Research Article
PDF Zotero Mendeley EndNote BibTex Cite

Year 2021, Volume 9, Issue 4, 329 - 338, 15.12.2021
https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.993901

Abstract

References

  • Alessandrini, G. (2016). Nuovo manual per I’ esparto dei processi formative. Roma: Carocci Editore.
  • Boubekeur, S. (2021). E-teaching and e-learning challenges during the coronavirus: Dr. Moulay Tahar University as a case study. Global Journal of Foreign Language Teaching. 11(3), 195-203.
  • Cardella, M. E., Hsu, M., & Ricco, G. D. (2014). Analysis of design process knowledge task responses: statistical approaches to uncover patterns (research). Paper presented at the 121st ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, IN. https://www.asee.org/conferences-and-events/conferences/annual-conference/past-conference/2014
  • Creswell, J. W. (2009). Mapping the Field of Mixed Methods Research. Journal of mixed Methods Research, 3(2),95-108.
  • Department of Basic Education. (2011). Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement. (CAPS). Technology. Grades 7-9. Department of basic Education: Pretoria.
  • Dilmac, S. (2020). Students’ opinions about Distance Education to Art and Design courses in the pandemic process. World Journal of Education, 10(3),113-126. http://wje.sciedupress.com
  • Doukakis, S. (2021). A Management Approach of An E-Tutoring Program for High School Students. International Journal of Managing Information Technology (IJMIT), 13(1), 21-31.
  • Fajarwati, A. A. S., Caroline, O. S., Rafli, M., & Auliawan, N. (2020). Reuse jeans for upholstery of Jepara chairs- a design thinking towards a sustainable creative industry. International Conference on Biosphere Harmony Advanced Research, Doi:10.1088/1755-1315/729/1/012101.
  • Goldstein, M. H., Omar, S.A., Purzer, S. & Adams, R. S. (2018). Comparing two approaches to engineering design in the 7th grade science classroom. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology (IJEMST), 6(4),381-397. https://doi.org/10.111/ssm.12198.
  • Greco, G.: L’apprendimento nell’era della connettività: una riflessione sociologica al confine tra comunicazione ed educazione. (2017). In: Scarcelli, C.M., Stella, R. (eds.) Digital literacy e giovani. Strumenti per comprendere, misurare intervenire, 21–31, Franco Angeli, Milano.
  • Gross, S., Stelzl, K., Grisold, T., Mendling, J., Roglinger, M., & vom Brocke, J. (2020). The business process design space for exploring process redesign alternatives. Business Management Journal, 2-33. DOI.10.1108/BPMJ-03-2020-0116. https://www.emerald.com/insight/1463-7154.htm.
  • Halverson, L. R., Graham, C. R. (2019). Learner engagement in blended learning environments. A conceptual framework. Online Learning, 23(2),145-178.
  • Henriksen, D., Gretter, S., & Richardson, C. (2020). Design thinking and the practicing teacher: addressing problems of practice in teacher education. Teaching Education, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2018.1531841.
  • Heyns, M. (2012). Middle grade teachers’ understanding and teaching of the central ideas of central ideas of the engineering design process. Advances in Engineering Education, 3(2), 1-21.
  • Heyns, M., Mathis, C., Purzer, S., Rynearson, S., & Silvering, E. (2017). Systematic review of research in p-12 engineering education from 2000-2015. International Journal of Engineering Education, 33(1),1-10. https: www.ijee.ie/contents/c330117B.html.
  • Hodges, C., S., Moore, T., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning, Educause Review, https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning.
  • Hubers, M, D., Endedijk, M.D., & Van Veen, Z, K. (2020). Effective characteristics of professional development programs for science and technology education. Professional Development in Education, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1752289.
  • Institute of Design at Stanford. (2016). An introduction to design thinking process guide. http://dschool.stanford.edu/
  • Jureta, I. J. (2021). Requirements Contracts: Definition, Design, and Analysis. Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique – FNRS, Brussels, Belgium, Universit´e de Namur, Belgium, STEMCELL Technologies Inc., Vancouver, Canada http://ivanjureta.com
  • Kang, E. D., Donovan, C & McCarthy, M. J. (2018). Exploring elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and confidence in implementing the NGSS science and engineering practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29(1), 9-29. https:/doi.org/1046560X.2017.1415616.
  • Lin, K. Y., Wu, Y. T., Hsu, Y.T., & Williams, P. J. (2021). Effects of infusing the engineering design process into STEM project-based learning to develop preservice technology teachers’ engineering design thinking. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 1-15. http://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00258-9.
  • Maré, S., & Mutezo, A.T. (2021). The effectiveness of e-tutoring in an open and distance e-learning environment: evidence from the university of south Africa. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 36(2), 164–180.
  • Nasir and Mansor (2021). Discussion on online courses from the point of view of the research community. Religación. Revista De Ciencias Sociales Y Humanidades, 4(19), 106-110.
