INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2464 www.rsisinternational.org
Educational Technology Course Design in Pre-Service Teachers
Education: A Bibliometric Review of the Research Landscape
Wang Aidong1*, Norah Md Noor2
1International Exchange Center, Hebei Minzu Normal University, 067000 Hebei, China
2School of Graduate Studies, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81300, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
*Corresponding Author
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000206
Received: 20 October 2025; Accepted: 27 October 2025; Published: 07 November 2025
ABSTRACT
The integration of Educational Technology (EdTech) courses within pre-service teacher education programs is
crucial for equipping future educators with the competencies to leverage technology in their teaching practices
effectively. This study employs a bibliometric analysis to map the research landscape of EdTech course design
for pre-service teachers. From Scopus database covering the period from 2020 to 2025, a total of 920 relevant
publications were identified and analysed by using tools such as biblioMagika® and VOSviewer. The findings
reveal a significant increase in research output in this field, and Germany, Spain, Turkey, the United States, and
Australia have been the leading contributors. Three dominant thematic clusters emerged from the co-occurrence
analysis, teacher education core, technology integration in learning environments, and institutional contexts and
design frameworks. Based on 110 analysed publications, these clusters reflect the field’s shift from technical
skill training to holistic pedagogical reasoning. The study also identifies challenges, including the theory-practice
gap, equity and access issues, and the rapid evolution of technologies such as AI and immersive platforms. It
calls for a balanced approach to EdTech course design, which prioritises pedagogical adaptability, addresses
equity gaps, and embeds ethical frameworks for emerging technologies. Findings advocate for educational
technology courses with strong teaching adaptability and a focus on fairness to enhance the capabilities of future
educators.
Keywords: Educational Technology; Pre-service Teachers; Course Design; Bibliometrics
INTRODUCTION
The integration of technology into the 21st-century classroom requires educators to go beyond their basic digital
literacy, develop professional knowledge in teaching, and use these technologies to enhance students’ learning
outcomes (Howard et al., 2021; UNESCO, 2023). Teacher education programs bear significant responsibility
for cultivating pre-service teachers (PSTs) to have the competencies of integrating technology in their future
practice effectively. EdTech courses stand as the foundation of this preparation within pre-service curricula
(Tondeur et al., 2012). Despite this necessity, the design of these courses remains a complex challenge, such as
the content must be updated with technological development, pedagogical approaches must bridge theory and
practice, theoretical foundations (e.g., TPACK) need to be adjusted to adapt to the changes of educational
environment, and assessment strategies need to reflect the real classroom demands. All these dimensions impact
the technological and pedagogical readiness of PSTs (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Kopcha et al., 2020).
Although it is widely acknowledged that integrating EdTech into teaching is important (ISTE, 2017), studies
have repeatedly shown that there are still ongoing gaps between what technology can achieve in classrooms and
how it is being used effectively in real K-12 teaching situations (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). Usually,
these gaps can be traced back to the insufficient preparation of PST, where EdTech courses may have difficulty
of bridging theoretical knowledge with real classroom application, to adapt to the rapid changing of technological
landscapes, or sufficiently develop key literacy like digital citizenship and critical evaluation tools (Tondeur et
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2465 www.rsisinternational.org
al., 2018; Polly et al., 2010). The design of these courses has become more complex due to different
environmental factors, including institutional resources, faculty expertise, program structures, and different
conceptions that constitutes basic technological knowledge and skills (Kimmons et al., 2020).
The academic circles have made great efforts in understanding and enhancing the integration of educational
technology in teacher education. Some significant frameworks, such as Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPACK), provide important theoretical perspectives for conceptualizing the knowledge that
teachers need (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Many empirical studies have explored specific interventions,
pedagogical models (e.g., design thinking, project-based learning), or the impact of particular technologies in
EdTech courses (e.g., Tondeur et al., 2012; Mouza et al., 2014). Literature reviews and meta-analyses have
synthesised findings on effective strategies, barriers, and facilitators (e.g., Tondeur et al., 2012; Sailer et al.,
2021; Scherer et al., 2021). These contributions are invaluable, yet they often focus on specific aspects (e.g.,
effectiveness of a particular pedagogy) or aggregate findings qualitatively.
What remains less explored is a comprehensive, quantitative mapping of the entire research landscape dedicated
explicitly to the design of EdTech courses for PSTs. How has this specific field evolved over time? What are the
predominant research themes, and how have they shifted? Which authors, institutions, and journals are driving
the conversation? Where are the geographic concentrations and collaborations? What foundational theories
underpin this research? Crucially, where are the knowledge gaps and emerging frontiers? A systematic
understanding of the field’s intellectual structure, evolution, and current foci is essential for guiding future
research, informing program development, and identifying under-explored areas critical for preparing PSTs in a
digital age.
Bibliometric analysis offers a robust methodological approach to address this need. By applying quantitative and
computational techniques to scholarly publications, bibliometrics allows researchers to map the structure,
dynamics, and relationships within a specific research domain (Zupic & Čater, 2015; Donthu et al., 2021). It can
identify core publications, track the evolution of research topics, visualise collaborative networks, and reveal the
intellectual foundations of a field through citation patterns. This analysis breaks through the limitations of
traditional narrative reviews and offers a data-driven, macroscopic view of academic dialogue.
To address this gap, this study employed a comprehensive bibliometric analysis and systematically mapped out
the research landscape of EdTech course design for PSTs. This bibliometric analysis aims to provide researchers,
teacher educators, program managers, and policymakers with a clear, evidence-based overview of the current
state of research on EdTech course design for PSTs. By clarifying the knowledge structure, key participants,
thematic concentrations, and potential gaps, this analysis aims to inform more strategic and impactful future
research agendas, contribute to the design of EdTech course, and truly empower the next generation with digital
education capabilities.
LITERATURE REVIEW
In the 21st century, the necessity of effectively integrating technology into K-12 Education is undeniable, which
has brought tremendous pressure to teacher education programs to equip PSTs with the necessary competencies
(Howard et al., 2021; UNESCO, 2023). Educational Technology (EdTech) courses serve as the cornerstone of
this preparation within pre-service curricula, tasked with developing not only technical skills but, more crucially,
the pedagogical knowledge to leverage technology meaningfully for enhancing student learning (Tondeur et al.,
2012). However, persistent gaps exist between the potential of educational technologies and their actualised,
effective use in classrooms, often traced back to inadequacies in PST preparation (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich,
2010).
Seminal frameworks, notably TPACK model (Mishra & Koehler, 2006), have fundamentally shaped our
understanding of the complex and comprehensive knowledge base which is necessary for teachers to effectively
integrate technology. TPACK emphasizes the complex interaction among content knowledge, pedagogical
knowledge, and technological knowledge, and stresses that effective technology integration requires an
understanding of how technology changes teaching and learning specific content. This framework led the
research and discussion around PST technological preparation, serving as a lens for evaluating course design
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2466 www.rsisinternational.org
and outcomes (Voogt et al., 2013; Scherer et al., 2021). Consequently, a great deal of academic efforts has been
dedicated to exploring the development of TPACK in EdTech courses, examining interventions, and pedagogical
models (e.g., design thinking, project-based learning), as well as the impact of specific technologies (e.g., Mouza
et al., 2014; Tondeur et al., 2012). Recent bibliometric analyses have confirmed the central position of TPACK
in research on PST technology preparation. Su (2023), has specifically studied on TPACK development of PSTs,
highlighting its lasting advantages as a research theme. Wu et al. (2024) further verified its general influence
through a comparative bibliometric analysis across major databases.
Although the TPACK framework has been adopted widely, it is not the only model relevant to understanding
technology integration. This field is increasingly influenced by other conceptual frameworks, which offer
different but complementary perspectives. For instance, The SAMR model (Substitution, Augmentation,
Modification, Redefinition) provides a ladder-like structure for conceptualizing how technology can transform
learning activities, moving from simple enhancement to significant redesign (Puentedura, 2006). On the other
hand, the European Digital Competence Framework for Educators (DigCompEdu) describes a comprehensive
set of digital competencies specific to educators, providing a detailed and behavior-oriented framework for the
development of these competencies (Redecker, 2017). While TPACK effectively conceptualizes the knowledge
types teachers need, SAMR and DigCompEdu contribute valuable guidance on the levels of integration and the
specific competencies required, respectively. Therefore, in the course design research, over-reliance on TPACK
might lead to the neglect of the practical and ability-based insights provided by these emerging models. The
cross-framework integration can offer a more dynamic and operational conceptual framework for designing
educational technology courses.
