The authors framed a scoping review to map evidence on didactic strategies that teach the derivative in undergraduate engineering education using authentic engineering problems, either with or without the support of digital technologies. The review aims to identify the instructional designs used, the types of authentic problems implemented in calculus instruction, and the principal learning difficulties reported by students. The research question asks what the academic literature provides about such didactic strategies for engineering students in higher education.
The study team argued that the derivative is central to engineering practice because it enables modeling of rates of change, solving optimization tasks, and interpreting dynamic physical phenomena. Investigators reported that, despite this centrality, instruction often privileges decontextualized symbolic procedures rather than problem-centered conceptual work. The scoping review is positioned as the first systematic effort—according to the authors—to synthesize studies that simultaneously focus on the mathematical object (the derivative), an instructional vehicle (authentic engineering problems), and an educational population (undergraduate engineering students).
The protocol specifies searches in Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, and SciELO. The authors restricted included publications to peer-reviewed records published between 2000 and 2026, and to three languages: English, Spanish, and Portuguese. The choice of time frame reflects the authors’ intent to capture two decades-plus of literature, including recent developments in technology-enhanced instruction. The source did not report the exact search strings in the abstract; the full protocol provides methodological detail consistent with the JBI framework.
Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts, and full texts using Rayyan, with disagreements resolved by consensus. The study team described roles for independent screening and a plan for conflict resolution, but the abstract did not list specific inclusion or exclusion criteria beyond the PCC framework: Population (undergraduate engineering students), Concept (didactic strategies grounded in authentic engineering problems, with or without digital support), Context (higher education engineering programs).
Data will be extracted using a pilot-tested extraction form. The authors indicated intent to synthesize results with a mix of descriptive statistics, thematic categorization, and narrative synthesis. The review will map didactic strategies, characterize the types of authentic engineering problems used in calculus instruction (for example, resource optimization or water-flow analysis as discussed in the literature), and report on documented learning difficulties related to the derivative. The abstract states that no datasets were generated or analysed during protocol development and that all relevant data will be made available upon study completion.
The authors surveyed prior reviews and found broad syntheses of active learning and technology-enhanced instruction in STEM and engineering, but no review addressing the tripartite intersection targeted here. For example, Freeman et al. and other meta-analyses showed benefits of active learning across STEM broadly, yet those reviews did not isolate engineering programs, a single mathematical concept, or authentic engineering problems as a distinct instructional approach. Likewise, reviews of immersive or technology-enhanced learning offered insight into digital tools without focusing on the derivative or on authentic problem contexts for calculus courses. The study team concluded that existing evidence remains fragmented and heterogeneous with regard to the precise combination of concept, context, and population.
Data indicated persistent student difficulties with the derivative reported across the literature: operational or procedural conceptions that emphasize symbolic manipulation; limited integration of graphical, algebraic, and verbal representations; weak understanding of the limit concept; and struggles with covariational reasoning needed to interpret coordinated changes in dynamic engineering situations. Authors noted instructional responses described in the literature, including the use of interactive visualization and manipulation tools (GeoGebra, process simulators, graphic visualization software) and active-learning formats such as problem-based learning, project-based learning, flipped classrooms, and interactive simulations. The abstract referenced tasks drawn from engineering contexts—resource optimization, water-flow variation analysis, and interpretation of rates using realistic engineering data—but did not provide exhaustive lists or operational details for classroom implementation.
The protocol follows the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and PRISMA-ScR reporting guidance. The authors explicitly acknowledged a methodological boundary: scoping reviews map the scope, nature, and characteristics of evidence without performing critical appraisals of methodological quality. The abstract reported funding sources and stated that the funder had no role in study design or manuscript decisions; the authors declared no competing interests. The source noted that all relevant data will be made available upon completion of the review. The abstract did not report results—this document is a protocol—and therefore cannot answer questions about effect sizes, comparative outcomes, or the methodological quality of the studies that will be included. The next concrete steps documented by the authors are the conduct of the planned searches, screening, extraction, and synthesis as described in the protocol.