EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 593 (2024) E3S Web Conf., 593 (2024) 04003 References
Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 593, 2024
International EcoHarmony Summit (IES 2024): Navigating the Threads of Sustainability
Article Number 04003
Number of page(s) 20
Section Education for Sustainable Development
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202459304003
Published online 21 November 2024
  1. T. Borrowski, The battelle for kids p21 framework for 21st century learning. (Univ. Illinois Chicago 2019). [Google Scholar]
  2. P. E. Bernhardt, 21st century learning: Professional development in practice. Qual. Rep. 20, 1 (2015). https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.1419. [Google Scholar]
  3. D. Binkley, O. C. Campoe, C. Alvares, R. L. Carneiro, Í. Cegatta, and J. L. Stape, The interactions of climate, spacing and genetics on clonal eucalyptus plantations across Brazil and Uruguay. For. Ecol. Manage. 405, 271 (2017). http://hdl.handle.net/11449/163435. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. U. B.-A. Ordu, The role of teaching and learning aids/methods in a changing world. Bulg. Comp. Educ. Soc. (2021). [Google Scholar]
  5. P. A. Facione, Critical thinking: what it is and why it counts. Insight Assess. 1, 1 (2011). [Google Scholar]
  6. P. C. Abrami, R. M. Bernard, E. Borokhovski, D. I. Waddington, C. A. Wade, and T. Persson, Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 85, 275 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3102/003465431455106. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. R. Ennis, Critical thinking: Reflection and perspective Part II. Inq. Crit. Think. across Discip. 26, 5 (2011). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. S. Graham and D. Perin, A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. J. Educ. Psychol. 99, 445 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. S. Graham, K. R. Harris, and T. Santangelo, Based writing practices and the common core: Meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. Elem. Sch. J. 115, 498 (2015). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. P. Dillenbourg and F. Fischer, Computer-supported collaborative learning: The basics. Zeitschrift Für Berufs-Und Wirtschaftspädagogik. 21, 111 (2007). [Google Scholar]
  11. D. W. Johnson and R. T. Johnson, An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educ. Res. 38, 365 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339057 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. R. Z. Ahmed and S. J. B. Bidin, The effect of task based language teaching on writing skills of EFL learners in Malaysia. Open J. Mod. Linguist. 6, 207 (2016). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. B. K. Tsurusaki, C. Tzou, L. D. C. Conner, and M. Guthrie, 5th-7th grade girls’ conceptions of creativity: Implications for STEAM education. Creat. Educ. 8, 255 (2017). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. S. Hennessy, Pedagogical approaches for technology-integrated science teaching. Comput. Educ. 48, 137 (2007). https://api.elsevier.com/content/article/eid/1-s2.0S0360131506000406. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. A. Bahjat Abdallah, B. Yousef Obeidat, N. Osama Aqqad, K. Al Janini, M. Na’el, and S. E. Dahiyat, An integrated model of job involvement, job satisfaction and organizational commitment: A structural analysis in Jordan’s banking sector. Commun. Netw. 9, 28 (2017). https://doi.org/10.4236/cn.2017.91002 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. B. Condliffe, Project-based learning: A literature review. working paper. MDRC (2017). [Google Scholar]
  17. S. Kurt and J. Beck, Project-based language learning in Turkey, Greece, and Cyprus: A systematic review. J. Lang. Teach. 3, 1 (2023). https://doi.org/10.54475/jlt.2023.001 [Google Scholar]
  18. L. Darling-Hammond, L. Flook, C. Cook-Harvey, B. Barron, and D. Osher, Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Appl. Dev. Sci. 24, 97 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. R. Paul and L. Elder, Critical thinking: Learn the tools the best thinkers use. (No Title) (2006). [Google Scholar]
  20. N. Storch, Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Multiling. Matters (2013). [Google Scholar]
  21. J. Flowerdew and S. H. Wang, Identity in academic discourse. Annu. Rev. Appl. Linguist. 35, 81 (2015). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. K. D. Whittington, Does Motivation Predict Persistence and Academic Success? Open J. Nurs. 5, 10 (2015). https://doi.org/10.4236/ojn.2015.51002 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. D. Susanti, Pengaruh kekerasan verbal teman sebaya terhadap kesulitan belajar siswa kelas V di Sekolah Dasar negeri 035 Tembilahan Hilir. STAI Auliaurrasyidin Tembilahan. (2023). https://repository.stai-tbh.ac.id/handle/123456789/356 [Google Scholar]
  24. S. Sahoo and C. A. Mohammed, Fostering critical thinking and collaborative learning skills among medical students through a research protocol writing activity in the curriculum. Korean J. Med. Educ. 30, 109 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3946/kjme.2018.86 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. N. Bouanani, Enhancing critical thinking skills through reflective writing intervention among business college students. IOSR J. Res. Method Educ. 5, 50 (2015). [Google Scholar]
  26. M. Yamin and O. Purwati, Enhancing critical writing towards undergraduate students in conducting research proposal. Arab World English J. vol. 11, (2020). https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol11no2.10 [Google Scholar]
  27. L. M. Greenstein, Assessing 21st Century Skills: A guide to evaluating mastery and authentic learning (Corwin Press, 2012). [Google Scholar]
  28. J. van der Meer, J. Skalicky, H. Speed, and D. G. Young, Focusing on the development of the whole student: an international comparative study of the perceived benefits of peer leadership in higher education. Open J. Soc. Sci. 10, 14 (2022). https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2022.103002 [Google Scholar]
  29. D. S. Johnson, Outcome measurement in the ACL deficient knee What’s the score? Knee. 8, 51 (2001). https://api.elsevier.com/content/article/eid/1-s2.0S0968016001000680 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. D. Fraser, The creative potential of metaphorical writing in the literacy classroom. (2006). [Google Scholar]
  31. A. Hasani, A. Hendrayana, and A. Senjaya, Using project-based learning in writing an educational article: an experience report. univers. J. Educ. Res. 5, 960 (2017). https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2017.050608 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  32. P. Creme and C. Hunt, Creative participation in the essay writing process. Arts Humanit. High. Educ. 1, 145 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022202001002003 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. S. W. Cress and D. T. Holm, Creative endeavors: Inspiring creativity in a first grade classroom. Early Child. Educ. J. 44, 235 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-015-0704-7 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  34. J. Kim, J. Lee, K. M. Jang, and I. Lourentzou, Exploring the limitations in how ChatGPT introduces environmental justice issues in the United States: A case study of 3,108 counties. Telemat Informatics. 86, 102085 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2023.102085 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  35. Y. Kim, Sound propagation: an impedance based approach. (2010). https://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/84860875307 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  36. F. Firdaus, I. Kailani, M. N. Bin Bakar, and B. Bakry, Developing critical thinking skills of students in mathematics learning. J. Educ. Learn. 9, 226 (2015). https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v9i3.1830 [Google Scholar]
  37. B. R. Belland, A. E. Walker, N. J. Kim, and M. Lefler, Synthesizing results from empirical research on computer-based scaffolding in STEM education: A metaanalysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 87, 309 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316670999 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. R. K. Sawyer and D. Henriksen, Explaining creativity: the science of human innovation. (Oxford university press, 2024) [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.