  • Maphalala, M. C., & Mpofu, N. (2020). Examining first year students’ experience of being tutored: A South African case study. Issues in Educational Research, 30(3),1025-1037.
  • Mc Curdy, R. P., Nickels, M., Bush, S. B. (2020). Problem based design thinking tasks: engaging student empathy in STEM. Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics Education, 24(2), 22-55.
  • Maclean, A., Young, R. M., Victoria, M. E., & Moran, T. P. (1991). “Questions, options and criteria: elements of design space analysis” Human Computer Interaction, 6(3-4), 201-250.
  • Mesutoglu, C., & Baran, E. (2020). Examining the development of middle school science teachers’ understanding of engineering design process. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18,1509-1529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10041-0.
  • Mose, B., Dalsgaard, P., & Halsov, K. (2017). “Understanding creativity methods in design”, Proceedings of the 2017 Conference in Designing Interactive Systems, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 839-851.
  • O’ Brien, S., Hansen, A. K., Harlow, D. B. (2016). Educating teachers for maker movement: Pre-service teachers’ experiences facilitating maker experiences. In Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference on Creativity and Fabrication in Education. (pp. 99-102). doi:10.1145/3003397.3003414.
  • Oehlberg, L., Agogino, A. (2011). Undergraduate conceptions of the engineering design process: Assessing the impact of human-centered design course. Paper presented at the 118th ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Vancouwer, BC, Canada. https:peer.asee.org/collections/2011-annual-conference-exposition.
  • Ortega- Tudela, J. M., Diaz-Pareja, E. M., Camara-Estrella, A.M & Llorent-Vaguero, M. (2021). Design thinking in future teachers training. Education and Development. https://doi.org/10.36315/2021end070.
  • Paganelli, A., Cribbs, J.D., Huang, X., Pereira, N., Huss, J., Chandler, W., & Paganelli, A. (2016). The makerspace experience and teacher professional development. Professional Development in Education, 43(2), 232-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2016.1166448
  • Peppler, K. A., Halverson, E., & Kafai, Y. B. (2016). Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environment. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Pratiwi, A., Ariani, D. (2020). The use of tutorial model in teaching Indonesian to foreign learners. ISCE: Journal of Innovative Studies on Character and Education, 4(1), 37-46. http://iscjournal.com/index.php/isce.
  • Schultz, R. B., DeMers, M. N. (2020). Transitioning from emergency remote learning to deep online learning experiences in Geography Education, Journal of Geography, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2020.18713791.
  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
  • Shulman, L. S. (1987). ‘Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform’. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1),1-22.
  • Siemens, G. (2012). Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-10.
  • Smith, S., Talley, K., Ortiz, A., & Sriraman, V. (2021). You want to teach me to engineering? Impacts of recurring experiences on K-12 teachers’ engineering design self-efficacy. Familiarity with engineering, and confidence to teach with design -based learning pedagogy. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 11(1), 26-44. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1241.
  • Vegliante, R., Sannicandro, K. (2020). The role of the e-tutor in the university context and in distance learning: an exploratory research. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 16(3),76-85.
  • Walker, W. S., Moore, T. J., Guzey, S. S., Sorge, B. H. (2018). Frameworks to develop integrated STEM curricula. K-12 STEM Education, 4(2), 331-339.
  • Wendel, K. B. (2014). Design practices of pre-service elementary teachers in an integrated engineering and literature experience. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 4(2),29-46. https:doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1085.
  • Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., & Richert, A. E. (1987). 150 different ways of knowing: representations of knowledge in teaching. IN J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking. 104-124. London, England: Cassell.
  • Winarno, N., Rusdiana, D., Samsudin, A., Susilowati, E., Ahmad, N. J., Meha, R., & Afifah, A. (2020). The steps of the Engineering Design Process (EPD) in science education: A systematic literature review. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 8(4), 1345-1360
  • Wrigley, C., & Straker, K. (2015). Design Thinking pedagogy: the educational design ladder. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, DOI:10.1080/14703297.2015.1108214.
  • Yata, C., Ohtani, T., & Isobe, M. (2020). Conceptual Framework of STEM based on Japanese subject principles. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(12),1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00205-8.
  • Youde, A. (2020). I don’t need peer support: effective tutoring in blended learning environments for part- time, adult learners. Higher Education Research &Development, 1-15.