Besides the research on TPACK, many empirical investigations and literature reviews have synthesised findings
on effective EdTech integration strategies, barriers, and promoting factors in teacher education (Tondeur et al.,
2012; Sailer et al., 2021; Scherer et al., 2021). These contributions are invaluable, providing multi-faceted
insights into specific pedagogies, contextual challenges, and changes in teachers’ adoption of technology (Ertmer
& Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). However, as Kopcha et al. (2020) argue, the field is evolving beyond a focus
solely on the product (e.g., specific tools, discrete skills) towards understanding the process of technology
integration, emphasising pedagogical reasoning and adaptability. This shift necessitates examining how course
design fosters these deeper competencies. the COVID-19 pandemic has thrust teachers’ digital competencies
into the spotlight, revealing both strengths and critical gaps in preparedness, as evidenced by bibliometric
analyses of digital competency research (Gökdaş et al., 2024).
Despite this rich body of scholarship, critical limitations persist. Much of the existing research tends to focus on
specific aspects of EdTech course design or PST preparation – such as the effectiveness of a particular
pedagogical approach, the impact of a single tool, or the measurement of TPACK components (Kopcha et al.,
2020). While qualitative syntheses provide depth (e.g., Tondeur et al., 2012), and some domain-specific
bibliometric reviews exist (e.g., Boateng et al., 2024 on EdTech in Elementary Education; Mariappan et al., 2024
on technology in art education), there is a conspicuous lack of a comprehensive, quantitative mapping dedicated
explicitly to the overall research landscape concerning the design of EdTech courses specifically for PSTs.
Broader reviews, such as those by Boateng et al. (2024), offer valuable insights into EdTech trends but do not
focus on the unique context and design challenges of pre-service teacher preparation. Similarly, Mariappan et
al. (2024), while demonstrating the utility of bibliometric mapping in educational technology sub-fields, focus
on art education, rather than PST EdTech course design.
This gap presents several unanswered questions crucial for advancing the field systematically:
Limited understanding of temporal evolution in research volume, thematic focus, and impact of major events
(e.g., COVID-19, policy shifts) on EdTech course design.
Unclear identification of seminal influences: foundational works (beyond TPACK), high-impact
authors/journals/institutions, and landmark publications shaping theory/practice.
Insufficient synthesis of dominant and emergent themes (e.g., AI, gamification, equity) and their conceptual
interrelationships.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2467 www.rsisinternational.org
Incomplete analysis of geographical leadership (countries/institutions) and global collaboration patterns in
EdTech course design research.
Underexplored knowledge gaps in current research (e.g., assessment methods, instructor training, contextual
adaptability) despite understanding the field’s state.
Bibliometric analysis provides a comprehensive methodological approach to address these questions (Zupic &
Čater, 2015; Donthu et al., 2021). By applying quantitative and computational techniques to scholarly
publications, bibliometrics enables the mapping of a field’s intellectual structure, dynamics, and relationships.
It can identify core publications and authors, visualise collaborative networks, track the evolution of research
topics through keyword analysis and citation patterns, and reveal the underlying intellectual foundations. This
data-driven, macroscopic view surpasses the limitations of traditional narrative reviews by offering an objective
and systematic overview of the entire scholarly conversation (Donthu et al., 2021).
As shown in Table 1, bibliometric analysis has been widely applied to investigate research trends and patterns
in teacher education and digital competency development, particularly among PSTs. Wu Huihui et al. (2024),
Jiahong Su (2023), Ibrahim Gökdaş et al. (2024), Punithavili Mariappan et al. (2024), and Sheena Lovia Boateng
et al. (2024) has demonstrated this approach in their research, examining aspects such as author collaboration,
institutional involvement, keyword trends, citation networks, publication trends, and thematic clusters within
their specific EdTech domains and timeframes.
Therefore, this study conducts a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of the current research landscape of
EdTech course design for PSTs to address the identified gaps. Based on foundational frameworks, such as
TPACK (Mishra & Koehler, 2006), and using the rigorous methods of bibliometrics (Zupic & Čater, 2015;
Donthu et al., 2021), this analysis aims to systematically map the trends, key contributors, thematic clusters, and
potential gaps in this field. By providing this evidence-based overview, the study seeks to inform more strategic
and impactful future research agendas, guide teacher educators and program developers, and ultimately
contribute to designing EdTech courses that effectively empower the next generation of educators in an
increasingly digital world.
Table 1. Previous articles on EdTech Course Design for PSTs related studies and bibliometric analysis.
Author Objective Data Source &
Years Covered
TDE Bibliometric Attributes
Examined
Wu
Huihui et
al.
(2024)
Analyse research status,
hotspots, and trends of
pre-service teachers’
TPACK; compare
differences between WOS
and CNKI databases.
WOS Core
Collection & CNKI
2010–2022
875 •Top contributors
(authors/institutes)
• Most-cited studies
• Co-country/institution networks
• Keyword cluster mapping
• Time-zone evolution trends
• Annual publication distribution
Jiahong
Su
(2023)
Map global trends in pre-
service teachers’ TPACK
development; identify
productive sources/authors
and potential research
gaps.
Scopus
2007–2022
112 • Annual publication trends
•Journal/country/institution
productivity
• Funding agencies
• Author collaboration patterns
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2468 www.rsisinternational.org
•Keyword co-
occurrence/clustering
• Research area distribution
Ibrahim
Gökdaş
et al.
(2024)
Identify trends and
principal themes in
teachers’ digital
competencies; explore
COVID-19 impact using
bibliometrics and topic
modelling.
WOS Core
Collection & Scopus
1994–2024
3352 • Publication/citation trends
• Journal impact (h-index/g-index)
• Most-cited documents/authors
• Funding agencies
• LDA topic modelling (10
themes)
• Temporal topic evolution
Punithav
ili
Mariapp
an et al.
(2024)
To explore emerging
trends in technology and
art education using
bibliometric mapping
analysis
Scopus 2019-2023 29 •Annual publication trends (TP,
NCP, TC, C/P, C/CP, h-index, g-
index)
•Top contributing countries
•Top keywords (e.g., Educational
Computing, E-learning, Virtual
Reality)
•Research gaps (access,
pedagogy, technical issues,
assessment)
•Keyword visualisation
(VOSviewer)
Sheena
Lovia
Boateng
et al.
(2024)
To analyse the trajectory
of educational technology
in primary/elementary
Education via bibliometric
review
Scopus 1986–2023 293 • Annual growth trajectory
• Most impactful journals (h-
index, citations)
• Most impactful authors (h-index,
citations)
• Country/institutional
contributions
• Most cited articles
• Keyword analysis (frequency,
co-occurrence, thematic
evolution)
• Gender/disability focus
• Collaboration networks
*TDE: Total Documents Examined
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2469 www.rsisinternational.org
Research Questions
This study conducts a bibliometric mapping of scholarly work on EdTech course design in pre-service teacher
education, guided by the following six research questions:
RQ 1: What is the current status of research regarding the design of EdTech courses for PSTs?
RQ 2: What new or developing patterns are apparent in published works concerning the design of EdTech
courses for PSTs?
RQ 3: Which academic journals and publications are primary sources for foundational research on the design of
EdTech courses for PSTs?
RQ 4: Who are the leading contributors including - authors, institutions, and countries – in the research and
development of EdTech course design for PSTs?
RQ 5: Which highly influential papers have significantly shaped the theory, practice, and discourse around
EdTech course design for PSTs?
RQ 6: What are the central research themes and knowledge areas that form the scholarly foundation of EdTech
course design for PSTs?
This study employs bibliometric and network analysis to map the scholarly landscape of educational technology
course design for pre-service teachers (PSTs), directly addressing the six research questions posed. By
examining longitudinal publication trends (RQ1), identifying key publication venues (RQ2), recognising seminal
works and influential authors (RQ3), determining prolific countries/institutions (RQ4), analysing keyword
clusters and thematic foci (RQ5), and identifying significant research gaps (RQ6), it provides a structured
understanding of the domain’s evolution, current state, and future directions. The insights gained are crucial for
informing the development of more effective educational technology courses for PSTs, ensuring they align with
evolving technological and pedagogical standards. Ultimately, this analysis aims to delineate the complex realm
of PST-focused educational technology course design, setting a foundation for future innovation and enhanced
effectiveness in preparing teachers through technology integration.
