Shaping STEM Literacy Through Discourse: The Role of Engineering and Technology in a New Zealand Classroom

Mathew Thomas

doi:10.21061/jte.v37i1.a.2

Shaping STEM Literacy Through Discourse: The Role of Engineering and Technology in a New Zealand Classroom

Journal of Technology Education

Volume 37 (2025): Issue 1

By: Mathew Thomas

Open Access

|Nov 2025

Abstract

STEM literacy is essential for preparing students to solve real-world problems across science, mathematics, engineering, and technology domains. However, the integration of STEM education especially in terms of its influence on student discourse and interdisciplinary learning remain underexplored. This study contributes to STEM education research by highlighting how discourse within technology classrooms mediates the integration of science, mathematics, and engineering concepts. Conducted in a New Zealand secondary school, the qualitative case study draws on classroom observations, student portfolios, interviews, and field notes. Thematic analysis revealed varied levels of interdisciplinary discourse, with some students integrating scientific and mathematical reasoning, while others relied solely on technological language. These findings underscore the importance of teacher scaffolding, structured reflection, and intentional strategies to support the development of interdisciplinary understanding. The study contributes to research on STEM integration and highlights the socio-cultural dynamics of technology education in fostering STEM literacy.

References

Adams, J. D., Gupta, P., & Cotumaccio, A. (2012). Long-term participation in an informal STEM learning experience: The impact of environmental science-focused backyard programs. International Journal of Science Education, 34(4), 515–537.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Barnett, M. (2005). Engaging students in scientific inquiry: Investigating physical and chemical changes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(3), 327–345.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Beane, J. A. (1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. The Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 616–622.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Berland, L. K., & Busch, K. C. (2012). Negotiating STEM epistemic commitments in engineering design projects. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 28–39.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
BERA (British Educational Research Association). (2018). Ethical guidelines for educational research (4th ed.). BERA.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Capobianco, B. M., DeLisi, J., & Radloff, J. (2013). Characterizing elementary teachers’ enactment of engineering design-based science instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(2), 217–243. 10.1007/s10972-012-9292-0
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE Publications.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297–298. 10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cunningham, C. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2017). Epistemic practices of engineering for education. Science Education, 101(3), 486–505. 10.1002/sce.21271
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–8. 10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Flick, U. (2018). The Sage handbook of qualitative data collection. Sage.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hand, B., Alvermann, D. E., Gee, J. P., & Prain, V. (2003). Message from the “Island Group”: What is literacy in science literacy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 607–615. 10.1002/tea.10132
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247–298.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academies Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1998). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 179–210). Sage.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jonassen, D. H. (2014). Engineers as problem solvers. Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research, 103–118.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–11. 10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kelly, G. J. (2011). Discourse in science classrooms. In S. Wortham, D. Kim, & S. May (Eds.), Discourse and education (pp. 66–77). Springer.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Klein, J. T. (2004). Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Futures, 36(4), 515–526. 10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.007
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296–316. 10.1002/tea.1015
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Leung, J. C. (2020). STEM literacy in an interdisciplinary curriculum: A case study of a secondary school’s STEM education program. International Journal of Science Education, 42(3), 340–362. 10.1080/09500693.2019.1701462
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lin, K. Y., Cheng, Y. Y., & Chang, Y. S. (2021). Making interdisciplinary connections through STEM inquiry: A longitudinal case study of secondary students’ development of STEM literacy. Research in Science Education, 51(5), 1455–1481. 10.1007/s11165-019-09906-1
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Malone Back, S., Greenhalgh-Spencer, H., & Frias, K. (2016). The application of transdisciplinary theory and practice to STEM education. In C. R., Handbook of Research on Technology Tools for Real-World Skill Development (pp. 42–67). IGI Global. 10.4018/978-1-4666-9441-5.ch003
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mansilla, V. B., & Duraisingh, E. D. (2007). Targeted assessment of students’ interdisciplinary work: An empirically grounded framework proposed. Journal of Higher Education, 78(2), 215–237. 10.1353/jhe.2007.0005
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: Country comparisons. Australian Council of Learned Academies.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 2.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analyzing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 137–168. 10.1558/japl.2004.1.2.137
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(1), 12–21. 10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.03.001
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Moje, E. B. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature on disciplinary literacy teaching. Review of Research in Education, 31(1), 1–44. 10.3102/0091732X07300046
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
National Academy of Engineering & National Research Council. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academies Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nicolescu, B. (2002). Manifesto of transdisciplinarity. SUNY Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. 10.1177/1609406917733847
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466. 10.1126/science.1183944
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pearson, P. D., Moje, E. B., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328(5977), 459–463. 10.1126/science.1182595
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Post, G., Keestra, M., & Rutting, L. (2016). An introduction to interdisciplinary research: Theory and practice. Amsterdam University Press. 10.1515/9789048531615
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Reiser, B. J., & Tabak, I. (2014). Scaffolding. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 44–62). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139519526.006
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children’s epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488–526. 10.1002/sce.21006
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75. 10.3233/EFI-2004-22201
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Takeuchi, M. A., Sengupta, P., Shanahan, M-C., Adams, J. D., & Hachem, M. (2020). Transdisciplinarity in STEM education: A critical review. Studies in Science Education, 56(2), 213–259. 10.1080/03057267.2019.1649820
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Thibaut, L., Knipprath, H., Dehaene, W., & Depaepe, F. (2018). Teachers’ views of integrated STEM education and its implementation in the classroom. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(3), 1–20.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. 10.1177/1077800410383121
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296. 10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Williams, P. J. (2017). STEM education: What does mathematics have to offer? Mathematics Education Research Journal, 29(2), 211–223. 10.1007/s13394-017-0192-1
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wendell, K. B., & Rogers, C. (2013). Engineering design-based science, science content performance, and science attitudes in elementary school. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 513–540. 10.1002/jee.20027
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Yore, L. D., Pimm, D., & Tuan, H. L. (2004). The literacy component of mathematical and scientific literacy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(4), 563–589. 10.1007/s10763-004-3229-z
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article