Araştırma Makalesi
PDF EndNote BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Yıl 2019, Cilt 7, Sayı 1, 33 - 56, 15.03.2019
https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.513308

Öz

Kaynakça

  • Alhusaini, A. A. (2018). Using the TASC Model to Develop Gifted Students’ Creativity: Analytical Review. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 6(3), 11-29.
  • Barak, M. (2017). Science teacher education in the twenty-first century: a pedagogical framework for technology-integrated social constructivism. Research in Science Education, 47(2), 283-303.
  • Basham, J. D., & Marino, M. T. (2013). Understanding STEM education and supporting students through universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(4), 8-15.
  • Berger, W. (2014). A more beautiful question: The power of inquiry to spark breakthrough ideas. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
  • Bottia, M. C., Stearns, E., Mickelson, R. A., & Moller, S. (2018). Boosting the numbers of STEM majors? The role of high schools with a STEM program. Science Education, 102(1), 85-107.
  • Bråten, I., & Braasch, J. L. (2017). Key issues in research on students’ critical reading and learning in the 21st century information society. In Improving reading and reading engagement in the 21st century (pp. 77-98). Springer, Singapore.
  • Chu, S. K. W., Reynolds, R. B., Tavares, N. J., Notari, M., & Lee, C. W. Y. (2017). Twenty-first century skills education in Switzerland: An example of project-based learning using Wiki in science education. In 21st Century Skills Development Through Inquiry-Based Learning (pp. 61-78). Springer. Singapore.
  • Cole, D., &Espinoza, A. (2008). Examining the academic success of Latino students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors. Journal of College Student Development, 49(4), 285–300.
  • Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
  • Dare, E. A., Ellis, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2018). Understanding science teachers’ implementations of integrated STEM curricular units through a phenomenological multiple case study. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 4.
  • Davis, L. L. (1992). Instrument review: getting the most from your panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research, 5(4), 194–197.
  • de Jong, T., Sotiriou, S., & Gillet, D. (2014). Innovations in STEM education: the Go-Lab federation of online labs. Smart Learning Environments, 1(1), 3.
  • DeCoito, I., & Richardson, T. (2018). Beyond Angry Birds™: Using Web-Based Tools to Engage Learners and Promote Inquiry in STEM Learning. In Information and Technology Literacy: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 410-433). IGI Global.
  • DeCoito, I., & Richardson, T. (2016). Using Technology to Enhance Science Literacy, Mathematics Literacy, or Technology Literacy: Focusing on Integrated STEM Concepts in a Digital Game. In Improving K-12 STEM Education Outcomes Through Technological Integration (pp. 1-22). IGI Global.
  • Downes, S. (2003). Design and reusability of learning objects in an academic context: a new economy of education?.Journal of the United States Distance Learning Association, 17(1), 3–22.
  • Erdimez, Ö., Sema, T. A. N., & Zimmerman, R. (2017). The Use of Concept Maps as a Tool to Measure Higher Level Thinking Skills in Elementary School Science Classes. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 5(2), 1-20.
  • Fairweather, J. (2008). Linking evidence and promising practices in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate education. Board of Science Education, National Research Council, The National Academies, Washington, DC.
  • Guarte, J. M., & Barrios, E. B. (2006). Estimation under purposive sampling. Communications in Statistics—Simulation and Computation®, 35(2), 277-284.Johns, G., & Mentzer, N. (2016). STEM integration through design and inquiry. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 76(3), 13.
  • Jones, B. A. (2014). ADDIE Model (Instructional Design). Retrievedfrom http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.572.4041.Kapelari, Suzanne. (2017). Inquiry Learning in STEM Subjects. Retrieved from https://www.phnoe.ac.id.at/fileadmin/root_phnoe/International/files/Kapelari_Inquiry_Learning.pdf.
  • Katz, L. & Chard, S. (2000). Engaging Children’s Minds: The Projects Approach, 2nd ed. Stamford, CT: Ablex.Kornblau, B. (1982). The teachable pupil survey: A technique for assessing teachers' perceptions of pupil attributes. Psychology in the Schools, 19(2), 170-174.
  • Koskinen, P., Lämsä, J., Maunuksela, J., Hämäläinen, R., & Viiri, J. (2018). Primetime learning: collaborative and technology-enhanced studying with genuine teacher presence. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 20.
  • Kunt, K & Tortop, H.S. (2017). Examination of Science and Technology Teachers’ Attitude and Opinions Related Giftedness and Gifted Education in Turkey. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 5(1), 37-54.
  • Laboy-Rush, D. (2011). Integrated STEM education through problem-based learning.[White paper]. Education through Project-Based Learning. Retrieved frorn http://www. slideshare. net/dlaboyrush/integrating-Stern.
  • Little, A. J., & de la Barra, B. A. L. (2009). Attracting girls to science, engineering and technology: AnAustralian perspective. European Journalof Engineering Education, 34, 439–445.
  • Luna Scott, C. (2015). The Futures of Learning 3: What kind of pedagogies for the 21st century?.
