This research aims to fill a gap in the literature by examining the future orientations and expectations of gifted students. It specifically investigates the relationships among school hindrances, skill development, school innovativeness (SI), and future life direction. The analyses were conducted using data from 958 students. The study employs a cross-sectional survey design utilizing quantitative research methods. The research identified four direct effects and one indirect effect. Skill development at BILSEMs significantly enhances gifted students’ perceptions by directly influencing SI and future life direction. In addition, school hindrances have a moderate and negative significant impact on skill development at BILSEMs. There is also a low-level significant effect of SI as a mediator between skill development at BILSEMs and future life direction. It can be concluded that SI positively and significantly predicts the future life direction of gifted students at BILSEMs. This study indicates that skill development for gifted students at BILSEMs can be hindered by certain educational obstacles. However, in educational environments where such obstacles are minimized, gifted students exhibit substantial potential to develop skills and shape their future.
AhmedI.NawazM. M.AhmadZ.ShaukatM. Z.UsmanA.RehmanW. U.AhmedN. (2010). Determinants of students’ entrepreneurial career intentions: Evidence from business graduates. European Journal of Social Sciences, 15(2), 14–22.
2.
AhmedM.MahmoodT.GhumanM.ParveenS. (2013). Is effective education in the hands of private schools or government? Comparative analysis between government and private sector. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 3(2), 359–365.
3.
AndermanE.WoltersC. (2006). Goal, values, and affect. In AlexanderP.WinneP. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 369–389). Erlbaum Publishers.
4.
AtamanA. (2012). Üstün yetenekli çocuk kimdir. Geleceğin Mimarları Üstün Yetenekliler Sempozyumu [Who is a gifted child? Architects of the Future Gifted Symposium] 4–15.
5.
AtasoyR.ÖzdenC. (2022). The effect of instructional leadership, organizational innovativeness, and school hindering on teachers’ satisfaction at BILSEMs. Education Reform Journal, 7(2), 57–75. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7489405
6.
Atman UsluN.YavuzG. Ö.Koçak UsluelY. (2023). A systematic review study on educational robotics and robots. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(9), 5874–5898. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.2023890
7.
BaranE.Canbazoglu BiliciS.MesutogluC.OcakC. (2019). The impact of an out-of-school STEM education program on students’ attitudes toward STEM and STEM careers. School Science and Mathematics, 119(4), 223–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12330
8.
BasG. (2021). Teacher beliefs about educational reforms: A metaphor analysis. International Journal of Educational Reform, 30(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056787920933352
9.
BatoolS. N.RazzaqK.ImamH. (2023). How does action-oriented personality traits impact on entrepreneurial career choices? A trait-factor theory perspective. Kybernetes, 52(11), 5068–5086. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-04-2022-0498
10.
BayrıH.ÖzdemirP. (2022). An investigation on the levels of emotional reactivity, selfefficacy, and psychological vulnerability of gifted students: A mixed-methods study. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 21(81), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.878181
11.
BeckA. T.SteerR. A. (1988). Beck Hopelessness Scale Manual. Psychological Corporation.
12.
BennyN.BlonderR. (2016). Factors that promote/inhibit teaching gifted students in a regular class: Results from a professional development program for chemistry teachers. Education Research International, 2016(1), 1–11. http://doi.org/10.1155/2016/2742905
13.
BirgitE. (2011). Supportive and hindering factors to a sustainable implementation of ICT in schools. Journal for Educational Research Online, 3(1), 75–103.
14.
BirneyL. B.EvansB. R.KongJ.SolankiV.MojicaE. R.KondapuramG.KaoutzanisD. (2021). A case study of undergraduate and graduate student research in STEM education. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 10(1), 29–35. https://doi.org/10.5430/jct.v10n1p29
15.
BlömekeS.NilsenT.SchererR. (2021). School innovativeness is associated with enhanced teacher collaboration, innovative classroom practices, and job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(8), 1645–1667. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000668
16.
BriskaL.DislereV. (2018). Guidance model for promoting self-directed career decision-making by secondary school students. In The Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference Rural Environment, Education, Personality (REEP) (Vol. 11, pp. 344–353).
