Enhancing first-year engineering design through an integrated storytelling framework

This study explores how storytelling can support first-year engineering (FYE) students’ learning of the Engineering Design Process (EDP) when combined with Project-Based Learning (PJBL), Community-Based Learning (CBL), and Team-Based Learning (TBL). In a FYE course, students worked in teams as fictional engineering companies, assumed professional roles, and completed projects for both fictional and real clients. Using a quasi-experimental pre–post design with surveys (N = 64 complete responses) and reflective prompts (N = 78), we examined changes in students’ perceptions of engineering design. Quantitative findings showed significant gains in familiarity with EDP steps, confidence in applying the process to real-world problems, and recognition of creativity, sustainability, and teamwork as central to engineering. Items on ethics, innovation, and everyday applications showed no significant change. Qualitative analysis identified four themes: identity and authenticity, motivation and engagement, understanding of the design process, and preparedness for real-world challenges. Together, the results suggest that storytelling, when integrated with PJBL, CBL, and TBL, enhances engagement and fosters professional identity development in first-year engineering students.

1 Introduction: background & rationale

Teaching engineering design process (EDP) is challenging because it can vary depending on where and how it is taught (Barreiro and Bozutti, 2017; Denson and Lammi, 2014; Mukhandmath et al., 2020). The EDP, as used in this study, refers to a systematic, iterative cycle that includes need finding, problem definition, concept generation, prototyping, testing, and communication of solutions. Several factors influence how the EDP is taught, including class size (which shapes teamwork opportunities), resource limitations (which affect prototype development), timeline constraints (which restrict discussion of specific design phases), and institutional differences in which engineering roadmaps are adopted. Despite its central role in engineering, first-year students often struggle to connect these abstract steps to meaningful practice. Traditional introductory courses may emphasize technical skills or isolated exercises, but they rarely foster the authenticity, engagement, and professional identity formation needed at the start of an engineering pathway.

In this study, we focus on a first-year engineering fundamentals course called Engineering Fundamentals II (ENGR128), which introduces students to the engineering design process during their second semester. The course is part of the First-Year Engineering (FYE) program and is designed to provide students with a systematic understanding of engineering design while also fostering engagement, collaboration, and a sense of professional identity. The course combined project-based, community-based, team-based and storytelling approaches to create an instructional model that was both systematic and engaging. In the following section, we describe the pedagogical framework in detail and highlight how each approach contributed to student learning.

2 Pedagogical framework: integrated approaches

In designing ENGR128, we intentionally integrated four pedagogical approaches: Project-Based Learning (PjBL), Community-Based Learning (CBL), Storytelling (as a form of narrative pedagogy), and Team-Based Learning (TBL), in order to create an instructional model that was both systematic and engaging for first-year students. Each pedagogy contributed to distinct elements to the course, and together they formed a framework for teaching the engineering design process (EDP). In the next sections, we define each pedagogy and explain its purpose in the course.

2.1 Project-Based Learning (PjBL)

Project-Based Learning served as the structural backbone of the course. Project-Based Learning (PjBL) was originally grounded in the work of Dewey (1938), who advocated for experiential education and learning by doing. It later evolved into a structured pedagogical model (Blumenfeld et al., 1991) to support sustained, inquiry-based learning through real-world projects. In STEM, PjBL emphasizes student-centered learning through authentic projects that require sustained inquiry, teamwork, and application of knowledge to practical problems (Mota et al., 2025; Erdogan, 2015; Kokotsaki et al., 2016). In ENGR128, every major assignment was organized as a project aligned with the EDP roadmap, giving students iterative practice with problem framing, prototyping, and communicating solutions.

2.2 Community-Based Learning (CBL)

Community-Based Learning gained relevance as a pedagogical model in the 1990s, building on Boyer (1990)’s scholarship of engagement and service-learning practices that connect classroom learning with community needs. CBL was integrated to connect engineering design with social context and community needs (Felten and Clayton, 2011; Harlow et al., 2020). In the literature, CBL often intersects with service-learning in terms of community engagement, via a pedagogical framework that engages students through real-world perspectives on their course projects (López-Santiago et al., 2024; Schultes et al., 2025; Delaine et al., 2024). The partnership with a local science center exemplified this approach, as students developed prototypes for exhibits that addressed real-world constraints and educational goals. CBL helped students recognize that engineering is not only technical but also civic, requiring attention to community stakeholders.