METHODS
This study utilised Scopus database (data accessed 10 July 2025) to conduct a bibliometric analysis of the
literature on EdTech course design for PSTs. The selection of Scopus was a well-considered methodological
decision based on its reputation as one of the most extensive and detailed abstract and citation databases in peer-
reviewed research. The broad scope of Scopus covers a wide range of disciplines, social, scientific, medical, and
technical science, which is essential for this research of EdTech course design for PSTs. The dataset of Scopus
is broad and precise due to its comprehensive scope of computer science, social sciences, engineering, as well
as arts and humanities. Scopus’s stringent quality controls and wide geographical coverage has made it be an
appropriate tool for thorough bibliometric analysis. It can provide a diverse range of metadata, including citation
information and authors’ affiliations, which further reinforced its position as the primary source for this research
(Aghaei Chadegani et al., 2013). The collected data included document type, source type, languages, subject
fields, publication trends, the average number of authors per document, the publishing contributions of
institutions, the distribution of publications by country, and dominant keywords.
Search strategy
We adopted the modified PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., 2021) for conducting systematic research reviews.
The search string (("educational technolog*" OR "instructional technolog*" OR "edtech") AND ("pre-service
teacher*" OR "preservice teacher*" OR "teacher candidate*" OR "teacher education") AND ("course*" OR
"curriculum" OR "program*" OR "instruction*")) was entered into the Scopus advanced search engine. Scopus
subject filters were applied to refine the search. The scope of the research was defined by limiting the results to
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2470 www.rsisinternational.org
specific search fields, source types, and document types, thereby excluding irrelevant papers. This search yielded
920 documents (see Fig. 1).
Based on Figure 1, articles were screened through multiple stages to ensure that only relevant studies were
included in the final analysis. Out of the 920 documents initially identified in Scopus, 783 were flagged as
ineligible by automated tools prior to manual screening， as the database filters were configured to include only
studies within the Social Sciences subject area and open-access articles, while excluding Gold, Green, Bronze,
and Hybrid Gold access types. Subsequently, 137 articles underwent further scrutiny. Of these, seven (7) were
removed for not being academic articles or conference proceedings, and two (2) reports could not be retrieved
for evaluation. After a comprehensive eligibility assessment of the remaining 128 reports, 18 were excluded
based on the following criteria: non-English, not in the final publication stage, or Title and Abstract not related
to pre-service teachers who are none of educational technology or computer-related majors, or Title and Abstract
not related to EdTech Course.
To maintain data quality and relevance, the research meticulously applied systematic inclusion and exclusion
criteria. The inclusion criteria focused on publications explicitly related to EdTech course design for PSTs,
indexed in Scopus from 2020 to 2025, written in English, and utilising bibliometric, systematic, or empirical
approaches. On the other hand, the exclusion criteria removed non-educational studies, non-English documents,
non-peer-reviewed content, editorials, book chapters, duplicate records, and entries with incomplete metadata.
This structured approach ensures a comprehensive, transparent, and reliable bibliometric analysis of research in
the field of Educational Technology Course Design for Pre-Service Teachers. Following this strict screening
procedure, a final selection of 110 articles was included in the study, ensuring that only high-quality and relevant
research contributed to the analysis.
Records identified from*:
Scopus (n =920)
Registers (n = 920 )
Records removed before screening:
Duplicate records removed (n
=0 )
Records marked as ineligible by
automation tools (n = 783 )
Records removed for other
reasons (n = 0 )
Records screened
(n = 137 )
Records excluded**
By automation tools (n =7)
By Human (n=0)
*Not Article and Proceeding
*Title and Abstract not in Social
Science
Identification of studies via databases and registers
Id
e
n
ti
fi
c
a
ti
o
n
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2471 www.rsisinternational.org
Fig. 1 PRISMA steps
Data cleaning and harmonisation
Data cleaning and harmonisation play crucial roles in bibliometric analysis, which is essential for the accuracy
and reliability of the results. This research applied biblioMagika® and OpenRefine (Ahmi, 2023) to refine and
align bibliographic data, including author names, affiliations, keywords, and other key details. These tools were
very useful for achieving data precision and consistency, particularly given the diversity of research outputs and
the potential for dataset discrepancies. The download of Scopus data in CSV format was needed as the first step,
and then the selected files were targeted for cleaning. Specific columns, such as keywords, author names, and
affiliations, were chosen for amendments using various methods and functions provided by the clustering tools.
biblioMagika® was used for advanced bibliometric assessments. This tool supported analyses across key
metrics, including Total Publications (TP), Number of Contributing Authors (NCA), Number of Cited
Publications (NCP), Total Citations (TC), along with Citations per Publication (C/P), Citations per Cited
Publication (C/CP), Citations per Author (C/A). It also calculated ratios including Authors per Publication (A/P),
Citations per Year (C/Y), alongside indicators such as Citable Year, h-index, g-index, m-index, and Citation
Sum within the h-Core. These assessments were applied to various categories, such as years, source titles,
individual authors, institutions, and countries. Additionally, biblioMagika® helped identify missing data, and
Reports sought for retrieval
(n = 130)
Reports not retrieved
(n =2 )
Reports assessed for eligibility
(n = 128 )
Reports excluded:
Reason 1 (n = 8)
*Not in English
Reason 2 (n =5 )
*Not in final publication
stage
Reason 3 (n =5 )
* Title and bbstract not
related to pre-service
teachers who are none of
educational technology or
computer-related majors.
* Title and abstract not
related to EdTech course
Studies included in review
(n = 110)
Reports of included studies
(n = 110 )
S
c
re
e
n
in
g
In
c
lu
d
e
d
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2472 www.rsisinternational.org
allowed the researchers to manually fill in missing information for facilitating the data cleaning and
harmonisation process. By leveraging these specialized tools, the researchers ensured the integrity and reliability
of their analyses and findings. The cleaning and harmonisation processes enhanced the detail and clarity of the
research dataset, making it a comprehensive foundation for exploring the complex field of EdTech course design
for PSTs.
Data analysis
The data analysis was conducted to address the RQs. The authors mapped the current landscape of research on
EdTech course design for PSTs, focusing on aspects such as document type, source type, languages, subject
areas, and citation metrics. The authors presented the findings based on various criteria, including annual
publication volume, contributions from top authors and institutions, prominent countries, and influential source
titles. This approach helped identify the major contributors and current trends within the discipline. To
thoroughly evaluate the impact and significance of publications, the authors applied bibliometric indicators such
as Total Publications (TP), Number of Cited Papers (NCP), Total Citations (TC), Citations per Publication (C/P),
Citations per Cited Publication (C/CP), h-index, g-index, m-index, and Citation Sum within the h-Core.
Additionally, to explain the principal themes and concepts prevalent in this area, the authors applied techniques
such as co-occurrence network analysis, thematic mapping, and factor analysis to visualise the authors’
keywords. These visualisations enable us to identify clusters of related topics, reveal potential patterns, and
explore the connections among different research subfields.
Tools
The authors utilised several specialised tools, such as Microsoft Excel, biblioMagika®, OpenRefine, and
VOSviewer, to ensure a rigorous bibliometric analysis, each tool of them played its role in enhancing the data
accuracy and interpretability. Microsoft Excel was used for initial data cleaning and organisation, such as sorting
and structuring of the data from Scopus. Then biblioMagika® standardised the metadata, fixing inconsistencies
in author names, institutional affiliations, and country attributions. OpenRefine was used to harmonise authors’
keywords to ensure consistency in co-occurrence analysis. VOSviewer generated visualizations of bibliometric
networks, mapping trends in keywords, author collaborations, and citation relationships. In fact, these tools were
not used in a certain sequence but are selected specifically based on actual needs.
RESULTS
In this section, the authors will analyse the current research status of EdTech course design for PSTs. This
detailed analysis will address the Research Questions (RQs), to provide a detailed and insightful overview of the
domain and deliver valuable knowledge for scholars, practitioners, and policymakers.
Current Status of Research regarding the design of EdTech course for PSTs
In response to the initial RQ 1, which aims to map the current status of research in EdTech course design for
PSTs, the authors will evaluate various factors of the distribution of publications, including document type,
source type, languages, and subject areas. In addition, the authors will evaluate the overall citation metrics to
ascertain the impact and significance of these works in the field of EdTech course design for PSTs. Initially, the
collected data were categorized by document type, covering formats such as articles and conference papers. It is
noted that conference papers frequently disseminate research presented academic gatherings, with a portion
subsequently appearing in published proceedings.
Between the period from 2020 to 2025, the compiled data in the table 2 provides insights into substantial research
contributions in the field of EdTech course for PSTs based on the search string. Over a span of six active
publication years, a total of 110 publications were produced through collaboration among 338 contributing
authors. These efforts resulted in 93 cited papers, reflecting the academic relevance of the research. Collectively,
the body of work accumulated 1,294 citations, with an average of 11.76 citations per publication, thereby
illustrating its scholarly influence. The average citations per cited paper reached 13.91, signifying the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2473 www.rsisinternational.org
considerable impact of the referenced literature. With an annual citation rate of 258.80, this research maintains
consistent academic engagement.
At the individual level, the total number of citations per author was 3.83, while the average collaboration density
was 3.07 authors per paper. The citation sum within the h-core reached 1,134, highlighting the quality of high-
impact papers. The h-index of 17 and g-index of 33 further underscore the research’s sustained influence. At the
same time, the m-index of 2.833 indicates progressive growth in impact over time. Collectively, these metrics
demonstrate a prolific and influential research body that makes meaningful advances in its field.
Table 2. Citation Metric.
Main Information Data
Publication Years 2020 - 2025
Total Publications 110
Citable Year 6
Number of Contributing
Authors
338
Number of Cited Papers 93
Total Citations 1,294
Citation per Paper 11.76
Citation per Cited Paper 13.91
Citation per Year 258.80
Citation per Author 3.83
Author per Paper 3.07
Citation sum within h-Core 1,134
h-index 17
g-index 33
m-index 2.833
Publication trends
To address the second RQ, the authors initiated their analysis by tracking the publication growth trajectory of
educational technology course design for pre-service teachers. Research on educational technology course
design for pre-service teachers demonstrates significant growth, particularly since 2021, surging from 13
publications in 2020 to 23 in 2022 (Table 3, Fig. 2). Although a slight dip occurred in 2023 (21 publications),
momentum was maintained in 2024 (23 publications), indicating sustained scholarly interest.
Expanding Research Collaboration:
The steady rise in the Number of Contributing Authors (NCA)—from 41 (2020) to 78 (2024)—highlights
growing interdisciplinary collaboration. This trend underscores the integration of pedagogy, technology, and
instructional design expertise in developing teacher-training curricula.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2474 www.rsisinternational.org
Maturing Research Impact:
The h-index and g-index exhibit consistent growth (Table 3), indicating an increase in the field's academic
influence. However, recent declines in citation metrics (C/P and C/CP) suggest:
Early studies (2020–2022) garnered high citations (e.g., 2020: C/P = 28.85), establishing a foundational
knowledge base.
Newer publications (2023–2025) exhibit lower citation rates (C/P = 7.57 in 2023; 0.75 in 2025), likely due to
recency (2025 data is partial).
Focus on Innovation & Practical Application:
The peak in publications (2022–2024) aligns with post-pandemic emphasis on immersive tech integration (e.g.,
VR/AR). This trend reflects efforts to equip pre-service teachers with hands-on experience in emerging
educational technology (EdTech) tools.
Quality and Citation Dynamics:
Fluctuations in the m-index and a decline in C/CP (from 31.25 in 2020 to 1.50 in 2025) may indicate evolving
research priorities or a diversification of topics. This warrants a deeper analysis of citation practices and research
quality.
The field is rapidly expanding in volume, collaboration, and scholarly impact. Trends indicate an increasing
emphasis on collaborative, practice-oriented research that prepares educators for technology-enhanced
classrooms. However, monitoring citation dynamics and ensuring methodological rigor remain critical for
sustained growth.
Fig. 2 Total publications and citations by year (Publication data for 2025 is only up until 10 July 2025).
Table 3. Publication by year
Year TP NCA NCP TC C/P C/CP h-
index
g-
index
m-
index
2020 13 41 12 375 28.85 31.25 10 13 1.667
2021 22 59 21 342 15.55 16.29 9 18 1.800
2022 23 75 19 354 15.39 18.63 8 18 2.000
2023 21 62 20 159 7.57 7.95 7 12 2.333
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2475 www.rsisinternational.org
2024 23 78 17 58 2.52 3.41 4 6 2.000
2025 8 23 4 6 0.75 1.50 2 2 2.000
Grand
Total
110 338 93 1294 11.76 13.91 40 69 6.667
Notes: TP = total number of publications; NCA = number of contributing authors; NCP = number of cited
publications; TC = total citations; C/P = average citations per publication; C/CP = average citations per cited
publication; h = h-index; g = g-index; m = m-index.
* Publication data for 2025 is only up until 10 July 2025.
Publications by source titles
Fig. 3 and Table 4 identify the most productive scholarly sources that publish research on educational technology
course design for pre-service teachers, highlighting journals with two or more publications. Cogent Education
leads in productivity with a TP (Total Publications) of 6, reflecting its prominent role in disseminating
foundational research. It also demonstrates substantial academic influence with a TC (Total Citations) of 33 and
an h-index of 3. The International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning follows closely with five (5)
publications and the highest citation impact in its cohort (TC=38, C/P=7.60), underscoring its relevance for
innovative pedagogical approaches.
Education Sciences and Education and Information Technologies emerge as key contributors. While both focus
on teacher preparation frameworks, the latter exhibits a more substantial citation impact (TC = 37, C/P = 9.25)
compared to the former (TC = 16, C/P = 2.67). Sustainability (Switzerland), though publishing fewer documents
(TP=3), achieves high scholarly recognition with a TC of 56 and the highest C/P (18.67), indicating its influential
role in sustainable technology integration research.
Notably, the Australasian Journal of Educational Technology (h-index= 4) and Contemporary Educational
Technology (h-index = 3) demonstrate a consistent impact through rigorous scholarship. Newer sources such as
the Journal of Metaverse (C/CP = 12.00), show early traction in exploring immersive learning designs.
Comprehensive bibliometric indices (C/P, C/CP, h-index, g-index, m-index) collectively affirm where high-
impact research on pre-service teacher technology training is curated and cited. This analysis helps academia
and institutions navigate collaborations and publication avenues in the evolving field of educational technology
pedagogy.
Fig. 3. Top 20 Most Productive Source Titles.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2476 www.rsisinternational.org
Table 4. Most active source titles that have published two (2) or more documents.
Source Title TP NCA NCP TC C/P C/CP h g m
Cogent Education 6 21 6 33 5.50 5.50 3 5 0.750
World Journal on Educational
Technology: Current Issues
6 24 3 14 2.33 4.67 2 3 0.333
Education Sciences 6 22 4 16 2.67 4.00 2 4 0.400
International Journal of
Emerging Technologies in
Learning
5 28 5 38 7.60 7.60 3 5 0.500
Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology
5 9 5 126 25.20 25.20 4 5 0.667
Education and Information
Technologies
4 17 4 37 9.25 9.25 3 4 1.000
Contemporary Educational
Technology
4 11 4 34 8.50 8.50 3 4 0.750
Computers and Education Open 4 14 3 16 4.00 5.33 2 4 0.500
Sustainability (Switzerland) 3 7 3 56 18.67 18.67 2 3 0.400
Hacettepe Egitim Dergisi 3 6 3 11 3.67 3.67 2 3 0.500
Journal of Higher Education
Theory and Practice
3 6 2 7 2.33 3.50 2 2 0.333
Participatory Educational
Research
3 6 2 24 8.00 12.00 2 3 0.333
TechTrends 3 5 3 27 9.00 9.00 3 3 0.600
Frontiers in Education 2 7 2 24 12.00 12.00 1 2 0.200
Cypriot Journal of Educational
Sciences
2 12 1 1 0.50 1.00 1 1 0.250
International Journal of
Educational Technology in
Higher Education
2 3 2 23 11.50 11.50 2 2 0.500
Technology, Pedagogy and
Education
2 3 2 18 9.00 9.00 1 2 0.167
International Journal of
Evaluation and Research in
Education
2 9 1 12 6.00 12.00 1 2 0.200
Notes: TP=total number of publications; NCA=number of contributing authors; NCP=number of cited
publications; TC=total citations; C/P=average citations per publication; C/CP=average citations per cited
publication; h=h-index; g=g-index; m=m-index.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2477 www.rsisinternational.org
Highly cited documents
In addressing RQ5 “What landmark papers have significantly shaped the theory, practice, and discourse around
designing educational technology courses for pre-service teachers?”, Table 5 identifies the top 10 highly cited
articles that have profoundly influenced this domain. These publications represent foundational works that have
redirected academic discourse and pedagogical approaches in teacher preparation.