BrzozowyM.HołownickaK.BzdakJ.TorneseP.Lupiañez-VillanuevaF.VovkN.Sáenz de la TorreJ. J.PerellóJ.BonhoureI.PanouE.BampasidisG.VerdisA.PapaspirouP.KasoutasM.ViachosI.KokkotasS.MoussasX. (2017). Making STEM education attractive for young people by presenting key scientific challenges and their impact on our life and career perspectives. In INTED2017 Proceedings (pp. 9948–9957). IATED.
19.
BüyüköztürkŞ.ÇakmakE. K.AkgünÖ. E.KaradenizŞ.ve DemirelF. (2016). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods]. Pegem Akademi.
20.
ÇetinA.DoğanA. (2018). Problems that mathematics teachers encounter in science and art centers. Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Journal of Special Education, 19(4), 615–641. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.370355
21.
CeylanÖ.Umdu-TopsakalÜ. (2023). The effect of a differentiated problem-based science program on gifted students’ cooperative working skills and problem-solving skills. Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Journal of Special Education, 24(1), 117–136. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.956943
22.
ChenC. H.ChenS. H.HwangG. J.YangT. C. (2010). Factors influencing teachers’ adoption of a ubiquitous technology application in supporting teacher performance. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 4(1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2010.029953
23.
ChenY.SoW. W. M.ZhuJ.ChiuS. W. K. (2024). STEM learning opportunities and career aspirations: The interactive effect of students’ self-concept and perceptions of STEM professionals. International Journal of STEM Education, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00466-7
24.
ChristensenR.KnezekG. (2017). Relationship of middle school student STEM interest to career intent. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health, 3(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.275649
ClotfelterC.LaddH.VigdorJ. (2007). Are teacher absences worth worrying about in the U.S.? (NBER Working Paper Series, No. 136648). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w13648
27.
ÇobanO. (2020). Relationships between students’ socioeconomic status, parental support, students’ hindering, teachers’ hindering and students’ literacy scores: PISA 2018. World Journal of Education, 10(4), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v10n4p45
28.
ColemanJ. S.CampbellE. Q.HobsonC. J.McPartlandJ.MoodA. M.WeinfeldF. D.YorkR. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education.
29.
CreswellJ. W. (2017). Eğitim araştırmaları: Nicel ve nitel araştırmanın planlanması, yürütülmesi ve değerlendirilmesi [Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research]. Edam.
30.
DamonW. (2009). The why question teacher can instill a sense of purpose. Education Next, 9(3), 84.
31.
DarmawansahD.HwangG. J.ChenM. R. A.LiangJ. C. (2023). Trends and research foci of robotics-based STEM education: A systematic review from diverse angles based on the technology-based learning model. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00400-3
32.
DavisG. A. (2006). Gifted children, gifted education: A handbook for teachers and parents. Great Potential Press.
33.
DoğanülküH. A. (2024). Life goals and proactive career behaviors: The mediating role of visions about the future and the moderating role of intolerance of uncertainty. Current Psychology, 43(1), 72–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03236-2
34.
EkerA. (2023). Examining the effect of the future readiness psychoeducation program on gifted students’ career decision-making competencies and future expectations. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 11(3), 497–506. http://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.1348101
35.
EryılmazA. (2011). The relationship between adolescents’ subjective well-being and positive expectations towards future. Dusunen Adam Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences, 24(3), 209.
36.
EryilmazA. (2012). Goals: A significant tool for protection of mental and physical health. Current Approaches in Psychiatry, 4(4), 428. https://doi.org/10.5455/cap.20120426
FieldA. (2024). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage publications limited.
39.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
40.
GoddardY. L.GoddardR. D.Tschannen-MoranM. (2007). A theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109, 877–896. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810710900401
41.
HanushekE. A.WoessmannL. (2008). The role of cognitive skills in economic development. Journal of Economic Literature, 46(3), 607–668. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.46.3.607
42.
HoferichterF.HirvonenR.KiuruN. (2021). The development of school well-being in secondary school: High academic buoyancy and supportive class-and school climate as buffers. Learning and Instruction, 71, 101377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101377
43.