Exploring e-tutors teaching of the design process as content knowledge in an Open and Distance e-Learning environment

Year 2021, Volume 9, Issue 4, 329 - 338, 15.12.2021
https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.993901

Abstract

Purpose: It is argued that Open and Distance eLearning (ODeL) institutions are expected to provide student support by focusing on critical aspects of content knowledge. Technology is a critical factor in student support through e-tutoring. The main question is ‘How are the varied procedural steps of the design process taught in the targeted ODeL institution”? It is assumed that ODeL institutions have competent e-tutors when supporting students through the teaching of content knowledge of the design process. Sample: The focus was on the postgraduate students who registered for two modules for a programme (n=250) in 2020. Method: The South African Ministry of Education for Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) was used to investigate, design, make, evaluate, and communicate. A quantitative approach with an online survey was used in exploring the perceptions of students about e-tutors’ content knowledge. Data analysis: It was done numerically and thematically. Results: The procedural steps vary depending on the different ministries of education worldwide. E-tutors seem to lack content knowledge to teach at a distance learning mode. The teaching of the design process to student teachers requires insights into the procedural steps of the design process curriculum. Suggestions: E-tutors should be provided with training in the design steps.

References

  • Alessandrini, G. (2016). Nuovo manual per I’ esparto dei processi formative. Roma: Carocci Editore.
  • Boubekeur, S. (2021). E-teaching and e-learning challenges during the coronavirus: Dr. Moulay Tahar University as a case study. Global Journal of Foreign Language Teaching. 11(3), 195-203.
  • Cardella, M. E., Hsu, M., & Ricco, G. D. (2014). Analysis of design process knowledge task responses: statistical approaches to uncover patterns (research). Paper presented at the 121st ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, IN. https://www.asee.org/conferences-and-events/conferences/annual-conference/past-conference/2014
  • Creswell, J. W. (2009). Mapping the Field of Mixed Methods Research. Journal of mixed Methods Research, 3(2),95-108.
  • Department of Basic Education. (2011). Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement. (CAPS). Technology. Grades 7-9. Department of basic Education: Pretoria.
  • Dilmac, S. (2020). Students’ opinions about Distance Education to Art and Design courses in the pandemic process. World Journal of Education, 10(3),113-126. http://wje.sciedupress.com
  • Doukakis, S. (2021). A Management Approach of An E-Tutoring Program for High School Students. International Journal of Managing Information Technology (IJMIT), 13(1), 21-31.
  • Fajarwati, A. A. S., Caroline, O. S., Rafli, M., & Auliawan, N. (2020). Reuse jeans for upholstery of Jepara chairs- a design thinking towards a sustainable creative industry. International Conference on Biosphere Harmony Advanced Research, Doi:10.1088/1755-1315/729/1/012101.
  • Goldstein, M. H., Omar, S.A., Purzer, S. & Adams, R. S. (2018). Comparing two approaches to engineering design in the 7th grade science classroom. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology (IJEMST), 6(4),381-397. https://doi.org/10.111/ssm.12198.
  • Greco, G.: L’apprendimento nell’era della connettività: una riflessione sociologica al confine tra comunicazione ed educazione. (2017). In: Scarcelli, C.M., Stella, R. (eds.) Digital literacy e giovani. Strumenti per comprendere, misurare intervenire, 21–31, Franco Angeli, Milano.
  • Gross, S., Stelzl, K., Grisold, T., Mendling, J., Roglinger, M., & vom Brocke, J. (2020). The business process design space for exploring process redesign alternatives. Business Management Journal, 2-33. DOI.10.1108/BPMJ-03-2020-0116. https://www.emerald.com/insight/1463-7154.htm.
  • Halverson, L. R., Graham, C. R. (2019). Learner engagement in blended learning environments. A conceptual framework. Online Learning, 23(2),145-178.
  • Henriksen, D., Gretter, S., & Richardson, C. (2020). Design thinking and the practicing teacher: addressing problems of practice in teacher education. Teaching Education, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2018.1531841.
  • Heyns, M. (2012). Middle grade teachers’ understanding and teaching of the central ideas of central ideas of the engineering design process. Advances in Engineering Education, 3(2), 1-21.
  • Heyns, M., Mathis, C., Purzer, S., Rynearson, S., & Silvering, E. (2017). Systematic review of research in p-12 engineering education from 2000-2015. International Journal of Engineering Education, 33(1),1-10. https: www.ijee.ie/contents/c330117B.html.
  • Hodges, C., S., Moore, T., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning, Educause Review, https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning.
  • Hubers, M, D., Endedijk, M.D., & Van Veen, Z, K. (2020). Effective characteristics of professional development programs for science and technology education. Professional Development in Education, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1752289.
  • Institute of Design at Stanford. (2016). An introduction to design thinking process guide. http://dschool.stanford.edu/
  • Jureta, I. J. (2021). Requirements Contracts: Definition, Design, and Analysis. Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique – FNRS, Brussels, Belgium, Universit´e de Namur, Belgium, STEMCELL Technologies Inc., Vancouver, Canada http://ivanjureta.com
  • Kang, E. D., Donovan, C & McCarthy, M. J. (2018). Exploring elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and confidence in implementing the NGSS science and engineering practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29(1), 9-29. https:/doi.org/1046560X.2017.1415616.
