EXPERT CONSENSUS ON PRACTICES, FACILITATORS, AND BARRIERS OF COMMUNITY ENGAGED LEARNING: A DELPHI STUDY By Taylor L. Martin A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Psychology – Doctor of Philosophy 2025 ABSTRACT Community engaged learning (CEL) is a promising pedagogical approach to higher education that promotes mutually beneficial partnerships with communities (Nguyen & Condry, 2023). To date, there are not well-established best practices for CEL (Da Cruz, 2018; Nguyen & Condry, 2023). To address this gap, I conducted a two-phase Delphi study that allowed me to: (1) describe how CEL is incorporated into undergraduate education across higher education institutions in a land-grant, research-intensive university’s sphere of influence; (2) identify facilitators and barriers to the success of CEL in undergraduate higher education across these same institutions; and (3) identify concrete supports that a land-grant, research-intensive university could offer to enhance and strengthen CEL in undergraduate education within their sphere of influence. In phase one, I identified and recruited 15 expert CEL practitioners to participate in interviews regarding CEL techniques and practices, factors influencing implementation, and the role of MSU in promoting CEL. I then analyzed transcripts of these interviews to identify overlapping themes and practices. In phase two, I asked these experts to rate the themes and practices emerging from phase one based on their impact and, in the case of techniques and practices, the effort required to implement them. Findings inform recommendations for best practices in CEL implementation and the role of higher education institutions in supporting the practice. They also provide information pertaining to factors that impact CEL implementation. These findings should be further examined in the future by other researchers. Practitioners can use findings to assess and improve their CEL practice. This dissertation is dedicated to those who have kept me going and keep me excited for what’s yet to come. To my parents, Gregory and Susan, who taught me I could be anything I wanted to be. To my brothers, Matthew and Luke, who taught me to be both tough and compassionate. To my in-laws, for their support and encouragement. To my advisor, Ignacio, and committee members, Jae, Jada, and Kwesi, for their guidance. To all of the teachers and professors who have supported and inspired me. To the expert participants in my study, for their time and knowledge. To Kesha and Midge, for keeping me company and providing comedic relief. And to my husband, Evan, for loving and supporting me through it all. When the heat gets hot, I know you have my back. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.………………………………………………………………………………..1 METHOD...……………………………………………………………………………………….6 RESULTS...……………………………………………………………………………………...19 DISCUSSION..…………………………………………………………………………………..61 CONCLUSIONS...………………………………………………………………………………74 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………..75 APPENDIX A: PHASE ONE SCREENING SURVEY…..…………………………………….78 APPENDIX B: PHASE INTERVIEW AVAILABILITY SURVEY…...……………………….81 APPENDIX C: PHASE ONE INTERVIEW PROTOCOL…..………………………………….82 APPENDIX D: PHASE ONE INITIAL CODEBOOK..…..…………………………………….85 APPENDIX E: PHASE ONE FINAL CODEBOOK….…..…………………………………….95 APPENDIX F: PHASE TWO EXPERT CONSENSUS SURVEY.…………………………...100 APPENDIX G: CEL TECHNIQUES AND PRACTICES - IMPACT AND EFFORT RATINGS………………………………………………………………………………………114 APPENDIX H: CEL IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST.…………………………………...119 APPENDIX I: CEL FACILITATORS, BARRIERS, AND CHALLENGES FACTOR AUDIT………………………………………………………………………………………….124 iv INTRODUCTION Within higher education, there is growing interest in incorporating community engaged approaches to teaching and learning (Da Cruz, 2018). In order to promote well-rounded education and social change, scholars and practitioners focused on higher education increasingly advance pedagogy, research methods, and community development that reflect civic engagement as well as experiential learning (Peterson, 2009). Within that context, community engaged learning (CEL) is a relatively new and promising practice for partnering with communities to achieve learning goals. CEL has roots in traditional service learning and has emerged from critical service learning (Nguyen & Condry, 2023) . The key factor that distinguishes CEL from traditional and critical service learning is the stronger focus on mutually beneficial and participatory partnerships (i.e., reciprocity) with communities rather than community engagement revolving around community service (Nguyen & Condry, 2023). Given that CEL is a relatively new pedagogical practice, best practices are not yet well- documented, highlighting a need for research in this area (Da Cruz, 2018; Nguyen & Condry, 2023). To address this gap, I conducted a Delphi study in which I gathered expert consensus on best practices in CEL. To further inform these findings, I also gathered expert consensus on CEL key tenets and values as well as factors (i.e., facilitators, barriers, challenges) that impact implementation in undergraduate education across higher education institutions in a land-grant, research-intensive university’s sphere of influence. I additionally gathered expert recommendations for how this higher education institution may support and promote the practice of CEL. 1 Community Engaged Learning Scholars have defined CEL as an approach to teaching and learning in which learning goals are achieved through mutually beneficial engagement with the community (Brabazon, Esmail, Locklin, & Stirling, 2019; Mauro et al., 2024; Toh & Grover, 2025). As such, a key value of CEL - that distinguishes it from forms of service learning - is reciprocity. In addition to reciprocity, Rubin and colleagues (2012) also note the importance of respect and power sharing in CEL. These key tenets of CEL are often absent from traditional service learning, which is primarily focused on providing a service rather than engaging in a reciprocal partnership (Nguyen & Condry, 2023). CEL practitioners often implement feminist and critical pedagogies (e.g., co-teaching, critical reflection, redistribution of power) to promote and foster a reciprocal relationship and co- learning between learners/institutions and the community. Such practices typically also involve learning about and/or addressing social inequities, which can be mutually beneficial for learners and community members and promote empowerment, an additional key tenet of CEL (Coles- Ritchie, Power, Farrell, & Valerio, 2022). In contrast to educators engaged in traditional service learning, educators engaged in CEL more often take a critical approach meant to empower learners and community members to work together for change and social justice, another key value of CEL (Coles-Ritchie, Power, Farrell, & Valerio, 2022; Da Cruz, 2018; Nguyen & Condry, 2023). Impacts of Community Engaged Learning on Students When done well, CEL provides several benefits to students. Its practice often provides students with meaningful community connections, professional development, and civic engagement as well as critical thinking and problem-solving skills (Nguyen & Condry, 2023). 2 Additionally, the pedagogical practices often implemented in CEL provide students with opportunities to take ownership of their learning experience (Coles-Ritchie, Power, Farrell, & Valerio, 2022). Further, for students who are part of marginalized groups, CEL can be a particularly effective and impactful learning practice. When implemented well, CEL can benefit and empower students by focusing educational experiences on examining the root causes of injustice and engaging in social justice action. Importantly, CEL legitimizes the lived experiences of students and works toward creating safe and equitable social and intellectual spaces for university and community members alike (Coles-Ritchie, Power, Farrell, & Valerio, 2022; Santiago-Ortiz, 2019). Impacts of Community Engaged Learning on Institutions It is not surprising that CEL is becoming an increasingly popular pedagogical practice given its wide-reaching benefits to higher education institutions. A notable benefit of successful CEL implementation is the promotion of mutually beneficial partnerships with communities (Brabazon, Esmail, Locklin, & Stirling, 2019; Comeau et al., 2019; Mauro et al., 2024; Toh & Grover, 2025). Such partnerships not only provide useful resources for higher education institutions, but also help promote well-rounded educational experiences for students attending such institutions (Comeau et al., 2019). In doing so, these partnerships assist higher education institutions in achieving key aspects of their missions. Impacts of Community Engaged Learning on Communities It is notably challenging to create just, equitable, and quality partnerships with communities while simultaneously promoting student learning and outcomes (Rubin et al., 2012; Tryon & Madden, 2019). When implemented poorly, CEL may leave community partners feeling excluded from the process, undervalued, or as though there are key discrepancies 3 between the goals and values they hold compared to those held by the institution with which they are partnering (Tryon & Madden, 2019). That said, when implemented well - and with a successful focus on reciprocity - CEL can be beneficial for communities. CEL facilitates the provision of helpful resources to communities as well as meaningful social action and change driven toward justice and equity (Coles-Ritchie, Power, Farrell, & Valerio, 2022; Da Cruz, 2018; Nguyen & Condry, 2023). Overall, the way in which CEL is implemented can greatly impact the experience of - and partnership with - community partners. It is paramount that CEL is implemented intentionally and responsibly to avoid unintended harm to communities. Complexities of Community Engaged Learning Given that CEL is a relatively new practice with roots in traditional and critical service learning, there is not yet consensus on its pedagogy, practice, or methods of community engagement. For example, many reported instances of CEL still fall within the realm of what is considered traditional service learning (Nguyen & Condry, 2023). These discrepancies can challenge adequately documenting the potential positive impacts of CEL and raise the possibility for the potential harms associated with traditional service learning. There is a need for expert consensus on pedagogy and practices of CEL in order to promote positive experiences and reduce the risk of harm to all entities involved. Role of Land-Grant and Research Universities in Community Engaged Learning Through the 1862 Morrill Act, the United States (U.S.) government granted land and federal support to states that agreed to establish a college in which the primary focus would be teaching agriculture and mechanic arts (Sommers, 1980). As a result, every state in the country and most U.S. territories have land-grant institutions. A key aspect of land-grant universities is that they implement extensions, which can be seen as links to surrounding communities, offering 4 education and other resources. Land-grant institutions are often leaders in research as well, which provides another deep connection to communities, as research activities and dissemination often reach and/or impact community members (Croft, 2019). Croft (2019) defines the three foundational pillars of land-grant institutions as teaching, research, and extension, highlighting the focus, impact, and reach that these institutions have on these three areas. Researchers such as Mack & Stolarick (2014) have documented the positive impacts of such institutions on their local communities (i.e., generation of knowledge, resources, and economic benefits). As a result of their focus on teaching and education, land-grant research institutions train - and influence the teaching philosophies of - many faculty in higher education. Further, they provide resources for faculty and community members in their sphere of influence via outreach and extension efforts (Croft, 2019). Study Goals I aimed to accomplish three goals in this study. The first was to describe how CEL is incorporated into undergraduate education across higher education institutions in a land-grant, research-intensive university’s sphere of influence. The second was to identify facilitators and barriers to the success of CEL in undergraduate higher education across these same institutions. The third was to identify concrete supports that a land-grant, research-intensive university could offer to support and promote CEL in undergraduate education within their sphere of influence. 