KapiciH. O.CoştuF. (2023). Investigating the effects of different laboratory environments on gifted students’ conceptual knowledge and science process skills. Turkish Journal of Education, 12(2), 109–120. https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.1252402
44.
KarataşZ.TagayO. (2021). Development of the social skills scale for pre-adolescents attending special/gifted secondary schools and examining its psychometric properties. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 51, 367–392. https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.746428
45.
Karatas-AydinF. I.Isiksal-BostanM. (2023). Engineering-based modelling experiences of elementary gifted students: An example of bridge construction. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 47, 101237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101237
46.
Kashani-VahidL.AfroozG.Shokoohi-YektaM.KharraziK.GhobariB. (2017). Can a creative interpersonal problem solving program improve creative thinking in gifted elementary students?Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.02.011
47.
KayasüS.EldenizF. (2016). Institutional performance of İzmir development agency. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 30(1), 57–78.
KirmitŞ.Dönmezİ.ÇataltaşH. E. (2018). The study of gifted students’ computational thinking skills. Journal of STEAM Education, 1(2), 17–26.
50.
KitchelA. (2015). An examination of the contribution of career and technical education to STEM education, student leadership, and career readiness. Journal of Research in Business Education, 57(1), 18–30.
51.
KitchenJ. A.WilliamsM. S.SonnertG.SadlerP. (2024). A quasi-experimental study of the impact of college-run science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) career days on American students’ STEM career aspirations. International Journal of Science Education, 46(2), 109–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2023.2220071
52.
KiuruN.PakarinenE.VasalampiK.SilinskasG.AunolaK.PoikkeusA.-M.MetsäpeltoR.-L.LerkkanenM.-K.NurmiJ.-E. (2014). Task-focused behavior mediates the associations between supportive interpersonal environments and students’ academic performance. Psychological Science, 25(4), 1018–1024. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613519111
53.
KlineT. J. B. (2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation. Sage.
54.
KotlerP. (1991). Marketing management—Analysis, planning, implementation, and control. Prentice Hall.
55.
KunterM.KlusmannU.BaumertJ.RichterD.VossT.HachfeldA. (2013). Professional competence of teachers: Effects on instructional quality and student development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 805. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032583
56.
LacasseY.GodboutC.SeriesF. (2002). Health-related quality of life in obstructive sleep apnoea. European Respiratory Journal, 19(3), 499–503.
57.
LancasterV. A. (2012). Academically gifted adolescents transferring to an independent gifted school: Effects on academic identity [Unpublished Master’s thesis]. Eastern Michigan University.
LeaperC.StarrC. R. (2019). Helping and hindering undergraduate women’s STEM motivation: Experiences with STEM encouragement, STEM-related gender bias, and sexual harassment. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(2), 165–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684318806302
60.
LeosteJ.HeidmetsM.LeyT.StepanovaJ. (2021). Classroom innovation becoming sustainable: A study of technological innovation adoption by Estonian primary school teachers. Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal (IxD&A), 47, 144–166. https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-047-007
61.
Martín-GarcíaA. V.Martínez-AbadF.Reyes-GonzálezD. (2019). TAM and stages of adoption of blended learning in higher education by application of data mining techniques. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2484–2500. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12831
62.
McNeishD. M.StapletonL. M.SilvermanR. D. (2017). On the unnecessary ubiquity of hierarchical linear modeling. Psychological Methods, 22(1), 114–140.
MendelsonS. R. (1973). Relationship between innovative teachers and student achievement and career aspirations [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Colorado State University.
65.
MjiA.MakgatoM. (2006). Factors associated with high school learners’ poor performance: A spotlight on mathematics and physical science. South African Journal of Education, 26(2), 253–266.
66.
MoNE. (2023). Millî Eğitim İstatistikleri Örgün Eğitim 2021/2022 [National Education Statistics Formal Education 2021/2022]. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı.
67.
MoonS. M.FeldhusenJ. F. (1993). Accomplishments and future plans of high school seniors who participated in an elementary enrichment program. Roeper Review, 15(3), 176–178.
