Vol. 4 Iss. 1

In this issue:
• STEM Education and Science Identity Formation
• Engaging Students in Science Using Project Olympiads: A case study in Bosnia and Herzegovina
• How Engineering Technology Students Perceive Mathematics
• The Relationship Between U.S. High School Science Teacher’s Self-Efficacy, Professional Development, and Use of Technology in Classrooms

STEM Education and Science Identity Formation

Ellina Chernobilsky

Download: 108, size: 0, date: 10.Jan.2021

As the world struggles with the COVID pandemic, one question that keeps coming up in conversations
among educators is how to teach students amid the uncertainty. Specifically, the difficulty is with
teaching subjects that require hands-on learning in order to master the concepts and make them one’s
own. Today, however, I would like to pose a different, more global question: How can we help
students identify with science in a deeper, more meaningful way? How can we help students
develop what is known as science identity?


Bordova, E. & Leong, D.J. (2005). The importance of play: Why children need to play. Early Childhood today, 20(1), 6-7.

Henrandez, P.R. et al (2017). Promoting professional identity, motivation, and persistence: Benefits of an informal mentoring program for female undergraduate students. PLoS ONE 12(11): e0187531. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187531

Hidi, S., & Reninger, K.A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111-127.

Sage2YC (nd). Science identity. Retrieved from https://serc.carleton.edu/sage2yc/sci_id.html

Symeonidis, V., & Schwarz, J. F. (2016). Phenomenon-Based Teaching and Learning through the Pedagogical Lenses of Phenomenology: The Recent Curriculum Reform in Finland. Forum Oświatowe, 28(2), 31–47. Retrieved from: http://www.edite.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Phenomenon-based-teaching-and-learning-through-the-pedagogical-lenses-of-phenomenology_The-recent-curriculum-reform-in-Finland.pdf
Online First, Vol. 4 Iss. 1

Engaging Students in Science Using Project Olympiads: A case study in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Senol Dogan & Emrulla Spahiu

Download: 44, size: 0, date: 23.Mar.2021

Abstract: Making science enjoyable inspires students to learn more. Out-of-class activities such as science fairs and Olympiads, serve as reasonable informal learning environments that demand attention. The association of students’ involvement in these activities with increased student interest in science followed by the selection of science-related careers, should motivate all in-charge stakeholders. In this work, we analysed the outcomes of the Bosnia Science Olympiad (BSO) as the first national Science Olympiad inBosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), aiming the improvement of science education and bringing different ethnic groups under the umbrella of science, in a post-conflict area. The two-day endeavour held in Sarajevo includes competition in four science-related categories(Environment, Engineering, Have an Idea, Web Design)and social activities.In this work, the comprehensive data, including participants’ gender, their ethnic background, cities, schools, and supervisors, over fiveyears, was analysed.The number ofparticipating high-school students increased from 78 to 143, of supervisors from 21 to 95, and of schools from 7 to 15, reaching a wide demographic acceptance to cover all ethnic regions in BiH. The relationship between gender and the selection of a category, shows bias of male participants towards Web Design (21%) and Engineering (40%), and offemale students towards“Have an Idea”(40%) and Environment (44%) categories. The contribution of BSO choosing a science career, getting socialized without prejudices, and the improvement of students’ self-confidence, were as well addressed. Our work demonstrates a model work to successfully promote science in post-conflict settings.

Keywords: Olympiad; Science; STEM; education; ethnic diversity; Bosnia and Herzegovina

Please Cite: Dogan, S., & Spahiu, E. (2020). Engaging Students in Science Using Project Olympiads: A case study in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 4(1), 5-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.412           


Aguirre, J., & Speer, N. M. (2000). Examining the relationship between beliefs and goals in teacher practice. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(3), 327–356.

Alonzo, A. C., Kobarg, M., & Seidel, T. (2012). Pedagogical content knowledge as reflected in teacher–student interactions: Analysis of two video cases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(10), 1211 – 1239.