5 Research Paradigm and Mixed Method Approach METHOD In order to accomplish the goals of this study, I utilized a Delphi process comprising two phases. In the first phase, I identified and recruited experts in CELwithin one land-grant university’s sphere of influence to participate in interviews about their experiences implementing CEL. I then conducted expert interviews and analyzed interview transcripts both inductively and deductively. In phase two, I engaged with interviewed experts a second time to survey them regarding the results of interview analyses. This two-phase, mixed methods approach generated expert consensus on the implementation of CEL in higher education institutions within one land- grant, research-intensive university’s sphere of influence, facilitators and barriers to CEL in these institutions, as well as how the target land-grant, research-intensive university could leverage its resources and reach to better support and promote CEL in undergraduate education. Context One of the values of community psychology is grounding research within local context (Vavuris, 2021; Dutta, 2016; Jimenez et al., 2016). In the spirit of this value, for this study, I focused on Michigan State University (MSU). MSU is a large, land-grant, research university in the midwestern United States. MSU is ranked as one of the top 20 public universities in the US (Washington Monthly, 2024) and offers over 270 graduate and professional degrees (Michigan State University, n.d.a). MSU’s engagement with communities is facilitated by its extension representatives in every one of Michigan’s 83 counties and its Office of University Outreach and Engagement. The Office of University Outreach and Engagement at MSU promotes community- engaged scholarship with the goal of fostering mutually beneficial and transformative relationships and collaborations with the community. It does so through providing community 6 hubs on campus as well as training and resources for faculty, staff, and students who are interested in community engagement (Michigan State University, n.d.c). Further, MSU also houses the Center for Community Engaged Learning, which centers CEL at the core of MSU’s mission. The Center defines CEL as, “a teaching and learning strategy that integrates meaningful community partnerships with instruction and critical reflection to enrich the student learning experience, teach civic and social responsibility, and strengthen communities” (Michigan State University, n.d.b). The Center for Community Engaged Learning is another resource on campus for faculty, staff, and students, specifically focused on community engagement via CEL. For this study, I focused on higher education institutions within a three hour driving distance of MSU’s main campus, considering that physical proximity places those institutions within MSU’s immediate sphere of influence. These criteria primarily rendered higher education institutions in Michigan, but also included some institutions in Indiana and Ohio. Researcher Characteristics At the time of this study, I am associated with the community psychology program at MSU as a doctoral student. I identify as a European American, cisgender woman. In addition to my status as a doctoral student, I am also a member of the Center for Community Engaged Learning’s CEL Learning Community. My motivation for this research is tied to key values and guiding frameworks that I employ in my professional work. First, as a community psychologist, I am involved in an interdisciplinary field of research and practice that has an ecological perspective and social justice orientation (Jason, Glantsman, O’Brien, & Ramian, 2019). My enthusiasm for, and understanding of, CEL is further driven by my support of Allport’s (1954) intergroup contact theory, in which he highlights four conditions required for positive intergroup 7 contact; equal group status, shared common goals, intergroup cooperation, and support from social and institutional authorities. I approach community psychology from the perspective of Feminist theory, which highlights for me important links to learning and education, especially CEL, via its focus on intersectionality (Clark-Taylor, 2016). Further, critical race feminism, as defined by scholars such as bell hooks (1994), calls for teaching beyond traditional lecture/classroom settings to engage students as whole human beings. Reflexivity Statement I frame this study and resulting findings to account for the biases I bring to this work. I position experts other than myself as sources of knowledge and aim to limit my involvement to identifying expert consensus using a rigorous, mixed-method approach adhering to the protocols I describe in the subsections to follow. Phase One Participants In phase one, I recruited 261 potential CEL practitioners to participate in a screening survey. Fifty-one participated in the screening survey. Of those, five did not answer any questions beyond establishing their participant code and therefore were excluded from the study, resulting in a total of 46 participants who engaged in the screening survey. As can be seen in Table 1, those who participated in the screening survey were primarily women (73.9%), white/European American (73.9%), earned a doctoral degree (56.5%), and had an academic rank of assistant professor or higher (84.7%). Participants had an average age of 47.98. Participants represented a variety of academic disciplines and fields (see Table 2). Information regarding participants’ academic institutions was not collected at this stage. 8 Of these participants, five indicated that they did not practice CEL per the working definition provided (see Appendix A, item four) and therefore did not participate in items pertaining to CEL implementation. Remaining participants had an average of 9.12 years of experience implementing CEL in undergraduate level settings with a range of one to 20. Participants reported teaching an average of 16.88 undergraduate level CEL courses with a range of one to 100. Participants had an average of 20.10 students in said courses with a range of five to 50. Students came from a variety of programs of study (see Table 2). 9 Table 1 Participants Demographic Information Demographic Category Phase One Phase Two Screening Survey ( n = 46) Interview ( n = 15) Expert Consensus Survey ( n = 8) n % n % Gender Woman Man Ethnicity Asian American, Pacific Islander Black, African American Latine White, European American Other Education Level Master’s Doctorate Academic Rank Assistant Professor Associate Professor Professor Other 34 12 2 1 5 34 2 20 26 10 15 14 5 73.9 26.1 4.3 2.2 10.9 73.9 4.3 43.5 56.5 21.7 32.6 30.4 10.8 10 5 66.7 33.3 2 13 13.3 86.7 7 8 3 6 2 4 46.7 53.3 20.0 40.0 13.3 26.7 n 5 3 1 7 3 5 1 2 2 3 % 62.5 37.5 12.5 87.5 37.5 62.5 12.5 25.0 25.0 37.5 10 Table 2 Participants’ Academic Department and Field; Students’ Program of Study Category Phase One Phase Two Screening Survey ( n = 46) Interview ( n = 15) Expert Consensus Survey ( n = 8) Department Anthropology Art, Art Education Arts and Humanities Behavioral Sciences Biology Business Child Development, Early Childhood Education Community Sustainability, Environmental Studies, Parks and Recreation Education English Nursing History Law Public/Community/Global Health Psychology Social Science Social Work Sociology World Languages Multiple n 2 2 1 2 2 1 5 3 3 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 5 1 1 6 % n % n % 1 6.70 1 12.50 1 1 2 6.70 1 12.50 6.70 13.30 2 25.0 1 6.70 2 13.30 2 25.0 1 2 1 1 2 6.70 13.30 6.70 6.70 13.30 1 1 12.50 12.50 4.30 4.30 2.20 4.30 4.30 2.20 10.90 6.50 6.50 2.20 4.30 2.20 2.20 4.30 6.50 2.20 10.90 2.20 2.20 13.0 11 Table 2 (cont’d) Field Archaeology Art Education, History, Design Environmental Studies, Sustainability Health Sciences Social Work Behavioral Science Writing Early Childhood Education Public Administration Multiple CEL Students’ Program of Study Anthropology Art: Education; History; Design Arts and Humanities Business Child Development; Early Childhood Education Communication Education; Special Education English Environmental Science; Sustainability; Parks and Recreation Healthcare Psychology Social Work Multiple 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 2 1 4 4.30 2.20 4.30 2.20 4.30 2.20 2.20 4.30 2.20 8.70 4.30 4.30 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 6.50 2.20 6.50 4.30 2.20 8.70 11 23.90 12 1 1 1 1 2 6.70 1 12.50 6.70 6.70 6.70 13.30 2 25.0 1 6.70 1 12.50 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 6.70 6.70 6.70 13.30 13.30 20.00 26.70 1 1 2 12.50 12.50 25.0 3 37.50 There were 27 participants who met the inclusion criteria to be considered experts in this study and indicated willingness to participate in an interview. Of those, 15 experts participated in interviews. As can be seen in Table 1, those who participated in interviews reflected the screening survey sample, being primarily women (66.7%), white/European American (86.7%), having a doctoral degree (53.3%), and having an academic rank of assistant professor or higher (73.3%). Experts had an average age of 48.40 and represented a variety of academic disciplines and fields (see Table 2). Their academic institutions were primarily located in Michigan (60.0%), though there were also expert participants from academic institutions in Indiana (26.7%) and Ohio (13.3%). Experts’ institutions were primarily private, four-year colleges and universities (53.3%), though some experts were also from public, four-year colleges and universities, (including MSU; 40.0%) and a community college (6.7%). In terms of CEL experience, experts reported an average of 8.36 years of experience implementing CEL in undergraduate level settings with a range of one to 20. Experts reported teaching an average