The paper by Nazaretsky et al. (2022) is the most cited work with 231 citations, explored how teachers trust AI-
powered educational technology. and developed professional development frameworks to build that trust. Their
work has reshaped discourse on technology acceptance in teacher education, highlighting the critical role of
psychological readiness and technological skills.
The second most influential paper by Backfisch et al. (2020) is cited 131 times, they investigated whether
professional knowledge or motivation more significantly influenced pre-service teachers’ ability to design
technology-enhanced lesson plans. Its findings have stimulated the revision of curriculum design to balance
pedagogical knowledge (PK) with motivational scaffolding.
The paper by Bereczki and Kárpáti (2021) with 118 citations, ranks third, the authors conducted a study on how
technology enhances creativity through case studies of expert teachers. Their study demonstrates how digital
tools can transform creative pedagogy and directly influence the curriculum design of pre-service teachers.
Overall, these articles, as well as the others in Table 5, reveal three main themes that influence EdTech courses.
The first theme is the integration of trust and artificial intelligence, as emphasized by Nazaretsky et al. on
psychological disorders. The second one is the interaction between knowledge and motivation. Backfisch et al.
have provided evidence for training that focuses on these two aspects. The third theme is creative practices
related to technology, such as the digital creative model proposed by Bereczki and Karpati.
Citation metrics (TC and C/Y) highlight their impact, particularly the paper by Nazaretsky et al. has counted
57.75 citations per year, reflecting the urgent academic involvement of AI in teacher development. This
bibliometric analysis emphasizes how landmark papers have shifted curricular priorities toward human-centred
technology adoption, evidence-informed motivation strategies, and creative digital pedagogies in pre-service
teacher education.
Table 5. Top 10 highly cited articles.
No. Author(s) Title Source Title TC C/Y
1 Nazaretsky T.,
et al. (2022)
Teachers’ trust in AI-powered educational
technology and a professional
development program to improve it
British Journal of
Educational
Technology
231 57.75
2 Backfisch I., et
al. (2020)
Professional knowledge or motivation?
Investigating the role of teachers’
expertise on the quality of technology-
enhanced lesson plans
Learning and
Instruction
131 21.83
3 Bereczki E.O.;
Kárpáti A.
(2021)
Technology-enhanced creativity: A
multiple case study of digital technology-
integration expert teachers’ beliefs and
practices
Thinking Skills
and Creativity
118 23.60
4 Ledger S.;
Fischetti J.
(2020)
Micro-teaching 2.0: Technology as the
classroom
Australasian
Journal of
Educational
Technology
72 12.00
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2478 www.rsisinternational.org
5 García-
Vandewalle
García J.M., et
al. (2023)
Analysis of digital competence of
educators (DigCompEdu) in teacher
trainees: the context of Melilla, Spain
Technology,
Knowledge and
Learning
48 16.00
6 Zhao L.; Liu
X.; Su Y.-S.
(2021)
The differentiate effect of self-efficacy,
motivation, and satisfaction on pre-service
teacher students’ learning achievement in
a flipped classroom: A case of a modern
educational technology course
Sustainability
(Switzerland)
39 7.80
7 Saubern R., et
al. (2020)
Describing increasing proficiency in
teachers’ knowledge of the effective use of
digital technology
Computers and
Education
39 6.50
8 Garcia-Esteban
S.; Villarreal I.;
Bueno-
Alastuey M.C.
(2021)
The effect of telecollaboration in the
development of the Learning to Learn
competence in CLIL teacher training
Interactive
Learning
Environments
26 5.20
9 Kobayashi M.
(2020)
Does anonymity matter? Examining
quality of online peer assessment and
students’ attitudes
Australasian
Journal of
Educational
Technology
26 4.33
10 Starčič A.I.;
Lebeničnik M.
(2020)
Investigation of university students’
perceptions of their educators as role
models and designers of digitalised
curricula
Human
Technology
25 4.17
Notes: TC = Total Citations: C/Y = Average Citations by Year
Publications by authors
Table 6 identifies the most prolific scholars (≥2 publications) in educational technology course design for pre-
service teachers, analysed through bibliometric indicators. The research landscape is dominated by:
Lachner, Andreas (University of Tübingen, Germany): Co-leading in total citations (TC=133) with colleague
Backfisch, Iris, reflecting influential work on technology integration in teacher education.
Kulaksiz, Taibe (Heidelberg University of Education, Germany): Highest productivity (TP=3) and strongest
sustained impact (m-index=0.750), signalling consistent contributions to pedagogical frameworks for EdTech
courses.
Institutional and Pedagogical Insights
German Research Hub:
University of Tübingen researchers (Lachner, Backfisch) dominate in citation impact (C/P = 44.33–66.50),
suggesting rigorous studies on pre-service teacher competency development.
Kulaksiz’s work exemplifies high knowledge transfer (h-index = 3), likely addressing practical implementation
challenges.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2479 www.rsisinternational.org
Spanish Pedagogical Innovation Cluster (University of Granada):
Four authors (García-Vandewalle, García-Carmona, Trujillo Torres, Moya Fernández) share identical high-
impact metrics (TC = 62, C/P = 31.00, m = 0.500), indicating collaborative studies on structured EdTech
curricula or assessment models.
Emerging International Scholarship:
Phillips, Michael (Australia): Focus on critical digital pedagogy (TC = 44, C/P = 22.00).
Atabek, Oguzhan (Turkey) and Anas Thohir, M. (Indonesia): Exploring culturally responsive course designs
(C/CP = 11.00 - 12.00).
Bibliometric Implications for Teacher Education
High-impact works (e.g., Backfisch’s C/P=66.50) likely address core challenges:
Technology integration in practicum settings
Scaffolding digital literacy for pre-service teachers
Moderate m-indices (e.g., Kulaksiz: 0.750; García-Carmona: 0.500) denote accelerating scholarly influence in
this emerging niche.
Lower citation rates (e.g., Eren: TC = 8) may represent innovative but nascent frameworks that are awaiting
broader validation.
This analysis maps the active research fronts in pre-service EdTech course design, revealing a German-Spanish
dominance in high-impact studies and growing contributions from the Asia-Pacific region. Institutional
collaboration (e.g., Granada) appears vital for scalability.
Table 6. Most productive authors who published more than two (2) documents.
Full Name Current
Affiliation
Country TP NCP TC C/P C/CP h g m
Lachner, Andreas University of
Tübingen
Germany 3 2 133 44.33 66.50 2 3 0.333
Kulaksız, Taibe Heidelberg
University of
Education
Germany 3 3 27 9.00 9.00 3 3 0.750
Backfisch, Iris University of
Tübingen
Germany 2 2 133 66.50 66.50 2 2 0.333
Phillips, Michael Monash
University
Australia 2 2 44 22.00 22.00 2 2 0.333
Atabek, Oguzhan Akdeniz
University
Turkey 2 1 11 5.50 11.00 1 2 0.167
García, José
Manuel García-
Vandewalle
University of
Granada
Spain 2 2 62 31.00 31.00 2 2 0.500
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2480 www.rsisinternational.org
Istenic, Andreja University of
Primorska
Slovenia 2 2 23 11.50 11.50 1 2 0.200
Rosanda, Violeta State High School Italy 2 2 23 11.50 11.50 1 2 0.200
McGarr, Oliver University of
Limerick
Ireland 2 2 18 9.00 9.00 1 2 0.167
García-Carmona,
Marina
University of
Granada
Spain 2 2 62 31.00 31.00 2 2 0.500
Anas Thohir, M. Universitas Negeri
Malang
Indonesia 2 1 12 6.00 12.00 1 2 0.200
Torres, Juan
Manuel Trujillo
University of
Granada
Spain 2 2 62 31.00 31.00 2 2 0.500
Moya Fernández,
Pablo
University of
Granada
Spain 2 2 62 31.00 31.00 2 2 0.500
Eren, Esra Eskisehir
Osmangazi
University
Turkey 2 2 8 4.00 4.00 2 2 0.500
Notes: TP = total number of publications; NCP = number of cited publications; TC = total citations; C/P =
average citations per publication; C/CP = average citations per cited publication; h = h-index; g = g-index; m =
index.
