You are here:

Advancing K-8 Teachers’ STEM Education for Teaching Interdisciplinary Science and Mathematics Teaching With Technologies

, , , , Oregon State University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Nashville, Tennessee, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-84-6 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA


This primarily online Master's degree program focused on advancing K-8 teachers’ interdisciplinary mathematical and science content knowledge while integrating appropriate digital technologies as learning and teaching tools. The mixed-method, interpretive study examined in-service teachers’ technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) within the context of interdisciplinary content knowledge, pedagogical strategies for teaching interdisciplinary topics, and technological knowledge when applied to teaching and learning interdisciplinary content. The results documented ways specific coursework in the graduate program impacted the teachers’ overarching conceptions of teaching interdisciplinary topics, their knowledge of students’ understanding and thinking, their instructional strategies, and their knowledge of curriculum and curriculum materials for learning in interdisciplinary contexts with the integration of appropriate technologies.


Niess, M., van Zee, E., Gillow-Wiles, H. & Staus, N. (2011). Advancing K-8 Teachers’ STEM Education for Teaching Interdisciplinary Science and Mathematics Teaching With Technologies. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2011--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 4017-4024). Nashville, Tennessee, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 22, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Borko, H., Stecher, B., Kuffner, K. (2007). Using artifacts to characterize reform-oriented instruction: The Scoop Notebook and rating guide. (Technical Report 707). Los Angeles: CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED495853).
  2. Deci, E. (1992). The relation of interest to the motivation of behavior: A self-determination theory perspective. In K.A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 43-70).
  3. Jones, C. (2010). Interdisciplinary Approach-Advantages, disadvantages, and the future benefits of interdisciplinary studies. ESSAI, College of DuPage, The Berkeley Electronic Press, 7(26).
  4. Keating, T., & Evans, E. (2001). Three computers in the back of the classroom: Pre-service teachers' conceptions of technology integration. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association.
  5. Lederman, N.G. & Niess, M.L. (1997). Integrated, interdisciplinary, or thematic instruction? Is this a question or is it questionable semantics? School Science and Mathematics, 97(2), P. 57-58.
  6. McGinnis, J.R., Kramer, S., Shama, G., Graeber, A.O., Parker, C.A., & Watanabe, T. (2002). Undergraduates’ attitudes and believes about subject matter and pedagogy measure periodically in a reform-based mathematics and science teacher preparation program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(8), 713-737.
  7. Meier, S.L., Hovde, R.L., & Meier, R.L. (2010). Problem solving: Teachers’ perceptions, content area models, and interdisciplinary connections. School science and Mathematics, 96(5, 230-2378.
  8. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  9. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: NRC.
  10. National Research Council. (2007). Ready, Set, Science!: Putting Research to Work in K-8 Science Classrooms, Sarah Michaels, Andrew W. Shouse, & Heidi A. Schweingruber, (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  11. National Science Teachers Association (2010). Quality Science Education and NSTA Retrieved from Niess, M.L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 509-523.
  12. Niess, M.L. (2008). Knowledge needed for teaching with technologies– Call it TPACK, AMTE Connections, Spring, P. 9-10. Niess, M.L., Lee, K., & Sadri, P. (April 9-13, 2007). Dynamic Spreadsheets as Learning Technology Tools: Developing Teachers’ Technology Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK), paper presentation for the American Education Research Association Annual Conference, Chicago, IL.
  13. Riggs, I.M. & Enochs, L.G. (1993). A microcomputer beliefs inventory for middle school students: Scale development and validation. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(3), 383-391.
  14. Sawada, D., Piburn, M., Falconer, K., Turley, J., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2000). Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) (ACEPT Technical Report No. IN00-1). Tempe, AZ: Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers.
  15. Sawada, D., Pilburn, M.D., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching observation protocol. School Science and Mathematics, 102 (6), 245-254.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact