Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Nature of Engineering Knowledge

An Articulation for Science Learners with Nature of Science Understandings

Abstract

The inclusion of engineering standards in US science education standards is potentially important because of how limited engineering education for K-12 learners is, despite the ubiquity of engineering in students’ lives. However, the majority of learners experience science education throughout their compulsory schooling. If improved engineering literacy is to be achieved, then its inclusion in science curricula is perhaps the most efficient means. One significant challenge that arises, however, is in the framing of engineering relative to science by both teachers and curriculum. Science and engineering are both distinct and interdependent. The nature of the contributions of science and engineering to one another has been an area of some examination in philosophy of technology and engineering, but little framing of this relationship has been conducted with K-12 science and engineering education contexts in mind. Nature of science (NOS) is a critical layer of scientific understanding that has been used to explicitly support literacy in K-16 science classrooms for decades. However, engineering cannot be authentically and appropriately supported by NOS framing. There is an immediate need for discourse on the nature of engineering knowledge (NOEK) but not in isolation of NOS. Given the increasing inclusion of engineering in science classrooms, relationships between NOS and NOEK are in need of explication and argument. Our purpose is to promote a discussion about NOS, engineering, and the relationship between them without misrepresenting engineering as a subdomain of science or as an oversimplification of itself.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 295–317.

  2. Akerson, V. L., Buzzelli, C. A., & Donnelly, L. A. (2008). Early childhood teachers’ views of nature of science: The influence of intellectual levels, cultural values, and explicit reflective teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(6), 748–770.

  3. Antink-Meyer, A., & Meyer, D. Z. (2016). Science teachers’ misconceptions in science and engineering distinctions: Reflections on modern research examples. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(6), 625–647.

  4. Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Malzahn, K. A., Plumley, C. L., Gordon, E. M., & Hayes, M. L. (2018). Report of the 2018 NSSME+. Chapel Hill: Horizon Research, Inc..

  5. Bell, R. L. (1999). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. In Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Oregon: Oregon State University.

  6. Bennett, C. A. (1937). History of manual and industrial education 1870 to 1917. Peoria: Chas. A. Bennett Company.

  7. Bharti, R., Wadhwani, K. K., Tikku, A. P., & Chandra, A. (2010). Dental amalgam: An update. Journal of Conservative Dentistry, 13(4), 204–208.

  8. Bowen, W. R. (2008). Strategies for engineering development: Advancing technology, prioritising people. Desalination, 227(1–3), 3–13.

  9. Brereton, M. F., Cannon, D. M., Mabogunje, A., & Leifer, L. J. (1996). Collaboration in design teams: How social interaction shapes the product. In N. Cross, H. Christiaans, & K. Dorst (Eds.), Analysing design activity (pp. 319–341). Chichester: Wiley.

  10. Brown, J., Brown, R., & Merrill, C. (2011). Science and technology educators’ enacted curriculum: Areas of possible collaboration for an integrative STEM approach in public schools. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 71(4), 30.

  11. Cajas, F. (2001). The science/technology interaction: Implications for science literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 715–729.

  12. Chau, R., Doyle, B., Datta, S., Kavalieros, J., & Zhang, K. (2007). Integrated nanoelectronics for the future. Nature Materials, 6(11), 810.

  13. Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza & S. Agnoli (Eds.), Multidisciplinary contributions to the science of creative thinking (pp. 155–173). London: Springer.

  14. Cunningham, C. M., & Carlsen, W. (2014). Precollege engineering education. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), The handbook of research on science education volume II (pp. 747–758). New York: Routledge.

  15. Cunningham, C. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2017). Epistemic practices of engineering for education. Science Education, 101(3), 486–505.

  16. Daugherty, J. L., & Custer, R. L. (2012). Secondary level engineering professional development: Content, pedagogy, and challenges. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 91(2), 211–221.

  17. Denson, C. D., Kelley, T. R., & Wicklein, R. C. (2009). Integrating engineering design into technology education: Georgia’s perspective. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 46(1), 81–102.

  18. deVries, M. J. (2010). Engineering science as a “discipline of the particular”? Types of generalization in engineering sciences. In I. van de Poel & D. E. Goldberg (Eds.), Philosophy and engineering (pp. 83–93). Dordrecht: Springer.