Publications by institutions
Table 7 highlights institutional research productivity in educational technology course design for pre-service
teachers, featuring institutions with at least three publications. The University of Tübingen (Germany)
demonstrates significant scholarly impact with a TP of 13 and an exceptionally high TC of 133, yielding a C/P
of 44.33 and C/CP of 66.50 – the highest citation efficiency in the dataset.
The University of Granada (Spain) achieves the highest h-index (3) and g-index (3) among institutions with three
(3) publications, coupled with a robust TC of 69 and C/P of 23.00. Similarly, Heidelberg University of Education
(Turkey) stands out with a perfect h-index/g-index (3/3) and a high C/P of 9.00 from 3 publications.
Other notable contributors include:
University of Primorska (Slovenia): High TC (48) and C/P (16.00) despite a modest TP (3).
Universitas Negeri Malang (Indonesia): Strong citation impact (C/CP = 8.50) with TC of 17.
L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University (Kazakhstan): Moderate output (TP=3, TC=10) with an h-index of
2.
Institutions such as Abai Kazakh National Pedagogical University (h-index=0) and Near East University (h-
index=1) reflect emerging engagement, albeit with limited current citation impact.
Collectively, these institutions reveal a geographically diverse research landscape advancing pre-service teacher
technology education. Metrics like C/CP (citations per cited publication) and g-index underscore variations in
research influence, with European institutions leading in citation efficiency.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2481 www.rsisinternational.org
Table 7. Most productive institutions with a minimum of three (3) publications.
Institution Name Country TP NCA NCP TC C/P C/CP h g m
Abai Kazakh National
Pedagogical University
Kazakhstan 4 5 1 1 0.25 1.00 1 1 0.200
Heidelberg University of
Education
Turkey 3 3 3 27 9.00 9.00 3 3 0.750
L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian
National University
Kazakhstan 3 5 2 10 3.33 5.00 2 3 0.333
Universitas Negeri Malang Indonesia 3 4 2 17 5.67 8.50 2 3 0.400
University of Granada Spain 3 10 3 69 23.00 23.00 3 3 0.750
University of Tübingen Germany 3 13 2 133 44.33 66.50 2 3 0.333
Near East University Cyprus 3 4 3 4 1.33 1.33 1 2 0.167
University of Primorska Slovenia 3 4 3 48 16.00 16.00 2 3 0.333
Kazan Federal University Russian
Federation
3 4 3 16 5.33 5.33 1 3 0.167
Notes: TP = total number of publications; NCP = number of cited publications; TC = total citations; C/P =
average citations per publication; C/CP = average citations per cited publication; h = h-index; g = g-index; m =
index.
Publications by countries
Table 8 (below) summarises the research output of countries contributing three or more publications in the
domain of educational technology course design for pre-service teachers, based on bibliometric data analysis.
Turkey leads in publication volume (TP = 23), though its citation impact (C/P = 5.22) is moderate. The United
States follows with 16 publications and a more substantial influence (TC = 154; C/P = 9.63), alongside a high
h-index of 7. Spain stands out with exceptional citation metrics, achieving the highest C/P (13.09) and C/CP
(14.40) among major contributors, despite having only 11 publications.
The United Kingdom, despite having only three publications, dominates in total citations (242) with an
extraordinary C/P ratio of 80.67. Australia’s eight publications yield a high C/P of 17.25, while Germany's six
publications generate the highest number of citations (TC = 166) and the highest C/P (27.67) in the dataset.
Slovenia similarly shows a high per-publication impact (C/P: 16.00) with three (3) publications.
Countries like Kazakhstan (TP = 10) and Indonesia (TP = 4) contribute volume but exhibit lower citation traction
(C/P: 1.80 and 5.00, respectively). Metrics such as the h-index (measuring productivity and citation impact), g-
index (weighting highly cited papers), and m-index (normalising h-index by time) reveal scholarly influence and
collaboration patterns. For example, Kazakhstan’s high NCA (51 authors for 10 publications) suggests extensive
collaboration. Figure 4 visually maps the global distribution of research in this field.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2482 www.rsisinternational.org
Fig. 4. Visualisation of Global Distribution of Research Publications
Table 8. Countries that contributed three (3) or more publications.
Country TP NCA NCP TC C/P C/CP h g m
Turkey 23 47 19 120 5.22 6.32 6 10 1.000
United States 16 34 15 154 9.63 10.27 7 12 1.167
Spain 11 34 10 144 13.09 14.40 7 11 1.400
Kazakhstan 10 51 7 18 1.80 2.57 2 4 0.333
Australia 8 18 7 138 17.25 19.71 5 8 0.833
Germany 6 21 5 166 27.67 33.20 4 6 0.667
Italy 4 6 4 15 3.75 3.75 2 3 0.500
Indonesia 4 16 3 20 5.00 6.67 3 4 0.600
Russian
Federation
4 14 4 29 7.25 7.25 2 4 0.333
United
Kingdom
3 3 3 242 80.67 80.67 2 3 0.500
Canada 3 5 3 4 1.33 1.33 1 2 0.200
Slovenia 3 7 3 48 16.00 16.00 2 3 0.333
Notes: TP = total number of publications; NCP = number of cited publications; TC = total citations; C/P =
average citations per publication; C/CP = average citations per cited publication; h = h-index; g = g-index; m =
index
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2483 www.rsisinternational.org
Co-occurrence analysis
The final RQ is, “What are the pivotal research themes and knowledge domains underpinning the scholarship
on educational technology course design for pre-service teachers?”. To answer this RQ, the co-occurrence
network (Fig. 5) maps author keywords with at least four occurrences, revealing pivotal research themes in
educational technology course design for pre-service teachers. This analysis identifies interconnected clusters
that reflect current scholarly priorities, technological integrations, and pedagogical approaches shaping the field
of teacher education.
Fig. 5. Co-occurrence network of the author’s keywords with at least four occurrences.
Cluster 1: Teacher Education Core
(Keywords: initial teacher education, teachers & teacher education, pre-service teachers, teaching education)
This central cluster underscores the foundational focus on teacher preparation. Keywords like "pre-service
teachers" and "initial teacher education" dominate, highlighting research dedicated to equipping future educators
with essential competencies. The strong linkage between "teachers & teacher education" and "teaching
education" reinforces iterative professional development frameworks. This cluster anchors the network,
signifying that pedagogical training remains the bedrock of educational technology integration.
Cluster 2: Technology Integration in Learning Environments
(Keywords: educational technology, technology integration, online learning, digital storytelling, digital literacy)
Adjacent to the teacher education core, this cluster reveals robust connections between technological tools and
instructional delivery. "Technology integration" and "educational technology" co-occur with "online learning",
reflecting post-pandemic shifts toward hybrid/digital classrooms. "Digital storytelling" and "digital literacy"
further demonstrate evolving pedagogies that leverage immersive, narrative-driven tools to enhance engagement.
This synergy highlights efforts to bridge technical skills with creative teaching methodologies.
Cluster 3: Institutional Contexts and Design Frameworks
(Keywords: higher Education, instructional-design, professional knowledge, expertise research)
Positioned at the network’s periphery, this cluster links systemic structures to curricular design. "Higher
education" is closely tied to "instructional design", indicating research on optimising course architecture within
universities. Meanwhile, "professional knowledge" and "expertise research" intersect with design principles,
stressing evidence-based strategies to cultivate pedagogical expertise. This theme addresses scalability
challenges in institutional adoption of technology-enhanced curricula.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2484 www.rsisinternational.org
Cross-Cluster Synergies and Implications
Technology-Pedagogy Nexus: "Instructional-design" bridges Clusters 2 and 3, illustrating how digital tools
(e.g., digital storytelling) are systematically embedded in teacher training programs.
Equity and Access: The prominence of "online learning" raises questions about resource disparities, echoing
concerns in the broader XR/AI literature regarding infrastructure barriers for marginalised educators.
Future Directions: The new connection with "digital literacy" and "professional knowledge" marks a shift
towards a framework of key digital capabilities. However, ethical considerations, such as data privacy in online
practicums and balancing virtual and face-to-face training, require further study.
