You are here:

Teacher Dispositions Toward Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)

, University of North Texas, United States ; , Institute of Integration of Technology into Teaching and Learning, United States ; , University of North Texas, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Las Vegas, NV, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-13-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA


Dispositions of middle school teachers in an NSF-funded Innovative Technologies project as well as teachers in two other STEM enrichment programs are compared with those of preservice educators from a midwestern university in the USA. Comparisons are based on the preservice and inservice educators’ completion of the same attitude instruments. Major findings are that teachers from different regions of the US and in programs supported by National Science Foundation versus state or corporate funds have highly similar, positive attitudes toward Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM), as well as STEM as a career. These findings can be contrasted with much less positive dispositions found in preservice teacher education candidates and in middle school students. Implications of these findings for selecting new STEM teachers, as well as factors that may encourage teachers to embrace and remain in STEM teaching, are discussed.


Knezek, G., Christensen, R. & Tyler-Wood, T. (2015). Teacher Dispositions Toward Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). In D. Rutledge & D. Slykhuis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2015--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1539-1545). Las Vegas, NV, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved December 13, 2018 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Baldwin, K.A. (2014). The science teaching self-efficacy of prospective elementary education majors enrolled in introductory geology lab sections. School Science and Mathematics, 114(5), 206-213.
  2. Banning, J., & Folkestad, J.E. (2012). STEM education related dissertation abstracts: A bounded qualitative meta-study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(6), 730-741.
  3. Bybee, R.W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(6), 30-35. Retrieved from
  4. Christensen, R. (2002). Impact of technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers and students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34 (4), 411-434.
  5. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), January 2000. Available from
  6. DeVellis, R.F. (1991). Scale development. Newbury Park, NJ: Sage Publications.
  7. Dwyer, D.C., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J.H. (1991). Changes in teachers' beliefs and practices in technology-rich classrooms. Educational Leadership, 48(8), 45-52. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ 425 608).
  8. George, P., Stevenson, C., Thomason, J., & Beane, J. (1992). The middle school and beyond. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Alexandria, VA.
  9. Griffin, D., & Christensen, R. (1999). Concerns-Based Adoption Model Levels of Use of an Innovation (CBAM-LOU). Adapted from Hall, Loucks, Rutherford, & Newlove (1975). Denton, Texas: Institute for the Integration of Technology into Teaching and Learning.
  10. Hancock, R., Knezek, G. & Christensen, R. (2003). The Expanded Will, Skill, Tool Model: A step toward developing technology tools that work. World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Vol. 2003, Issue. 1, 2003, pp. 1415-1422.
  11. Hattie, J.A. (1987). Identifying the salient facets of a model of student learning: A synthesis of meta-analyses. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 187–212.
  12. Holdren, J.P., Lander, E.S., & Varmus, H. (2010). Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) for America's future. (Executive Report). Washington, D.C.: President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
  13. Knezek, G., Christensen, R., Hancock, R. & Shoho, A. (2000). Toward a structural model of technology integration. A paper presented to the Hawaii Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Honolulu, HI.
  14. Knezek, G., Christensen, R., & Tyler-Wood, T. (2011). Contrasting perceptions of STEM content and careers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education 1(1). Retrieved from Knezek, G., Christensen, R., Tyler-Wood, T., & Periathiruvadi, S. (2013). Impact of environmental power monitoring activities on middle school student perceptions of STEM. Science Education International, 21(1), 98-123.
  15. Museus, S., Palmer, R.T., Davis, R.J., & Maramba, D.C. (2011). Racial and ethnic minority students' success in STEM education. Hoboken: New Jersey: Jossey-Bass.
  16. Osgood, C.E. (1962). Studies of the generality of affective meaning systems. American Psychologist, 17, 10-28.
  17. Sadler, P.M., Sonnert, G., Hazari, Z., & Tai, R. (2012). Stability and volatility of STEM career interest in high school: A gender study. Science Education, 96(3), 411-427.

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