Andersen, L., & Chen, J. A. (2016). Do high-ability students disidentify with science? A descriptive study of U.S. ninth graders in 2009: DO high-ability students disidentify with science? Science Education, 100(1), 57–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21197

Andersen, L., & Ward, T. J. (2014). Expectancy-value models for the STEM persistence Plans of ninth-grade, high-ability students: A comparison between Black, Hispanic, and White students. Science Education, 98(2), 216–242. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21092

Basu, S. J., & Barton, A. C. (2007). Developing a sustained interest in science among urban minority youth. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 466 – 489.

Bencze, J. L., & Bowen, G. M. (2009). A national science fair: Exhibiting support for the knowledge economy. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802398127

Bosnian Science Olympiad 2016 Gathered High Schoolers From All Over Bosnia and Herzegovina. (2016, April 9). International Burch University. https://www.ibu.edu.ba/bosnian-science-olympiad-2016-gathered-high-from-all-over-bosnia-and-herzegovina/

Datnow, A., & Castellano, M. (2000). Teachers’ responses to success for all: How beliefs, experiences, and adaptations shape implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 37(3), 775–799.

Deemer, S. (2004). Classroom goal orientation in high school classrooms: Revealing links between teacher beliefs and classroom environments. 46(1), 73–90.

Drew, C. (2011, November 4). Why science majors change their minds (it’s just so darn hard). The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/education/edlife/why-science-majors-change-their-mind- its-just-so-darn-hard.html

Echterhoff, G. (2009). Shared reality: Experiencing commonality with others’ inner states about the world. 4(5), 496 – 521.

Ekmekci, A., Sahin, A., Gulacar, O., & Almus, K. (2018). High school students’ semantic networks of scientific method in an international science olympiad context. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(10), em1604. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/93677

Estrada, M., Burnett, M., Campbell, A. G., Campbell, P. B., Denetclaw, W. F., Gutiérrez, C. G., Hurtado, S., John, G. H., Matsui, J., McGee, R., Okpodu, C. M., Robinson, T. J., Summers, M. F., Werner-Washburne, M., & Zavala, M. (2016). Improving underrepresented minority student persistence in STEM. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0038

Fuligni, A. J., & Hardway, C. (2006). Daily variation in adolescents’sleep, activities, and psychological well-being. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16(3), 353–378. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00498.x

Garrod, S., & Almeida-Porada, G. (1994). Conversation, co-ordination and convention: An empirical investigation of how groups establish linguistic conventions. Cognition, 53, 181–215.

Garrod, S., & Doherty, G. (1994). Conversation, co-ordination and convention: An empirical investigation of how groups establish linguistic conventions. Cognition, 53, 181–215.

Gess-Newsome, J., Southerland, S. A., Johnston, A., & Woodbury, S. (2003). Educational reform, personal practical theories, and dissatisfaction: The anatomy of change in college science teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 731–767.

Grevtseva, G. Y., Litvak, R. A., Tsiulina, M. V., Balikaeva, M. B., & Pavlichenko, A. A. (2018). Scientific Olympiad as means of students’ youth development. SHS Web of Conferences, 50, 01205. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20185001205

Grinnell, F., Dalley, S., Shepherd, K., & Reisch, J. (2018). High school science fair: Student opinions regarding whether participation should be required or optional and why. PLOS ONE, 13(8), e0202320. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202320

Hannover, B., & Kessels, U. (2004). Self-to-prototype matching as a strategy for making academic choices. Why high school students do not like math and science. Learning and Instruction, 14, 51–67.

Hayes, B. C., & McAllister, I. (2009). Education as a mechanism for conflict resolution in Northern Ireland. Oxford Review of Education, 35(4), 437–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980902957796

Kang, E. J. S., Bianchini, J. A., & Kelly, G. J. (2013). Crossing the border from science student to science teacher: Preservice teachers’ views and experiences learning to teach inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 427–447.