of 20.71 undergraduate level CEL courses with a range of one to 100. Experts had an average of 22.75 students in said courses with a range of five to 50. Students came from a variety of programs of study (see Table 2). Recruitment and Selection. I recruited participants via targeted contact. Selection criteria included teaching undergraduate level classes at a higher education institution that is located within a three-hour driving distance of MSU. I directly emailed prospective participants who were potentially involved in CEL at their institutions. I also reached out to institutional groups or organizations seemingly involved in CEL via their organizational email when individual emails were not available. Further, I implemented snowball sampling, in which participants assisted with identifying other potential participants (e.g., expert participants were 13 asked at the end of their interview to identify other potential participants). All participants recruited were sent an electronic screening survey via email (described in the Measures subsection). I recruited interview expert participants from among those who participated in the screening survey and indicated their willingness to participate in an interview. Inclusion criteria included having selected the ‘Reciprocity (i.e., mutually beneficial university-community partnerships)’ CEL tenet as well as at least one other tenet for item five of the initial screening survey (see Appendix A). One expert participant who indicated willingness for an interview initially did not select the reciprocity component, but confirmed via email prior to participating in an interview that they did in fact implement that component in their CEL practice. Those who met the inclusion criteria and indicated willingness to participate in an interview were sent an email invitation to schedule a time for the interview via Zoom or phone call depending on their preference. Measures Screening survey. I asked participants to complete an electronic screening survey (see Appendix A). Before completing the survey, participants had to complete an electronic informed consent. Consenting participants could complete the survey, consisting of items requesting information pertaining to participant demographics (as described above and in Table 1), engagement with MSU, and experience implementing CEL. The screening survey also included an item to assess participants’ willingness to participate in an interview. Those who indicated willingness to participate in an interview were provided a link to a separate survey to gather interview contact information. To be able to link survey responses anonymously, participants were also asked to provide a four digit code comprised of the first two letters of the place in 14 which they were born (i.e., city, town, village) and the two-digit number of the day of the month in which they were born. Interview availability survey. This survey allowed participants to provide contact information so that they could be contacted to schedule an interview (see Appendix B). Interview. The semi-structured interview was guided by items that engaged expert participants in discussion pertaining to (1) suggested CEL techniques and practices, (2) facilitators and barriers to CEL, and (3) recommendations for the role of MSU in promoting CEL within its sphere of influence. For the full interview protocol, see Appendix C. Procedure I emailed potential participants the screening survey link. Those who indicated willingness to participate in an interview were automatically provided with the interview availability survey link upon completion of the screening survey. This link was also provided in email reminders to participants. Participants were able to complete these measures online in locations of their choosing. Surveys were hosted on Qualtrics. Once screening was complete, I downloaded the screening and interview availability survey data and stored them on a secure research drive. Interview expert participants also received email invitations to participate in phone or zoom interviews. Interviews were recorded with transcription enabled with verbal consent from experts. Interviews were semi-structured. I also took handwritten notes on key points during interviews in the event of audio/transcript loss and/or the need for verifications or clarifications during interviews. I stored transcripts and recordings in a secure research drive and handwritten notes in a secure file drawer in my advisor’s lab space. 15 Data preparation. I downloaded screening survey data from Qualtrics and coded responses in a Microsoft Excel file. I then uploaded this file into SPSS statistical software for analyses. I reviewed interview transcripts against recordings to verify accuracy. Once verification was complete, I destroyed recordings and analyses proceeded with transcripts. Analysis. I conducted quantitative analyses using SPSS software. I calculated descriptive statistics, allowing me to summarize phase one participants and their responses. I examined the distribution of CEL elements implemented in order to verify that expert participants met the inclusion criteria described in the Recruitment and Selection subsection to participate in interviews. I conducted qualitative analysis using Nvivo qualitative data analytics software. I implemented Graneheim and Lundman’s (2004) qualitative content analysis process to analyze interviews, which consisted of (1) identifying meaning units, (2) creating codes, (3) reviewing emerging categories, and (4) merging categories into overarching themes. Additionally, I utilized the interview protocol as well as the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to establish preset codes and categories. CFIR is a framework utilized to examine implementation facilitators and barriers (Damschroder, Reardon, Widerquist, & Lowery, 2022). This framework was utilized to specifically establish preset codes and categories for facilitators and barriers to CEL. The initial codebook can be seen in Appendix D. I first coded all interviews using the initial codebook. Then, I examined the initial codes and established an updated codebook to review emerging categories. I consolidated overlapping code categories and removed any that were not utilized. In doing so, I established a final codebook (see Appendix E). I then coded all interviews utilizing the updated, final codebook. 16 Phase Two Participants In phase two, I recruited experts who completed phase one to participate in an expert consensus survey. Out of the 15 experts who participated in interviews, eight participated in phase two. As can be seen in Table 1, experts who participated in phase two reflected the phase one sample, being primarily women (62.5%), white/European American (87.5%), having a doctoral degree (62.5%), and having an academic rank of assistant professor or higher (62.5%). Phase two experts had an average age of 50.38 and also represented a variety of academic disciplines and fields (see Table 2). In terms of CEL experience, experts had an average of 10 years of experience implementing CEL in undergraduate level settings with a range of one to 17. Experts reported teaching an average of 22.71 undergraduate level CEL courses with a range of one to 50. Experts had an average of 20.43 students in said courses with a range of five to 30. Students were from a variety of programs of study (see Table 2). Recruitment I recruited phase two expert participants via email. Based on published Delphi studies, my goal was to re-engage 75 percent of expert participants from phase one interviews (Armstrong, Peterson, & Rayner, 2012; Hult Khazaie & Khan, 2020; Quartiroli, Wagstaff, & Thelwell, 2022; Thibault et al. 2024). I ultimately ended up re-engaging approximately 53 percent of experts from phase one interviews. Materials Expert Consensus Survey. I asked expert participants to complete an expert consensus survey (see Appendix F). Before completing the survey, experts had to complete an electronic informed consent. Consenting experts could complete the survey, consisting of items requesting 17 information pertaining to engagement with MSU as well as items in which experts rated the emergent themes from interviews. Experts were asked to rate facilitators, challenges, and barriers to CEL as well as recommendations for the role of MSU in promoting CEL on their impact (i.e., 1 = very low to 5 = very high). Experts were asked to rate techniques and practices on impact (i.e., low, high) and the effort required to implement them (i.e., low, high). Procedure I sent expert participants the survey link via email. As noted previously, surveys were hosted on Qualtrics. I downloaded and stored survey data in a secure research drive. Data preparation. I downloaded expert consensus survey data from Qualtrics and coded responses in a Microsoft Excel file. I then uploaded this file into SPSS statistical software for analyses. Analysis I utilized descriptive statistics to analyze and compile item responses in SPSS software. I also created impact matrices utilizing Microsoft Excel software to compile and visually depict expert consensus ratings for the impact and effort required to implement recommended techniques and practices. 18 RESULTS Phase One Interview CEL Key Tenets and Values I identified 18 themes from experts’ responses regarding CEL key tenets and values. I organized these themes into six categories: (1) Respect; (2) Reciprocity; (3) Power Sharing; (4) Social Justice; (5) Empowerment; and (6) Emerging Tenets and Values. I have provided illustrative quotes for each theme in Table 3. The Respect category includes expert responses pertaining to examples, definitions, and thoughts about respect as a key value/tenet of CEL. It includes two themes: (1) respect as a common thread woven throughout CEL tenets, values, and practices and (2) relational basis (i.e., experts framed respect as occurring in the relationships between CEL stakeholders). The Reciprocity category includes expert responses pertaining to examples, definitions, and thoughts about reciprocity as a key value/tenet of CEL. It includes two themes: (1) relational basis (i.e., experts framed reciprocity as occurring in the relationships between CEL stakeholders and (2) reciprocity distinguishes CEL from traditional forms of service and service learning. The Power Sharing category includes expert responses pertaining to examples, definitions, and thoughts about power sharing as a key value/tenet of CEL. It includes two themes: (1) CEL practitioner role in facilitating power sharing and (2) strengths-based, participatory framework/approach. The Social Justice category includes expert responses pertaining to examples, definitions, and thoughts about social justice as a key value/tenet of CEL. It includes two themes: (1) relation to privilege and power and (2) differences in defining and framing. 