  • Lynch, T., & Ghergulescu, I. (2017). Review Of Virtual Labs As The Emerging Technologies For Teaching STEM Subjects. In INTED2017 Proc. 11th Int. Technol. Educ. Dev. Conf. 6-8 March Valencia Spain (pp. 6082-6091).
  • Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing research, 35(6), 382-385.
  • Marshall, J. C., Horton, R., Igo, B. L., & Switzer, D. M. (2009). K-12 science and mathematics teachers’ beliefs about and use of inquiry in the classroom. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(3), 575-596.
  • Moore, T., Stohlmann, M., Wang, H., Tank, K., Glancy, A., & Roehrig, G. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. In S. Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in Pre-College Settings: Synthesizing Research, Policy, and Practices (pp. 35–60). West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.
  • Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., Dance, M., & Pfiester, J. (2013). Teacher STEM perception and preparation: Inquiry-based STEM professional development for elementary teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(2), 157-168.
  • Norman, K. W., Moore, T. J., & Kern, A. L. (2010). A graduate level in-service teacher education curriculum integrating engineering into science and mathematics contents. Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 7(2), 433–446.
  • Norton, S. (2008) The use of design practice to teach mathematics and science. International Journal ofTechnology and Design Education, 18(1), 19-44.
  • Ozyaprak, M. (2016). The effectiveness of SCAMPER technique on creative thinking skills. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 4(1), 31-40.
  • Qian, M., & Clark, K. R. (2016). Game-based Learning and 21st century skills: A review of recent research. Computers in Human Behavior, 63(C), 50-58.
  • Reighard, C., Torres-Crespo, M. N., & Vogel, J. (2016). STEM Curiosity Academy: Building the Engineers of Tomorrow. Children and Libraries, 14(4), 32-35.
  • Remsburg, A. J., Harris, M. A., & Batzli, J. M. (2014). Statistics across the curriculum using an iterative, interactive approach in an inquiry-based lab sequence. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(2), 72-81.
  • Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2007). Design and development research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Riskowski, J. L., Todd, C. D., Wee, B., Dark, M., & Harbor, J. (2009). Exploring the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary water resources engineering module in an eighth grade science course. International journal of engineering education, 25(1), 181.
  • Roberts, A., & Cantu, D. (2012, June). Applying STEM instructional strategies to design and technology curriculum. In PATT 26 Conference; Technology Education in the 21st Century; Stockholm; Sweden; 26-30 June; 2012 (No. 073, pp. 111-118). Linköping University Electronic Press.
  • Rogers, G. (2005). Pre-engineering’s place in technology education and its effect on technological literacy as perceived by technology education teachers. Journal ofIndustrial Teacher Education, 41(3), 6-22.
  • Rose, M. A. (2007). Perceptions of technological literacy among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics leaders. Journal of TechnologyEducation, 19(1), 35–52.
  • Saregar, A., Irwandani, I., Abdurrahman, A., Parmin, P., Septiana, S., Diani, R., & Sagala, R. (2018). Temperature and Heat Learning Through SSCS Model with Scaffolding: Impact on Students’ Critical Thinking Ability. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 6(3), 39-54.
  • Schreglmann, S & Öztürk, F.K. (2018). An Evaluation of Gifted Students’ Perceptions on Critical Thinking Skills. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 6(1), 1-16.
  • Sills, S. J., & Song, C. (2002). Innovations in survey research: An application of web-based surveys. Social science computer review, 20(1), 22-30.
  • Skinner, E., Saxton, E., Currie, C., & Shusterman, G. (2017). A motivational account of the undergraduate experience in science: brief measures of students’ self-system appraisals, engagement in coursework, and identity as a scientist. International Journal of Science Education, 39(17), 2433-2459.
  • Steenbergen-Hu, S. & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2017). Factors That Contributed to Gifted Students’ Success on STEM Pathways: The Role of Race, Personal Interests, and Aspects of High School Experience. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40(2), 99-134.
  • Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 2(1), 4.
  • Trna, J. (2014). IBSE and Gifted Students. Science Education International, 25(1), 19-28.
  • Tytler, R., Marginson, S., & Freeman, B. (2014). Widening and deepening the STEM effect. In The Age of STEM (pp. 23-43). Routledge.
  • Tytler, R., Osborne, J., Williams, G., Tytler, K., & Cripps Clark, J. (2008). Opening up pathways: Engagement in STEM across the primary-secondary school transition. Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/openpathinscitechmathenginprimsecschtrans.pdf.
  • Urban, M. J., Marker, E., & Falvo, D. A. (2018). An Interdisciplinary Exploration of the Climate Change Issue and Implications for Teaching STEM through Inquiry. In K-12 STEM Education: Breakthroughs in Research and Practice (pp. 1008-1030). IGI Global.
  • Wang, H. H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 1(2), 2.
  • Williams, J. (2011). STEM education: Proceed with caution. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 16(1), 26-35.

