• Alahmad, N., & Alshehri, F. (2010). Teacher education in Saudi Arabia. In K. G. Karras & C. C. Wolhuter (Eds), International handbook on teacher education worldwide: Issues and challenges for teacher profession (pp. 419-445). Athens: Atrapos Editions.
• Atkinson, R. D., & Mayo, M. J. (2010). Refueling the US innovation economy: Fresh approaches to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Washington, DC: The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation.
• Baker-Doylea, K., & Yoonb, S. (2011). In search of practitioner-based social capital: A social network analysis tool for understanding and facilitating teacher collaboration in a US-based STEM professional development program. Professional Development in Education, 37(1), 75–93.
• Basham, J. D., Israel, M., & Maynard, K. (2010). An ecological model of STEM education: Operationalizing STEM for all. Journal of Special Education Technology, 25(3), 9-19.
• Beane, J. (1996). On the shoulders of giants! The case for curriculum integration. Middle School Journal, 25, 6–11.
• Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM education: Innovations and research, 12(5/6), 23.
• Biasutti, M., & EL-Deghaidy, H. (2012). Using Wiki in teacher education: Impact on knowledge management processes and student satisfaction. Computers & Education 59(3), 861–872. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.009
• Biasutti, M., & EL-Deghaidy, H. (2014). Interdisciplinary project-based learning: An online wiki experience in teacher education. Technology Pedagogy and Education, 24(3), 1-17. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2014.899510
• Boix Mansilla, V., Miller, W. C., & Gardner, H. (2000). On disciplinary lenses and interdisciplinary work. In S. Wineburg & P. Grossman (Eds.), Interdisciplinary curriculum: Challenges of implementation. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Breiner, J. M., Johnson, C. C., Harkness, S., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What Is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science & Mathematics, 112(1), 3–11. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109.x
• Brown, R., Brown, J., Reardon, K. & Merrill, C. (2011). Understanding STEM: Current perceptions. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(6), 5–9. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2011-090606.55
• Bruce-Davis, M. N., Gubbins, E.J., Gilson, C. M., Villanueva, M., Foreman, J. L, & Rubenstein, L. D. (2014). STEM high school administrators’, teachers’, and students’ perceptions of curricular and instructional strategies and practices. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(3), 272-306.
• Bybee, R. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, Virginia: National Science Teachers Association Press.
• Casey, B. (2012). STEM education: Preparing for the jobs of the future. Report by the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee. Retrieved from: http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=6aaa7e1f-9586-47be82e7-326f47658320
• Chiu, A., Price, C. A. & Ovrahim, E. (2015). Supporting elementary and middle school stem education at the whole school level: A review of the literature. Paper presented at NARST 2015 Annual Conference April 11-14 2015, Chicago, IL.
• Consortium of National Arts Education Associations. (2002). Authentic connections: Interdisciplinary work in the arts. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. Retrieved from: http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/culture/Arts_Education/Resource_Lin ks/Authentic_Connections.pdf
• Corporate Planning and Policy Directorate. (2010). Women in science and engineering in Canada. Retrieved from: http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/ReportsRapports/Women_Science_Engineering_e.pdf
• Cramptona, A., Ragusab, A., & Cavanagh, H. (Feb, 2012). Cross-discipline investigation of the relationship between academic performance and online resource access by distance education students. Research in Learning Technology, 20, ISSN 2156-7077. Available at: http://www.researchinlearningtechnology.net/index.php/rlt/article/view/14430
• Cunningham, W. G., & Cordeiro, P. A. (2006). Educational leadership: A problem-based approach (3rd ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon.
• Czerniak, C. M., Weber, W. B., Sandmann, A., Ahern, J. (1999). A literature review of science and mathematics integration. School Science and Mathematics, 99(8), 421-430.
• Diefes-Dux, H. A. & Duncan, D. (2007, October). Adapting engineering is elementary professional development to encourage open-ended mathematical modeling. Paper presented to the Committee on K-12 Engineering Education, National Academy of Engineering, National Research Council, Workshop and Third Meeting, Oct. 22, 2007, Keck Center of the National Academies, Engineering Education in Grades K-5.
• EL-Deghaidy, H. (2006). An investigation of pre-service teacher’s self-efficacy and self-image as a science teacher in Egypt. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching· Retrieved from https://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/v7_issue2/heba/
• EL-Deghaidy, H., Mansour, N., & Al-Shamrani, S. (2015). Science teachers’ typology of CPD activities: A socio-constructivist perspective. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 13(6), 1539-1566. doi:10.1007/s10763-014-9560-y
• Erdogan, N, Navruz, B., Younes, R., & Capraro, R. (2016). Viewing how STEM projects-based learning influences students’ science achievement through the implementation lens: A latent growth modelling. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(8), 2139-2154.
• Fulton, K., & Britton, T. (2011). STEM teachers in professional learning communities: From good teachers to great teaching. National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. Retrieved from http://nctaf.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/01/NCTAFreportSTEMTeachersinPLCsFromGo odTeacherstoGreatTeaching.pdf
• Han, S., Yalvac, B., Capraro, M., & Capraro, R. (2015). In-service teachers’ implementation and understanding of STEM project based learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(1), 63-76.
• Harrell, P. (2010). Teaching an integrated science curriculum: Linking teacher knowledge and teaching assignments. Issues in Teacher Education, 19(1), 145-165.
• Harrison, M. (2011). Supporting the T and the E in STEM: 2004-2010. Design and Technology Education, 16(1), 17-25.
• Hayes, D. (1997). In-service Teacher Development: International Perspectives. Hemel Hampstead: Prentice Hall.
• Hernandez, P. R., Bodin, R., Elliott, J. W., Ibrahim, B., Rambo-Hernandez, K. E., Chen, T. W., & de Miranda, M. A. (2014). Connecting the STEM dots: Measuring the effect of an integrated engineering design intervention. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(1), 107-120.
