Table 3: The most productive authors of research

The table provides a bibliometric overview of author contributions to publications related to biology, highlighting the number of documents authored and their respective percentages of the total contributions. The data reveals that Corwin, L.A., and Neuhaus, B.J. are the most prolific contributors, each with four documents, accounting for 1.835% of the total publications. Following them, a group of five authors, Birol, G., Dorfner, T., Fančovičová, J., Förtsch, C., and Prokop, P., each contributed three documents, representing 1.376% of the total output per author. Lastly, three authors, Aivelo, T., Asshoff, R., and Beniermann, A., contributed two documents each, making up 0.917% of the total contributions per author. This distribution suggests a relatively even contribution spread among the listed authors, with no single author dominating the dataset.

The data also reflects a collaborative and diverse authorship pattern, as no author exceeds four publications, and the percentages are relatively small. This indicates that the field of biology education research, as represented by this dataset, may rely on contributions from a broad range of researchers rather than being concentrated among a few prolific authors. Such a pattern is often indicative of a multidisciplinary field where researchers from various backgrounds contribute to a shared area of interest. The presence of multiple authors with similar contribution levels (e.g., three documents each) further supports the idea of a collaborative research environment where knowledge is built collectively rather than being driven by a few dominant voices.

From a bibliometric perspective, this distribution of contributions could reflect the nature of the research topic, tracking student interest in biology, which may attract researchers from diverse subfields such as education, psychology, and biology. The relatively small percentages for each author suggest that the dataset is likely part of a larger body of work, where these authors represent only a fraction of the total contributors. This diversity in authorship aligns well with the interdisciplinary nature of the topic, as understanding student interest in biology requires insights from multiple perspectives, including pedagogy, curriculum design, and career development. These findings highlight the significance of collaborative initiatives in tackling complex educational challenges.

What are the source titles of interest in biology education literature?

Figure 4: Plotting document counts per year by source in Scopus

The bibliometric data presented in the graph highlights trends in document counts from five journals related to biology and science education between 2014 and 2024. Notably, CBE Life Sciences Education demonstrates the most dynamic fluctuations, peaking in 2016 and 2019 with five documents each year, followed by a decline in subsequent years. This suggests a periodic surge in this journal’s research interest or publication activity. In contrast, the Journal of Biological Education shows a more consistent but modest output, with a notable increase in 2023, indicating a potential recent rise in interest in biological education research. The Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education exhibits a steady presence, peaking in 2017, but its contributions remain relatively low compared to CBE Life Sciences Education. Meanwhile, the International Journal of Science Education and the Journal of Research in Science Teaching show minimal activity, with sporadic contributions, suggesting a more specialized or limited focus in the context of this dataset.

These trends reflect the evolving focus of research in biology and science education. The prominence of CBE Life Sciences Education may indicate its central role in publishing innovative or impactful studies in the field. At the same time, the recent rise in the Journal of Biological Education could signal a growing interest in specific aspects of biological education. The relatively low and sporadic contributions from the other journals suggest either a narrower scope or less emphasis on biology-related topics within their broader educational focus. These patterns provide valuable insights into how student interest in biology and related educational research has been documented over the years, aligning with the theme of tracking curiosity and career pathways through bibliometric data.

Who are the top 10 authors based on citation by research?

Table 4: Top 10 authors based on citation by research

The table highlights the ten most-cited articles focusing on student interest, motivation, and engagement in biology education, showcasing a range of innovative teaching strategies and their impacts. The article with the highest citation count, authored by Schinske et al. (2016), emphasizes the role of “Scientist Spotlight” homework assignments in breaking stereotypes and fostering science identity among diverse students. With 154 citations, this study underscores the importance of representation and inclusivity in science education, suggesting that exposure to diverse role models can significantly influence students’ perceptions and engagement. Similarly, other highly cited works, such as Guest et al. (2015), with 113 citations, focus on ocean literacy and its role in connecting youth to environmental science, highlighting the importance of contextual and place-based learning in fostering interest in biology-related fields.

Numerous articles in the collection examine the use of technology and active learning strategies to boost student motivation and performance. For instance, Bennie et al. (2019), with 101 citations, demonstrate the use of virtual reality to teach enzyme catalysis, showcasing how interactive tools can make complex biological concepts more accessible and engaging. Jeno et al. (2017), with 97 citations, further support this trend by examining the impact of mobile applications on species identification, framed through the lens of Self-Determination Theory. These studies collectively highlight the growing role of technology in modern biology education, emphasizing its potential to increase motivation and deepen understanding, particularly when paired with active learning strategies, as explored by Owens et al. (2020) with 99 citations.