Kind, P., Jones, K., & Barmby, P. (2007). Developing atitudes towards science measures. International Journal of Science Education, 29(7), 871–893. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600909091

Klopfer, L. E. (1973). Evaluation of science achievement and science test development in an international context: The IEA study in science. Science Education, 57(3), 387–403. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730570317

Kruse, R., Howes, E. V., Carlson, J., Roth, K., Bourdelat-Parks, B., Roseman, J. E., Herrmann-Abell, C. F., & Flanagan, J. C. (2013). Developing and Evaluating an eighth grade curriculum unit that links foundational chemistry to biological growth: Changing the research-based curriculum. Online Submission. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED542984

Kususanto, P., Fui, C. S., & Lan, L. H. (2012). Teachers’ expectancy and students’ attitude towards science. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(2), 87–98.

Lent, R. W., Lopez, A., Lopez, F., & Sheu, H. (2008). Social cognitive career theory and the prediction of interests and choice goals in the computing disciplines. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 52–62.

Manning, B. H., & Payne, B. D. (1993). A Vygotskian-based theory of teacher cognition: Toward the acquisition of mental reflection and self-regulation. Teaching & Teacher Education, 9(4), 361–371.

Miller, L., Lietz, P., & Kotte, D. (2002). On decreasing gender differences and attitudinal changes: Factors influencing Australian and English pupils’ choice of a career in science. Psychology, Evolution & Gender, 69–92.

National Research Council. (2013). Preparing the next generation of earth scientists: An examination of federal education and training programs. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18369

Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. (2013). The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290

OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 results (Volume I). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.

Pope, D., Brown, M., & Miles, S. (2015). Overloaded and underprepared: Strategies for stronger schools and healthy, successful kids (1 edition). John Wiley & Sons.

Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 180–261.

Roehrig, G. H., Kruse, R. A., & Kern, A. (2007). Teacher and school characteristics and their influence on curriculum implementation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 883–907.

Romney, A. K., Boyd, J. P., Moore, C. C., Btachelder, W. H., & Brazil, T. J. (1996). Culture as Shared Cognitive Representations. 93, 4699 – 4705.

Sahin, A. (2013). STEM clubs and science fair competitions: Effects on post-secondary matriculation. Journal of STEM Education, 14(1), 7–13.

Sahin, A., Gulacar, O., & Stuessy, C. (2015). High school students’ perceptions of the effects of international science olympiad on their STEM career aspirations and twenty first century skill development. Research in Science Education, 45(6), 785–805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9439-5

Sanger, M. A., & Osguthorpe, R. D. (2011). Teacher education, preservice teacher beliefs, and the moral work of teaching. Teaching & Teacher Education, 27, 569–578.

Simpkins, S. D., & Davis-Kean, P. E. (2005). The intersection between self-concepts and values: Links between beliefs and choices in high school. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 110(31–47).

Stoll, L., Bolam, R., MacMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 221–258.

The Nation’s Report Card: 2015 Science at Grades 4, 8 and 12. (2016, October 27). National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2016162

Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., Loof, H. D., Meester, J. D., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A., Pauw, J. B., Dehaene, W., Deprez, J., Cock, M. D., Hellinckx, L., Knipprath, H., Langie, G., Struyven, K., Velde, D. V. de, Petegem, P. V., & Depaepe, F. (2018). Integrated STEM education: A systematic review of instructional practices in secondary education. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 02. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/85525

Top, N., Sahin, A., & Almus, K. (2015). A stimulating experience: I-SWEEEP participants’ perceptions on the benefits of science olympiad and gender differences in competition category. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015605355

Walan, S., & Ewen, B. M. (2018). Teachers’ and principals’ reflections on student participation in a school science and technology competition. Research in Science & Technological Education, 36(4), 391–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2017.1420644

Walan, S., & Gericke, N. (2019). Factors from informal learning contributing to the children's???? interest in STEM: Experiences from the out-of-school activity called children's??? University. Research in Science & Technological Education, Volume missing or if online - website???1–21.

Watt, H. M. G., & Durik, A. M. (2006). The leaky mathematics pipeline for girls: A motivational analysis of high school enrolments in Australia and the US. Equal Opportunities International, 25, 642–659.

Weir, K. (2016, March). Is homework a necessary evil? Monitor on Psychology, 47(3). https://www.apa.org/monitor/2016/03/homework

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000a). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educa- Tional Psychology, 25, 68 – 81.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000b). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015

Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. (2012). Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education, 96(5), 878–903.