This co-occurrence network identifies three interdependent pillars in EdTech for PSTs, the pedagogical
foundations (teacher identity development), the technological fluency (tools and literacy), and the system design
(curriculum scalability). The analysis underscores a transformative trajectory: technology is no longer ancillary
but central to reimagining teacher education. Future research must address the issue of digital equity while
ensuring that immersive tools, such as simulations and AI-driven platforms, complement human-centered
pedagogy. As these clusters evolve, they will continue to shape resilient, adaptive frameworks for preparing
educators in a digitally mediated world.
DISCUSSION
Through bibliometric analysis, we map trends in Educational Technology (EdTech) course design for pre-service
teachers (PSTs). Our findings indicate a significant expansion in scholarly output since 2020, driven by global
collaboration among institutions in Germany, Spain, Turkey, the United States, and Australia. This growth
highlights the escalating recognition of technology’s transformative role in teacher preparation, particularly post-
COVID-19, in which intensified focus on digital competencies and immersive learning tools (García-
Vandewalle García et al., 2023; Nazaretsky et al., 2022). Although the samples covered major databases, non-
English literature was not included, which may affect the universality of the conclusion. Additionally, the
temporal scope of the analysis (2020-2025), while capturing the most recent trends, necessarily excludes earlier
seminal work that shaped the foundational trajectory of the field. A longitudinal comparison including pre-2020
research would be valuable to fully contextualize post-pandemic transformations. And the reliance on the Scopus
database, though comprehensive, may have resulted in the omission of relevant studies from regions or journals
not covered by it.
The co-occurrence analysis identified three dominant thematic clusters. 1) Teacher Education Core (e.g., "pre-
service teachers," "initial teacher education"), emphasising foundational pedagogical training. 2)Technology
Integration (e.g., "educational technology," "digital literacy"), highlighting strategies to bridge technical skills
with classroom application. 3) Institutional Design Frameworks (e.g., "higher education," "instructional-
design"), addressing the issues of system scalability and evidence-based curriculum development. These clusters
illustrate the development of the field from technological proficiency to holistic pedagogical reasoning, which
is consistent with the emphasis of the TPACK framework on the integration of contextualized knowledge
(Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Scherer et al., 2021). A large number of cited studies have further confirmed this
transformation. Nazaretsky et al. (2022) have believed that trust in AI is a key factor in its adoption, while
Backfisch et al. (2020) have demonstrated the interaction between professional knowledge and motivation in
designing technology-enhanced courses. Bereczki and Karpati (2021) have emphasized the role of creative
digital pedagogy, urging the curriculum to cultivate innovation beyond the mastery of tools.
Although these clusters reflect the intellectual structure, the key interpretation of the bibliometric data reveals
potential dynamics and gaps. The dominance of countries such as Germany, Spain and the United States in
research output (as shown in Table 8) can be attributed to the combined effect of various factors, including strong
national research funding, established policy priorities in digital education, and the presence of influential
research institutions that set the academic agenda. This geographic concentration may create a hegemonic
discourse in EdTech course design, potentially marginalizing context-specific challenges and solutions from
developing regions. Furthermore, the discussion around emerging technologies like AI and VR in the literature
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2485 www.rsisinternational.org
often remains descriptively optimistic, focusing on their potential rather than critically examining their
pedagogical necessity, ethical implications, or the practical challenges of implementation at scale. For instance,
while AI promises personalized learning, its integration requires a critical discussion of data privacy, algorithmic
bias, and the risk of de-professionalizing teachers by outsourcing pedagogical decisions.
Despite these advancements, three key challenges still exist. Firstly, the gap between theory and practice remains
prominent. EdTech courses often fail to integrate theoretical frameworks such as TPACK into real classroom
practice (Tondeur et al., 2017). Secondly, the disparity in institutional resources has widened the gap between
equity and access. For instance, the high-impact research in Germany contrasts with the emerging contributions
of Kazakhstan and Indonesia, which may widen the digital gap (Kimmons et al., 2020). Thirdly, it is difficult
for courses to keep up with the rapid pace of technological development, especially with tools like AI and virtual
platforms (Kopcha et al., 2020).
Emerging trends also bring many opportunities for innovating EdTech course design. First, AI integration:
personalised learning pathways and AI-driven mentorship models (e.g., Nazaretsky et al., 2022) could enhance
adaptive instruction, but such applications require ethical guarantee measures for data privacy. Secondly, in the
field of immersive technology, such as VR/AR applications (e.g., Journal of Metaverse), provide experiential
practical environments for learners; however, the high cost has become a major obstacle to its wide
popularization (García-Vandewalle García et al., 2023). Thirdly, in the cultivation of key digital citizenship
literacy, the critical assessment of tools and the integration of ethical digital practices remain relatively weak.
(Tondeur et al., 2018).
Implications for Course Design and Teacher Education
The findings of this bibliometric review, particularly the identified thematic clusters and influential studies, have
had specific impacts on curriculum designers and teacher educators. To translate these insights into practice,
there is a need to make changes to the content and delivery methods of EdTech courses for pre-service teachers.
The first implication is from tool literacy to pedagogical reasoning. Course objectives should be reframed to
develop strong pedagogical reasoning with technology, rather than focusing exclusively on technological skills.
This can be achieved by embedding the use of digital tools within authentic, content-specific teaching tasks. For
example, PSTs might be tasked with using VR to create immersive historical simulations, thereby
contextualizing technological knowledge within specific pedagogical and content domains.
To support this shift, course design can benefit from adopting a cross-framework approach that moves beyond a
sole reliance on TPACK. Integrating insights from complementary models can create a more dynamic and
actionable curriculum. Learning outcomes can be aligned with the detailed, competency-based descriptors of the
DigCompEdu framework, while the SAMR model can be used as a self-evaluation tool for PSTs to critique and
redesign their lesson plans, pushing them towards transformative uses of technology.
Concurrently, the rising influence of AI demands dedicated curriculum components on AI ethics in education.
PSTs must learn to critically evaluate AI-powered tools, understand data privacy issues, and mitigate algorithmic
bias to ensure equitable learning experiences. This directly addresses the ethical and equitable design
frameworks highlighted as a strength of the field.
Finally, a critical step in bridging the theory-practice gap involves the translation of high-impact research
findings into practical guidelines. For instance, the work on teacher trust in AI (Nazaretsky et al., 2022) can be
applied to classroom activities on evaluating AI-powered educational tools, while research on technology-
enhanced creativity (Bereczki & Kárpáti, 2021) can directly inform the design of assignments that use digital
storytelling for critical expression and student engagement.
Implications for Stakeholders：
Educators should prioritize pedagogical reasoning over tool-oriented training, and cultivate the adaptability for
integrating technologies by leveraging design thinking models (Kopcha et al., 2020). Institutions need to increase
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2486 www.rsisinternational.org
investment in teacher development programs and promote cross-institutional cooperation, such as the research
network model of the University of Granada in Spain, to promote replicable EdTech practices globally. For
policymakers, key initiatives include increasing funding for digital infrastructure development in
underdeveloped regions and establishing ethical norms for emerging technologies like AI and XR in teacher
education to ensure equitable implementation (UNESCO, 2023).
Future Research Directions:
Three priority areas demand scholarly attention to promote the innovative development of teacher education.
Firstly, there should be longitudinal studies on how pre-service teachers integrate technology in various
internship settings. Such research will effectively bridge the gap between theory and classroom practice,
providing empirical support for improving teacher training models. Secondly, it is necessary to develop AI
ethical norms specifically tailored to the teacher education. This is crucial for addressing data privacy issues.
Thirdly, it is necessary to develop immersive modelling tools that are both cost-effective and practical, such as
VR and AR, such tools should be mainly provided to educational institutions with limited resources. This will
ensure the equitable and effective application of advanced teaching tools, thereby promoting the balanced
development of education.
CONCLUSION
This bibliometric analysis provides a detailed overview of research trends and landscape on EdTech course design
for PSTs, highlighting its transformative potential and challenges. The research adopts the co-occurrence network
analysis method to draw the topic clustering map. Through this analysis, it identifies three core elements that are
key to preparing pre-service teachers for digital teaching environments. The first is the teaching foundation, such
as teacher identity development and TPACK integration. The second is technological literacy, such as developing
digital literacy and using AI tools. The third is institutional design, involving systemic support measures, such as
creating scalable curricula and establishing collaborative frameworks (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Tondeur et al.,
2018). These elements support each other. They not only enhance the ability of pre-service teachers to connect
theory with practice, but also promote their flexible application of technology and innovative practice in diverse
K-12 settings (Kopcha et al., 2020).