Finally, the table also strongly focuses on understanding the psychological and social factors influencing students’ interest in biology. Uitto (2014), with 89 citations, investigates how interest, attitudes, and self-efficacy shape students’ career orientations, while Bathgate et al. (2014) explore how motivation varies across contexts and topics. These studies, along with Olimpo et al. (2016) and Van Horne & Bell (2017), emphasize the importance of fostering positive attitudes, self-efficacy, and disciplinary identification to sustain long-term interest in biology. Collectively, the articles in this table provide a thorough perspective on the multifaceted approaches to engaging students in biology, from leveraging technology and active learning to addressing stereotypes and psychological factors, offering valuable guidance for educators and researchers dedicated to inspiring future biologists.

What are the popular keywords related to the study?

Figure 5: Network visualization map of keywords’ co-occurrence

The bibliometric data provides meaningful insights into the most prominent keywords related to student interest in biology and its broader educational context. The keyword “biology” stands out with the highest occurrences (43) and total link strength (216), indicating its central role in the analyzed literature. Closely related terms like “biology education” (15 occurrences, 26 link strength) and “molecular biology” (6 occurrences, 14 link strength) suggest a strong focus on specific subfields within biology. This highlights the importance of biology as a core subject in education and research, with significant connections to other topics. Additionally, the high link strength of “education” (47 occurrences, 300 link strength) and “students” (56 occurrences, 309 link strength) underscores the centrality of educational frameworks and student engagement in the discourse.

The data also reveals a broader interdisciplinary context, with keywords like “curriculum” (18 occurrences, 166 link strength), “learning” (13 occurrences, 77 link strength), and “motivation” (12 occurrences, 61 link strength) playing significant roles. These terms suggest that the literature emphasizes the design and delivery of educational content, as well as the psychological factors influencing student interest in biology. The presence of terms like “e-learning” (9 occurrences, 32 link strength) and “technology” (9 occurrences, 64 link strength) further indicates a growing interest in integrating digital tools and innovative teaching methods to enhance biology education. This aligns with global trends in education, where technology is increasingly leveraged to foster engagement and accessibility.

The data underscores the importance of diversity and inclusivity in biology education. Keywords such as “gender” (6 occurrences, 2 link strength), “female” (11 occurrences, 109 link strength), as well as “male” (10 occurrences, 103 link strength) suggest an ongoing focus on gender-related issues in the field. Additionally, terms like “higher education” (7 occurrences, 11 link strength) and “undergraduate” (5 occurrences, 12 link strength) point to the significance of post-secondary education in shaping student interest and career trajectories in biology. Overall, the bibliometric analysis offers a detailed perspective on the factors influencing student interest in biology, from curriculum design and technological integration to diversity and career pathways.

What are co-authorship countries’ collaboration?

Figure 6: Network visualization map of co-authorship countries’ collaboration

The bibliometric data provided offers valuable insights into the global collaboration patterns in biology-related research, as analyzed through co-authorship networks. The United States emerges as the leading contributor, with 86 documents, 1,360 citations, and a total link strength of 6. This highlights its pivotal role in fostering international collaborations and producing impactful research. Germany also emerges as a key player, with 26 documents and 211 citations, supported by a strong link strength of 7, indicating its active engagement in collaborative efforts. Countries like Canada, China, and the United Kingdom also demonstrate notable contributions, with Canada achieving a high citation count of 233 despite a link strength of 0, suggesting its research is impactful but less collaborative internationally.

Interestingly, smaller countries like Finland, Slovenia, and the Czech Republic also show meaningful contributions to the field. Finland, for instance, has 6 documents and 125 citations, with a link strength of 2, reflecting its ability to produce impactful research while maintaining moderate collaboration. Similarly, Slovenia and the Czech Republic, with 5 and 6 documents, respectively, exhibit moderate citation counts and link strengths, indicating their growing involvement in international research networks. These findings suggest that smaller nations are increasingly participating in global research efforts, contributing to the diversity of perspectives in biology-related studies.

The data also reveals disparities in collaboration and impact among countries. For example, while Brazil and Turkey have similar document counts (5 and 8, respectively), their citation counts and link strengths differ significantly, with Brazil showing higher link strength (4) and Turkey having none. This suggests Brazil is more integrated into international research networks, while Turkey’s contributions may be more localized. Overall, the analysis highlights the significance of promoting international collaborations to enhance the global impact of biology research, as countries with higher link strengths tend to have greater influence and visibility in the field.

What network mapping is based on citation by document type?

Figure 7: Network visualization map of citation by document type

The bibliometric analysis of citations by document type reveals significant trends in the dissemination and impact of biology-related research. Articles authored by researchers from the United States dominate the field, with 86 documents and an impressive 1,360 citations, underscoring the country’s leadership in producing high-impact research. Germany follows as a major contributor, with 26 documents and 211 citations, reflecting its strong research output and influence. Canada, despite having only 8 documents, stands out with 233 citations, indicating the high quality and relevance of its research. This indicates that although the quantity of publications matters, the significance of the research is not solely determined by quantity but also by the quality and focus of the work.