• Johnson, H. & Cotterman, M. (2013). Collaborative efforts to put the ‘E’ back in STEM. NSTA Reports, 25(4), 3. Retrieved from: http://www.nsta.org/docs/NSTAReportsNov13EntireIssueFinal.pdf
• Johnson, S., Monk, M., & Swain, J. (2000). Constraints on development and change to science teachers’ practice in Egyptian classrooms. Journal of Education for Teaching, 26(1), 9-24.
• Jones, C. (2009). Interdisciplinary approach – advantages, disadvantages, and the future benefits of interdisciplinary studies. ESSAI: The College of DuPage Anthology of Academic Writing Across the Curriculum, 7, 26. Retrieved from http://dc.cod.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1121&context=essai
• Kier, M. & Blanchard, M. & Osborne, J. & Albert, J. (2014). The development of the STEM Career Interest Survey (STEM-CIS). Research in Science Education, 44, 461–481
• Knezek, G., Christensen, R., & Tyler-Wood, T. (2011). Contrasting perceptions of STEM content and careers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 11(1), 92-117.
• Koirala, H. P., & Bowman, J. K. (2003). Preparing middle level preservice teachers to integrated mathematics and science: Problems and possibilities. School Science and Mathematics 103(3), 145– 154.
• Krashen, E. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
• Mansour, N. (2007). Challenges to STS education: Implications for science teacher education. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 27(6), 482-497. doi:10.1177/0270467607308286.
• Mansour, N. (2010). The impact of the knowledge and beliefs of Egyptian science teachers in integrating an STS based curriculum. Journal of Science Teacher Education 21(5), 513-534. doi:10.1007/s10972- 010-9193-0.
• Mansour, N. (2013). Consistencies and inconsistencies between science teachers’ beliefs and practices. International Journal of Science Education, 35(7), 1230-1275. doi:10.1080/09500693.2012.743196
• Mansour, N., EL-Deghaidy, H., Al-Shamrani, S. & Aldahmash, A. (2014). Rethinking the theory and practice of continuing professional development: Science teachers' perspectives. Research in Science Education, 44 (6), 949–973.
• McComas, W. F. (2014). The language of science education: An expanded glossary of key terms and concepts in science teaching and learning. Rotterdam: Sense publishers.
• Meagher, L. (2016). Interdisciplinary integration: Whose responsibility? Paper presented at Interdisciplinary Learning and Teaching: Frameworks and Practice. University of Sheffield, UK. April 7th, 2016.
• Mikser, R., Reiska, P., Rohtla, K., & Dahnke, H. (2008). Paradigm shift for teachers: Interdisciplinary teaching. The need for a paradigm shift in science education for post-Soviet societies: Research and practice (Estonian Example. Bern: Peter Lang Publishing Group.
• Ministry of Education (MoE), (2014). School Study Plans. Unpublished manuscripts. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Directorate of Curricula. (In Arabic)
• National Research Council (NRC), (2011). Successful K-12 STEM Education: Identifying Effective Approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Committee on Highly Successful Science Programs for K-12 Science Education. Board on Science Education and Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
• National Research Council (NRC), (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a conceptual framework for New K-12 science education standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
• National Science Learning Centre White Paper (2013). The future of STEM education. National Science Learning Centre, University of York, York, 17 Jul 2013. Retrieved from: https://www.sciencelearningcentres.org.uk/media/filer_public/7f/d3/7fd32ef0-a746-452ba681-8e5d15f5a1da/the_future_of_stem_education_-web.pdf.
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), (2012). Education at a glance 2012: Highlights. OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/eag_highlights-2012-en
• Park, J. Y., & Mills, K.A. (2014). Enhancing Interdisciplinary Learning with a Learning Management System. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 299-313.
• Park, J. Y., & Son, J. B. (2010). Transitioning toward transdisciplinary learning in a multidisciplinary environment. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 6(1), 82-93. doi:10.5172/ijpl.6.1.82
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Person Middle East (2014). T4EDU math and science teacher development programme expected to have positive impact on math and science education in Saudi Arabia. Retrieved from: http://www.pearsonmiddleeastawe.com/t4edu-math-and-science-teacher-developmentprogramme-expected-to-have-positive-impact-on-math-and-science-education-in-saudi-arabia
• Roberts, G. (2002). Set for success: The supply of people with science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills. London: HM Treasury. Retrieved from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/d/robertsrevi ew_introch1.pdf.
• Spelt, E. J. H., Biemans, H. J. A., Tobi, H., Luning, P. A., & Mulder, M. (2009). Teaching and learning in interdisciplinary higher education: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 365- 378. doi:10.1007/s10648-009-9113-z
• Stohlmann, M., Moore, T., & Roehrig, G. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 28–34. doi:10.5703/1288284314653
• Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1996). Changing our schools: Linking school effectiveness and school improvement. Buckingham: Open University Press.
• United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2014). Arab knowledge report: Youth and localisation of knowledge. Dubai: Al Ghurair Printing and Publishing. Retrieved from: http://www.undp.org/content/dam/rbas/report/UNDP-GENERAL-REPORT ENG.pdf
• United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), (2010). Annual Report 2010, UNESCO Office Jakarta. Retrieved from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001921/192108e.pdf
• van Langen, A., Rekers-Mombarg, L., & Dekkers, H., (2006). Sex-related differences in the determinants and process of science and mathematics choice in pre-university education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(1), 71-94.
• Vasquez, J., Comer, M., & Sneider, C. (2013). STEM lesson essentials, grades 3-8: Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
• Wang, H-H, Moore, T., Roehrig, G., & Park, M. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice, Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 1(2), 1-13. doi:10.5703/1288284314636
• Wang, H-H. (2012). A new era of science education: science teachers’ perceptions and classroom practices of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) integration. Unpublished Thesis. University of Minnesota.
• Williams, J. (2011). STEM education: Proceed with caution. Design and Technology Education, 16(1), 26- 35.
• Yan, C. (2007). Teachers’ needs: An important factor for longer-term sustainability of cross-cultural inset programs. English Language Teacher Education and Development, 10, 9-18.