However, there are still several key shortcomings in this field that need to be addressed urgently. the disconnection
between theory and practice still exists. For instance, it is often difficult to effectively transform theoretical
frameworks such as TPACK into teaching practices in real classrooms for course design, which directly limits the
ability of PSTs to deal with actual teaching challenges (Polly et al., 2010; Tondeur et al., 2012). Additionally, the
imbalance in the distribution of institutional resources is significant, for example, in the global distribution of high-
impact research, there is a notable gap between countries like Germany and Spain and emerging contributing
countries such as Kazakhstan and Indonesia, this imbalance may further widen the digital education gap (Kimmons
et al., 2020). At the same time, the rapid iteration of technologies such as AI and immersive platforms has
continuously reduced the curricular relevance, this requires the curriculum system to be continuously updated and
optimized to avoid losing practical value due to outdated content (Nazaretsky et al., 2022).
Emerging trends are showing us a landscape that the frontiers of education are full of hope but complex. Although
the deep integration of AI provides learners with highly personalised learning paths and mentorship models, it has
also raised ethical concerns about data privacy and the risk of algorithmic bias (Nazaretsky et al., 2022). Immersive
technologies, such as VR and AR, have successfully created immersive practical experience environments,
transforming abstract knowledge into perceivable and operable concrete practices. However, the high cost of
equipment and infrastructure requirements have led to significant accessibility barriers in their popularization
(García-Vandewalle García et al., 2023). Meanwhile, the cultivation of ethical tool evaluation and inclusive
practices for critical digital citizenship is still underdeveloped in existing curriculum systems, despite it is urgent
in countering misinformation and inequity (Tondeur et al., 2018).
To promote the design of EdTech courses, stakeholders should prioritize teaching adaptability rather than tool-
centric training, such as cultivating PSTs’ critical reasoning skills through design-thinking models (Kopcha et al.,
2020). At the same time, digital equity gaps require targeted solutions, such as cross-institutional collaborations
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2487 www.rsisinternational.org
and funding for underrepresented regions, to help bridge resource disparities (UNESCO, 2023). And we also need
to concern the ethical frameworks for emerging technologies, it must be deeply integrated into the curriculum
system, to ensure that the application of AI and immersive tools is always aligned with the core goal of people-
oriented education.
From this bibliometric review on Edtech course design for PSTs, future research and practice should focus on the
following three core directions. The first one is conducting longitudinal studies on technology integration in
teaching environment for PSTs; the second one is developing cost-effective simulations for resource-constrained
educational institutions; the third one is formulating systematic AI ethical guidelines specifically for the field of
teacher education. With placing equity, ethics and adaptability at the same position as educational technology in
Edtech course design for PSTs, EdTech courses can truly empower the educators, enabling them to master and
shape the digital future of teaching and learning.
Acknowledgements: The authors would like to acknowledge the databases support from UTM library and
technique support from the workshop by Dr. Mohd Fadzil Abdul Hanid.
Conflict of interest: The authors confirm that there is no conflict of interest involve with any parties in this
research study.
REFERENCES
1. Aghaei Chadegani, A., Salehi, H., Md Yunus, M. M., Farhadi, H., Fooladi, M., Farhadi, M., & Ale
Ebrahim, N. (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
2. Ahmi, A. (2023). biblioMagika. https://aidi-ahmi.com/index.php/bibliomagika
3. Backfisch, I., Lachner, A., Hische, C., Loose, F., Scheiter, K. (2020). Professional knowledge or
motivation? Investigating the role of teachers’ expertise on the quality of technology-enhanced lesson
plans. Learning and Instruction, 66, 101300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101300
4. Bereczki, E. O., & Kárpáti, A. (2021). Technology-enhanced creativity: A multiple case study of digital
technology-integration expert teachers’ beliefs and practices. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 39,100791.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100791
5. Boateng, S. L., Penu, O. K. A., Boateng, R., Budu, J., Marfo, J. S., & Asamoah, P. (2024). Educational
technologies and elementary level education – A bibliometric review of Scopus indexed journal articles
[Review]. Heliyon, *10*(7), Article e28101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28101
6. Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international
practice? European Journal of Teacher Education, *40*(3), 291-309.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1315399
7. 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
8. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge,
confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, *42*(3), 255-
284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
9. García-Vandewalle García, J. M., et al. (2023). Analysis of digital competence of educators
(DigCompEdu) in teacher trainees. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 28:585–612.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09546-x
10. Gökdaş, İ., Karacaoğlu, Ö. C., & Özkaya, A. (2024). COVID-19 and teachers’ digital competencies: a
comprehensive bibliometric and topic modeling analysis [Review]. Humanities and Social Sciences
Communications, *11*(1), Article 1740. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04335-0
11. Howard, S. K., Tondeur, J., Siddiq, F., & Scherer, R. (2021). Ready, set, go! Profiling teachers’ readiness
for online teaching in secondary education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, *30*(1), 141–158.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1839543
12. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2017). ISTE standards for educators. ISTE.
https://www.iste.org/standards/iste-standards-for-teachers
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2488 www.rsisinternational.org
13. Kimmons, R., Graham, C. R., & West, R. E. (2020). The PICRAT model for technology integration in
teacher preparation. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, *20*(1), 176-198.
https://citejournal.org/volume-20/issue-1-20/general/the-picrat-model-for-technology-integration-in-
teacher-preparation
14. Kopcha, T. J., Neumann, K. L., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & Pitman, E. (2020). Process over product: The
next evolution of our quest for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and
Development, *68*(2), 729-749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09735-y
15. Mariappan, P., Khairani, M. Z., Mohd, N., Chanthiran, M., & Cubalit, A. N. (2024). Uncovering
Emerging Trends in Technology and Art Education: A Bibliometric Mapping Analysis [Article]. Journal
of Advanced Research in Applied Sciences and Engineering Technology, *41*(1), 64–75.
https://doi.org/10.37934/araset.41.1.6475
16. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for
teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, *108*(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9620.2006.00684.x
17. Mouza, C., Karchmer-Klein, R., Nandakumar, R., Yilmaz Ozden, S., & Hu, L. (2014). Investigating the
impact of an integrated approach to the development of preservice teachers’ technological pedagogical
content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, *71*, 206–221.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.020
18. Nazaretsky, T., et al. (2022). Teachers’ trust in AI-powered educational technology. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 53(5), 231.
19. Page, M. J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L.,
Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A.,
Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., Mcdonald, S., … Mckenzie, J. E. (2021). PRISMA
2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews.
The BMJ, 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160
20. Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C. E., & Inan, F. (2010). Evidence of impact: Transforming teacher
education with preparing tomorrow’s teachers to teach with technology (PT3) grants. Teaching and
Teacher Education, *26*(4), 863–870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.024
21. Puentedura, R. R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education. [Blog post]. Hippasus.
http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/
22. Redecker, C. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu. (Y.
Punie, Ed.). Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/159770
23. Sailer, M., Murböck, J., & Fischer, F. (2021). Digital learning in schools: What does it take beyond
digital technology? Teaching and Teacher Education, *103*, 103346.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103346
24. Scherer, R., Tondeur, J., & Siddiq, F. (2021). On the quest for validity: Testing the factor structure and
measurement invariance of the technology-dimensions in the Technological, Pedagogical, and Content
Knowledge (TPACK) model. Computers & Education, *167*, 104184.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104184
25. Su, J. (2023). Preservice teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge development: A
bibliometric review [Short survey]. Frontiers in Education, *7*, Article 1033895.
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1033895
26. Tondeur, J., Aesaert, K., Prestridge, S., & Consuegra, E. (2018). A multilevel analysis of what matters
in the training of pre-service teacher’s ICT competencies. Computers & Education, 122, 32-42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.002
27. Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Preparing
pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers
& Education, *59*(1), 134-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.009
28. UNESCO. (2023). Global education monitoring report 2023: Technology in education: A tool on whose
terms? UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000385723
29. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical
content knowledge – a review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, *29*(2), 109-
121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00487.x
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2489 www.rsisinternational.org
30. Wu, H., Balakrishnan, V., & Cai, X. (2024). Bibliometric Analysis on Pre-service Teachers’ TPACK: A
Comparative Research between Web of Science and China National Knowledge Infrastructure from 2010
to 2022. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series.
31. Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational
Research Methods, *18*(3), 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629