  19. Downey, G. L., & Lucena, J. C. (2005). National identities in multinational worlds: Engineers and 'engineering cultures'. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life Long Learning, 15(3–6), 252–260.

  20. Downey, G. L., & Lucena, J. C. (2004). Knowledge and professional identity in engineering: Code-switching and the metrics of progress. History and Technology, 20(4), 393–420.

  21. Dugger, W. E., Jr., & Naik, N. (2001). Clarifying misconceptions between technology education and educational technology. The Technology Teacher, 61(1), 31–35.

  22. Dym, C. L. (1994). Engineering design: A synthesis of views. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  23. Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103–120.

  24. Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Applebaum, S. (2012). Contextualizing nature of science instruction in socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2289–2315.

  25. Farmer, C., Klein-Gardner, S., & Nadelson, L. (2014). Standards for preparation and professional development for teachers of engineering. American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved from http://www.asee.org/documents/papers-andpublications/papers/outreach/Standards_for_Preparation_and_Professional_Development.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2018.

  26. Goldman, S. L. (1984). The techne of philosophy and the philosophy of technology. Research in Philosophy and Technology, 7, 115–144.

  27. Gunn, A. S. (2010). Integrity and the ethical responsibilities of engineers. In I. van de Poel & D. E. Goldberg (Eds.), Philosophy and engineering (pp. 125–134). Dordrecht: Springer.

  28. Hansson, S. O. (2007). What is technological science? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 38, 523–527.

  29. Herman, B. C. (2018). Students' environmental NOS views, compassion, intent, and action: Impact of place-based socioscientific issues instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(4), 600–638.

  30. Howard, R. A. (1988). Decision analysis: Practice and promise. Management Science, 34(6), 679–695.

  31. Hughes, J., Kroes, P., & Zwart, S. (2007). A semantics for means-end relations. Synthese, 158(2), 207–231.

  32. ITEA/ITEEA (2000/2002/2007). Standards for technological literacy. Retrieved from www.iteea.org/TAA/PDFs/ListingofSTLContentStandards.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2018.

  33. Lederman, N. G., Antink, A., & Bartos, S. A. (2014a). Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socio-scientific issues arising from genetics: A pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry. Science & Education, 23(2), 285–302.

  34. Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In N. G. Lederman & S. Abell (Eds.), The handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 600–620). New York, NY: Routledge.

  35. Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., Bartels, S. L., Antink-Meyer, A., & Schwartz, R. S. (2014b). Meaningful assessment of learners’ understandings about scientific inquiry—The views about scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 65–83.

  36. Kaya, E., Newley, A., Deniz, H., Yesilyurt, E., & Newley, P. (2017). Introducing engineering design to a science teaching methods course through educational robotics and exploring changes in views of preservice elementary teachers. Journal of College Science Teaching, 47(2), 66–75.

  37. Kelly, G. (2007). Inquiry, activity, and epistemic practice. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.), Establishing a consensus agenda for K-12 science inquiry (pp. 99–117). Rotterdam: Sense.

  38. Kelly, G. J. (2011). Scientific literacy, discourse, and epistemic practices. In C. Linder, L. Ostman, D. A. Roberts, P.-O. Wickman, G. Erickson, & A. MacKinnon (Eds.), Exploring the landscape of scientific literacy (pp. 61–73). New York: Routledge.

  39. Kerr, E., & Gelfert, A. (2014). The ‘extendedness’ of scientific evidence. Philosophical Issues, 24(1), 253–281.

  40. Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551–578.

  41. Kroes, P. (2009). Foundational issues of engineering design. In A. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (pp. 513–541). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  42. Lewis, T., & Zuga, K. F. (2005). A conceptual framework of ideas and issues in technology education (Report No. ESI-0138671). Arlington: National Science Foundation.

  43. Luegenbiehl, H. C. (2010). Ethical principles for engineers in a global environment. In I. van de Poel & D. E. Goldberg (Eds.), Philosophy and engineering (pp. 1–11). Dordrecht: Springer.

