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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.