The Integrated Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (iSTEM) approach emerged in the United States (US) and has echoed all around the world (Moore et al., 2015; Ekiz-Kiran & Aydin-Günbatar, 2021). The release of new science standards documents (e.g., National Research Council [NRC], 2012; Next Generation Science Standards [NGSS] Lead States, 2013), has led to an emphasis on the integration of engineering into K-12 science classrooms (Cunningham & Kelly 2017; Stohlmann, et al., 2012). Engineering is “a multifaceted field that draws not only from related disciplinary domains such as mathematics and science, but also from disciplines that serve to make engineering solutions more practical or desirable such as economics, social studies, and the arts” (Moore, et al., 2018, p. 9).

The integration of engineering into science education requires focusing on the nature of engineering (NOE) (Antink-Meyer & Brown, 2019). The NOE ‘’includes issues relevant to the structure of the engineering discipline: what engineering is, how it works, how engineers conduct their work, the relationship between engineering and other fields of study such as science, and how engineering influences and is influenced by society’’ (Pleasants & Olson, 2019, p. 146). Due to its recent emergence, there are limited studies on the NOE. Two recent studies by Antink-Meyer and Brown (2019) and Pleasants and Olson (2019), and previous work by Karatas et al. (2011) start to frame NOE. However, these studies include different NOE aspects organized with different sub-components. For instance, Karatas et al. (2011, 2016) included the tentative nature of engineering design solutions. However, Pleasants and Olson (2019) criticized that aspect and asked “if an engineering design is used to create a physical artifact (e.g., a bridge), is that design still tentative?’’ (p.149). In other words, there is minimal consensus on the NOE aspects and their meaning. 

Parallel to the development of the nature of science (NOS) as a construct central to scientific literacy, Karatas et al. (2011) stated ‘’it is therefore reasonable to suggest that an improved understanding of the nature of engineering (NOE) could lead to useful learning outcomes within the fields of engineering and technology‘’ (p.124). Thus, this study aimed to review the literature from K-12 engineering and science education and recent science education reform (e.g., National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council [NAE & NRC], 2009, NRC, 2012; NGSS Lead States, 2013). A grounded framework for NOE would aid the development of NOE instruments that can be used to track the development of NOE views of teachers and students, which is the broader aim of the authors of this research.   

A systematic literature review of engineering and engineering education literature was conducted to frame NOE construct for K-12 education. Xiao and Watson (2019) categorized literature reviews according to their purposes into four groups: describe, test, extend, and critique. This study is an example of extend category that ‘’goes beyond a summary of the data and attempts to build upon the literature to create new, higher-order constructs’’ (p.100). To attain the goal, we followed the three main steps suggested by Kitchenham and Charters (2007), which are planning, conducting, and reporting the review steps. First of all, the related literature (i.e., engineering and K-12 engineering education) and keywords were determined (e.g., nature of engineering’, ‘engineering work’, ‘engineering practices’, ‘engineering habits of mind’). In addition to the research literature, US science and engineering standard documents (e.g., NGSS, 2013) were also reviewed. The snowball technique was used in this process. After finishing the review step, three to six experts from engineering education will be invited to review and refine the framework suggested by the literature review. Detailed definitions of NOE aspects will be provided to the experts and their feedback used to re-frame the NOE aspects.

The first expected outcome of the literature review is to frame the NOE construct and describe the disciplinary aspects of engineering that are specific to K-12 engineering education. For example, NRC (2012) lists scientific and engineering practices with limited distinction between science and engineering. For example, these science and engineering practices include ‘Engaging in argument from evidence’ ‘developing and using models’ (NRC, 2012). Our literature review will explicate how engineers engage in argumentation and modeling in different ways to scientists. In other words, although engineering and science are co-dependent and have common practices, they are different fields and have distinctive characteristics. The second expected outcome is to develop a consensus list of NOE aspects, as the current literature is in disagreement. To conclude, the resulting NOE framework would inform science and engineering educators regarding which aspects of NOE should be addressed in K-12 classrooms. Later, it would be used to develop a comprehensive NOE instrument to assess the NOE views of students and teachers. Moreover, with the assessment of NOE views, the aspects of NOE that are difficult for learners to grasp would be identified.

Antink-Meyer, A., & Brown, R. A. (2019). Nature of engineering knowledge. Science & Education, 28(3), 539-559. Cunningham, C. M., & Carlsen, W. S. (2014). Teaching engineering practices. Journal of science teacher education, 25(2), 197-210. Cunningham, C. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2017). Epistemic practices of engineering for education. Science Education, 101(3), 486-505. Cunningham, C. M., Lachapelle, C., & Lindgren‐Streicher, A. (2006). Elementary Teachers Understanding of Engineering and Technology, Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education American Conference and Exposition (Vol. 113). Chicago, United States: ASEE Ekiz-Kiran, B., & Aydin-Gunbatar, S. (2021). Analysis of engineering elements of K-12 science standards in seven countries engaged in STEM education reform. Science & Education, 30, 849–882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00227-w Karatas, F. O., Micklos, A., & Bodner, G. M. (2011). Sixth-grade students’ views of the nature of engineering and images of engineers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(2), 123-135. Kitchenham, B.A., Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Technical Report EBSE 2007-001 Moore, T. J., Tank, K. M., & English, L. (2018). Engineering in the early grades: Harnessing children’s natural ways of thinking. In Moore, T & English, L (Eds.) Early engineering learning, p. 9-18, Springer. Moore, T. J., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Kersten, J. A. (2015). NGSS and the landscape of engineering in K-12 state science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(3), 296–318. https://doi. org/10.1002/tea.21199 National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council (NAE & NRC) (2009). Engineering in K‐12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 2(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314653 Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93-112.