Woodbury, S., & Gess-Newsome, J. (2002). Overcoming the paradox of change without difference: A model of change in the arena of fundamental school reform. Educational Policy, 16(5), 763–782.

Yoder, B. L. (2016). Engineering by the numbers. American Society for Engineering Education. https://www.asee.org/papers-and-publications/publications/college-profiles/16profile-front-section.pdf


Vol. 4 Iss. 1

How Engineering Technology Students Perceive Mathematics

Meher R. Taleyarkhan, Anne M. Lucietto & Therese M. Azevedo

Download: 110, size: 0, date: 16.Jan.2021

Abstract: Engineering Technology (ET) is often combined with that of Engineering. Although Engineering Technology is based on a more hands-on approach and Engineering a theoretical approach, the two majors share a very similar pedagogy in teaching students the same engineering and scientific principles. An observation by an ET professor found that ET students more often than not would eschew the use of mathematical computations and instead provide answers they believe to be correct, without computation or explanation. Leading researchers to delve into possible reasons as to why ET students are reluctant to utilize mathematics. This study utilized in-person interviews with 15 undergraduate participants from a Midwestern University in the United States of America from ET to ascertain how ET students perceive mathematics. The results of the study found that although ET students were stated to not hate mathematics and are open to using mathematics, there was a slight apprehension towards math due to bad math experiences and not being able to connect the conceptual nature of mathematics to the visual and real-life scenarios ET students are used to facing. The results of this study help to lay the foundation for future research studies geared towards further understanding why ET students are apprehensive towards mathematics and ultimately how to help ET students overcome this apprehension.

Keywords: college; engineering technology; mathematics; student

Please Cite: Taleyarkhan. M. R, Lucietto, A. M., & Azevedo, T. M. (2021). How Engineering Technology Students Perceive Mathematics. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 4(1), 23-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.413                


Ahmed, W. (2018). Developmental trajectories of math anxiety during adolescence: Associations with STEM career choice. Journal of Adolescence, 67, 158–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.06.010

Akin, A., & Kurbanoglu, I. N. (2011). The relationships between math anxiety, math attitudes, and self-efficacy: A structural equation model. Studia Psychologica53(3), 263. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264550653_The_relationships_between_math_anxiety_math_attitudes_and_self-efficacy_A_structural_equation_model

Andrews, A., & Brown, J. (2015). The effects of math anxiety. Education135(3), 362-370. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/prin/ed/2015/00000135/00000003/art00013

Betz, N. E. (1978). Prevalence, distribution, and correlates of math anxiety in college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology25(5), 441. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.25.5.441

Brzozowski, L. (2020). Math anxiety and teacher candidates. [Paper] 22nd annual Student Research and Creativity Conference. SUNY Buffalo State. https://digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/srcc-sp20-edu/5

Foley, A. E., Herts, J. B., Borgonovi, F., Guerriero, S., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2017). The math anxiety-performance link: A global phenomenon. Current Directions in Psychological Science26(1), 52-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416672463

Furner, J. M., & Gonzalez-DeHass, A. (2011). How do students’ mastery and performance goals relate to math anxiety? Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 7(4), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75209

Hembree, R. (1990). The nature, effects, and relief of mathematics anxiety. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(1), 33–46.  https://doi.org/10.2307/749455

Jaltare, V., & Moghe, K. (2020, April). Effect of expressive writing on math anxiety of engineering students. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 804, No. 1, p. 012057). IOP Publishing. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/804/1/012057/meta

Klein, K., & Boals, A. (2001). Expressive writing can increase working memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(3), 520–533. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.3.520

Liew, J., Lench, H. C., Kao, G., Yeh, Y. C., & Kwok, O. M. (2014). Avoidance temperament and social-evaluative threat in college students' math performance: A mediation model of math and test anxiety. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping27(6), 650-661. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2014.910303

