STEM literacy or literacies? Examining the empirical basis of these constructs

Abstract

The term ‘STEM literacy’, while often used as a slogan for the goal of STEM education, is open to multiple interpretations and used without much research evidence to support its validity. The purpose of this paper is to review the research literature in science, technology/engineering and mathematics education to examine how literacy in each respective discipline has been defined, conceptualised and studied. The literacies across the disciplines are then compared to identify similarities and differences in order to determine on what basis these literacies can be conceptualised collectively, or not. Based on the similarities found in several language and thought processes of the disciplines, we conclude that there is presently a research basis for postulating a unitary STEM literacy that reflects the shared general capabilities required in all the STEM disciplines. At the same time, there are also substantial differences that support the retention of the existing literacy constructs (i.e., S.T.E.M. literacies) to reflect the specific linguistic, cognitive and epistemic requirements found in each disciplinary area. This distinction from the singular STEM literacy is necessary to highlight the skills and practices that are unique to each particular discipline, and therefore not applicable in all the other disciplines. Given the haphazard rhetoric regarding STEM education, what STEM literacy comprises requires analysis and clear articulation that is framed by literacy research and scholarship in each STEM discipline.

Boundary crossing pedagogy in STEM education

“…In a recent research on STEM literacy (i.e., a set of capabilities that a STEM literate person should possess), Tang and Williams (2019) examined the literacies across the STEM disciplines to identify similarities and differences in order to determine whether there is a collective conceptualization of these literacies. A distinction between STEM literacy and S.T.E.M.…”

Models and modelling for authentic STEM education: reinforcing the argument

“…Lesh, 1981;Lesh, Post, & Behr, 1987). Tang and Williams (2018) view visual modelling as a common literacy skill in STEM, although they also caution that visual representations may be specific to a particular field.…”

“…Although models and modelling differ slightly between the STEM disciplines, there are some clear similarities, for example, concerning visual models and representations (e.g. Tang & Williams, 2018). Exploring these similarities and bridging differences could strengthen STEM education and STEM literacy.…”

“…If this vision is to be realised, it is crucial that implementing any model-based authentic educational activities are underpinned by meaningful and evidence-based frameworks and recommendations for teaching practice (e.g. Kertil & Gurel, 2016;Tang & Williams, 2018). The contributions described in this commentary are central to each of the STEM disciplines and could be used to further operationalise potential recommendations for a broader STEM education mandate.…”

“…The root of this ambiguity arises from the fact that science, technology, engineering and mathematics as disciplines are not necessarily connected in neither content nor pedagogy (e.g. Tang & Williams, 2018). Therefore, a great challenge for teachers in STEM subjects is to design classroom activities that integrate two or more of the subjects in their teaching in both a meaningful and relevant way (Bell, 2016;de Vries, 2017;Kertil & Gurel, 2016;Margot & Kettler, 2019;Radloff & Guzey, 2016).…”