Design and Validation of Inquiry-based STEM Learning Strategy as a Powerful Alternative Solution to Facilitate Gift Students Facing 21st Century Challenging

Yıl 2019, Cilt 7, Sayı 1, 33 - 56, 15.03.2019
https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.513308

Öz

Engagement in STEM across the primary-secondary school transition has been widely investigated. However, integrated-STEM implementation had not shown practical packaging and could not reach all the skills that gift students needed in the 21st century. The main perspective of STEM education refers to the conclusion that the learning approach was student-centered. The concept of this point of view was like an inquiry-based approach, where the inquiry approach was oriented to fostering student inquiry skills through active experiments. The purpose of this study was to design and validated an inquiry-basedSTEM learning strategy design that could systematically guide instructors or designers in creating an appropriate gifted students learning activities oriented to 21st century skills. Using an established method for model development research, a theoretically constructed initial model was iteratively improved and underwent internal validation through expert review. In a field study of an inquiry-based STEM learning strategy , we examine the design and operational characteristics that were important for the  expressive role of the learning strategy. The pilot study indicated that the inquiry-based STEM learning strategy could improve gift students' abilities in accordance with 21st century learning frameworks. 

Kaynakça

  • Alhusaini, A. A. (2018). Using the TASC Model to Develop Gifted Students’ Creativity: Analytical Review. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 6(3), 11-29.
  • Barak, M. (2017). Science teacher education in the twenty-first century: a pedagogical framework for technology-integrated social constructivism. Research in Science Education, 47(2), 283-303.
  • Basham, J. D., & Marino, M. T. (2013). Understanding STEM education and supporting students through universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(4), 8-15.
  • Berger, W. (2014). A more beautiful question: The power of inquiry to spark breakthrough ideas. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
  • Bottia, M. C., Stearns, E., Mickelson, R. A., & Moller, S. (2018). Boosting the numbers of STEM majors? The role of high schools with a STEM program. Science Education, 102(1), 85-107.
  • Bråten, I., & Braasch, J. L. (2017). Key issues in research on students’ critical reading and learning in the 21st century information society. In Improving reading and reading engagement in the 21st century (pp. 77-98). Springer, Singapore.
  • Chu, S. K. W., Reynolds, R. B., Tavares, N. J., Notari, M., & Lee, C. W. Y. (2017). Twenty-first century skills education in Switzerland: An example of project-based learning using Wiki in science education. In 21st Century Skills Development Through Inquiry-Based Learning (pp. 61-78). Springer. Singapore.
  • Cole, D., &Espinoza, A. (2008). Examining the academic success of Latino students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors. Journal of College Student Development, 49(4), 285–300.
  • Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
  • Dare, E. A., Ellis, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2018). Understanding science teachers’ implementations of integrated STEM curricular units through a phenomenological multiple case study. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 4.
  • Davis, L. L. (1992). Instrument review: getting the most from your panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research, 5(4), 194–197.
  • de Jong, T., Sotiriou, S., & Gillet, D. (2014). Innovations in STEM education: the Go-Lab federation of online labs. Smart Learning Environments, 1(1), 3.
  • DeCoito, I., & Richardson, T. (2018). Beyond Angry Birds™: Using Web-Based Tools to Engage Learners and Promote Inquiry in STEM Learning. In Information and Technology Literacy: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 410-433). IGI Global.