2.3 Team-Based Learning (TBL)

Team-Based Learning (TBL) was developed in the early 2000s (Fink et al., 2023) as a structured instructional strategy to enhance learning through systematic understanding of teams. TBL structured the way students collaborated throughout the semester. Recent studies present TBL as a strategy to foster teamwork competencies, support digital integration, and facilitate the management of large cohorts (Lunt et al., 2025; Abildinova et al., 2024; Campbell et al., 2025). In this course, TBL was introduced by assigning specific roles such as Communication Manager, Time Manager, and Submission Manager. Each student carried explicit responsibilities within the company, fostering accountability and distributed leadership (Ruder et al., 2021). TBL also supported peer-to-peer learning, as students were required to rely on one another for effective project management, technical problem-solving, and timely submissions.

2.4 Storytelling as narrative pedagogy

Storytelling in this course served as more than just a structural tool; it grounded the projects within a narrative context that shaped how students perceived their roles and responsibilities. Storytelling can take many forms in education, from fostering STEM engagement in informal learning environments (Shaby et al., 2025) to supporting pedagogical strategies that are intentionally integrated into the curriculum (Lee and Le Doux, 2025). While PjBL structures the tasks students complete, storytelling frames the meaning of those tasks. Students formed fictional companies, created logos, and assumed professional roles. Early projects used fictional clients, while later projects transitioned to a real client. This continuity helped students view themselves as engineers solving authentic problems, not just completing assignments (Hinchman and Hinchman, 1997; Witherell, 1995; Schattner, 2015; Sherwood and Makar, 2022).

2.5 Distinguishing and integrating pedagogies

While PjBL, CBL, TBL, and storytelling share an emphasis on authenticity, they operate at different levels. PjBL provided the structure, CBL connected learning to community needs, TBL ensured effective collaboration, and storytelling enhanced meaning by shaping students’ identities and engagement. Table 1 provides a summary of the existing distinctions and connections that framed how each pedagogy was structured and implemented.

TABLE 1

Table 1. Illustrates the distinctions and connections among the four approaches.

3 Learning environment

3.1 Engineering Fundamentals II (ENGR128)

ENGR128 (Engineering Fundamentals II) is a 4-credit course required of all first-year engineering students following ENGR127 (Engineering Fundamentals I). All students enrolled in ENGR128 have previously completed ENGR127, a first-semester course that introduces foundational aspects of the engineering fundamentals with little exposure to engineering design process. ENGR128 builds upon this baseline, offering a more in-depth approach of the engineering design process as part of the learning outcomes. Approximately 120 students enroll each semester, taught by different instructions and teaching assistants. The course meets weekly across three components (lecture, lab, and studio) providing a balance between theoretical foundations, computational practice, and design application. Each semester, approximately 120 students are enrolled across multiple sections, each led by a faculty instructor and supported by teaching assistants. Students are divided into teams of three to four members. All teams engage with the same three major projects, though each team develops its own unique solution, fostering diverse interpretations of the design challenges.

3.2 Learning objectives

The learning objectives of ENGR128 span three interconnected dimensions: lecture, lab, and studio.

In the lecture component, students are expected to build a solid mathematical and analytical foundation for engineering problem solving. By the end of the course, students should be able to formulate and solve engineering problems involving complex numbers, sinusoidal functions and frequency analysis, integration, Boolean logic, logarithmic graphing and transformations, and introductory differential equations. These objectives ensure that students gain not only familiarity with fundamental mathematical concepts but also the ability to apply them in practical engineering contexts.

The lab component focuses on computational and programming skills, particularly using MATLAB. Students develop competencies in applying arrays and array manipulations, working with text variables and ASCII text files, and writing functions with multiple inputs and outputs. They also learn to construct functions that yield non-numerical outputs, utilize logical expressions and conditional statements, and implement loop structures. Additionally, labs emphasize data analysis by training students to fit data to linear, exponential, and power-law forms. A critical objective is for students to communicate effectively based on their computational work, linking technical results to clear written explanations.

The studio component centers on design, teamwork, and professional communication. Students are required to plan and execute disciplined design projects that follow a systematic engineering design process. Within this framework, they must demonstrate the ability to use appropriate analytical and computational tools in project work. Communication skills are foregrounded, as students are expected to produce precise and effective technical report memos that include clear abstracts, methodology descriptions, recommendations, and conclusions. Oral communication is equally emphasized, with students preparing and delivering professional technical presentations. Finally, the studio environment develops teamwork skills by requiring students to organize and manage effective teams. They must establish ground rules, plan projects, manage tasks, and explain effective group processes, thereby aligning with Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) expectations related to collaboration and leadership.

3.3 Narrative proposed in ENGR128

The narrative component was developed specifically for the studio sessions, where students applied lecture and lab concepts. The format was intentionally designed to mimic professional engineering practice by embedding student work within a story that unfolded across the semester.

3.3.1 Team companies and roles

Each team was structured as a fictional company with its own name and logo. This simple act of branding created a shared identity and gave meaning to team outputs, as all deliverables were submitted under the company name. Within each company, students assumed specific roles to distribute responsibility and promote leadership. The three roles were:

• Communication Manager – responsible for maintaining professional correspondence with the instructor, always copying all team members.

• Time Manager – responsible for tracking deadlines and ensuring submissions were on time.

• Submission Manager – responsible for submitting assignments on behalf of the team.

These roles provided every student with a clear responsibility while reinforcing professional behaviors such as accountability, communication, and deadline management. Teams remained consistent throughout the semester, allowing students to develop collaborative dynamics and deepen their sense of professional identity. Team formation was instructor-led, taking into account scheduling and diversity of student backgrounds when possible. All teams worked on the same design briefs, which allowed instructors to provide common rubrics and ensured equity in grading.

3.3.2 Engineering design notebooks

Each team maintained an engineering design notebook, first in hard copy and later the Brightspace LMS. The notebook served as the primary space for documenting idea generation, sketches, calculations, and project decisions. Additionally, the digital platform allowed instructors to monitor contributions and ensured that each student’s participation was visible. This narrative element positioned the notebook as the company’s official record, reinforcing the habit of professional documentation.

3.3.3 Sequenced projects as client requests

The narrative framed each project as a request from a client with specific criteria and constraints. Each project followed a structured timeline with increasing levels of complexity and duration. Project 1 spanned 4 weeks, Project 2 lasted 3 weeks, and Project 3 was conducted over 9 weeks. This sequencing was intentionally designed to scaffold student learning and gradually introduce more realistic design constraints and stakeholder communication. Project evaluation incorporated both formative and summative assessment components. Deliverables included design notebooks, technical memos, physical prototypes, data analysis, and oral presentations. Rubrics were used across all sections to ensure consistency in grading, with criteria addressing technical accuracy, creativity, communication quality, and teamwork. Early projects used fictional clients to introduce the format, while the final project partnered students with a real community client. This progression allowed students to first practice within low-stakes, imaginative contexts before applying the same design process to a high-stakes, authentic challenge.

• Project 1: Recyclable Car (fictional client) – The first chapter of the narrative introduced student companies to their very first “contract.” A fictional client tasked each team with designing a small car using recyclable materials and K’Nex parts. Over 4 weeks, students were expected to generate ideas, prototype, and test vehicles capable of traveling a specified distance down a ramp while meeting performance constraints. Within the story, this project served as the onboarding phase: companies learned how to organize their roles, document ideas in their design notebooks, and pitch solutions to a potential customer.

• Project 2: Curve Fitting Challenge (fictional client) – Building on the first project, the second fictional client issued a more technical request: evaluate and validate the performance of a temperature sensor and a circuit. Over 3 weeks, companies collected and analyzed data using Arduino hardware and MATLAB software. This project integrated concepts from lectures and labs, such as circuit design, coding, and curve fitting, requiring teams to demonstrate how theory could be applied in practice. Within the narrative, this project positioned the companies as technical consultants providing verification services to a client, strengthening their identity as professional problem solvers.

