• Anderman, E. M., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review of Educational Research, 64(2), 287-309.
• Beane, J. (1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 616–622.
• Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). Effect of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education, 12, 23-37.
• Bergin, D. A. 1999. Influences on classroom interest. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 87-98.
• Blumenfeld, P. C., Kempler, T. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environment. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of learning sciences (pp. 475-488). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Brooks, G. J., & Brooks, G. M. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivism classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P-12 classroom. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369-387.
• Bryan, L. A., Moore, J. T., Johnson, C. C., & Roehrig, G. H. (2016). Integrated STEM Education. In Johnson, C. C, Peters-Burton, E. E., & Moore, T. J. (Ed.), STEM Road Map: A Framework for Integrated STEM Education (pp.23-37). New York & London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
• Cantrell, P., Pekcan, G., Itani, A., & Velasquez-Bryant, N. (2006). The effect of engineering modules on student learning in middle school science classroom. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(4), 301.
• Capraro, R. M., & Slough, S. W. (2008). Project-based learning: An integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
• Childress, V. W. (1996). Does integration technology, science, and mathematics improve technological problem solving: A quasi-experiment. Journal of Technology Education, 8(1), 16–26.
• Clark, A. C., & Ernst, J. V. (2006). A model for the integration of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The Technology Teacher, 66(4), 24–26.
• Czerniak, C. M., Weber, W. B., Sandmann, Jr., A., & Ahern, J. (1999). Literature review of science and mathematics integration. School Science and Mathematics, 99(8), 421–430.
• English, L. D., & King, D. T. (2015). STEM learning through engineering design: fourth-grade students’ investigations in aerospace. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(14), 1-18.
• Felix, A., & Harris, J. (2010). A project-based, STEM-integrated alternative energy team challenge for teachers. The Technology Teacher, 69(5), 29–34.
• Frykholm, J., & Glasson G. (2005). Connecting science and mathematics instruction: pedagogical context knowledge for teachers. School Science and Mathematics 105(3), 127-141.
• Furner, J., & Kumar, D. (2007). The mathematics and science integration argument: A stand for teacher education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology, 3(3), 185-189.
• Gardere, J., Sharir, D., & YairMaman. (2015). Technology and Media for Character Development and Career Readiness: The S.T.E.A.M-Based A.C.H.I.E.V.E. Model. International Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 5(6), 12-17.
• Herbert, J., & Stipek, D. (2005). The emergence of gender differences in children’s perceptions of their academic competence. Journal of Applied Development Psychology, 26(3), 276-295.
• Hirst, P. H. (1974). Knowledge and the curriculum: A collection of philosophical papers. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2003). The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twentyfirst century. Science Education, 88, 28–54.
• Holstermann, N., Grube, D., & Bögeholz, S. (2010). Hands-on Activities and Their Influence on Students’ Interest. Research in Science Education, 40, 743–757.
• Hynes, M. M., & Santos, A. D. (2007). Effective teacher professional development: Middle school engineering content. International Journal of Engineering Education, 23(1), 24–29.
• Jacobs, H. H. 1989. Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Kier, M. W., Blanchard, M. R., Osborne, J. W., & Albert, J. L. (2013). The Development of the STEM Career Interest Survey (STEM-CIS). Research in Science Education, 44(3). 461-481.
• Krajcik, J. S., Czerniak, C. M., & Berger, C. F. (2003). Teaching science in elementary and middle school classrooms: A project-based approach (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Krapp, A. (2005). Basic needs and the development of interest and intrinsic motivational orientations. Learning and Instruction, 15, 381–395.
• Laboy-Rush, D. (2011). Whitepaper: Integrated STEM education through Project-Based Learning. (2011, September 15). Retrieved from http://www.learning.com/stem/whitepaper/
• Lent, R. W., Lopez, A. M., Lopez, F. G., & Sheu, H. B. (2008). Social cognitive career theory and the prediction of interests and choice goals in the computing disciplines. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(1), 52-62.
• Lewis, T. (2006). Design and inquiry: Bases for accommodation between science and technology education in the curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(3), 255-281.
• Loverude, M. E., Kautz, C. H., & Heron, P. R. L. (2002). Student understanding of the first law of thermodynamics: Relating work to the adiabatic compression of an ideal gas. American Journal of Physics, 70(2), 137–148.
• Marasco, E. A., & Behjat, L. (2013). Developing a cross-disciplinary curriculum for the integration of engineering and design in elementary education. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings 2013, 23p. 120th ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition; Atlanta, GA; United States; 23 June 2013 through 26 June 2013; Code 99351
• Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Foy, P., & Stanco, G. M. (2012). TIMSS 2011 International results in science. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
• McBride, J. W., & Silverman, F. L. (1991). Integrating elementary/middle school science and mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 9(7), 285-292.
• Meyer, D. K., Turner, J. C., & Spencer, C. A. (1997). Challenge in a Mathematics Classroom: Students' Motivation and Strategies in Project-Based Learning. The Elementary School Journal, 97(5), 501– 521.
• Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI). (2008). 2008 Report: Malaysian science and technology indicators. Putrajaya: Malaysian Science and Technology Information Centre, MOSTI.
• Ministry of Education Malaysia (MOE) (2014). Malaysia Education Blueprint Annual Report 2013. Putrajaya: MOE.
• Ministry of Education Malaysia (MOE) (2013). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025. Putrajaya: MOE.
• Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI). (2012). Science and Technology Human Capital Roadmap: Towards 2020. Putrajaya: Malaysian Science and Technology Information Centre, MOSTI.
• Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 424-436.
• Moore, T.J. (2008). STEM integration: Crossing disciplinary borders to promote learning and engagement. Invited presentation to the faculty and graduate students of the UTeachEngineering, UTeachNatural Sciences, and STEM Education program area at University of Texas at Austin, December 15, 2008.
• Moore, T. J., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Kersten, J. A. (2013, January). A framework for implementing engineering standards in K-12. Paper to be presented at the international conference of Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE), Charleston, SC.
• Morrison, J. (2006). STEM education monograph series: Attributes of STEM education. Teaching Institute for Essential Science, Baltimore, MD.
• Morrison, J., & Raymond Bartlett, V. (2009). STEM as curriculum. Education Week, 23 (March 4), 28–31.
• Museum of Science Boston. (2009). Engineering is elementary engineering design process. (2009, April 15). Retrieved from http://www.mos.org/eie/engineering_design.php.
• National Acadeny of Sciences (NAS). (2014). STEM Integration in K-12 Education: Status, Porspect, and an Agenda for Research. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
• National Research Council (NRC) (2009). Engineering in K–12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press
• National Research Council (NRC). (2011). Aframework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.
• Palmer, D. H. (2009). Student interest generated during an inquiry skills lesson. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(2), 147-165.
• Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: a program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 91–105.
• Riskowski, J., Todd, C. D., Wee, B., Dark, M., & Harbor, J. (2009). Exploring the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary water resources engineering module in an eighth grade science course. International Journal of Engineering Education, 25(1), 181-195.
• Roth, W.-M. (2001). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 768–790.
• Samsudin, M. A., Osman, K., & Halim, L. (2007, March). Content Scaffolding or Cognitive Scaffolding? Which Scaffolding Technique Encourages Students to Think Actively While doing Problem Based Learning? International Problem-based learning symposium (pp. 150-173).
• Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, December/January, 20- 26.
• Satchwell, R. E., & Loepp, F. (2002). Designing and implementing an integrated mathematics, science, and technology curriculum for the middle school. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3), 41-66.
• Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 299–323.
• Sheppard, S. D, Macantangay, K., Colby, A. & Sullivan, W. M. (2009). Educating engineers: Designing for the future of the field. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Singh, K., Granville. M., & Dika, S. (2002). Mathematics and Science Achievement: Effects of Motivation, Interest, and Academic Engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(6), 323-332.
• Smith, J. & Karr-Kidwell, P. (2000). The interdisciplinary curriculum: a literary review and a manual for administrators and teachers. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED443172).
• Stohlmann, M., Moore, T., & Roehrig, G. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering, 2(1), 28-34.
• Stohlmann, M. S., Moore, T. J., & Cramer, K. (2013). Pre-service elementary teachers’ mathematical content knowledge from an integrated STEM modelling activity. Journal of Mathematical and Application, 1(8), 18-31.
• Subotnik, R. F., Tai, R. H., Rickoff, R., & Almarode, J. (2010). Specialized public high schools of science, mathematics, and technology and the STEM pipeline: What do we know now and what will we know in 5 years. Roeper Review, 32, 7-16.
• Subrahmanyan, L., & Bozonie, H. (1996). Gender equity in middle school science teaching: Being “equitable” should be the goal. Middle School Journal, 27(5), 3-10.
• Swarat, S., Ortony, A., & Revelle, W. 2012. Activity matters: understanding student interest in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 515-537.
• Sweller, J. (1989). Cognitive technology: Some procedures for facilitating learning and problem solving in mathematics and science. Journal of Education Psychology, 81(4), 457–466.
• Tai, R., Liu, C., Maltese, A., & Fan, X. (2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312(5777), 1143-1144.
• Thornburg, D. (2009). Hands and minds: Why engineering is the glue holding STEM together. Thornburg Center for Space Exploration. Retrieved from http://www.tcse-k12.org/pages/hands.pdf.
• Tsupros, N., Kohler, R., & Hallinen, J. (2009). STEM education: A project to identify the missing components. Intermediate Unit 1: Center for STEM Education and Leonard Gelfand Center for Service Learning and Outreach, Carnegie Mellon University, Pennsylvania.
• Unlu, Z. K, Dokme, I., & Unlu, V. (2016). Adaptation of the science, technology,engineering, and mathematics career interest survey (STEM-CIS) into Turkish. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 63, 21-36. doi:10.14689/ejer.2016.63.2
• Vaino, T., Vaino, K., Rannikmäe, M., & Holbrook, J. (2015). Factors explaining gymnasium students' technology related career orientations. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14(6), 706-722.
• Wang, H., Moore, T., Roehrig, G., & Park, M.S. (2011). STEM Integration: Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 1(2), 1-13.
• Wright J. C., Millar, S. B., Kosciuk, S. A., Penberthy, D. L, Williams, P. H., & Wampold, B. E. (1998). A novel strategy for assessing the effects of curriculum reform on student competence. Journal of Chemical Education, 75(8), 986–992.
• Yasar, O., Little, L., Tuzun, R., Rajasethupathy, K., Maliekal, J., & Tahar, M. (2006). Computation math, science, and technology (CMST): A strategy to improve STEM workforce and pedagogy to improve math and science education. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
• Yasin, Ruhizan M., Lilia Halim, and Azaman Ishar. (2012). Effects of problem-solving strategies in the teaching and learning of engineering drawing subject. Asian Social Science, 8(16), 65.