  • Lin, K. Y., Wu, Y. T., Hsu, Y.T., & Williams, P. J. (2021). Effects of infusing the engineering design process into STEM project-based learning to develop preservice technology teachers’ engineering design thinking. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 1-15. http://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00258-9.
  • Maré, S., & Mutezo, A.T. (2021). The effectiveness of e-tutoring in an open and distance e-learning environment: evidence from the university of south Africa. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 36(2), 164–180.
  • Nasir and Mansor (2021). Discussion on online courses from the point of view of the research community. Religación. Revista De Ciencias Sociales Y Humanidades, 4(19), 106-110.
  • Maphalala, M. C., & Mpofu, N. (2020). Examining first year students’ experience of being tutored: A South African case study. Issues in Educational Research, 30(3),1025-1037.
  • Mc Curdy, R. P., Nickels, M., Bush, S. B. (2020). Problem based design thinking tasks: engaging student empathy in STEM. Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics Education, 24(2), 22-55.
  • Maclean, A., Young, R. M., Victoria, M. E., & Moran, T. P. (1991). “Questions, options and criteria: elements of design space analysis” Human Computer Interaction, 6(3-4), 201-250.
  • Mesutoglu, C., & Baran, E. (2020). Examining the development of middle school science teachers’ understanding of engineering design process. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18,1509-1529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10041-0.
  • Mose, B., Dalsgaard, P., & Halsov, K. (2017). “Understanding creativity methods in design”, Proceedings of the 2017 Conference in Designing Interactive Systems, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 839-851.
  • O’ Brien, S., Hansen, A. K., Harlow, D. B. (2016). Educating teachers for maker movement: Pre-service teachers’ experiences facilitating maker experiences. In Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference on Creativity and Fabrication in Education. (pp. 99-102). doi:10.1145/3003397.3003414.
  • Oehlberg, L., Agogino, A. (2011). Undergraduate conceptions of the engineering design process: Assessing the impact of human-centered design course. Paper presented at the 118th ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Vancouwer, BC, Canada. https:peer.asee.org/collections/2011-annual-conference-exposition.
  • Ortega- Tudela, J. M., Diaz-Pareja, E. M., Camara-Estrella, A.M & Llorent-Vaguero, M. (2021). Design thinking in future teachers training. Education and Development. https://doi.org/10.36315/2021end070.
  • Paganelli, A., Cribbs, J.D., Huang, X., Pereira, N., Huss, J., Chandler, W., & Paganelli, A. (2016). The makerspace experience and teacher professional development. Professional Development in Education, 43(2), 232-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2016.1166448
  • Peppler, K. A., Halverson, E., & Kafai, Y. B. (2016). Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environment. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Pratiwi, A., Ariani, D. (2020). The use of tutorial model in teaching Indonesian to foreign learners. ISCE: Journal of Innovative Studies on Character and Education, 4(1), 37-46. http://iscjournal.com/index.php/isce.
  • Schultz, R. B., DeMers, M. N. (2020). Transitioning from emergency remote learning to deep online learning experiences in Geography Education, Journal of Geography, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2020.18713791.
  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
  • Shulman, L. S. (1987). ‘Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform’. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1),1-22.
  • Siemens, G. (2012). Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-10.
  • Smith, S., Talley, K., Ortiz, A., & Sriraman, V. (2021). You want to teach me to engineering? Impacts of recurring experiences on K-12 teachers’ engineering design self-efficacy. Familiarity with engineering, and confidence to teach with design -based learning pedagogy. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 11(1), 26-44. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1241.
  • Vegliante, R., Sannicandro, K. (2020). The role of the e-tutor in the university context and in distance learning: an exploratory research. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 16(3),76-85.
  • Walker, W. S., Moore, T. J., Guzey, S. S., Sorge, B. H. (2018). Frameworks to develop integrated STEM curricula. K-12 STEM Education, 4(2), 331-339.
  • Wendel, K. B. (2014). Design practices of pre-service elementary teachers in an integrated engineering and literature experience. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 4(2),29-46. https:doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1085.
  • Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., & Richert, A. E. (1987). 150 different ways of knowing: representations of knowledge in teaching. IN J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking. 104-124. London, England: Cassell.
  • Winarno, N., Rusdiana, D., Samsudin, A., Susilowati, E., Ahmad, N. J., Meha, R., & Afifah, A. (2020). The steps of the Engineering Design Process (EPD) in science education: A systematic literature review. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 8(4), 1345-1360
  • Wrigley, C., & Straker, K. (2015). Design Thinking pedagogy: the educational design ladder. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, DOI:10.1080/14703297.2015.1108214.
  • Yata, C., Ohtani, T., & Isobe, M. (2020). Conceptual Framework of STEM based on Japanese subject principles. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(12),1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00205-8.
  • Youde, A. (2020). I don’t need peer support: effective tutoring in blended learning environments for part- time, adult learners. Higher Education Research &Development, 1-15.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Education and Educational Research
Journal Section Differentiated Instruction
Authors