• Project 3: Interactive Science Center Project (real client) – The final project served as the capstone of the semester-long narrative. After working with fictional clients in earlier projects, student companies were now contracted by a real community partner called Science Central, a local interactive science center. The client’s request was to design a new exhibit that could inspire children ages 9–12 to see themselves as future engineers. This extended, 9-weeks engagement asked teams to follow the full engineering design process under authentic constraints, balancing creativity with feasibility. Within the narrative, companies received a client brief outlining criteria (age-appropriate design, durability, educational value) and constraints (budget, safety, materials). Student teams documented their process in company notebooks, communicated with the “client,” and worked through iterative stages of design. They began by producing preliminary sketches, which evolved into more polished conceptual models. These models were tested through physical prototypes built in the studio, allowing teams to validate and refine fundamental design principles. Finally, each company prepared a one-page flyer and a professional presentation to communicate their solution to Science Central’s leadership. Figure 1 includes an example of the EDP developed by students to build an exhibit. Figure 1A illustrates one team’s virtual concept for an exhibit designed to help kids learn the basics of circuits. Figure 1B presents the prototype of this idea, and Figure 1C shows the final exhibit that the students built and delivered.

FIGURE 1

Figure 1. Evolution of a student design project: (A) initial concept sketch, (B) testing prototype, and (C) final delivered exhibit.

4 Methodology and data collection

This study employed a quasi-experimental pre–post research design. The research was embedded directly into the instructional design of Engineering Fundamentals II (ENGR128). The primary data source was a custom-designed survey instrument developed to align with the learning outcomes of ENGR128, ABET student outcomes, and prior research on engineering design (e.g., Atman et al., 2007; Dym et al., 2005). The survey included 12 Likert-scale items assessing students’ familiarity with EDP steps, confidence in applying the process, and perceptions of key engineering themes such as creativity, ethics, sustainability, and teamwork shown in Table 2. Open-ended reflective questions were also included to capture qualitative insights into student experiences. The instrument was designed for instructional assessment purposes and has not been independently validated; as such, findings represent students’ self-reported perceptions rather than direct measures of conceptual learning. Survey data were collected anonymously during the first and final weeks of the semester using the university’s Learning Management System (LMS). Participation was voluntary and did not affect students’ grades. The survey and reflection activities were fully integrated into the course’s instructional strategy.

TABLE 2

Table 2. List of questions included in the pre- and post- Likert survey.

5 Results

This section presents the results of the quasi-experimental study designed to assess the impact of the integrated pedagogy on first-year engineering students’ understanding and application of the engineering design process. Data were drawn from pre–post surveys (Likert-scale items and open-ended reflections) as well as project work completed during ENGR128. The survey instrument was custom-designed to align with ENGR128 learning outcomes, ABET criteria, and prior research on engineering design (Atman et al., 2007; Dutson et al., 1997; Dym et al., 2005; Swenson et al., 2014). The survey contained twelve questions intended to understand the students’ development by the end of the semester. These questions were designed to evaluate various dimensions of students’ knowledge, skills, and perceptions related to engineering and are described in Table 2. While this ensured close alignment with course objectives, the instrument has not been independently validated, and thus the findings should be interpreted as students’ perceptions rather than direct measures of learning gains. We first report quantitative findings, followed by thematic analysis of qualitative responses, and conclude with a synthesis of both sources of evidence.

5.1 Quantitative results

A total of 64 students completed both the pre- and post-surveys. Because the data were not normally distributed (Shapiro–Wilk test), we used the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test to compare pre- and post-intervention scores. Results from the pre and post surveys are summarized in Figure 2.

FIGURE 2

Figure 2. Pre–post comparison of mean Likert scores (1–5) across 12 survey items in ENGR128.

5.1.1 Significant improvements

Students showed statistically significant gains in several areas central to the engineering design process. These include familiarity with EDP steps (Q1: Z = −6.442, p < 0.001), ability to apply the EDP to real-world problems (Q3: Z = −5.962, p < 0.001), and understanding the societal role of engineering (Q4: Z = −4.914, p < 0.001). Additional improvements were observed in defining problems before idea generation (Q2: Z = −4.707, p < 0.001), recognizing engineering as a problem-solving discipline (Q6: Z = −3.419, p < 0.001), emphasizing creativity in solutions (Q8: Z = −3.441, p < 0.001; Q10: Z = −4.179, p < 0.001), appreciating sustainability (Q9: Z = −3.622, p < 0.001), and recognizing teamwork as fundamental (Q11: Z = −4.642, p < 0.001).