19 The Empowerment category includes expert responses pertaining to examples, definitions, and thoughts about empowerment as a key value/tenet of CEL. It includes one theme: CEL practitioner role in navigating the dynamics of empowerment. The Emerging Tenets and Values category includes expert responses pertaining to examples, definitions, and thoughts about potential additional CEL tenets and/or values beyond those already present in the literature (i.e., those captured in the previous categories). It includes nine themes: (1) intentional and authentic relationships; (2) ethics; (3) evidence-based practice; (4) social change/action; (5) Indigenous practices and ways of knowing (i.e., decolonizing theories and practices, critical understanding and examination, social identity vs. individual identity); (6) reflection and introspection; (7) sustainability; (8) participatory community engagement; and (9) place and space (i..e, recognition, understanding, and connection to CEL contexts). Table 3 CEL Key Tenets and Values: Exemplar Quotes by Theme Category Theme Respect Exemplar Quote Respect as a common thread woven throughout CEL tenets, values, and practices “... respect is throughout the whole thing …” Relational basis “I'm thinking about respect as it relates, like, my relationship with the community partner. I'm thinking about respect between myself and students. I'm thinking about respect between students and community partners.” 20 Table 3 (cont’d) Reciprocity Relational basis “... building authentic relationships, right. Like that are reciprocal for all parties …” Reciprocity distinguishes CEL from traditional forms of service and service learning “... what makes it different from service learning is … we're not just [doing community service], there's reciprocity and part of that is the intentionality of the debrief. Like, what did we learn? What did we do?” Power Sharing CEL practitioner role in facilitating power sharing “... our job is to kind of help share the power that we do have and the resources that we do have and kind of get out of the way …” Strengths-based, participatory framework/approach “... the people most affected by issues should be the people who are most involved in defining the problem and shaping the solutions. I mean, people themselves are the leaders and they have the knowledge and ability to, you know, to decide how to fix problems and make things better …” Social Justice Relation to privilege and power “… we do a lot of focusing, in terms of social justice, Differences in defining and framing Empowerment CEL practitioner role in navigating the dynamics of empowerment on, instead of putting ourselves in the powerful position of, you know, you need help, I'm here to help you - kind of that white savior complex, you know? To avoid that and to walk along beside people …” “... it's become such a buzzword with so little conceptual basis behind it. There's so many claims about so many different projects being social justice- based. Without any clear trajectory as to what constitutes… well, how justice is being defined and what constitutes it.” “... it’s taking the responsibility to understand where students have power so that I empower them …” 21 Table 3 (cont’d) Emerging Tenets and Values Intentional and authentic relationships “... the need to connect with people before we can do the work, we have to connect. We have to form a relationship and relationships are so important.” Ethics “... ethics are very important. In terms of ethical standards and ethical boundaries…” Evidence-based practice “... research is so important in terms of looking at what methods worked best with certain populations.” Social change/action “I like to emphasize change, social change. Hope for that being one of the things that happens …” Indigenous practices and ways of knowing “... we talk about how decolonization in the sense of giving land back may not necessarily be possible but we can do anti-colonial stances and approaches and community engagement … and how you approach this has to be more intersectional. It cannot privilege certain epistemologies at the expense of others. There needs to be that recognition of settler colonialism in, you know, higher ed institutions in the United States. And we need to center more indigenous and decolonizing theories and ideas …” Reflection and introspection “... reflection is one of the components of experiential learning that really fosters the learning project or the learning opportunities …” Sustainability “... we don't want this to be like a drive by Participatory community engagement volunteerism … we want to build long-term ongoing relationships with community partners.” “... participatory research and planning is really, really important. And when we say participatory, that means like as many different perspectives as possible. But especially maybe putting your thumb on the scale for community partners …” Place and space “... a recognition of space, a recognition of history, a recognition of location, and the politics of it all.” 22 CEL Techniques and Practices I identified 33 themes from experts’ responses regarding CEL techniques and practices. I organized these themes into eight categories; (1) Engagement; (2) Student-focused; (3) Design and Methods; (4) Respect; (5) Reciprocity; (6) Power Sharing; (7) Social Justice; and (8) Empowerment. I have provided illustrative quotes for each theme in Table 4. The Engagement category includes expert responses pertaining to recommended engagement techniques and practices. It includes seven themes: (1) reflection (i.e., engaging CEL stakeholders in individual and group reflection practices to examine CEL experiences and outcomes; (2) dialogue (i.e., engaging CEL stakeholders in intentional and possibly critical discussions pertaining to CEL experiences and outcomes); (3) clear, consistent, and timely communication with all stakeholders; (4) involving key stakeholders in decision making (i.e, needs/goals assessment, planning, design, implementation, evaluation, assessment, etc.); (5) building meaningful and genuine relationships across stakeholders; (6) identifying and addressing power differentials among stakeholders; and (7) utilizing a strengths-based approach that centers community partners as experts. The Student-focused category includes expert responses pertaining to recommended student-focused techniques and practices. It includes three themes: (1) promoting student competencies and learning (i.e., new skills, career readiness, etc.); (2) preparing students for successful and beneficial community engagement that avoids harm; and (3) encouraging cultural competence and humility. The Design and Methods category includes expert responses pertaining to recommended CEL design and methods techniques and practices. It includes three themes: (1) utilizing evidence based practices and frameworks to inform design and implementation; (2) utilizing 23 technology (i.e, Google Jamboard, Slides, Docs, etc.) to promote collaboration and engagement; and (3) promoting sustainability (i.e., long-lasting partnerships, projects that span several classes/semesters/cohorts of students). The Respect category includes expert responses pertaining to recommendations for techniques and practices that promote respect in CEL. It includes three themes: (1) establishing trust across stakeholders; (2) establishing clear expectations, roles, and boundaries for all stakeholders; and (3) demonstrating and scaffolding how to navigate professional relationships. The Reciprocity category includes expert responses pertaining to recommendations for techniques and practices that promote reciprocity in CEL. It includes three themes: (1) co- creating knowledge; (2) establishing realistic goals and expectations based on the needs and goals of stakeholders; and (3) fairly compensating stakeholders for their participation (i.e., through payment, credits, and/or useful outputs). The Power Sharing category includes expert responses pertaining to recommendations for techniques and practices that promote power sharing in CEL. It includes two themes: (1) facilitating an understanding of group dynamics and how to address challenges when needed and (2) adapting classroom and pedagogical practices to promote equitable distribution of power and knowledge creation. The Social Justice category includes expert responses pertaining to recommendations for techniques and practices that promote social justice in CEL. It includes six themes: (1) identifying and addressing biases and systemic social justice issues (i.e., colonization, oppression, racism, sexism, classism, etc.); (2) establishing a foundational, shared understanding of social justice and how it applies to the context of the CEL experience; (3) demonstrate and promote genuine interest in listening to - and learning about - others; (4) encourage and provide 24 opportunities for students to engage with social justice issues that they find important; (5) intentionally engaging with community partners with shared social justice values, goals, and practices; and (6) demonstrating and promoting empathy. The Empowerment category includes expert responses pertaining to recommendations for techniques and practices that promote empowerment in CEL. It includes six themes: (1) fostering and scaffolding independence and agency for stakeholders; (2) providing encouragement and positive, constructive feedback to stakeholders; (3) promoting engagement and voice of stakeholders; (4) expressing gratitude and appreciation; (5) creating safe and inclusive spaces; and (6) demonstrating and scaffolding how to navigate challenges. Table 4 CEL Techniques and Practices: Exemplar Quotes by Theme Category Theme Engagement Exemplar Quote Reflection “I ask students to do a lot of reflections. … Dialogue Clear, consistent, and timely communication with all stakeholders Involving key stakeholders in decision making [Reflections count for a] disproportionate amount of credit … that shows how much I really value this as a learning goal.” “... they also do some group discussion reflections and then when we meet … we process some of that all together …” “... being proactive in terms of [expectations] … And [clear and constant communication and feedback].” “... there's certainly not decisions made for the community organization. We include them and it's more of a collaborative effort …” 25 Table 4 (cont’d) Building meaningful and genuine relationships across stakeholders “... establishing a relationship. And then I always follow up afterwards - I always want service sites to know how much I appreciated what they did ...” Identifying and addressing power differentials among stakeholders Utilizing a strengths-based approach that centers community partners as experts Student-focused Promoting student competencies and learning Preparing students for successful and beneficial community engagement that avoids harm Encouraging cultural competence and humility Design and Methods Utilizing evidence based practices and frameworks to inform design and implementation Utilizing technology to promote collaboration and engagement “... I asked them to identify and respond to power differentials in the relationship …” “... centering the partner as the expert in their work.” “I really focused on, you know, ‘What did you experience today that you've never experienced before? What was your big takeaway from it? How can you apply it?’” “... it's important to prepare students and to be proactive in how they view reciprocity in terms of the give and take of learning from other people.” “... preparing our students to interact in a cross- cultural context and preparing our students to demonstrate cultural humility… demonstrating or developing in our students a curiosity for listening and understanding another culture more than explaining their own culture …” “We use the AAC&U value rubric for civic engagement.” “... we do semester guidelines for inclusive conversations and dialogues framework … I have students write on a Google Doc so it's saved and they all can contribute to it.” Promoting sustainability “... you got to make projects kind of like either scaffold semester after semester … I think about it as like running track and passing on the baton.” 