Mpipo Zipporah SEDİO (Primary Author)
University of South Africa
0000-0002-8251-750X
South Africa

Project Number None
Publication Date December 15, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2021, Volume 9, Issue 4

Cite

Bibtex @research article { jegys993901, journal = {Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists}, issn = {}, eissn = {2149-360X}, address = {editorjegys@gmail.com}, publisher = {Genç Bilge Yayıncılık}, year = {2021}, volume = {9}, pages = {329 - 338}, doi = {10.17478/jegys.993901}, title = {Exploring e-tutors teaching of the design process as content knowledge in an Open and Distance e-Learning environment}, key = {cite}, author = {Sedio, Mpipo Zipporah} }
APA Sedio, M. Z. (2021). Exploring e-tutors teaching of the design process as content knowledge in an Open and Distance e-Learning environment . Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists , 9 (4) , 329-338 . DOI: 10.17478/jegys.993901
MLA Sedio, M. Z. "Exploring e-tutors teaching of the design process as content knowledge in an Open and Distance e-Learning environment" . Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 9 (2021 ): 329-338 <https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jegys/issue/65384/993901>
Chicago Sedio, M. Z. "Exploring e-tutors teaching of the design process as content knowledge in an Open and Distance e-Learning environment". Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 9 (2021 ): 329-338
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - Exploring e-tutors teaching of the design process as content knowledge in an Open and Distance e-Learning environment AU - Mpipo Zipporah Sedio Y1 - 2021 PY - 2021 N1 - doi: 10.17478/jegys.993901 DO - 10.17478/jegys.993901 T2 - Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 329 EP - 338 VL - 9 IS - 4 SN - -2149-360X M3 - doi: 10.17478/jegys.993901 UR - https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.993901 Y2 - 2021 ER -
EndNote %0 Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists Exploring e-tutors teaching of the design process as content knowledge in an Open and Distance e-Learning environment %A Mpipo Zipporah Sedio %T Exploring e-tutors teaching of the design process as content knowledge in an Open and Distance e-Learning environment %D 2021 %J Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists %P -2149-360X %V 9 %N 4 %R doi: 10.17478/jegys.993901 %U 10.17478/jegys.993901
ISNAD Sedio, Mpipo Zipporah . "Exploring e-tutors teaching of the design process as content knowledge in an Open and Distance e-Learning environment". Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 9 / 4 (December 2021): 329-338 . https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.993901
AMA Sedio M. Z. Exploring e-tutors teaching of the design process as content knowledge in an Open and Distance e-Learning environment. JEGYS. 2021; 9(4): 329-338.
Vancouver Sedio M. Z. Exploring e-tutors teaching of the design process as content knowledge in an Open and Distance e-Learning environment. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists. 2021; 9(4): 329-338.
IEEE M. Z. Sedio , "Exploring e-tutors teaching of the design process as content knowledge in an Open and Distance e-Learning environment", Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 329-338, Dec. 2021, doi:10.17478/jegys.993901

Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists indexed from SCOPUS June 2018- December 2020. SOBIAD Impact Factor Score (1,171) Top One of Turkey at SOBIAD Index at 2019. Thanks for the contributions. 3rd International Congress on Gifted Youth and Sustainability of the Education (ICGYSE) 28-29 May 2022 (Please click for attendance).


1689216926      21871  17854 17864             JEGYS NOT INDEXED citefactor   20742     17865                   22217           21870       24093           SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)


POPULARITY OF THE JEGYS OVER THE WORLD

Free counters!

Note: Counter started on 28 February, 2021

Giftedupoint.com Meeting point of the talent and giftedness