Smaller countries, such as Finland, Slovenia, and the Czech Republic, also demonstrate notable contributions to the field. Finland, with 6 documents and 125 citations, and Slovenia, with 5 documents and 59 citations, highlight the growing influence of smaller research communities in biology. The Czech Republic, with 6 documents and 44 citations, also shows a strong presence, backed by a total link strength of 5, suggesting active collaboration with other countries. These findings suggest that smaller nations are increasingly engaging in impactful research and international collaborations, contributing to the global discourse in biology education and research.

However, disparities in collaboration and impact are evident among countries. For instance, despite having similar document counts (5 and 8, respectively), Brazil and Turkey show significant differences in citations and link strength. Brazil has 49 citations and a link strength of 4, indicating a more collaborative and impactful research presence, while Turkey, with 30 citations and no link strength, suggests a more localized research focus. These variations highlight the importance of fostering international partnerships to increase the visibility and influence of research. Overall, the analysis underscores the critical role of both large and small research communities in advancing biology education and research, with collaboration serving as a key driver of global impact.

CONCLUSION

The bibliometric analysis uncovers notable trends and patterns within the field of biology education research over the past decade, highlighting both growth and shifts in scholarly focus. Between 2014 and 2020, there was a steady increase in research output, peaking in 2020 with 34 publications, reflecting heightened interest in the field during this period. However, a gradual decline in publication numbers was observed after 2020, with 13 publications recorded in both 2023 and 2024. This decline may be linked to factors such as the maturation of research themes, shifts in funding priorities, or shifts in educational focus following the global pandemic. Despite this decrease, the consistent presence of publications throughout the decade underscores sustained academic interest in advancing biology education. The predominance of peer-reviewed research articles, comprising 83.5% of all documents, further demonstrates the field’s strong foundation in empirical studies and theoretical contributions. At the same time, the smaller proportion of conference papers, book chapters, and books reflects ongoing efforts to disseminate knowledge through diverse formats.

The analysis also highlights the collaborative and interdisciplinary nature of biology education research. Contributions are distributed across a wide range of authors, with no single individual dominating the dataset, suggesting a collective effort to address complex educational challenges. This diversity aligns with the interdisciplinary scope of the field, which integrates insights from education, psychology, and biology to explore student interest and engagement. Trends in journal contributions reveal the prominence of CBE Life Sciences Education as a leading platform for impactful studies, while other journals, such as the Journal of Biological Education, show recent growth in publication activity. Additionally, the most cited articles emphasize innovative teaching strategies, the integration of technology, and the significance of psychological and social factors in cultivating student interest in biology. These findings collectively provide valuable insights into the evolving landscape of biology education research, providing a thorough understanding of how curiosity in biology is nurtured and translated into career pathways.

The bibliometric analysis highlights key trends in biology education and research, emphasizing the central role of keywords such as “biology,” “education,” and “students” in the literature. These terms reflect the importance of biology as a foundational subject and its integration into educational frameworks. Subfields like “molecular biology” and “biology education” further underscore the focus on specialized areas within the discipline. Additionally, the prominence of terms like “curriculum,” “learning,” and “motivation” suggests a strong emphasis on designing effective educational content and understanding psychological factors that influence student engagement. The growing presence of keywords such as “e-learning” and “technology” indicates a shift toward incorporating digital tools and innovative teaching methods, aligning with global trends in modern education. Furthermore, the analysis highlights the significance of diversity and inclusivity, with terms like “gender,” “female,” and “male” pointing to ongoing efforts to address equity in biology education.

The analysis also reveals global collaboration patterns in biology-related research, with countries like the United States, Germany, and Canada dominating in both research productivity and impact. Smaller nations, such as Finland, Slovenia, and the Czech Republic, are making growing contributions to the field, demonstrating the growing influence of diverse research communities. Disparities in collaboration and impact are evident, as seen in the differing citation counts and link strengths of countries like Brazil and Turkey, highlighting the significance of global collaborations in enhancing research visibility and influence. Overall, the findings underscore the interconnectedness of educational design, technological integration, and global collaboration in shaping the discourse on biology education and research, while also emphasizing the critical role of both large and small research communities in advancing the field