26 Table 4 (cont’d) Respect Establishing trust across stakeholders “... building rapport, building trust, becomes incredibly fundamental.” Establishing clear expectations, roles, and boundaries for all stakeholders Demonstrating and scaffolding how to navigate professional relationships “... one thing that we do from the [start] of partnerships with community organizations - is to work together to create an agreement. As far as what can we expect from them? And what can they expect from us?” “... demonstrating to them, you know, let's schedule a meeting. Let's make sure we're being professional, that we're respecting their time, you know, as a professional and how can you have a quality engagement with [community partners] overall.” Reciprocity Co-creating knowledge “... recognizing that … I may acquire more knowledge than I impart.” Establishing realistic goals and expectations based on the needs and goals of stakeholders Fairly compensating stakeholders for their participation “... one of the ways we build reciprocity from the beginning is building this expectation that the students will work with partner organizations on [a project that is within] the scope of their skills and their abilities … that will also … make a positive difference for either the organization itself, or … for the clients they serve.” “More and more, I think we're trying to move to models in which we pay our community partners for their expertise in different ways. And I think that's important. I don't know exactly the best way to do it, but the students are being paid with credit. The faculty are being paid with salary. How are community partners being paid for their labor? And I think recognizing that with money is probably really important. I mean, other kinds of recognition are important and presumably there's intrinsic value to the work that's being done, but that's a big presumption.” 27 Table 4 (cont’d) Power Sharing Facilitating an understanding of group dynamics and how to address challenges when needed “... we process this quite a bit in terms of classwork. We do a couple different units about power differentials and then we do self-reflections and group discussion around these types of things so that they're understanding where the dynamics lie.” Adapting classroom and pedagogical practices to promote equitable distribution of power and knowledge creation “... giving [students] the opportunity to share their knowledge and feel like they are the ones teaching. I think it's huge… community partners coming into the class and talking about the organization, talking about their experiences in the nonprofit, what they actually do, what they're hoping to do moving forward.” Social Justice Identifying and addressing biases and systemic social justice issues “... there's a lot of reflection [about] privilege and power. It's about the root causes of the problems that students are seeing and trying to help them develop the critical thinking skills that they need to understand [the] proximal and distal causes of the challenges that communities face. And that the people they're working with face. So that they're really using social determinants and structural inequality understandings of what it is that they're encountering. … unapologetically identifying social structures … as the problems behind the experiences that they are encountering.” Establishing a foundational, shared understanding of social justice and how it applies to the context of the CEL experience “I like to start off with the book that has, it's kind of like introduction to critical social justice education concepts … making sure that we have common language.” Demonstrate and promote genuine interest in listening to - and learning about - others “... making sure that [students] are actually in conversation with the people they're working with, you know, not othering them. And listening to them and having the cultural humility to work with them in a way that’s [acknowledging] their own values and the values of the community people.” 28 Table 4 (cont’d) Encourage and provide opportunities for students to engage with social justice issues that they find important “... [students] form a project where they can take action on an issue that they think is important.” Intentionally engaging with community partners with shared social justice values, goals, and practices “... thinking about social justice embedded within the immersive community research project - oftentimes the partner organizations are nonprofits that deal directly with social justice issues.” Demonstrating and promoting empathy “I really don't think you can teach empathy in the classroom. It's like, you just got to go there and you have to be invested in the community and really see people's faces …” Empowerment Fostering and scaffolding independence and agency for stakeholders “... agency is important as far as students taking ownership. But I think that also can be laid over into a community setting because, when they're agents of what they need, what they want to have happen in their community, I think that's vitally important …” Providing encouragement and positive, constructive feedback to stakeholders “... empowerment is really about the words that you use to talk to the students, to talk to the community partners about the work that they're doing, right? The way in which I shape the feedback …” Promoting engagement and voice of stakeholders Expressing gratitude and appreciation Creating safe and inclusive spaces “the immersive community research project [component] is very empowering for the students from the standpoint that they and the partner organization are working together to identify what might the project be.” “... I continue to let them know [they are] doing amazing work.” “... we do semester guidelines for inclusive conversations and dialogues framework at the start of every class … and [students] all contribute to it… we [had a] DEI training … from our faculty senate at [academic institution] … that was one of their ideas [for promoting] a safe space in the classroom ...” 29 Table 4 (cont’d) Demonstrating and scaffolding how to navigate challenges “... they're able to bring [issues] to me and then we can kind of work through them together.” CEL Implementation Facilitators I identified 14 themes from experts’ responses regarding facilitators of CEL implementation (i.e., factors that support implementation). I organized these themes into four categories; (1) CEL Characteristics; (2) CEL Implementation Settings; (3) CEL Stakeholders; and (4) CEL Implementation Processes. I have provided illustrative quotes for each theme in Table 5. The CEL Characteristics category corresponds to the CFIR Innovation Domain and includes expert responses pertaining to information about the CEL being implemented. It includes two themes: (1) adaptability and flexibility (i.e., CEL can be modified, tailored, or refined to fit local context or needs) and (2) design (i.e., CEL is well designed and packaged within the broader university and community context). The CEL Implementation Settings category corresponds to the CFIR Inner Setting Domain and includes expert responses pertaining to the setting(s) in which CEL is implemented. It includes six themes: (1) well-established, consistent partnerships between the facilitator and community partner(s); (2) incentive systems (i.e., compensation, release time, course credit, etc.) that promote CEL implementation and participation for stakeholders; (3) mission and value alignment across stakeholders (i.e., overarching commitment(s), purpose, values, and/or goals are well aligned); (4) funding is available to implement and deliver CEL through acquiring materials, transportation, compensating stakeholders, etc.; (5) training and support are available 30 to implement and deliver CEL; and (6) stakeholder buy-in promotes facilitation of - and engagement in - CEL. The CEL Stakeholders category corresponds to the CFIR Stakeholder Domain and includes expert responses pertaining to the roles and characteristics of stakeholders involved in the CEL experience. It includes three themes: (1) faculty/instructor practitioners facilitating CEL implementation are passionate about - and dedicated to - the work/topic/project. They are enthusiastic and respond to challenges with increased drive and determination; (2) faculty/instructor practitioners facilitating CEL implementation have active roles in the community and partner organizations related to the work/topic/project beyond the CEL experience alone; and (3) students engaging in CEL are enthusiastic and bring skills that benefit the CEL experience. The CEL Implementation Process category corresponds to the CFIR Implementation Process Domain and includes expert responses pertaining to the activities and strategies used to implement CEL. It includes three themes: (1) teaming (i.e., joining together, intentionally coordinating and collaborating on independent tasks) to implement CEL; (2) planning (i.e., assessing context and needs, identifying roles and responsibilities, outlining specific steps and milestones, defining goals and measures, preparing stakeholders, etc.) for CEL implementation success in advance; and (3) continuous improvement (i.e., implementing CEL in small steps, tests, or cycles to trial and optimize design and delivery, collecting and discussing information about successes and areas for improvement, etc.). 