APA

EL-Deghaidy, H., Mansour, N., Alzaghibi, M., & Alhammad, K. (2017). Context of STEM Integration in Schools: Views from In-service Science Teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(6), 2459-2484. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.01235a

Vancouver

EL-Deghaidy H, Mansour N, Alzaghibi M, Alhammad K. Context of STEM Integration in Schools: Views from In-service Science Teachers. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2017;13(6):2459-84. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.01235a

AMA

EL-Deghaidy H, Mansour N, Alzaghibi M, Alhammad K. Context of STEM Integration in Schools: Views from In-service Science Teachers. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2017;13(6), 2459-2484. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.01235a

Chicago

EL-Deghaidy, Heba, Nasser Mansour, Mohammad Alzaghibi, and Khalid Alhammad. "Context of STEM Integration in Schools: Views from In-service Science Teachers". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2017 13 no. 6 (2017): 2459-2484. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.01235a

Harvard

EL-Deghaidy, H., Mansour, N., Alzaghibi, M., and Alhammad, K. (2017). Context of STEM Integration in Schools: Views from In-service Science Teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(6), pp. 2459-2484. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.01235a

MLA

EL-Deghaidy, Heba et al. "Context of STEM Integration in Schools: Views from In-service Science Teachers". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 13, no. 6, 2017, pp. 2459-2484. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.01235a