EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 48 (2018) SHS Web Conf., 48 (2018) 01060 References
Open Access
Issue
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 48, 2018
ERPA International Congresses on Education 2018 (ERPA 2018)
Article Number 01060
Number of page(s) 8
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20184801060
Published online 15 August 2018
  1. Akçam, M. İlköǧretim fen bilgisi derslerinde yaratıcı etkinliklerin öǧrencilerin tutum ve başarılarına etkisi. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Balıkesir Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Balıkesir, (2007). [Google Scholar]
  2. Aktamış, H., & Ergin, Ö. Fen eǧitimi ve yaratıcılık. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eǧitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20, 77-83, (2006). [Google Scholar]
  3. Ansal, H. bt haber, (2012). http://www.btnet.com.tr/54504-turk-egitim-sistemi-yaraticiligin-onundeki-en-buyuk engel.html adresinden 10 Aralık 2013 tarihinde edinilmiştir. [Google Scholar]
  4. Balcı, A. Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntem, teknik ve ilkeler. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık. 4. Baskı, (2004). [Google Scholar]
  5. Büyüköztürk, Ş. Deneysel desenler öntest-sontest kontrol grubu desen ve veri analizi. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık. 1.Baskı, (2001). [Google Scholar]
  6. Ceylan, E. Effect of instruction using conceptual change strategies on students’ conceptions of chemical reactions and energy. Unpublished master thesis, Middle East Technical University, (2004). [Google Scholar]
  7. Çepni, S., Ayas, A., Johnson, D., & Turgut, M. Fizik öǧretimi. Ankara: YÖK/Dünya Bankası, (1997). [Google Scholar]
  8. Daud, A. M., Omar, J., Turiman, P., & Osman, K.. Creativity in science education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59, 467-474, (2012). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Demir, S. Bilimsel tartışma ve araştırmaya dayalı tasarlanan laboratuvar programının, fen bilgisi öǧretmen adaylarının bilimsel yaratıcılıklarına etkisi. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul, (2014). [Google Scholar]
  10. El Bassiti, L., & Ajhoun, R. (2013). Toward an innovation management framework: A life-cycle model with an idea management focus. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 4(6), 551-559, (2013). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Ewers, T. G. Teacher-directed versus learning cycles methods: Effects on science process skills mastery and teacher efficacy among elementary education students. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Idaho, (2001). [Google Scholar]
  12. Farooq, U. Supporting creativity: Investigating the role of awareness in distributed collaboration. The Pennsylvania State University, (2008). [Google Scholar]
  13. Ferrari, A., Cachia, R., & Punie, Y. Innovation and creativity in education and training in the eu member states: fostering creative learning and supporting ınnovative teaching. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, (2009). [Google Scholar]
  14. Hu, W., & Adey, P. A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389-403, (2002). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. Lin, C., Hu, W., Adey, P., & Shen, J. The influence of case on scientific creativity. Research in Science Education, 33, 143-162, (2003). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Kadayıfçı, H. Yaratıcı düşünmeye dayalı öǧretim modelinin öǧrencilerin maddelerin ayrılması ile ilgili kavramları anlamasına. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Eǧitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara, (2008). [Google Scholar]
  17. Kaptan, F., & Korkmaz, H. İlköǧretimde etkili öǧretme ve öǧrenme öǧretmen el kitabı ilköǧretimde fen bilgisi öǧretimi modül, (1999). 7. 09. 08. 2013 tarihinde http://sakarya63.sa.funpic.de/ilkogretimde_fenbilgisi_01.pdf adresinden alındı [Google Scholar]
  18. Karamustafaoǧlu, O., & Yaman, S.. Fen eǧitiminde özel öǧretim yöntemleri I-II. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık, (2006). [Google Scholar]
  19. Kocabas, S. Elements of scientific creativity. AAAI Technical Report SS-93-01, (1993). [Google Scholar]
  20. Kurtuluş, N. Yaratıcı düşünmeye dayalı öǧretim uygulamalarının bilimsel yaratıcılık bilimsel süreç becerileri ve akademik başarıya etkisi. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Eǧitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon, (2012). [Google Scholar]
  21. Liang, J.. Exploring scientific creativity of eleventh grade students in Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, Texas, (2002). [Google Scholar]
  22. Meador, K. S. Thinking creatively about science suggestions for primary teachers. Gıfted Child Today, 26(25), 25-29, (2003). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. Miles, E. In-servıce elementary teachers’ familiarity, interest, conceptual knowledge, and performance on science process skills. Unpublished master thesis, B.S. Southern Illinois University Carbondale, (2008). [Google Scholar]
  24. Moghaddam, F. M., Walker, B. R., & Harre, R. Cultural distance, levels of abstraction and the advantages of mixed methods. A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Eds.) içinde, Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (s. 111-134). California: Sage Publication, (2003). [Google Scholar]
  25. Ongowo, R. O., & Indoshi, F. C. Science process skills in the Kenya certificate of secondary education biology practical examinations. Creative Education, 4(11), 713-717, (2013). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  26. Park, J. Scientific creativity in science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 10(3), 144-145, (2011). [Google Scholar]
  27. Rauf, R. A., Rasul, M. S., Mansor, A. N., Othman, Z., & Lyndon, N. Inculcation of science process skills in a science classroom. Asian Social Science, 9(8), 47-57, (2013). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. Şahin, F., & Benzer, E. The effect of the project practices improved with four question strategy to science process skills. Necatibey Eǧitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eǧitimi Dergisi (EFMED), 6(1), 306-337, (2012). [Google Scholar]
  29. Şakir, T. The effect of multiple intelligences based instructıion on students’ achievement in basic compounds of living organisms concepts and attitude toward biology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University, (2013). [Google Scholar]
  30. Ünal Çoban, G. The effects of inquiry supported by argument maps on science process skills and epistemological views of prospective science teachers. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(3), 271-288, (2013). [Google Scholar]
  31. Villalba, E. On creativity; towards an understanding of creativity and its measurements. İtaly Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, (2008). [Google Scholar]
  32. Wyke, R. M. Teaching creativity and innovation in higher education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, (2013). [Google Scholar]
  33. Zhang, J., Liu, G., & Lin, C. An action-oriented approach to gifted education: Evidence from the field of scientific creativity. High Ability Studies, 23(1), 123-125, (2012). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.