APA

Mohd Shahali, E. H., Halim, L., Rasul, M. S., Osman, K., & Zulkifeli, M. A. (2017). STEM Learning through Engineering Design: Impact on Middle Secondary Students’ Interest towards STEM. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(5), 1189-1211. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00667a

Vancouver

Mohd Shahali EH, Halim L, Rasul MS, Osman K, Zulkifeli MA. STEM Learning through Engineering Design: Impact on Middle Secondary Students’ Interest towards STEM. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2017;13(5):1189-211. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00667a

AMA

Mohd Shahali EH, Halim L, Rasul MS, Osman K, Zulkifeli MA. STEM Learning through Engineering Design: Impact on Middle Secondary Students’ Interest towards STEM. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2017;13(5), 1189-1211. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00667a

Chicago

Mohd Shahali, Edy Hafizan, Lilia Halim, Mohamad Sattar Rasul, Kamisah Osman, and Mohd Afendi Zulkifeli. "STEM Learning through Engineering Design: Impact on Middle Secondary Students’ Interest towards STEM". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2017 13 no. 5 (2017): 1189-1211. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00667a

Harvard

Mohd Shahali, E. H., Halim, L., Rasul, M. S., Osman, K., and Zulkifeli, M. A. (2017). STEM Learning through Engineering Design: Impact on Middle Secondary Students’ Interest towards STEM. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(5), pp. 1189-1211. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00667a

MLA

Mohd Shahali, Edy Hafizan et al. "STEM Learning through Engineering Design: Impact on Middle Secondary Students’ Interest towards STEM". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 13, no. 5, 2017, pp. 1189-1211. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00667a