In this article, we use the family resemblance approach as a framework to contribute to the debate about the similarities and differences between the constituent disciplines of STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics) and to explore the implications for education. The family resemblance approach has been used in science education in various ways, for instance, in teacher education and undergraduate teaching and as an analytical tool for examining science curricula and assessments. The relevant sense of application of the family resemblance approach for our purposes in this article is that it is a framework that has the potential to differentiate the disciplines underpinning STEAM. We explore the utility of the family resemblance approach for clarifying what is meant by the nature of STEAM and, subsequently, we elaborate on some practical examples drawn from a project conducted in Hong Kong with Year 7 (12–13-year-old) students to illustrate how the use of the family resemblance approach can help articulate a contrast of nature of science and the arts in school activities. Copyright © 2024 Sibel Erduran and Kason Ka Ching Cheung.

Background: Different instructional factors are related to students’ achievement in different cognitive domains. Most research studies on large-scale assessment focus on science achievement as an entire variable, without considering science achievement in different cognitive domains. Purpose: This study investigates the predictive effects of the frequency of teachers’ using practical work and clarity of instruction on students’ achievement in different cognitive domains. Sample: A regional representative sample of 3265 Hong Kong students who took part in Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2019 was used in this study. Design and Method: In order to disentangle the interrelationships between science instructional factors, attitudes toward science and students’ achievement in different cognitive domains, we carried out structural equation modelling to explore the responses by 3265 Hong Kong students to TIMSS 2019 surveys. Results: Frequency of teachers’ use of practical work had a significant positive impact on students’ achievement in the domains of knowing, applying, and reasoning, while clarity of instruction had a significantly negative impact on students’ achievement in the domains of knowing and applying. Enjoyment of science mediates the relationship between the relationships between frequency of practical work and achievement in three cognitive domains. Conclusion: This informs how teachers use practical work to enhance students’ enjoyment of science, intrinsic motivation and self-concept, in order to improve their achievement in knowing, applying and reasoning science. Implications contribute to future research on how best to improve students’ achievement in all three cognitive domains are discussed. Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

Many Southeast Asian countries have been promoting the use of EMI in non-language subjects, including science. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is a notion which promotes students’ integration of both content and language. This chapter explores the use of a content analysis technique, an epistemic network analysis to explore how classroom interaction facilitates CLIL. We draw on Lin (2012)‘s ‘rainbow diagram’ to analyse how two Hong Kong science teachers used and expanded communicative resources to promote CLIL. These resources are L1 and L2 every day, oral and academic languages, as well as multimodal representations. A coding scheme is developed based on the ‘rainbow diagram’ from Lin (2012). Afterwards, we illustrate an innovative discourse analysis technique, epistemic network analysis, to characterise the frequency of connections between the codes generated. By qualitatively comparing the epistemic networks between teachers and students in a science practical work setting, we propose that epistemic network analysis can be used to compare the practice of CLIL of experienced and non-experienced teachers, as well as before and after professional development programmes. The strengths and weaknesses of this innovative method are then discussed. Copyright © 2023 selection and editorial matter, Samantha M. Curle and Jack K. H. Pun; individual chapters, the contributors.