5.1.2 Non-significant findings

By contrast, three survey items did not show significant changes. These were engineering’s contribution to everyday life (Q5: Z = −1.968, p = 0.049), the role of engineers in technological innovation (Q7: Z = −2.333, p = 0.020), and ethical considerations in engineering (Q12: Z = −2.860, p = 0.004). In all three cases, students entered the course with high pre-survey scores (many selecting “agree” or “strongly agree”), leaving little room for measurable growth. This effect is consistent with prior exposure in the first semester FYE course (pre-requisite to ENGR128) where ethics, innovation, and everyday applications of engineering are already emphasized.

5.1.3 Interpretation

Overall, the statistical analysis presented in Table 3 suggests that narrative pedagogy supported measurable gains in areas directly linked to the EDP, creativity, and teamwork, while reinforcing knowledge students already possessed about ethics, innovation, and engineering’s societal presence. These findings align with prior research indicating that pedagogical interventions such as Project-Based Learning yield the greatest benefits in areas of applied practice and process understanding (Atman et al., 2007; Kokotsaki et al., 2016).

TABLE 3

Table 3. Summary of statistical analysis obtained from pre- and post-surveys.

5.2 Qualitative results

Open-ended reflections were collected from 78 students during Week 16. The list of open-ended questions is described below:

• To what degree has the narrative pedagogy employed in the Studio (where you played a role as an engineering company addressing real-world problems) influenced your perception and understanding of the EDP? Provide a detailed explanation.

• How do your Week 1 answers compare to your current understanding of the EDP?

• Did the narrative pedagogy approach help you gain different perspectives on how engineering solutions can be developed and applied? If so, how?

• Do you now feel more equipped to tackle real-world engineering challenges using design process? Please elaborate.

These responses provided deeper insight into how narrative pedagogy shaped students’ experiences in ENGR128. Through inductive coding (Thomas, 2006), we identified four central themes: (1) Identity and Authenticity, (2) Motivation and Engagement, (3) Understanding the Engineering Design Process, and (4) Preparedness for Real-World Challenges.

Theme 1: Identity and Authenticity

Students consistently described the narrative framework as making them feel like “real engineers.” This identity formation gave meaning to tasks that otherwise might have felt routine. As one student reflected, “I felt as if I was becoming more and more like a proper engineer.” Another echoed, “This made it feel more like a real project in the workforce rather than a college assignment.” These findings align with Sherwood and Makar (2022), who highlight the role of narrative in cultivating professional identity.

Theme 2: Motivation and Engagement

The narrative elements increased students’ investment in projects by raising the stakes. Rather than working for a grade alone, students reported working to satisfy their “client” and to represent their “company.” One student stated, “Had the studio not put emphasis on this idea of creating a company, I may not have taken the EDP more seriously.” Another added, “Playing pretend engineering business was so much fun! It was fun to see the simplified version of the roles needed to run a company.” This echoes Freeman et al. (2014), who found that active and contextualized learning environments increase student engagement.

Theme 3: Understanding the Engineering Design Process

Narrative pedagogy provided a framework for students to clarify misconceptions and recognize the cyclical nature of design. Many reported shifts from a linear or vague view of the EDP to a more nuanced understanding. As one student shared, “I viewed it as a linear process, but I now comprehend that it’s a cyclical journey. Each step informs and influences the next.” Another said, “Playing the role of an engineering company helped me frame problem-solving by making a step-by-step system to come up with a solution.” These reflections supports Atman et al. (2007), who emphasized the importance of iterative design experiences for conceptual growth.

Theme 4: Preparedness for Real-World Challenges

A large number of responses emphasized that students left ENGR128 feeling more capable of tackling authentic engineering problems. Many explicitly referenced how the narrative structure prepared them for professional practice. One student stated, “I feel like I have a new tool in my toolbox I can use anytime when facing real-world engineering problems.” Another commented, “Playing an engineering role excited me as it felt we are demonstrating our right to become engineers. [Our team dynamics] enlightened my perception of the engineering process.” These findings align with Dym et al. (2005), who found that design-based pedagogies strengthen problem-solving skills and readiness for professional practice.