  • DeCoito, I., & Richardson, T. (2016). Using Technology to Enhance Science Literacy, Mathematics Literacy, or Technology Literacy: Focusing on Integrated STEM Concepts in a Digital Game. In Improving K-12 STEM Education Outcomes Through Technological Integration (pp. 1-22). IGI Global.
  • Downes, S. (2003). Design and reusability of learning objects in an academic context: a new economy of education?.Journal of the United States Distance Learning Association, 17(1), 3–22.
  • Erdimez, Ö., Sema, T. A. N., & Zimmerman, R. (2017). The Use of Concept Maps as a Tool to Measure Higher Level Thinking Skills in Elementary School Science Classes. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 5(2), 1-20.
  • Fairweather, J. (2008). Linking evidence and promising practices in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate education. Board of Science Education, National Research Council, The National Academies, Washington, DC.
  • Guarte, J. M., & Barrios, E. B. (2006). Estimation under purposive sampling. Communications in Statistics—Simulation and Computation®, 35(2), 277-284.Johns, G., & Mentzer, N. (2016). STEM integration through design and inquiry. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 76(3), 13.
  • Jones, B. A. (2014). ADDIE Model (Instructional Design). Retrievedfrom http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.572.4041.Kapelari, Suzanne. (2017). Inquiry Learning in STEM Subjects. Retrieved from https://www.phnoe.ac.id.at/fileadmin/root_phnoe/International/files/Kapelari_Inquiry_Learning.pdf.
  • Katz, L. & Chard, S. (2000). Engaging Children’s Minds: The Projects Approach, 2nd ed. Stamford, CT: Ablex.Kornblau, B. (1982). The teachable pupil survey: A technique for assessing teachers' perceptions of pupil attributes. Psychology in the Schools, 19(2), 170-174.
  • Koskinen, P., Lämsä, J., Maunuksela, J., Hämäläinen, R., & Viiri, J. (2018). Primetime learning: collaborative and technology-enhanced studying with genuine teacher presence. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 20.
  • Kunt, K & Tortop, H.S. (2017). Examination of Science and Technology Teachers’ Attitude and Opinions Related Giftedness and Gifted Education in Turkey. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 5(1), 37-54.
  • Laboy-Rush, D. (2011). Integrated STEM education through problem-based learning.[White paper]. Education through Project-Based Learning. Retrieved frorn http://www. slideshare. net/dlaboyrush/integrating-Stern.
  • Little, A. J., & de la Barra, B. A. L. (2009). Attracting girls to science, engineering and technology: AnAustralian perspective. European Journalof Engineering Education, 34, 439–445.
  • Luna Scott, C. (2015). The Futures of Learning 3: What kind of pedagogies for the 21st century?.
  • Lynch, T., & Ghergulescu, I. (2017). Review Of Virtual Labs As The Emerging Technologies For Teaching STEM Subjects. In INTED2017 Proc. 11th Int. Technol. Educ. Dev. Conf. 6-8 March Valencia Spain (pp. 6082-6091).
  • Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing research, 35(6), 382-385.
  • Marshall, J. C., Horton, R., Igo, B. L., & Switzer, D. M. (2009). K-12 science and mathematics teachers’ beliefs about and use of inquiry in the classroom. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(3), 575-596.
  • Moore, T., Stohlmann, M., Wang, H., Tank, K., Glancy, A., & Roehrig, G. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. In S. Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in Pre-College Settings: Synthesizing Research, Policy, and Practices (pp. 35–60). West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.
  • Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., Dance, M., & Pfiester, J. (2013). Teacher STEM perception and preparation: Inquiry-based STEM professional development for elementary teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(2), 157-168.
  • Norman, K. W., Moore, T. J., & Kern, A. L. (2010). A graduate level in-service teacher education curriculum integrating engineering into science and mathematics contents. Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 7(2), 433–446.
  • Norton, S. (2008) The use of design practice to teach mathematics and science. International Journal ofTechnology and Design Education, 18(1), 19-44.
