Five storytelling moves STEM faculty can use

storytelling techniques – A STEM instructor argues that motivation drops when students don’t see where a course fits into the larger story of science—and offers five concrete ways professors can rebuild that connection in every lecture and beyond the classroom.

A classroom full of laptops can look like progress to everyone but the teacher standing at the front. The faces go blank. The energy drains. And the hardest part isn’t teaching the content—it’s watching students not care.

For STEM professors. that gap can be tied to a specific failure: students often don’t see the larger narrative of science. the reason they should care. or how a course connects to the rest of their major. The result is familiar—someone asks what’s the point, and too often it stays unanswered. “Student motivation is a vital factor in students achieving learning goals,” the piece notes, citing Taurina (2015).

The proposed fix is storytelling, not as a style preference, but as a teaching structure. Five techniques—built around course design, lecture flow, scientific complexity, real-world cases, and student authorship—aim to turn “I don’t get why” into “I see where this fits, and I can use it.”

The first move is to make the course’s story explicit. Students can’t assume importance is obvious. The approach starts with a blunt question: “Why should a student care about what you are teaching?” It then asks professors to reflect on students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivations—whether they are chasing a big tech job. seeking acceptance into a competitive graduate school. or wanting more time with their friends. After that, instructors are urged to connect learning objectives to the degree program and to the goals students actually have. One suggested tactic is practical and immediate: review high-profile job postings and show how learning objectives map to skills employers want.

Once that alignment is written down. the course should be framed from the first class through what the piece calls a “vision for the story of your class.” The idea is to communicate that assignments. policies. and the schedule exist to help students meet learning objectives that support their goals—because narrative progression makes the structure feel purposeful.

The second technique tightens each lecture so students don’t lose the thread. A week can be long. and complex topics can stretch across multiple weeks. leaving students unsure why the class has moved to a new concept. Even if the course is designed with logical progression. the piece emphasizes that students can still “lose the plot. ” particularly when they miss or misunderstand one concept.

The remedy starts and ends with framing. Every class should begin and end with a short introduction and conclusion. The introduction is described as the big-picture moment of the day: it showcases what the lecture is about. draws connections between topics that may look unrelated. and reviews prerequisite concepts students need. The conclusion should do the same in reverse—summarize the big picture while highlighting interdisciplinary applications and connections between courses.

That end-and-begin structure also creates room for active learning. The text points to research on long-term retention—citing Karpicke et al (2007)—and suggests asking students to state what the “big picture” of the lecture was during the conclusion. using the Socratic method to guide key takeaways and build ownership and recall.

The third technique insists on not smoothing out science into a single, convenient storyline. STEM disciplines, the piece argues, are complex histories. Textbook theories were once one of many theories explaining a phenomenon. Some theories were later disproven or partially displaced. Others remain debated in research literature. Yet the piece says it’s rare for students to hear those complexities.

This matters because fields can stagnate until a widely accepted theory is displaced. and funding and non-scientific factors can shape which questions get asked. answered. and accepted. The point is not to overwhelm students with doubt—it’s to prepare them for pressures they will face after graduating. The piece quotes Bain (2004) on a simple teaching principle: “Good teachers tell the history of their discipline.”.

Practically. it urges instructors to examine the multiple factors that influenced technical development and to expose students to alternative and opposing views. One suggested method is to present a common opposing position—described as a “best practices” approach the instructor disagrees with—and have students interact with it.

The fourth technique brings the classroom closer to what happens next in research and industry. STEM educators want students to leave with more than technical knowledge; they need to know when and how to use it. A personal example is included through the piece’s reference to a PhD advisor, Dr. Robert Marks. who describes an engineer’s skills as “a tool.” As students progress through a degree program. they add tools to their toolbox—yet those tools only help when students recognize the right moment to use them.

To build that bridge, the piece recommends sharing real-world stories or case studies. That requires staying current on emerging trends in the discipline. and the suggested methods are hands-on: share relevant industry and research case studies from professional experience. invite other professors or professionals to present a relevant case study. and connect cutting-edge research or advances in industry back to course content.

The fifth technique shifts the spotlight onto students as authors of their own narrative. The piece asks whether a professor ever made someone feel like they had something valuable to contribute—and uses that question to explain how motivation can grow. Each student interaction can be an invitation to aim higher and to cast a vision for future contributions.

The text includes examples of creative ideas used by faculty to encourage students. It highlights achievements of young people and notes that Albert Einstein was 26 years old when he published his paper on special relativity. citing “Albert Einstein. in his own words” (NSF – U.S. National Science Foundation, 2015, March 20). It also recommends incentivizing students to attend and participate in the local professional society student chapter. specifically IEEE-HKN. and inviting local industry professionals or recruiters to attend final project presentations. Another suggestion is to bring in alumni: a lecture from an alumnus who teaches how what they learned in the class prepared them for current work.

The author’s own story sits underneath the advice: he describes receiving teachers who slowed down to invite him into “the community of scholars. ” working to motivate him to apply himself and teaching him how to navigate the professional world. He acknowledges the familiar moment of staring back at an instructor with an open laptop—then credits perseverance in teaching and those storytelling techniques for helping him “marvel at the world through my discipline.”.

The author, Jonathan Swindell, is a PhD student at Baylor University in the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department. He researches industrial applications of artificial intelligence and has professional experience working in engineering “spanning from government to big tech.” His stated passion is helping students bridge the gap between the classroom and industry.

The piece anchors its teaching claims in a set of references: Taurina (2015); Gauthier (2013); Karpicke and Roediger (2007); Bain (2004); and the NSF citation for Einstein (2015). In the end. the argument is simple and practical: when students can’t connect the course to a bigger story. motivation can flatten. When professors build the story—course-wide and lecture by lecture—students have a path back to understanding and purpose.

STEM education student motivation teaching strategies storytelling in STEM lecture design active recall scientific complexity industry case studies IEEE-HKN Baylor University