5.2.1 Minority perspectives

Although the majority of responses were positive, a small group of students expressed skepticism about the value of the narrative. For instance, one noted, “I don’t think the pedagogy played any part in how I thought about it. I still see it as a task that needs to be completed within a box of constraints.” These views underscore that narrative pedagogy may not resonate equally with all learners, particularly those with prior industry experience or different learning preferences.

5.3 Synthesis of findings

The integration of quantitative and qualitative data suggests that narrative pedagogy supported measurable growth in students’ understanding and application of the engineering design process while also influencing how they experienced themselves as engineers. Survey results confirmed significant gains in areas directly tied to the EDP, creativity, and teamwork, while qualitative reflections provided evidence that the narrative format enhanced identity, engagement, and preparedness. Non-significant results (ethics, innovation, and everyday life) appear connected to prior exposure to those concepts. Importantly, open-ended responses reinforce that while not every student found value in narrative elements such as company branding, the majority experienced higher motivation and professional relevance. By situating projects within an unfolding story, ENGR128 created a learning environment where students not only practiced the engineering design process but also lived it as professional-in-training.

6 Discussion: practical implications & lessons learned

Our results suggest that narrative pedagogy enhanced student engagement and positively influenced students’ perceptions of engineering design in ENGR128. Importantly, the improvements we observed were concentrated in areas directly tied to the engineering design process (EDP), such as problem definition, iterative practice, creativity, and teamwork. These results support the idea that narrative contexts can make engineering concepts more relatable and memorable, while also strengthening students’ self-concept and self-efficacy (Bong and Clark, 1999). At the same time, it is critical to recognize that these findings reflect students’ perceptions of their growth, not direct measures of conceptual mastery.

The quantitative analysis provided evidence of statistically significant gains across most items, particularly familiarity with the EDP (Q1), confidence in applying it to real-world problems (Q3), and recognition of the role of engineering in society (Q4). However, three survey items–engineering’s role in everyday life (Q5), innovation (Q7), and ethics (Q12)–did not show significant changes. This lack of measurable growth is likely due to the fact that students entered the course with high pre-survey scores in these areas, reflecting prior exposure to these concepts in prior courses.

The qualitative results provided additional insights on how the narrative format shaped student experience. Four themes emerged from open-ended responses: (1) identity and authenticity, (2) motivation and engagement, (3) understanding the EDP, and (4) preparedness for real-world challenges. Students consistently reported that the company roles, logos, and client framing made them feel like “real engineers” and gave their work meaning beyond assignments. These experiences align with Sherwood and Makar (2022), who found that narrative contexts help students construct professional identities. Motivation was also enhanced, echoing Freeman et al. (2014), as students described higher levels of investment when tasks were presented as client requests with stakes and accountability. Many reflected on misconceptions from Week 1, such as viewing design as a linear process, and described how projects clarified the cyclical, iterative nature of engineering design, reinforcing findings from Atman et al. (2007).

Another important theme was students’ increased confidence to apply the EDP beyond the classroom. While some students connected this to immediate academic or personal projects, others described professional applications, such as internships, where they could transfer design thinking. These reflections suggest that narrative pedagogy may support metacognitive growth by encouraging students to step back, reflect on their process, and generalize lessons to other contexts. This resonates with Dym et al. (2005), who argued that design education should move beyond technical solutions to cultivate ways of thinking that prepare students for professional practice.

At the same time, not all students found the narrative framing useful. A small minority expressed skepticism about the value of elements such as company branding, preferring to focus exclusively on technical problem-solving. These perspectives highlight that narrative pedagogy may not resonate equally with all learners and that instructors should remain attentive to balancing engagement strategies with efficiency.

Taken together, these findings contribute several new insights for practitioners. First, narrative pedagogy appears most impactful when layered with project-based and Community-Based Learning, adding a dimension of identity and meaning rather than replacing other frameworks. Second, the explicit assignment of roles within teams provided a simple but effective way to promote accountability and professional behavior in first-year students, which can be adopted in other contexts with minimal resources. Third, integrating fictional and real clients in sequence offered a scaffolded approach that gradually increased authenticity and responsibility, which instructors may adapt to their own resource constraints.

