Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education

• Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). Virtual classroom characteristics and student satisfaction with internet-based MBA courses. Journal of Management Education, 24(1), 32-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256290002400104.
• Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviors predicting students’ engagement in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 261-278. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709902158883.
• Augustine, N. R. (2005). Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• Australian Council of State School Organizations (ACSSO) (2010). Australian Education Digest, STEM Education Special. Retrieved from http://www.acsso.org.au/AED100923.pdf.
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the Exercise of Control. New York, W. H. Freeman and Company.
• Barak, M. (2013). Teaching engineering and technology: cognitive, knowledge and problem-solving taxonomies. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 11(3), 316-333. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-04-2012-0020.
• Barak, M. (2014). Closing the gap between attitudes and perceptions about ICT-enhanced learning among pre-service STEM teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9446-8.
• Barak, M., & Dori, Y. J. (2005). Enhancing undergraduate students’ chemistry understanding through project-based learning in an IT environment. Science Education, 89(1), 117-139. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20027.
• Barak, M., & Ziv, S. (2013). Wandering: a web-based platform for the creation of location-based interactive learning objects. Computers & Education, 62(2), 159-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.015.
• Barak, M., Nissim, Y., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2011). Aptness between teaching roles and teaching strategies in ICT-integrated science lessons. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 7, 305-322. https://doi.org/10.28945/1526.
• Barron, B. J., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). Doing with understanding: lessons from research on problem-and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3-4), 271-311. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.1998.9672056.
• Basturk, R. (2008). Applying the many-faceted Rasch model to evaluate PowerPoint presentation performance in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(4), 431-444. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701562775.
• Becker, K. H., & Park, K. (2011). Integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: a meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 12(5/6), 23-37.
• Bell, R. L., Maeng, J. L., & Binns, I. C. (2013). Learning in context: technology integration in a teacher preparation program informed by situated learning theory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 348-379. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21075.
• Bergman, D. J., & Morphew, J. (2015). Effects of a science content course on elementary pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy of teaching science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(3), 73-81. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst15_044_03_73.
• Bilgin, I., Karakuyu, Y., & Ay, Y. (2015). The Effects of Project Based Learning on Undergraduate Students’ Achievement and Self-Efficacy Beliefs towards Science Teaching. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(3), 469-477. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1015a.
• Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M. & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3-4), 369-398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139.
• Brown, J. L., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018001032.
• Bruner, J. (1996). The Culture of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Bybee, R. W. (2013). The Case for STEM Education: Challenges and Opportunities. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
• Caleon, I., & Subramaniam, R. (2010). Development and application of a three-tier diagnostic test to assess secondary students’ understanding of waves. International Journal of Science Education, 32(7), 939-961. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902890130.
• Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., & Morgan, J. R. (2013). STEM Project-based Learning. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-143-6.
• Chai, C. S., Koh, E., Lim, C. P., & Tsai, C.-C. (2014). Deepening ICT integration through multilevel design of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Computers in Education, 1(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-014-0002-1.
• Chang, H. P., Chen, J. Y., Guo, C. J., Chen, C. C., Chang, C. Y., Lin, S. H., … Tseng, Y. T. (2007). Investigating primary and secondary students’ learning of physics concepts in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 29(4), 465-482. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601073210.
• Chen, F., Gorbunova, N. V., Masalimova, A. R., & Birova, J. (2017). Formation of ICT-competence of future university school teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(8), 4765-4777.
• Chiu, J. L., Chen, J. K., & Linn, M. C. (2013). Overcoming deceptive clarity by encouraging metacognition in the web-based inquiry science environment. In R. Azevedo & V. A. Aleven (Eds.), International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 517-531), Springer, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5546-3_33.
• Creswell, J. W., & Plano, C. V. L. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
• Crismond, D. P. (2011). Scaffolding strategies for integrating engineering design and scientific inquiry in project-based learning environments. In M. Barak & M. Hacker (Eds.) (pp. 235-255). Fostering Human Development through Engineering and Technology Education, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-549-9_13.
• De Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130), 305-308. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230579.
• Deemer, S. (2004). Classroom goal orientation in high school classrooms: revealing links between teacher beliefs and classroom environments. Educational Research, 46(1), 73-90. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188042000178836.
• Dolmans, D. M., de Grave, W., Wolfhagen, I. P., & van der Vleuten, C. M. (2005). Problem-based learning: future challenges for educational practice and research. Medical Education, 39(7), 732-741. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02205.x.
• Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 243-279. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1402_3.
• Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
• Eshach, H. & Schwartz, J. L. (2006). Sound stuff? Naïve materialism in middle-school students’ conceptions of sound. International Journal of Science Education, 28(7), 733-764. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500277938.
• Field, M., Lee, R., & Field, M. L. (1994). Assessing interdisciplinary learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1994(58), 69-84. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219945806.
• Fore, G. A., Feldhaus, C. R., Sorge, B. H., Agarwal, M., & Varahramyan, K. (2015). Learning at the nano-level: accounting for complexity in the internalization of secondary STEM teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 101-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.06.008.
• Fortus, D., & Vedder-Weiss, D. (2014). Measuring students’ continuing motivation for science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(4), 497-522. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21136.
• Frykholm, J., & Glasson, G. (2005). Connecting science and mathematics instruction: pedagogical context knowledge for teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 105(3), 127-141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2005.tb18047.x.
• Gero, A. (2016). Development of interdisciplinary lessons integrating science and engineering in heterogeneous teams: education students’ attitudes. IJEP, 6(2), 59-64. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v6i2.5683.
• Greene, J. C. (2005). The generative potential of mixed methods inquiry. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 28(2), 207-211. https://doi.org/10.1080/01406720500256293.
• Hechter, R. P. (2011). Changes in pre-service elementary teachers’ personal science teaching efficacy and science teaching outcome expectancies: the influence of context. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(2), 187-202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9199-7.
• Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368.
• Hoffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: a meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 722-738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.013.
• Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
• Hossain, M. M., & Robinson, M. G. (2012). How to Motivate US Students to Pursue STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) Careers. Online submission. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED533548.
• Jaakkola, T., Nurmi, S., & Veermans, K. (2011). A comparison of students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits in simulation only and simulation-laboratory contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(1), 71-93. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20386.
• Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teachers’ professional development. Computer Education, 55(3), 1259-1269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.022.
• Joo, Y. J., Bong, M., & Choi, H. J. (2000). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning, academic self-efficacy, and Internet self-efficacy in web-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 5-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02313398.
• Kaberman, Z., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). Metacognition in chemical education: question posing in the case-based computerized learning environment. Instructional Science, 37(5), 403-436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9054-9.
• Katehi, L., Pearson, G., Feder, M. A., Committee on K-12 Engineering Education. National Academy of Engineering & National Research Council (U.S.). (2009). Engineering in K-12 Education: Understanding the Status and Improving the Prospects. National Academies Press, Washington DC.
• Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z.
• Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching? Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.
• Lattuca, L. R., Voight, L. J., & Fath, K. Q. (2004). Does interdisciplinarity promote learning? Theoretical support and researchable questions. The Review of Higher Education, 28(1), 23-48. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2004.0028.
• Linder, C. J. (1993). University physics students’ conceptualizations of factors affecting the speed of sound propagation. International Journal of Science Education, 15(6), 655-662. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069930150603.
• Liu, X. (2006). Effects of combined hands-on laboratory and computer modeling on student learning of gas laws: a quasi-experimental study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 89-100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-0359-7.
• Llinares, S., & Krainer, K. (2006). Mathematics (student) teachers and teacher educators as learners. In A. Gutierrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of Research on the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
• Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three – strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14.
• Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: when presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 187. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.187.
• McDonnough, J. T., & Matkins, J. J. (2010). The role of field experience in elementary preservice teachers’ self‐efficacy and ability to connect research to practice. School Science and Mathematics, 110(1), 13-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2009.00003.x.
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. London: Sage.
• Morrison, J. A., Raab, F., & Ingram, D. (2008). Factors influencing elementary and secondary teachers’ views on the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(4), 384-403. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20252.
• Nadelson, L., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., Dance, M., & Pfiester, J. (2013). Teacher STEM perception and preparation: inquiry-based STEM professional development for elementary teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 106(2), 157-168. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.667014.
• Najjar, L. J. (1998). Principles of educational multimedia user interface design. Human Factors, 41(2), 311-323. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872098779480505.
• National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• National Science Foundation. (2007). A National Action Plan for Addressing the Critical Needs of the U.S. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education System. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/edu_com/draft_stem_ report.pdf.
• Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509-523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.006.
• Olympiou, G., & Zacharia, Z.C. (2012). Blending physical and virtual manipulatives: an effort to improve students’ conceptual understanding through science laboratory experimentation. Science Education, 96(1), 21-47. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20463.
• Osborne, J., & Hennessy, S. (2003). Literature Review in Science Education and the Role of ICT: Promise, Problems and Future Directions. Bristol: Future lab.
• Park, H. R., Khan, S., & Petrina, S. (2009). ICT in science education: a quasi-experimental study of achievement, attitudes toward science, and career aspirations of Korean junior high school students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(8), 993-1012. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701787891.
• Pejuan, A., Bohigas, X., Jaén, X., & Periago, C. (2012). Misconceptions about sound among engineering students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(6), 669-685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9356-6.
• Polman, J. L. (2000). Designing Project-Based Science: Connecting Learners through Guided Inquiry. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
• Punch, K., & Oancea, A. (2014). Introduction to Research Methods in Education. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
• Rogers, L., & Twidle, J. (2013). A pedagogical framework for developing innovative science teachers with ICT. Research in Science & Technological Education, 31(3), 227-251. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2013.833900.
• Satchwell, R. E., & Loepp, F. L. (2002). Designing and implementing an integrated mathematics, science, and technology curriculum for the middle school. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3), 41-66.
• Schmidt, M., & Fulton, L. (2016). Transforming a traditional inquiry-based science unit into a STEM unit for elementary pre-service teachers: a view from the trenches. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(2), 302-315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9594-0.
• Sherman, A., & MacDonald, L. (2007). Preservice teachers’ experiences with a science education module. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(4), 525-541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-007-9049-4.
• Skryabin, M., Zhang, J., Liu, L., & Zhang, D. (2015). How the ICT development level and usage influence student achievement in reading, mathematics, and science? Computers & Education, 85, 49-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.004.
• Smeets, E. (2005). Does ICT contribute to powerful learning environments in primary education? Computers & Education, 44(3), 343-355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.04.003.
• Sozen, M., & Bolat, M. (2011). Determining the misconceptions of primary school students related to sound transmission through drawing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15(5), 1060-1066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.239.
• Teo, T., & Ke, K. (2014). Challenges in STEM teaching: implication for preservice and in-service teacher education program. Theory into Practice, 53(1), 18-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2014.862116.
• Thomas, J. W. (2000). A Review of Research on Project-Based Learning. ‏ San Rafael, CA: Autodesk Foundation.
• Tongchai, A., Sharma, M. D., Johnston, I. D., Arayathanitkul, K., & Soankwan, C. (2009). Developing, evaluating and demonstrating the use of a conceptual survey in mechanical waves. International Journal of Science Education, 31(18), 2437-2457. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802389605.
• Tsai, C. C. (2006). Reinterpreting and reconstructing science: teachers’ view changes toward the nature of science by courses of science education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(3), 363-375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.06.010.
• Tsai, H.-Y., Chung, C.-C., & Lou, S.-J. (2017). Construction and Development of iSTEM Learning Model. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(1), 15-32. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/78019.
• Vandervelde, J. (2006). A+ PowerPoint Rubric. Retrieved on 6 September 2005 from http://www.uwstout.edu /soe/profdev/pptrubric.html.
• Vasquez, J. A., Sneider, C. I., & Comer, M. W. (2013). STEM Lesson Essentials, Grades 3-8: Integrating Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
• Wittmann, C. M. (2003). Understanding and affecting student reasoning about sound waves. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 991-1013. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305024.

APA

Awad, N., & Barak, M. (2018). Pre-service Science Teachers Learn a Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)-Oriented Program: The Case of Sound, Waves and Communication Systems. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(4), 1431-1451. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/83680

Vancouver

Awad N, Barak M. Pre-service Science Teachers Learn a Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)-Oriented Program: The Case of Sound, Waves and Communication Systems. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2018;14(4):1431-51. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/83680

AMA

Awad N, Barak M. Pre-service Science Teachers Learn a Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)-Oriented Program: The Case of Sound, Waves and Communication Systems. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2018;14(4), 1431-1451. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/83680

Chicago

Awad, Nayif, and Moshe Barak. "Pre-service Science Teachers Learn a Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)-Oriented Program: The Case of Sound, Waves and Communication Systems". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2018 14 no. 4 (2018): 1431-1451. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/83680

Harvard

Awad, N., and Barak, M. (2018). Pre-service Science Teachers Learn a Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)-Oriented Program: The Case of Sound, Waves and Communication Systems. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(4), pp. 1431-1451. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/83680

MLA

Awad, Nayif et al. "Pre-service Science Teachers Learn a Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)-Oriented Program: The Case of Sound, Waves and Communication Systems". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 14, no. 4, 2018, pp. 1431-1451. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/83680