Recent reform initiatives in STEM disciplines inspired the development and implementation of integrated STEM approaches to science teaching and learning. Integrated STEM as an approach to science teaching and learning leverages engineering principles and practices to situate learning in an authentic and meaningful science learning environment. However, integrated STEM curricular activities can be cognitively challenging for learners, so it is essential that teachers employ scaffolding techniques to facilitate student understanding of the connections between concepts and practices of the integrated disciplines. In this paper, we describe Legitimation Code Theory as an analytical framework and provide an analysis of semantic patterns of an integrated STEM unit (written discourse) and a middle school teacher’s enactment of that unit (oral discourse). Specifically, this analysis focused on the semantic gravity (SG), or level of context dependency, of the activities and dialogue present throughout the unit. Creating a semantic profile offers a snapshot of how abstract (weaker SG) or how specific (stronger SG) a concept is presented in relation to other concepts. Curriculum that presents ideas through the formation of semantic waves, or oscillations between areas of stronger and weaker semantic gravity, is linked to enhanced learning of complex ideas. The results of this study identify the areas in the curriculum unit and instruction that enable or constrain knowledge-building within the science classroom. We posit that the Legitimation Code Theory is a useful tool for developing and examining integrated STEM curriculum and its implementation.
This is a preview of subscription content,to check access.
Access this article
Similar content being viewed by others
The datasets analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on request.
Azevedo, F. S., Martalock, P. L., & Keser, T. (2015). The discourse of design-based science classroom activities. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(2), 285–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-013-9540-5
Barreto, L., Rodrigues, A., Oliveria, G., Almeida, L., Felix, M., Silva, P., …, & Moriemer, E. (2021). The use of different translation devices to analyze knowledge-building in a university chemistry classroom. Research in Science Education, 51, 135-152
Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425699995380
Brown, B. A., & Spang, E. (2008). Double talk: Synthesizing everyday and science language in the classroom. Science Education, 92(4), 708–732. https://doi.org/10.1002//sce.20251
Brunton, R. (2017). STEM education policy statement 2017–2026. Retrieved from https://assets.gov.ie/43627/06a5face02ae4ecd921334833a4687ac.pdf
Bryan, L. A., & Guzey, S. S. (2020). K-12 STEM Education: An overview of perspectives and considerations. Hellenic Journal of STEM Education, 1(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.12973/hjstem/00110
Bryan, L. A., Moore, T., Johnson, C., & Roehrig, G. (2015). Integrated STEM education. In C. Johnson, E. Peters-Burton, & T. Moore (Eds.), STEM Road Map: A Framework for Implementing Integrated STEM Education (pp. 23–37). Routledge.
Clarence, S. (2017). Surfing the waves of learning: Enacting a Semantics analysis of teaching in a first year Law course. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(5), 920–933. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1263831
Dawes, L. (2004). Talk and learning in classroom science. International Journal of Science Education, 26(6), 677–695. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006903200009742
Doran, Y. J., Maton, K., & Martin, J. R. (2021). The teaching of science: New insights into knowledge, language and pedagogy. In J. R. Martin & Y. J. Doran (Eds.), Teaching science: Knowledge, language, pedagogy (pp. 1–20). Routledge.
Education Council. (2015). National STEM school education strategy: A comprehensive plan for science, technology, engineering and mathematics education in Australia. Retrieved from https://www.education.gov.au/education-ministers-meeting/resources/national-stem-school-education-strategy
English, L. (2016). STEM Education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–8.
Georgiou, H. (2016). Putting physics knowledge in the hot seat: The semantics of student understandings of thermodynamics. In K. Maton, S. Hood, & S. Shay (Eds.), Knowledge-building educational studies in Legitimation Code Theory (pp. 176–192). Routledge.
HM Treasury, & Department for Business Innovation and Skills. (2014). Our plan for growth: Science and innovation. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/our-plan-forgrowth-science-and-innovation
Hood, S., & Hao, J. (2021). Grounded learning: Telling and showing in the language and paralanguage of a science lecture. In K. Maton, J. R. Martin, & Y. J. Doran (Eds.), Teaching science: Knowledge, language and pedagogy (pp. 226–256). Routledge.
Jackson, F. (2016). Unraveling high school English literature pedagogic practices: A Legitimation Code Theory analysis. Language and Education, 30(6), 536–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2016.1177070
Johnston, A. C., Akarsu, M. G., Moore, T., & Guzey, S. S. (2019). Engineering as the integrator: A case study of one middle school science teacher’s talk. Journal of Engineering Education, 108, 418–440. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20286
Kelly, G. J. (2008). Learning science: Discursive practices. In M. Martin-Jones, A. -M. De Mejía, & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 3. Discourse and education (pp. 329–340). Springer.
Maton, K. (2009). Cumulative and segmented learning: Exploring the role of curriculum structures in knowledge-building. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690802514342
Maton, K. (2014a). Knowledge and knowers. Towards a realist sociology of education. Routledge.
Maton, K. (2014b). A TALL order? Legitimation Code Theory for academic language and learning. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 8(3), A34–A48.
Maton, K. (2016). Legitimation Code Theory: Building knowledge about knowledge-building. In K. Maton, S. Hood, & S. Shay (Eds.), Knowledge-building educational studies in Legitimation Code Theory (pp. 1–24). Routledge.
Maton, K. (2020). Semantic waves: Context, complexity and academic discourse. In J. Martin, K. Maton, & Y. Doran (Eds.), Accessing academic discourse: Systemic functional linguistics and legitimation code theory (pp. 59–85). Routledge.
Monbec, L. (2018). Designing an EAP curriculum for transfer: A focus on knowledge. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 12(2), A88–A101.
Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M. S., Wang, H. H., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Roehrig, G. H. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. In Ş Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. E. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practices (pp. 35–60). Purdue University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt6wq7bh.7
Mouton, M., & Archer, E. (2019). Legitimation Code Theory to facilitate transition from high school to first-year biology. Journal of Biological Education, 53(1), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2017.1420681
National Academy of Engineering & National Research Council. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 Education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18612
Rennie, L., Wallace, J., & Venville, G. (2012). Exploring curriculum integration: Why integrate? In L. Rennie, G. Venville, & J. Wallace (Eds.), Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Issues, reflections, and ways forward (pp. 1–11). Routledge.
Roth, W. M. (1996). Art and artifact of children’s designing: A situated cognition perspective. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(2), 129–166. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0502_2
Sanders, M. E. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.
Valtorta, C. G., & Berland, L. K. (2015). Math, science, and engineering integration in a high school engineering course: A qualitative study. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 5(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1087
Wilson-Lopez, A., & Minichiello, A. (2017). Disciplinary literacy in engineering. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 61(1), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.658
Wolmarans, N. (2015). Navigating boundaries: Moving between context and disciplinary knowledge when learning to design. In R. S. Adams & J. A. Siddiqui (Eds.), Analyzing design review conversations (pp. 97–114). Purdue University Press.
Wolmarans, N. (2021). The relationship between specialised disciplinary knowledge and its application in the world. In K. Maton, J. R. Martin, & Y. Doran (Eds.), Teaching science: Knowledge, language, pedagogy (pp. 205–225). Routledge.
Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publication.
This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) grant 1721141.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Dankenbring, C.A., Guzey, S.S. & Bryan, L.A. Legitimation Code Theory as an Analytical Framework for Integrated STEM Curriculum and Its Enactment. Res Sci Educ (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10103-y