68.
MorettiniB. (2021). Forms of resistance: Insights into beginning teacher development. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 2, 100041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2021.100041
69.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2010). Growth modeling with latent variable using Mplus: Advanced growth models, survival analysis and missing data. Mplus Short Courses.
70.
NeberH.Schommer-AikinsM. (2002). Self-regulated science learning with highly gifted students: The role of cognitive, motivational, epistemological, and environmental variables. High Ability Studies, 13(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130220132316
71.
NiG.XuH.CuiQ.QiaoY.ZhangZ.LiH.HickeyP. J. (2021). Influence mechanism of organizational flexibility on enterprise competitiveness: The mediating role of organizational innovation. Sustainability, 13(1), 176. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010176
72.
NinkovićS.Knežević FlorićO. (2024). School leadership and teaching practice: A systematic review of studies of the indirect effects. Journal of Educational Administration, 62(4), 357–372. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-08-2023-0190
73.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013). How the quality of the learning environment is shaped (Volume IV): What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices.
74.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016). The school learning environment. PISA 2015 results (Volume II): Policies and practices for successful schools.
75.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). Teacher behaviour and student learning. PISA 2018 results (Volume III): What school life means for students’ lives.
76.
OgurluU. (2016). Hopelessness and future expectations among gifted middle school students. Turkish Journal of Education, 5(1), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.30206
77.
ÖzdenizY.AktamışH.BildirenA. (2023). The effect of differentiated science module application on the scientific reasoning and scientific process skills of gifted students in a blended learning environment. International Journal of Science Education, 45(10), 827–849. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2023.2175627
78.
Öztüre YavuzG.AkçapınarG.Çıralı SarıcaH.Koçak UsluelY. (2024). Investigating features that play a role in predicting gifted student engagement using machine learning: Video log and self-report data. Education and Information Technologies, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12490-9
79.
PanyS. (2014). Creative thinking ability of government and private school children: A comparative study. Pedagogy of Learning, 2(1), 29–36.
80.
PellasN.DengelA.ChristopoulosA. (2020). A scoping review of immersive virtual reality in STEM education. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 13(4), 748–761. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2020.3019405
81.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.PodsakoffN. P.LeeJ. Y. (2003). The mismeasurement of man(agement) and its implications for leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 615–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.08.002
82.
RahimM. N.ChandranS. S. C. (2021). Investigating EFL students’ perceptions on e-learning paradigm-shift during Covid-19 pandemic. Elsya: Journal of English Language Studies, 3(1), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v3i1.5949
83.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (1986). The enrichment triad/revolving door model: A schoolwide plan for the development of creative productivity. In RenzulliJ. S. (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 216–266). Creative Learning Press.
84.
RobinsonA.DaileyD.HughesG.CotabishA. (2014). The effects of a science-focused STEM intervention on gifted elementary students’ science knowledge and skills. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(3), 189–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X14533799
85.
RogersH.VegasE. (2009). No more cutting class? Reducing teacher absence and providing incentives for performance (Policy Research Working Papers, No. 4847). The World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-4847
86.
RupiettaC.MeuerJ.Backes-GellnerU. (2021). How do apprentices moderate the influence of organizational innovation on the technological innovation process?Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training, 13(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40461-020-00107-7
SaranlıA. G.MetinN. (2012). Social-emotional problems observed in gifted children. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 45(1), 139–163. https://doi.org/10.1501/Egifak_0000001239
89.
SchildkampK.PoortmanC.LuytenH.EbbelerJ. (2017). Factors promoting and hindering databased decision making in schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28(2), 242–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2016.1256901
90.
SchleicherA. (2015). Schools for 21st-century learners: Strong leaders, confident teachers, innovative approaches. International Summit on the Teaching Profession. OECD Publishing.
91.
SegabutlaM. H.EvansR. (2019). Lack of lecturer clarity during instruction: Possible reason for poor throughput?South African Journal of Higher Education, 33(3), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.20853/33-3-2224
92.
