This article examines how the integration of physics with mathematics, technology, and the arts can systematically develop scientific literacy in secondary education. Scientific literacy is conceptualized not merely as mastery of content but as a composite of practices that include inquiry, modeling, evidence-based reasoning, communication, and transfer of knowledge to authentic contexts. The materials and methods section explicates a design-oriented approach that aligns physics learning goals with cross-disciplinary tasks: mathematical modeling that stabilizes core concepts, technological prototyping that externalizes and tests models, and artistic representation that deepens communication and ideation. The results and discussion synthesize advantages observed in the literature and in reported classroom implementations: enhanced robustness of concepts through multiple representations; improved evidence use and argumentation via engineering design constraints; broadened participation and identity development through aesthetic and narrative framings; and increased transfer across tasks and domains. Implementation challenges such as curriculum alignment, teacher preparation, and resource scarcity are addressed through mapping strategies, professional learning communities, and low-cost iterative design cycles. The paper concludes that physics integration with mathematics, technology, and the arts is not a dilution of rigor but a recontextualization of disciplinary practices that cultivates the habits of mind foundational to scientific literacy and civic engagement.

Scientific literacy, physics education, interdisciplinary integration

Bybee R. W. The Case for STEM Education: Challenges and Opportunities: monograph. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press, 2013. 192 p.

NGSS Lead States. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States: monograph. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2013. 532 p.

National Research Council. A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas: monograph. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2012. 400 p.

Kolb D. A. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development: monograph. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1984. 256 p.

Vygotsky L. S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes: monograph. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978. 176 p.

Hmelo-Silver C. E., Duncan R. G., Chinn C. A. Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 2007, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 99–107.

Fortus D., Dershimer R. C., Krajcik J. S., Marx R. W., Mamlok-Naaman R. Design-based science and real-world problem solving. International Journal of Science Education, 2004, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 855–879.

Honey M., Kanter D. (eds.). Design, Make, Play: Growing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators: monograph. New York: Routledge, 2013. 256 p.

Bequette J. W., Bequette M. B. A place for art and design education in the STEM conversation. Art Education, 2012, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 40–47.

Quillin K., Thomas S. Drawing-to-learn: A framework for using drawings to promote model-based reasoning. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 2015, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1–16.

Wilensky U., Resnick M. Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1999, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 3–19.

AAPT (American Association of Physics Teachers). Recommendations for the Undergraduate Physics Laboratory Curriculum: report. College Park, MD: AAPT, 2014. 28 p.

OECD. PISA 2018 Results. Volume I–III: monograph. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2019. 750 p.

Papert S. Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas: monograph. New York: Basic Books, 1980. 230 p.

Brown J. S., Collins A., Duguid P. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 1989, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 32–42.