Lucietto, A. M., Taleyarkhan, M. R., Hobson, N., & Azevedo, T. M. (2020). 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference & Exposition. American Society for Engineering Education. https://peer.asee.org/math-anxiety-engineering-technology-students-problem-solving-through-rational-or-experiential-contexts.pdf

Luttenberger, S., Wimmer, S., & Paechter, M. (2018). Spotlight on math anxiety. Psychology Research and Behavior Management11, 311. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S141421

Maloney, E. A., & Beilock, S. L. (2012). Math anxiety: Who has it, why it develops, and how to guard against it. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(8), 404–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.06.008

Perry, A. B. (2004). Decreasing math anxiety in college students. College Student Journal, 38(2), 321–325. https://go.gale.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA119741942&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=01463934&p=AONE&sw=w

Primi, C., Busdraghi, C., Tomasetto, C., Morsanyi, K., & Chiesi, F. (2014). Measuring math anxiety in Italian college and high school students: Validity, reliability and gender invariance of the Abbreviated Math Anxiety Scale (AMAS). Learning and Individual Differences34, 51-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.05.012

QSR International (n.d.). NVivo. https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home

Ramirez, G., Shaw, S. T., & Maloney, E. A. (2018). Math anxiety: Past research, promising interventions, and a new interpretation framework. Educational Psychologist53(3), 145-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1447384

Roy, J. (2018). Engineering by the numbers. American Society for Engineering Education. https://ira.asee.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2018-Engineering-by-Numbers-Engineering-Statistics-UPDATED-15-July-2019.pdf

Šimić Šašić, S., Šimunić, A., Ivković, A., & Ključe, A. (2018). The correlation of perceptions of professional roles and teacher beliefs with the quality of teacher interaction. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education1(2), 207-227. https://www.academia.edu/36679451/The_Correlation_of_Perceptions_of_Professional_Roles_and_Teacher_Beliefs_with_the_Quality_of_Teacher_Interaction

Sokolowski, H. M., Hawes, Z., & Lyons, I. M. (2019). What explains sex differences in math anxiety? A closer look at the role of spatial processing. Cognition182, 193-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.10.005

Tee, K. N., Leong, K. E., & Abdul Rahim, S. S. (2018). Effects of self-regulation strategies training on secondary students’ attitude and self-reflection toward mathematics. Journal of Research in Science Mathematics and Technology Education, 1(2), 143–168. https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.122

Vitasari, P., Herawan, T., Wahab, M. N. A., Othman, A., & Sinnadurai, S. K. (2010). Exploring mathematics anxiety among engineering students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 8, 482–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.066

Young, C. B., Wu, S. S., & Menon, V. (2012). The neurodevelopmental basis of math anxiety. Psychological Science23(5), 492-501. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611429134
Vol. 4 Iss. 1

The Relationship Between U.S. High School Science Teacher’s Self-Efficacy, Professional Development, and Use of Technology in Classrooms

Zahrah Hussain Aljuzayri

Download: 73, size: 0, date: 16.Jan.2021

Abstract: There have been a limited number of studies that examined the relationship between professional development (PD) and self-efficacy with technology tool use, specifically concerning high school science teachers. The main goal of this quantitative study was to identify any specific correlations between science teacher self-efficacy and the professional development science teachers received for those specific classroom technologies. Participants were comprised of a randomized sample set of high school science teachers throughout 46 different US States. The data was collected by using an online survey via the Qualtrics survey platform. The survey was sent to 3000 science instructors and 104 in total completed it. The results suggest that science teachers’ efficacy was high with course management systems and student wireless or digital devices, but not for social networking/media. There was no significant connection between technological self-efficacy and PD for related technology tools. However, it is possible that science teachers are already highly efficacious in terms of technology, and observational studies are recommended to see when and how teachers actually use technology in their classrooms.

Keywords: professional development; relationship; science teacher’s; self-efficacy; technology tools.

Please Cite: Aljuzayri, Z. (2021). The Relationship Between U.S. High School Science Teacher’s Self-Efficacy, Professional Development, and Use of Technology in Classrooms. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 4(1), 45-62.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.414            


Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H Freeman and Company.