  • Ozyaprak, M. (2016). The effectiveness of SCAMPER technique on creative thinking skills. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 4(1), 31-40.
  • Qian, M., & Clark, K. R. (2016). Game-based Learning and 21st century skills: A review of recent research. Computers in Human Behavior, 63(C), 50-58.
  • Reighard, C., Torres-Crespo, M. N., & Vogel, J. (2016). STEM Curiosity Academy: Building the Engineers of Tomorrow. Children and Libraries, 14(4), 32-35.
  • Remsburg, A. J., Harris, M. A., & Batzli, J. M. (2014). Statistics across the curriculum using an iterative, interactive approach in an inquiry-based lab sequence. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(2), 72-81.
  • Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2007). Design and development research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Riskowski, J. L., Todd, C. D., Wee, B., Dark, M., & Harbor, J. (2009). Exploring the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary water resources engineering module in an eighth grade science course. International journal of engineering education, 25(1), 181.
  • Roberts, A., & Cantu, D. (2012, June). Applying STEM instructional strategies to design and technology curriculum. In PATT 26 Conference; Technology Education in the 21st Century; Stockholm; Sweden; 26-30 June; 2012 (No. 073, pp. 111-118). Linköping University Electronic Press.
  • Rogers, G. (2005). Pre-engineering’s place in technology education and its effect on technological literacy as perceived by technology education teachers. Journal ofIndustrial Teacher Education, 41(3), 6-22.
  • Rose, M. A. (2007). Perceptions of technological literacy among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics leaders. Journal of TechnologyEducation, 19(1), 35–52.
  • Saregar, A., Irwandani, I., Abdurrahman, A., Parmin, P., Septiana, S., Diani, R., & Sagala, R. (2018). Temperature and Heat Learning Through SSCS Model with Scaffolding: Impact on Students’ Critical Thinking Ability. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 6(3), 39-54.
  • Schreglmann, S & Öztürk, F.K. (2018). An Evaluation of Gifted Students’ Perceptions on Critical Thinking Skills. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 6(1), 1-16.
  • Sills, S. J., & Song, C. (2002). Innovations in survey research: An application of web-based surveys. Social science computer review, 20(1), 22-30.
  • Skinner, E., Saxton, E., Currie, C., & Shusterman, G. (2017). A motivational account of the undergraduate experience in science: brief measures of students’ self-system appraisals, engagement in coursework, and identity as a scientist. International Journal of Science Education, 39(17), 2433-2459.
  • Steenbergen-Hu, S. & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2017). Factors That Contributed to Gifted Students’ Success on STEM Pathways: The Role of Race, Personal Interests, and Aspects of High School Experience. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40(2), 99-134.
  • Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 2(1), 4.
  • Trna, J. (2014). IBSE and Gifted Students. Science Education International, 25(1), 19-28.
  • Tytler, R., Marginson, S., & Freeman, B. (2014). Widening and deepening the STEM effect. In The Age of STEM (pp. 23-43). Routledge.
  • Tytler, R., Osborne, J., Williams, G., Tytler, K., & Cripps Clark, J. (2008). Opening up pathways: Engagement in STEM across the primary-secondary school transition. Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/openpathinscitechmathenginprimsecschtrans.pdf.
  • Urban, M. J., Marker, E., & Falvo, D. A. (2018). An Interdisciplinary Exploration of the Climate Change Issue and Implications for Teaching STEM through Inquiry. In K-12 STEM Education: Breakthroughs in Research and Practice (pp. 1008-1030). IGI Global.
  • Wang, H. H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 1(2), 2.
  • Williams, J. (2011). STEM education: Proceed with caution. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 16(1), 26-35.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Bölüm Teaching Techniques and Activities for Gifted
Yazarlar