31 Table 5 CEL Implementation Facilitators: Exemplar Quotes by Theme Category Theme CEL Characteristics Exemplar Quote Adaptability and flexibility “... we encounter a problem, we work through it, we Design CEL Implementation Settings Well-established, consistent partnerships between the facilitator and community partner(s) Incentive systems (i.e., compensation, release time, course credit, etc.) that promote CEL implementation and participation for stakeholders Mission and value alignment across stakeholders reflect, and then we establish new kinds of expectations. … we've learned from things and we are constantly still adapting …” “... our CEL courses are part of a sequence of four courses … the first course would be foundations. The next course, cultural perspectives. … Then the community engaged learning course. And then finally, the capstone project. … ideally students take them in that order and this would be sort of the third in a sequence of four courses.” “I have really long standing relationships with them, you know, some of the individuals that the students work with, I've known for 15 years at this point. And I've been teaching the class for 10 years. And so we have partners that have been working with the students in this [class] for 10 iterations of the class at this point. So I think that really helps in that I have these very strong professional ties with a lot of these folks and their organizations.” “... if there's grants or scholarships that people who use it can get as a reward they might be more enticed to get involved with it.” “... having faculty to buy into [institutional] values, but then it's communicating those to the students and then finding partners that are willing to reciprocate those values as well.” 32 Table 5 (cont’d) Funding is available to implement and deliver CEL through acquiring materials, transportation, compensating stakeholders, etc. Training and support are available to implement and deliver CEL “... where I teach, they provide funding for me to be able to actually take students to the nonprofit …” “[academic institution runs a faculty fellows program] … it’s a semester-long set of, you know, readings and seminars. … they do keep tabs then on [what] you’re doing, [who’s] still running service learning courses … they do some promoting of those classes.” Stakeholder buy-in promotes facilitation of - and engagement in - CEL “... if you saw the outcome for my students, you would understand … you have to be there … it's well worth the time I put into it. It's well worth the effort.” CEL Stakeholders Faculty/instructor practitioners facilitating CEL implementation are passionate about - and dedicated to - the work/topic/project. They are enthusiastic and respond to challenges with increased drive and determination. “... it's meetings and dynamics and changing socio- political atmospheres that we all have to adapt to and which, to be honest with you makes me like dig my heels in more and fight harder and have a stronger commitment to what we're doing …” Faculty/instructor practitioners facilitating CEL implementation have active roles in the community and partner organizations related to the work/topic/project beyond the CEL experience alone “Something that was really helpful with one of the community partners is that after doing a whole entire year of work with them and them seeing like three different cohorts of students do work with them, they invited me to be part of the board. So I joined the board and then I got a different perspective …” Students engaging in CEL are enthusiastic and bring skills that benefit the CEL experience “We have no shortage of fantastic students … They just really want to like make the world a better place. And that's a really wonderful group of humans …” 33 Table 5 (cont’d) CEL Implementation Process Teaming to implement CEL “I saw how leadership and your team could support you … we had a lot of support built in and they fostered that and nurtured that drive …. that provided our students with [high quality outcomes and learning experiences].” Planning for CEL implementation success in advance “... another one of the factors for success is, you know, identifying what aspect of the organization, and what aspects of our course allow this [CEL relationship], to be successful.” Continuous improvement “... I think of all the times we have to like, we encounter a problem, we work through it, we reflect, and then we establish new kinds of expectations.” CEL Implementation Barriers I identified six themes from experts’ responses regarding barriers to CEL implementation (i.e., obstacles that prevent implementation, progress, or participation). I organized these themes into two categories; (1) CEL Implementation Settings and (2) CEL Outer Setting. I have provided illustrative quotes for each theme in Table 6. The CEL Implementation Settings category corresponds to the CFIR Inner Setting Domain and includes expert responses pertaining to the setting(s) in which CEL is implemented. It includes five themes: (1) mission and value misalignment across stakeholders (i.e., stakeholders do not have well aligned overarching commitment(s), purpose, values, and/or goals); (2) disincentives (i.e., administrative challenges, job security/tenure risks) that discourage facilitators from implementing CEL; (3) stakeholders do not have access to adequate funding to implement, deliver, and/or participate in CEL; (4) stakeholders do not have adequate time 34 available for CEL implementation, delivery, and/or participation; and (5) transportation is not available for stakeholders to implement, deliver, and/or participate in CEL. The CEL Outer Setting category corresponds to the CFIR Outer Setting Domain and includes expert responses pertaining to the setting in which the CEL inner settings exist. It includes one theme: systemic challenges that negatively impact the ability of stakeholders to implement, deliver, and/or participate in CEL (i.e., laws, policies, infrastructure, systemic biases, etc.). Table 6 CEL Implementation Barriers: Exemplar Quotes by Theme Category Theme CEL Implementation Settings Mission and value misalignment across stakeholders Disincentives (i.e., administrative challenges, job security/tenure risks) that discourage facilitators from implementing CEL Exemplar Quote “[If partners don’t buy into shared values] you're going to create this … hypocritical contention … what they're trying to demonstrate and model in front of your students isn't going to match the values that you've been modeling in the classroom.” “... it's risky for faculty to teach community-based learning in a community-based way anyway, right? Because they're giving up power, they're also giving up control over their syllabus and over their classroom. And, and in so doing, they open themselves up to a messier experience. And an experience where they have to veer from both the timeline of the syllabus and the goals. And they may get poor evaluations from students for that reason, because the students above all really want things to be well organized and to know what - how to get an A, right. And that's going to be a lot harder. That's almost always harder to do in a messy community- based course than it is in a purely classroom-based course where you know everybody just follows the syllabus right on through.” 35 Table 6 (cont’d) Stakeholders do not have access to adequate funding to implement, deliver, and/or participate in CEL “... lack of resources to be able to do some of the things that we're hoping to accomplish. So whether that's because we don't have, we don't have the money to take students somewhere or we don't have the money to buy certain materials …” Stakeholders do not have adequate time available for CEL implementation, delivery, and/or participation Transportation is not available for stakeholders to implement, deliver, and/or participate in CEL CEL Outer Setting Systemic challenges that negatively impact the ability of stakeholders to implement, deliver, and/or participate in CEL “... time is a problem. That’s a barrier. And I think so many things are related to that, including the challenges of preparing students to enter communities with … humility and of being of value. And I think time again shows up in trying to make sure that everybody's at the table from the beginning …” “Transportation is a huge problem … because it's quite expensive, and above and beyond, students can't walk to things. And above and beyond the money, there just aren't enough vehicles and there aren't enough drivers to get students to places. So the problems of transportation actually delimit where we are able to work and how long students can spend there. And so that's always an ongoing challenge.” “I think that moving forward the DEI stuff is going to be a huge. Both of the partners that came to speak this week are, I would say scared of threats to their work, to the funding of their work. To the visibility of some of the programs they have. They're worried about the extent to which they might have to shift their programming and messaging to code or hide what they're doing to reach, you know, students. And that affects my teaching too. In social work, we have accreditation standards that explicitly embed DEI. So I can do what I'm doing. But as a partnership, I have to be very careful about how I promote what I'm doing because it reflects back on them. And if they're trying to, to be more discreet about what they're doing, then that's going to be that negotiation of how that we brand our work.” 36 CEL Implementation Challenges I identified 16 themes from experts’ responses regarding challenges to CEL implementation (i.e., obstacles that represent areas for growth or improvement for CEL implementation, progress, or participation). I organized these themes into six categories; (1) CEL Engagement and Dynamics; (2) Respect; (3) Reciprocity; (4) Power Sharing; (5) Social Justice; and (6) Empowerment. I have provided illustrative quotes for each theme in Table 7. The CEL Engagement and Dynamics category includes expert responses pertaining to challenges in CEL engagement and dynamics. It includes five themes: (1) stakeholder discontinuity (i.e., the stakeholders involved - and their roles - change often); (2) communication challenges present across stakeholders (i.e., communication style/preference differences, language barriers, etc.); (3) disagreements or differences across stakeholders; (4) dynamics and logistics of facilitating multiple CEL projects and/or working with multiple community partners; and (5) issues with stakeholder motivation and/or engagement. The Respect category includes expert responses pertaining to challenges in promoting respect in CEL. It includes two themes: (1) establishing and upholding clear, shared expectations across stakeholders and (2) instances of disrespect for expectations, boundaries, or individuals. The Reciprocity category includes expert responses pertaining to challenges in promoting reciprocity in CEL. It includes three themes: (1) ensuring that projects are both useful and feasible for all stakeholders within the scope and constraints of the course; (2) identifying projects that are in line with community partner needs and student learning objectives/goals; and (3) navigating academic institution systems to fairly compensate community partners for their involvement (i.e., approvals, paperwork, etc.). 37 The Power Sharing category includes expert responses pertaining to challenges in promoting power sharing in CEL. It includes two themes: (1) navigating the risks, expectations, and logistics of sharing power and control across stakeholders and (2) navigating changing or unknown power dynamics across stakeholders. The Social Justice category includes expert responses pertaining to challenges in promoting social justice in CEL. It includes three themes: (1) determining who defines social justice in the context of the CEL experience; (2) ensuring socially just relationships across stakeholders; and (3) stakeholder biases. The Empowerment category includes expert responses pertaining to challenges in promoting empowerment in CEL. It includes one theme: ensuring that students are receiving adequate and appropriate levels of support and scaffolding from the facilitator(s) and community partner(s). Table 7 CEL Implementation Challenges: Exemplar Quotes by Theme Category Theme Exemplar Quote CEL Engagement and Dynamics Stakeholder discontinuity “... oftentimes having continuity in who you're working with - it changes a lot … you build a relationship and then it changes. So you feel like you have to kind of restart even though you might have a long history doing the same thing, across individuals, you have to redo it again.” 