SiegleD.GubbinsE. J.O’RourkeP.LangleyS. D.MunR. U.LuriaS. R.LittleC. A.McCoachD. B.KnuppT.CallahanC. M.PluckerJ. A. (2016). Barriers to underserved students’ participation in gifted programs and possible solutions. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39(2), 103–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216640930
93.
SlaterT. F. (2024). Identifying implementation strategies for integrating drones into STEM and career technology education CTE programs. Education Sciences, 14(1), 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010105
94.
StewartJ. B. (1999). Career counselling for the academically gifted student. Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy, 33(1).
95.
SucharitaV. (2014). Negotiating between family, peers and school: Understanding the world of government school and private school students. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 44(3), 379–393.
96.
SungW.KimC. (2021). A study on the effect of change management on organizational innovation: Focusing on the mediating effect of members’ innovative behavior. Sustainability, 13(4), 2079. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042079
97.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2003). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
98.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S.UllmanJ. B. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed., pp. 497–516). Pearson.
99.
ThomasC. R.GadboisS. A. (2007). Academic self-handicapping: The role of self-clarity and students’ learning strategies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X79644
100.
ThurlingsM.EversA. T.VermeulenM. (2015). Toward a model of explaining teachers’ innovative behavior: A literature review. Review of Educational Research, 85(3), 430–471. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314557949
101.
TörünF.KöksoyA. M. (2023). Perspectives of science and art center (BİLSEM) teachers and students on distance education: The example of İzmir province. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 35, 302–345. https://doi.org/10.14689/enad.35.1743
Tyler-WoodT.JohnsonK.CockerhamD. (2018). Factors influencing student STEM career choices: Gender differences. Journal of Research in STEM Education, 4(2), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.51355/jstem.2018.44
104.
UlgerB. B.ÇepniS. (2020). Gifted education and STEM: A thematic review. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 17(3), 443–466.
105.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.StambaughT. (2005). Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted learners in the regular classroom. Theory Into Practice, 44(3), 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4403_5
106.
VildanB.SalihÇ. (2022). A Thematic content analysis of gifted and talented students in science education in Türkiye. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 19(4), 1037–1071. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2022.162
107.
WakitaT.UeshimaN.NoguchiH. (2012). Psychological distance between categories in the Likert scale: Comparing different numbers of options. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(4), 533–546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164411431162
108.
WalbergH. J.BastJ. L. (2003). Education and capitalism: How overcoming our fear of markets and economics can improve America’s schools. Hoover Institute.
109.
WangD.CheungC.ZhaiX. (2024). Effects of career adaptability and career optimism on career intention of tourism and hospitality students. Tourism Review, 79(1), 24–37. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-12-2022-0650
110.
WatsonP. W.St Rubie-DaviesJ. C. M.MeisselK.PetersonE. R.FlintA.GarrettL.McDonaldL. (2019). Teacher gender, and expectation of reading achievement in New Zealand elementary school students: Essentially a barrier?Gender and Education, 31(8), 1000–1019. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2017.1410108
111.
WigfieldA.EcclesJ. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
112.
YıldırımÖ.ÇelikkolA. K. (2023). Investigation of the resilience, self-efficacy, and perceived social support of gifted students. Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Journal of Special Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.1195044
113.
YangD.WuX.LiuJ.ZhouJ. (2023). CiteSpace-based global science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education knowledge mapping analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1094959. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1094959
114.
Yiğit ÖzüdoğruH.YalçınA. (2023). The impact of inquiry-based learning activities on the geographic inquiry skills of science and arts center (BİLSEM) students. Millî Eğitim, 52(special edition), 197–224. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.1288722
115.
YuJ.McLellanR. (2019). Beyond academic achievement goals: The importance of social achievement goals in explaining gender differences in self-handicapping. Learning and Individual Differences, 69, 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.11.010
116.
ZhangK.AslanA. B. (2021). AI technologies for education: Recent research & future directions. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100025
117.
ZlatanovićD.NikolićJ.PotočanV.Erić NielsenJ. (2023). What drives innovativeness in higher education? Evidence from two emerging markets. Kybernetes. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-01-2023-0127