REFERENCES

1. Al-Khoury, A., Hussein, S. A., Abdulwhab, M., Aljuboori, Z. M., Haddad, H., Ali, M. A., Abed, I. A., & Flayyih, H. H. (2022). Intellectual Capital History and Trends: A Bibliometric Analysis Using Scopus Database. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(18). https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811615
2. Alves, J. L., Borges, I. B., & De Nadae, J. (2021). Sustainability in complex projects of civil construction: Bibliometric and bibliographic review. Gestao e Producao, 28(4). https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9649-2020v28e5389
3. Appio, F. P., Cesaroni, F., & Di Minin, A. (2014). Visualizing the structure and bridges of the intellectual property management and strategy literature: a document co-citation analysis. Scientometrics, 101(1), 623–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1329-0
4. Assyakur, D. S., & Rosa, E. M. (2022). Spiritual Leadership in Healthcare: A Bibliometric Analysis. Jurnal Aisyah : Jurnal Ilmu Kesehatan, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.30604/jika.v7i2.914
5. Baram‐Tsabari, A., Sethi, R., Bry, L., & Yarden, A. (2010). Identifying Students’ Interests in Biology Using a Decade of Self-Generated Questions. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 6, 63–75. https://doi.org/10.12973/EJMSTE/75228
6. Bulić, M. (2023). Students’ Interests in Human Health Topics and Environmental Topics . Metodicki Ogledi, 30(1), 145–167. https://doi.org/10.21464/mo.2023.1.6
7. Christopoulos, A., Pellas, N., Bin Qushem, U., & Laakso, M.-J. (2023). Comparing the effectiveness of video and stereoscopic 360° virtual reality-supported instruction in high school biology courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(4), 987–1005. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13306
8. Di Stefano, G., Peteraf, M., & Veronay, G. (2010). Dynamic capabilities deconstructed: A bibliographic investigation into the origins, development, and future directions of the research domain. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(4), 1187–1204. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtq027
9. Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J., & Davarzani, H. (2015). Green supply chain management: A review and bibliometric analysis. In International Journal of Production Economics (Vol. 162, pp. 101–114). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.01.003
10. Ferdinand, J., Soller, S., Hahn, J.-U., Parong, J., & Göllner, R. (2023). Enhancing the  Effectiveness of Virtual Reality in Science  Education Through an Experimental Intervention Involving Students’ Perceived Usefulness of Virtual Reality. Technology,   Mind,and Behavior, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000084
11. Golke, S., & Wittwer, J. (2024). Informative narratives increase students’ situational interest in science topics. Learning and Instruction, 93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101973Gu, D., Li, T., Wang, X., Yang, X., & Yu, Z. (2019). Visualizing the intellectual structure and evolution of electronic health and telemedicine research. International Journal of Medical Informatics,130.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.08.007
12. Hsu, J. L., Sung, R.-J., Swarat, S. L., Gore, A. J., Kim, S., & Lo, S. M. (2024). Variations in Student Approaches to Problem Solving in Undergraduate Biology Education. CBE Life Sciences Education, 23(2). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.23-02-0033
13. Khiste, G. P., & Paithankar, R. R. (2017). Analysis of Bibliometric term in Scopus. International Research Journal, 01(32), 78–83.
14. Knekta, E., Rowland, A., Corwin, L., & Eddy, S. (2020). Measuring university students’ interest in biology: evaluation of an instrument targeting Hidi and Renninger’s individual interest. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00217-4
15. Ma, F., & Ma, R. (2024). Innovative teaching strategies using questioning for experimental teaching of genetics: a case study. Cogent Education, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2378250
16. Meşe, C. (2023). A bibliometric analysis of situational interest research. Review of Education, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3419
17. Navarro, C., Arias-Calderón, M., Henríquez, C. A., & Riquelme, P. (2024). Assessment of Student and Teacher Perceptions on the Use of Virtual Simulation in Cell Biology Laboratory Education. Education Sciences, 14(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14030243
18. Reeves, S. M., Bolch, C. A., Bex II, R. T., & Crippen, K. J. (2024). Learner experience and motivational beliefs for a VR Lab in advanced undergraduate biology. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2024.2307601
19. Rowland, A., Knekta, E., Eddy, S., & Corwin, L. (2019). Defining and Measuring Students’ Interest in Biology: An Analysis of the Biology Education Literature. CBE Life Sciences Education, 18. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-02-0037
20. Toma, R. B. (2024). Elementary school students’ interests and attitudes towards biology and physics. Journal of Biological Education, 58(4), 972–983. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2022.2147208
21. Uitto, A. (2014). Interest, Attitudes and Self-Efficacy Beliefs Explaining Upper-secondary School Students’ Orientation Towards Biology-related Careers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12, 1425–1444. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10763-014-9516-2
22. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
23. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2017). Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer. Scientometrics, 111(2), 1053–1070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2300-7
24. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2007). Bibliometric mapping of the computational intelligence field. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowldege-Based Systems, 15(5), 625–645. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218488507004911
25. Verbeek, A., Debackere, K., Luwel, M., & Zimmermann, E. (2002). Measuring progress and evolution in science and technology – I: The multiple uses of bibliometric indicators. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2370.00