7 Limitations and constraints

Limitations of this study should also be noted. The survey instrument was custom-built based off the learning outcomes and existing literature on engineering design but was not a previously validated scale. As such, while the items align with course outcomes, they primarily capture student perceptions rather than objective measures of learning. Additionally, demographic data such as age, gender, or prior experience were not collected or analyzed due to Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) protections and Institutional Review Board (IRB) constraints, which prohibited the collection of identifiable information. As a result, findings should be interpreted as reflective of the broader course population rather than specific student subgroups. Also, the study was conducted in a single institutional context with relatively small class sizes, which may limit generalizability. Despite these limitations, the study offers a promising model for integrating narrative pedagogy into first-year engineering. For educators, the practical takeaway is that narrative framing, when coupled with structured projects, defined team roles, and authentic clients, can create a learning environment where students do not simply complete assignments but experience themselves as engineers in training. This shift has the potential to support not only engagement but also the development of metacognitive awareness and professional identity, providing a strong foundation for future engineering learning.

8 Acknowledgment of constraints

8.1 Conceptual constraints

This study relied on self-reported perceptions of students rather than direct assessments of learning gains. While survey items were informed by learning outcomes and existing engineering design literature, they were not drawn from a previously validated instrument. Findings should therefore be interpreted as reflecting students’ perceptions and metacognitive awareness rather than definitive measures of conceptual mastery.

8.2 Methodological constraints

The study employed a quasi-experimental pre–post design without random assignment. Although this approach is appropriate for classroom-based research, it limits causal inference, and leaves open the possibility of confounding factors. Response attrition reduced the final quantitative dataset to 64 students, which may have influenced representativeness.

8.3 Environmental constraints

This work was conducted at a single public university in northeastern Indiana (USA), with course structures, resources, and class sizes that may differ from other institutions. Results may not generalize to programs with different curricular designs, demographics, or institutional contexts.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in this article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by Purdue’s Human Research Protection Program. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The ethics committee/institutional review board waived the requirement of written informed consent for participation from the participants or the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin because the study involved analysis of normal educational practices in an existing classroom setting. The research was reviewed and approved as Exempt under Categories 1 and 4 by Purdue’s Human Research Protection Program.

Author contributions

CF: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. Financial support for the publication of this article was provided by the College of Engineering, Technology, and Computer Science at Purdue University Fort Wayne.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The authors declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Abildinova, G., Abdykerimova, E., Assainova, A., Mukhtarkyzy, K., and Abykenova, D. (2024). Preparing educators for the digital age: Teacher perceptions of active teaching methods and digital integration. Front. Educ. 9:1473766. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1473766

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Atman, C., Adams, R., Cardella, M., Turns, J., Mosborg, S., and Saleem, J. (2007). Engineering design processes: A comparison of students and expert practitioners. J. Eng. Educ. 96, 359–379. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2007.tb00945.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Barreiro, S., and Bozutti, D. (2017). Challenges and difficulties to teaching engineering to generation Z: A case research. Propósitos Representaciones 5, 149–150. doi: 10.20511/pyr2017.v5n2.163

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Guzdial, M., and Palincsar, M. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educ. Psychol. 26, 369–398. doi: 10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bong, M., and Clark, R. (1999). Comparison between Self-concept and self-efficacy in academic motivation research. Educ. Psychol. 34, 139–153. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3403_1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Standford, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Google Scholar

Campbell, C., Babik, I., and Crowley, S. (2025). Teaching of transferable teamwork competencies in higher education: Development of the TWC training Protocol©. Front. Educ. 10:1637203. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1637203

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Delaine, D., Redick, S., Radhakrishnan, D., Shermadou, A., McCormick, M., Kandakatla, R., et al. (2024). A systematic literature review of reciprocity in engineering SERVICE-LEARNING /community engagement. J. Eng. Educ. 113, 838–871. doi: 10.1002/jee.20561

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Denson, C., and Lammi, M. (2014). Building a framework for engineering design experiences in high school. J. Technol. Educ. 26, 81–83. doi: 10.21061/jte.v26i1.a.5

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan Company.