38 Table 7 (cont’d) Communication challenges present across stakeholders Disagreements or differences across stakeholders Dynamics and logistics of facilitating multiple CEL projects and/or working with multiple community partners Issues with stakeholder motivation and/or engagement Respect Establishing and upholding clear, shared expectations across stakeholders “…having students have the same understanding of … expectations for communication. So I think that's coming with them not always having had the same kind of communication that different generations have, so the value of personal intercommunication - or with all the different digital communications now, whether it's through texting or email - that's probably been the biggest challenge is trying to develop a shared expectation of what that should be.” “... one of the challenges can be that you're bringing in attitudes. You're bringing in these dispositions that may run counter to the organization that you're working with.” “So in any given course, I might have, let's say, 20 students and they might represent eight or nine different majors. And so one challenge is that we can't really find - I've not found sort of a one size fits all organization. I have these students at four or five or even six different organizations that they are volunteering for. And so one of the challenges is just simply finding the time to develop these relationships, to develop these power sharing opportunities to work with setting expectations for a variety of different community partners.” “... we've occasionally had group dynamics issues, like I mentioned, a student who's not really pulling their share of the weight for the project. I have had a couple of issues where we've had community partner organizational reps that just get busier than they thought they were going to be. And it's tricky for the students to get a hold of them … the students feel a little stalled out because they are not hearing back from their community partner …” “... one challenge is to take the time initially to [learn about and understand] each other. Kind of setting goals together, setting parameters about what does this space mean? How are we going to function in it? So what are our rules of engagement?” 39 Table 7 (cont’d) Instances of disrespect for expectations, boundaries, or individuals Reciprocity Ensuring that projects are both useful and feasible for all stakeholders within the scope and constraints of the course Identifying projects that are in line with community partner needs and student learning objectives/goals Navigating academic institution systems to fairly compensate community partners for their involvement Power Sharing Navigating the risks, expectations, and logistics of sharing power and control across stakeholders “... some of our students have not felt very respected in the situations that they are in, and part of that, I think, was due to insufficient communication and insufficient - kind of establishment of what are the expectations for the organization's interactions with our students.” “... this underlying unknown of whether you're truly meeting [community partner] needs. Or if, if it's balanced.” “[community partner expectations] of what a college student is capable of doing, you know, within a semester project or a group project … the [partner’s] need doesn't always match with learning objectives and doesn't match with the skill level or the competency … that's probably the biggest challenge is, is mitigating expectations and then making that realistic for both sides.” “... we're always going to try to pay those folks … the college doesn't make it easier. They - you have to sign a lot of forms, you know, and sometimes people aren't literate even and, you know, I mean so there's challenges … you have to have money to do that and a lot of places don't.” “it's really hard. I think that, you know, recognizing all those different knowledges as co-equal is very hard for people on both sides, you know, on the community side and on the academic side. And I think we're really challenging a paradigm on which the entire higher education enterprises is built. So I think that's always hard. And always important. And faculty and students and community partners are all I think, more or less guilty and me too of, you know, not, not adequately recognizing everybody's expertise.” 40 Table 7 (cont’d) Navigating changing or unknown power dynamics across stakeholders Social Justice Determining who defines social justice in the context of the CEL experience “In certain places … there's often a lot of turnover … you try and generate these relationships and partnerships that are built on taking the time to create trust. So they trust me coming in, I trust that my students will get some engagement … the [community partner representative] would be on board, but then … disappeared from their end of the power. … so that was a challenge, where the power, it's like, well, it's there and in place, but it's not always reinforced or supported.” “... so defining what is social justice practices in a way is sort of up to the [deidentified] center, but we've always said that we do social justice too. And I think we all do, right? But I think, you know, some of the primary definitions that we all use are - they're pretty vague in a lot of ways …” Ensuring socially just relationships across stakeholders “... how do you create a truly socially just relationship? How do you truly share power … I think that a social justice approach demands that you're trying to do that at all times.” Stakeholder biases “... when they experience something they're unfamiliar with, it can sometimes be a challenge where we all need to get together - the partner site, the student, and I, and have some discussions about it.” Empowerment Ensuring that students are receiving adequate and appropriate levels of support and scaffolding from the facilitator(s) and community partner(s) “... without [facilitator] mediation, I think sometimes the partner won't always empower [students] to do as much or will minimize the tasks that they need to do, which … affects their ability to do something more impactful.” 41 Role of MSU in Promoting CEL I identified six themes from experts’ responses regarding recommendations for the role of MSU in promoting CEL. I organized these themes into two categories; (1) Providing Support and Resources and (2) Facilitating Relationships and Collaboration. I have provided illustrative quotes for each theme in Table 8. The Providing Support and Resources category includes expert responses pertaining to the recommendation that MSU can promote CEL by providing support and resources. It includes four themes: (1) facilitating/hosting CEL trainings/workshops; (2) facilitating/hosting CEL fellowship programs; (3) providing funding for CEL; and (4) providing informational materials pertaining to CEL. The Facilitating Relationships and Collaboration category includes expert responses pertaining to the recommendation that MSU can promote CEL by facilitating relationships and collaboration with internal and external stakeholders. It includes two themes: (1) facilitating/supporting outreach and (2) facilitating/hosting opportunities for knowledge sharing and networking (i.e., conferences, poster sessions, etc.). Table 8 Role of MSU in Promoting CEL: Exemplar Quotes by Theme Category Theme Exemplar Quote Providing Support and Resources Facilitating/hosting CEL trainings/workshops “... having [virtual] or in person trainings or things of that nature, like maybe once or twice a semester or school year, depending on availability just to really be a good resource …” 42 Table 8 (cont’d) Facilitating/hosting CEL fellowship programs “... certainly running something like the fellowship program that happens at [interviewee’s academic institution] is um, that has been really helpful and I think has launched a bunch of different service learning focused courses, or courses that at least incorporate elements of that.” Providing funding for CEL “... maybe [MSU] can partner with other places Providing informational materials pertaining to CEL Facilitating Relationships and Collaboration Facilitating/supporting outreach outside of campus … what would that look like if we partnered together? Maybe there would be some availability or option to tie like some funding via a grant and some projects …” “... being at the forefront of community building and resource sharing or like, you know, information sharing so that people who are interested in it can say okay there's like a, a group of people that are doing this …” “going into communities and… or having communities come to MSU … being seen in the community, but also getting the community to come to you.” Facilitating/hosting opportunities for knowledge sharing and networking “... continuing to support research in [CEL] and looking at how can we even study community engaged learning, like where it's happening already at MSU?” Phase Two Expert Consensus Survey Recommended CEL Techniques and Practices As can be seen in Figure 1, the majority of recommended engagement techniques and practices fell within the major projects classification (i.e., techniques and practices that require high effort to implement and result in high impact to CEL implementation). Techniques and practices experts rated as requiring high effort to implement and having high impact are: (1) 43 building meaningful and genuine relationships across stakeholders (2) involving key stakeholders in decision making; (3) utilizing a strengths-based approach that centers community partners as experts; (4) clear, consistent, and timely communication with all stakeholders; (5) dialogue; and (6) identifying and addressing power differentials among stakeholders. Reflection was rated as a technique/practice falling under the quick wins classification, meaning that it would require low effort and have a high impact on CEL. Means and standard deviations for impact and effort ratings for each technique/practice are provided in Appendix G. Figure 1 Impact by Effort Matrix for Recommended Engagement Techniques and Practices As can be seen in Figure 2, two of the recommended student-focused techniques and practices fell within the major projects classification. Techniques and practices experts rated as 44 requiring high effort to implement and having high impact are: (1) preparing students for successful and beneficial community engagement that avoids harm and (2) Encouraging cultural competence and humility. Promoting student competencies and learning was rated as a technique/practice falling under the quick wins classification, meaning that it would require low effort and have a high impact on CEL. Means and standard deviations for impact and effort ratings for each technique/practice are provided in Appendix G. Figure 2 Impact by Effort Matrix for Recommended Student-focused Techniques and Practices As can be seen in Figure 3, all of the recommended design and methods techniques and practices