Bandura, A. (2004). Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), Handbook of principles of organizational behavior (pp.120-136). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Bandura, A. (2005). Evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.) Great Minds in Management. (pp. 9-35) Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bray-Clark, N., & Bates, R. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs and teacher effectiveness: Implications for professional development. Professional Educator, 26(1), 13- 22.

Brinkerhoff, J. (2006). Effects of a long-duration, professional development academy on technology skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology integration beliefs and practices. Journal of research on technology in education, 39(1), 22-43.

Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British journal of educational technology39(5), 775-786.

Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of applied psychology, 78(1), 98.

Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and teacher education, 18(8), 947-967.

Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284.

Gavora, P. (2010). Slovak pre-service teacher self-efficacy: Theoretical and research considerations. The New Educational Review, 21(2), 17-30.

Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers' Use of Educational Technology in US Public Schools: 2009. First Look. NCES 2010-040. National Center for Education Statistics.

Heale, R., & Twycross, A. (2015). Validity and reliability in quantitative studies. Evidence-based nursing, 18(4), 66-67.

Hanover Research (HR). (2014). Trends in higher education marketing, recruitment, and technology. Washington, DC. Retrieved from.

Holden, H., & Rada, R. (2011). Understanding the influence of perceived usability and technology self- efficacy on teachers' technology acceptance. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(4), 343-367.

Johnson, L., Becker, S. A., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC horizon report: 2015 museum edition. The New Media Consortium.

Koh, J. H., & Frick, T. W. (2009). Instructor and student classroom interactions during technology skills instruction for facilitating preservice teachers' computer self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(2), 211-228.

Killion, J. (2013). Establishing Time for Professional Learning. Learning Forward.

Moore-Hayes, C. (2011). Technology integration preparedness and its influence on teacher-efficacy. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadiel’apprentissage et de la technologie, 37(3).

Marwan, A. (2008). Teachers’ perceptions of teaching with computer technology: reasons for use and barriers in usage. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 5(6), 35-42.

McCormick, J. & Ayres, P. L. (2009). Teacher self-efficacy and occupational stress: A major Australian curriculum reform revisited. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(4), 463-476.

Miles, K. H., Odden, A., Fermanich, M., Archibald, S., & Gallagher, A. (2003). Inside the black box of school district spending on professional development: Lessons from comparing five urban districts. Journal of Education Finance, 30(1), 1-26.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Technology in schools: Suggestions, tools and guidelines for assessing elementary and secondary education. Retrieved January 1, 2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs 2003/tech_schools/chapter7.asp#2

Overbaugh, R., & Lu, R. (2008). The impact of a NCLB-EETT funded professional development program on teacher self-efficacy and resultant implementation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(1), 43- 61.

Pimentel, J.L. (2010). A note on the usage of Likert Scaling for research date analysis. USM R&D journal, 18(2), 109-112

Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of research on technology in education, 38(3), 329-348.

Pan, S. C., & Franklin, T. (2011). In-Service Teachers' Self-Efficacy, Professional Development, & Web 2.0 Tools for Integration. New Horizons in Education, 59(3), 28-40.

Powell-Moman, A. D., & Brown-Schild, V. B. (2011). The Influence of a Two-Year Professional Development Institute on Teacher Self-Efficacy and Use of Inquiry- Based Instruction. Science Educator, 20(2), 47-53.

Siebert, M. C. (2006). An examination of students’ perceptions of goal orientation in the classroom and teachers’ beliefs about intelligence and teacher efficacy. (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Kansas State University.

Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2009). Does school context matter? Relations with teacher burnout and job satisfaction. Teaching and teacher education, 25(3), 518-524.

Swan, B. G., Wolf, K. J., & Cano, J. (2011). Changes in teacher self-efficacy from the student teaching experience through the third year of teaching. Journal of Agricultural Education, 52(2), 128.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing and elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.

Watson, J. (2006). Can an ethic of caring be maintained? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 54(3),257-259.

Yidana, I. (2007). Faculty perceptions of technology integration in the teacher education curriculum: A survey of two Ghanaian universities. (Ph.D., Ohio University).


Vol. 4 Iss. 1