Google Scholar

Dutson, A., Todd, R., Magleby, S., and Sorensen, C. (1997). A review of literature on teaching engineering design through project-oriented capstone courses. J. Eng. Educ. 86, 17–28. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.1997.tb00260.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dym, C., Agogino, A., Eris, O., Frey, D., and Leifer, L. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. J. Eng. Educ. 94, 103–120. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Erdogan, T. (2015). “Research Trends in Dissertations on PBL: A Content Analysis Study,” in Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 7th World Conference on Educational Sciences, Vol. 197, (Amsterdam: Elsevier), 308–315. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.142

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Felten, P., and Clayton, P. (2011). Service-learning. N. Dir Teach. Learn. 2011, 75–84. doi: 10.1002/tl.470

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fink, L. D., Michaelsen, L., and Knight, A. (2023). Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups in college teaching, 1st Edn. Milton Park: Routledge, doi: 10.4324/9781003447535

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Freeman, S., Eddy, S., McDonough, M., Smith, M., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., et al. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 8410–8415. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Harlow, D., Skinner, R., Connolly, T., and Muller, A. (2020). Partnering to develop a coordinated engineering education program across schools, museum field trips, and afterschool programs. Connected Sci. Learn. 2:12318747. doi: 10.1080/24758779.2020.12318747

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hinchman, L., and Hinchman, S. (1997). Memory, identity, community. the idea of narrative in the human sciences. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Google Scholar

Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., and Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving Schools 19, 267–277. doi: 10.1177/1365480216659733

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lee, H., and Le Doux, J. (2025). Unpacking pedagogical practices of story-driven learning in biomedical engineering education. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 50, 806–828. doi: 10.1080/03043797.2025.2474042

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

López-Santiago, J., De Francisco Alonso, M., Zubelzu-Minguez, S., Ruiz-Garcia, L., and Teresa Gómez-Villarino, M. (2024). Fostering sustainable development values among engineering students using service-learning. Front. Educ. 9:1408896. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1408896

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lunt, A., Cayzer, S., Moore, Y., and Young, A. (2025). Team-based learning in large cohorts: Successes and challenges in first year mechanical engineering. Int. J. Mech. Eng. Educ. 53, 772–794. doi: 10.1177/03064190241259305

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mota, F., Pereira Cabral, B., Maciel Braga, L., and Lopes, R. (2025). Mapping the global research on project-based learning: A bibliometric and network analysis (2014–2024). Front. Educ. 10:1522694. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1522694

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mukhandmath, S., Huddar, S., Savadi, R., Joshi, G., Kotturshettar, B. B., Iyer, N., et al. (2020). An experience of teaching engineering design for freshman students. J. Eng. Educ. Transformations 33, 43–48. doi: 10.16920/jeet/2019/v33i1/149014

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ruder, P., Maier, M., and Simkins, S. (2021). Getting Started with Team-Based Learning (TBL): An Introduction. J. Econ. Educ. 52, 220–230. doi: 10.1080/00220485.2021.1925187

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schattner, P. (2015). The case for ‘Story-Driven’ biology education. J. Biol. Educ. 49, 334–337. doi: 10.1080/00219266.2015.1058844

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schultes, M., Graf, D., Holzer, J., Schober, B., and Spiel, C. (2025). Implementation and evaluation of service learning at higher education institutions. Eval. Program Plann. 112:102622. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2025.102622

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Shaby, N., Dillon, J., Peleg, R., Assaraf, O., Pattison, S., Pierroux, P., et al. (2025). Telling tales: The use of narratives in informal STEM settings. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 22, 1–22. doi: 10.1080/02635143.2025.2469065

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sherwood, C., and Makar, K. (2022). Students making sense of statistics through storytelling: A theoretical perspective based on bruner’s narrative mode of thought. Math. Educ. Res. J. 36, 175–209. doi: 10.1007/s13394-022-00440-y

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Swenson, J., Portsmore, M., and Danahy, E. (2014). “Examining the engineering design process of first-year engineering students during a hands-on, In-class design challenge,” in Proceedings of the 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, (Indianapolis), doi: 10.18260/1-2-20449

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Thomas, D. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. Am. J. Eval. 27, 237–246. doi: 10.1177/1098214005283748

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Witherell, C. (1995). “Narrative landscapes and the moral education: Taking the story to heart,” in Narrative in teaching, learning, and research, eds H. McEwan and K. Egan (New York, NY: Teachers College Press).

Google Scholar