  44. Madhavan, G. (2015). Applied minds: How engineers think. New York: WW Norton & Company.

  45. Matkins, J. J., & Bell, R. L. (2007). Awakening the scientist inside: Global climate change and the nature of science in an elementary science methods course. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(2), 137–163.

  46. McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education (pp. 3–39). Dordrecht: Springer.

  47. Meijers, A. (Ed.). (2009). Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences. Burlington: Elsevier.

  48. Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  49. Moses, J. (2010). Architecting engineering systems. In I. van de Poel & D. E. Goldberg (Eds.), Philosophy and engineering (pp. 75–82). Dordrecht: Springer.

  50. National Research Council. (2010). Standards for K-12 engineering education. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press.

  51. National Research Council. (2012a). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press.

  52. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

  53. National Research Council. (2012b). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

  54. Newman, W. M., & Vincenti, W. G. (2007). On an engineering use of engineering history. Technology and Culture, 48(1), 245–247.

  55. Oxilia, G., Fiorillo, F., Boschin, F., Boaretto, E., Apicella, S. A., Matteucci, C., Panetta, D., Pistocchi, R., Guerrini, F., Margherita, C., & Andretta, M. (2017). The dawn of dentistry in the late upper Paleolithic: An early case of pathological intervention at Riparo Fredian. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 163(3), 446–461.

  56. Petroski, H. (2011). The essential engineer: Why science alone will not solve our global problems. New York: Vintage.

  57. Pirtle, Z. (2010). How the models of engineering tell the truth. In I. van de Poel & D. E. Goldberg (Eds.), Philosophy and engineering (pp. 95–108). Dordrecht: Springer.

  58. Pitt, J. C. (2010). Philosophy, engineering, and the sciences. In I. van de Poel & D. E. Goldberg (Eds.), Philosophy and engineering (pp. 75–82). Dordrecht: Springer.

  59. Pleasants, J., & Olson, J. K. (2019). What is engineering? Elaborating the nature of engineering for K‐12 education. Science Education, 103(1), 145–166.

  60. Pollock, J. L. (2002). The logical foundations of means-end reasoning. In R. Elio (Ed.), Common sense, reasoning, and rationality (pp. 60–77). Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand.

  61. Purzer, Ş., Goldstein, M. H., Adams, R. S., Xie, C., & Nourian, S. (2015). An exploratory study of informed engineering design behaviors associated with scientific explanations. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 1–12.

  62. Radder, H. (2009). Science, technology and the science-technology relationship. In A. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (pp. 65–91). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  63. Rau, G., & Antink-Meyer, A. (2019). Distinguishing between science, engineering and technology. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), Nature of Science in Science Instruction: Rationales and Strategies. Dordrecht: Springer.

  64. Rogers, G. F. C. (1983). The nature of engineering. London: The MacMillan Press Ltd..

  65. Sadler, T. D. (2011). Situating socio-scientific issues in classrooms as a means of achieving goals of science education. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom (pp. 1–9). Dordrecht: Springer.

  66. Sadler, T. D., Klosterman, M. L., & Topcu, M. S. (2011). Learning science content and socio-scientific reasoning through classroom explorations of global climate change. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom (pp. 45–77). Dordrecht: Springer.

  67. Spiekermann-Hoff, S., Korunovska, J., & Langheinrich, M. (2018). Understanding engineers’ drivers and impediments for ethical system development: The case of privacy and security engineering. Retrieved from http://epub.wu.ac.at/6339. Accessed 1 Aug 2018.

  68. Vacanti, C. A. (2006). The history of tissue engineering. Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, 10(3), 569–576.

  69. van de Poel, I. (2010). Philosophy and engineering: Setting the stage. In I. van de Poel & D. E. Goldberg (Eds.), Philosophy and engineering (pp. 1–11). Dordrecht: Springer.

  70. Vincenti, W. G. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

  71. Warner, D. J. (1990). What is a scientific instrument, when did it become one, and why? The British Journal for the History of Science, 23(1), 83–93.

  72. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74–101.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Allison Antink-Meyer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Antink-Meyer, A., Brown, R.A. Nature of Engineering Knowledge. Sci & Educ 28, 539–559 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00038-0

Download citation