Abdurrahman ABDURRAHMAN> (Sorumlu Yazar)
Lampung University
0000-0003-4289-6557
Indonesia


Novinta NURULSARİ Bu kişi benim
Lampung University
Indonesia


Hervin MAULİNA Bu kişi benim
Lampung University
Indonesia


Farida ARİYANİ Bu kişi benim
Lampung University
Indonesia

Yayımlanma Tarihi 15 Mart 2019
Yayınlandığı Sayı Yıl 2019, Cilt 7, Sayı 1

Kaynak Göster

Bibtex @araştırma makalesi { jegys513308, journal = {Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists}, eissn = {2149-360X}, address = {editorjegys@gmail.com}, publisher = {Genç Bilge Yayıncılık}, year = {2019}, volume = {7}, number = {1}, pages = {33 - 56}, doi = {10.17478/jegys.513308}, title = {Design and Validation of Inquiry-based STEM Learning Strategy as a Powerful Alternative Solution to Facilitate Gift Students Facing 21st Century Challenging}, key = {cite}, author = {Abdurrahman, Abdurrahman and Nurulsari, Novinta and Maulina, Hervin and Ariyani, Farida} }
APA Abdurrahman, A. , Nurulsari, N. , Maulina, H. & Ariyani, F. (2019). Design and Validation of Inquiry-based STEM Learning Strategy as a Powerful Alternative Solution to Facilitate Gift Students Facing 21st Century Challenging . Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists , 7 (1) , 33-56 . DOI: 10.17478/jegys.513308
MLA Abdurrahman, A. , Nurulsari, N. , Maulina, H. , Ariyani, F. "Design and Validation of Inquiry-based STEM Learning Strategy as a Powerful Alternative Solution to Facilitate Gift Students Facing 21st Century Challenging" . Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 7 (2019 ): 33-56 <https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/jegys/issue/44329/513308>
Chicago Abdurrahman, A. , Nurulsari, N. , Maulina, H. , Ariyani, F. "Design and Validation of Inquiry-based STEM Learning Strategy as a Powerful Alternative Solution to Facilitate Gift Students Facing 21st Century Challenging". Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 7 (2019 ): 33-56
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - Design and Validation of Inquiry-based STEM Learning Strategy as a Powerful Alternative Solution to Facilitate Gift Students Facing 21st Century Challenging AU - AbdurrahmanAbdurrahman, NovintaNurulsari, HervinMaulina, FaridaAriyani Y1 - 2019 PY - 2019 N1 - doi: 10.17478/jegys.513308 DO - 10.17478/jegys.513308 T2 - Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 33 EP - 56 VL - 7 IS - 1 SN - -2149-360X M3 - doi: 10.17478/jegys.513308 UR - https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.513308 Y2 - 2019 ER -
EndNote %0 Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists Design and Validation of Inquiry-based STEM Learning Strategy as a Powerful Alternative Solution to Facilitate Gift Students Facing 21st Century Challenging %A Abdurrahman Abdurrahman , Novinta Nurulsari , Hervin Maulina , Farida Ariyani %T Design and Validation of Inquiry-based STEM Learning Strategy as a Powerful Alternative Solution to Facilitate Gift Students Facing 21st Century Challenging %D 2019 %J Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists %P -2149-360X %V 7 %N 1 %R doi: 10.17478/jegys.513308 %U 10.17478/jegys.513308
ISNAD Abdurrahman, Abdurrahman , Nurulsari, Novinta , Maulina, Hervin , Ariyani, Farida . "Design and Validation of Inquiry-based STEM Learning Strategy as a Powerful Alternative Solution to Facilitate Gift Students Facing 21st Century Challenging". Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 7 / 1 (Mart 2019): 33-56 . https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.513308
AMA Abdurrahman A. , Nurulsari N. , Maulina H. , Ariyani F. Design and Validation of Inquiry-based STEM Learning Strategy as a Powerful Alternative Solution to Facilitate Gift Students Facing 21st Century Challenging. JEGYS. 2019; 7(1): 33-56.
Vancouver Abdurrahman A. , Nurulsari N. , Maulina H. , Ariyani F. Design and Validation of Inquiry-based STEM Learning Strategy as a Powerful Alternative Solution to Facilitate Gift Students Facing 21st Century Challenging. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists. 2019; 7(1): 33-56.
IEEE A. Abdurrahman , N. Nurulsari , H. Maulina ve F. Ariyani , "Design and Validation of Inquiry-based STEM Learning Strategy as a Powerful Alternative Solution to Facilitate Gift Students Facing 21st Century Challenging", Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, c. 7, sayı. 1, ss. 33-56, Mar. 2019, doi:10.17478/jegys.513308

Submitted Articles: 589   Rejected Articles: 268 Published Articles: 320  Acceptance Rate:  %54   (Updated at February 9, 2022)

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) 15-16 December 2022 (Please click for attendance).

Dergimiz "Education Full Text (H.W.Wilson) Database Coverage List" tarafından dizinlenmektedir. HTML  PDF   JEGYS'nin kapsamı;  eğitim bilimleri, alan eğitimi (tüm alan eğitimleri), üstün zekalılar eğitimi, interdisipliner eğitim çalışmaları, eğitimde sürdürülebilirlik çalışmaları, yetenek eğitimi gibi konulardır. Yazarların, araştırmalarında; yeni yöntem, model, yaklaşım, yetenek gelişimi, ileri (advanced) eğitim yenilikleri, karakter eğitimi, eğitimde sürdürülebilirlik gibi yönlerinden birini ya da birkaçını vurgulamaları JEGYS'nin yayın hedeflerini gerçekleştirmesi açısından önemlidir. 

JEGYS NOT INDEXED citefactor

    21871  17854      25126  20742           17865                   22217           21870        SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) 25746257472574825749DHET Accredited Journal List (Department of Higher Education and Training of South Africa)
 

JOIN OUR EDITORIAL BOARD, PLEASE SEND YOUR CV TO EDITORJEGYS@GMAIL.COM



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

Young Wise Publishing/Genç Bilge Yayıncılık
Management-Publication Process-Office (Adress 1): 63 – 66 Hatton Garden, Fifth Floor, Suite 23, EC1N 8LE, London, UK
Web site: https://youngwisepub.com/ E-mail: info@youngwisepub.com

ISSN-Ownership-Office (Adress 2): Bahcelievler District 3015 St. No:9/1  Isparta, Turkey
Web site: http://gencbilgeyayincilik.com/ E-mail: gencbilgeyayincilik@gmail.com