fell within the major projects classification. Experts rated all of these techniques and 45 practices as requiring high effort to implement and having high impact on CEL. Means and standard deviations for impact and effort ratings for each technique/practice are provided in Appendix G. Figure 3 Impact by Effort Matrix for Recommended Design and Methods Techniques and Practices As can be seen in Figure 4, all of the recommended techniques and practices to promote respect in CEL fell within the major projects classification. Experts rated all of these techniques and practices as requiring high effort to implement and having high impact on CEL. Means and standard deviations for impact and effort ratings for each technique/practice are provided in Appendix G. 46 Figure 4 Impact by Effort Matrix for Recommended Techniques and Practices to Promote Respect As can be seen in Figure 5, two of the recommended techniques and practices to promote reciprocity in CEL fell within the major projects classification. Techniques and practices experts rated as requiring high effort to implement and having high impact are: (1) co-creating knowledge and (2) fairly compensating stakeholders for their participation. Establishing realistic goals and expectations based on the needs and goals of stakeholders was rated as a technique/practice falling under the quick wins classification, meaning that it would require low effort and have a high impact on CEL. Means and standard deviations for impact and effort ratings for each technique/practice are provided in Appendix G. 47 Figure 5 Impact by Effort Matrix for Recommended Techniques and Practices to Promote Reciprocity As can be seen in Figure 6, all of the recommended techniques and practices to promote power sharing in CEL fell within the major projects classification. Experts rated all of these techniques and practices as requiring high effort to implement and having high impact on CEL. Means and standard deviations for impact and effort ratings for each technique/practice are provided in Appendix G. 48 Figure 6 Impact by Effort Matrix for Recommended Techniques and Practices to Promote Power Sharing As can be seen in Figure 7, three recommended techniques and practices to promote social justice in CEL fell within the major projects classification. Techniques and practices experts rated as requiring high effort to implement and having high impact are: (1) identifying and addressing biases and systemic social justice issues; (2) intentionally engaging with community partners with shared social justice values, goals, and practices; and (3) establishing a foundational, shared understanding of social justice and how it applies to the context of the CEL experience. Three techniques/practices fell under the quick wins classification. The techniques/practices rated as requiring low effort and having high impact on CEL are: (1) 49 demonstrating and promoting empathy; (2) encouraging and providing opportunities for students to engage with social justice issues that they find important; and (3) demonstrating and promoting genuine interest in listening to - and learning about - others. Means and standard deviations for impact and effort ratings for each technique/practice are provided in Appendix G. Figure 7 Impact by Effort Matrix for Recommended Techniques and Practices to Promote Social Justice As can be seen in Figure 8, four recommended techniques and practices to promote empowerment in CEL fell within the major projects classification. Techniques and practices experts rated as requiring high effort to implement and having high impact are: (1) providing encouragement and positive, constructive feedback to stakeholders; (2) promoting engagement 50 and voice of stakeholders; (3) fostering and scaffolding independence and agency for stakeholders; and (4) demonstrating and scaffolding how to navigate challenges. Two techniques/practices fell under the quick wins classification. Techniques and practices rated as requiring low effort and having high impact on CEL are: (1) expressing gratitude and appreciation and (2) creating safe and inclusive spaces. Means and standard deviations for impact and effort ratings for each technique/practice are provided in Appendix G. Figure 8 Impact by Effort Matrix for Recommended Techniques and Practices to Promote Empowerment CEL Implementation Factors Expert participants were asked to rate CEL implementation factors on their impact utilizing a Likert scale ranging from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). Results are presented in the subsections below. 51 Facilitators As can be seen in Table 9, expert ratings reveal which implementation facilitators are most impactful on CEL. The most impactful implementation facilitator in the CEL characteristics category is design. The most impactful implementation facilitator in the CEL implementation settings category is well-established, consistent partnerships between the facilitator and community partner(s). The most impactful implementation facilitator in the CEL stakeholders category is faculty/instructor practitioners facilitating CEL implementation are passionate about - and dedicated to - the work/topic/project. They are enthusiastic and respond to challenges with increased drive and determination. The most impactful implementation facilitator in the CEL implementation process category is planning for CEL implementation success in advance. The most impactful implementation facilitators overall are: (1) faculty/instructor practitioners facilitating CEL implementation are passionate about - and dedicated to - the work/topic/project. They are enthusiastic and respond to challenges with increased drive and determination; (2) well-established, consistent partnerships between the facilitator and community partner(s); and (3) planning for CEL implementation success in advance. Table 9 CEL Implementation Facilitators: Impact on Implementation Ratings Category Theme CEL Characteristics Design Impact on Implementation Average Rating M SD 3.88 1.13 52 Table 9 (cont’d) Adaptability and flexibility CEL Implementation Settings Well-established, consistent partnerships between the facilitator and community partner(s) Training and support are available to implement and deliver CEL Stakeholder buy-in promotes facilitation of - and engagement in - CEL Mission and value alignment across stakeholders Funding is available to implement and deliver CEL through acquiring materials, transportation, compensating stakeholders, etc. Incentive systems (i.e., compensation, release time, course credit, etc.) that promote CEL implementation and participation for stakeholders CEL Stakeholders Faculty/instructor practitioners facilitating CEL implementation are passionate about - and dedicated to - the work/topic/project. They are enthusiastic and respond to challenges with increased drive and determination. Faculty/instructor practitioners facilitating CEL implementation have active roles in the community and partner organizations related to the work/topic/project beyond the CEL experience alone Students engaging in CEL are enthusiastic and bring skills that benefit the CEL experience 53 3.75 4.75 4.38 4.14 4.13 3.75 1.04 0.46 0.74 0.90 0.99 0.46 3.25 0.89 4.88 0.35 4.00 0.76 3.75 0.89 Table 9 (cont’d) CEL Implementation Process Planning for CEL implementation success in advance Continuous improvement Teaming to implement CEL 4.50 4.25 4.13 0.76 0.71 0.99 Barriers As can be seen in Table 10, expert ratings reveal which implementation barriers are most impactful on CEL. The most impactful implementation barrier in the CEL implementation settings category is time (i.e., stakeholders do not have adequate time available for CEL implementation, delivery, and/or participation). There was only one implementation barrier for the CEL outer setting category. This barrier, systemic challenges, was rated on average as having high impact on CEL implementation. The most impactful implementation barrier overall is time (i.e., stakeholders do not have adequate time available for CEL implementation, delivery, and/or participation). Table 10 CEL Implementation Barriers: Impact on Implementation Ratings Category Theme Impact on Implementation Average Rating CEL Implementation Settings Stakeholders do not have adequate time available for CEL implementation, delivery, and/or participation M 4.63 SD 0.52 54 Table 10 (cont’d) Mission and value misalignment across stakeholders Stakeholders do not have access to adequate funding to implement, deliver, and/or participate in CEL Disincentives (i.e., administrative challenges, job security/tenure risks) that discourage facilitators from implementing CEL Transportation is not available for stakeholders to implement, deliver, and/or participate in CEL CEL Outer Setting Systemic challenges that negatively impact the ability of stakeholders to implement, deliver, and/or participate in CEL Challenges 4.25 4.13 4.00 0.46 0.64 0.93 4.00 1.07 4.00 0.76 As can be seen in Table 11, expert ratings reveal which implementation challenges are most impactful on CEL. The most impactful implementation challenges in the CEL engagement and dynamics category are: (1) stakeholder discontinuity; (2) communication challenges present across stakeholders; and (3) dynamics and logistics of facilitating multiple CEL projects and/or working with multiple community partners. The most impactful implementation challenge in the respect category is establishing and upholding clear, shared expectations across stakeholders. The most impactful implementation challenge in the reciprocity category is identifying projects that are in line with community partner needs and student learning objectives/goals. The most impactful implementation challenge in the power sharing category is navigating changing or unknown power dynamics across stakeholders. The most impactful implementation challenge in 55 the social justice category is ensuring socially just relationships across stakeholders. There was only one implementation barrier for the empowerment category. This barrier, ensuring that students are receiving adequate and appropriate levels of support and scaffolding from the facilitator(s) and community partner(s), was rated on average as having high impact on CEL implementation. The most impactful implementation challenges overall are: (1) identifying projects that are in line with community partner needs and student learning objectives/goals; (2) ensuring that projects are both useful and feasible for all stakeholders within the scope and constraints of the course; (3) ensuring that students are receiving adequate and appropriate levels of support and scaffolding from the facilitator(s) and community partner(s); and (4) establishing and upholding clear, shared expectations across stakeholders Table 11 CEL Implementation Challenges: Impact on Implementation Ratings Category Theme Impact on Implementation Average Rating CEL Engagement and Dynamics Stakeholder discontinuity Communication challenges present across stakeholders Dynamics and logistics of facilitating multiple CEL projects and/or working with multiple community partners Issues with stakeholder motivation and/or engagement M 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.87 SD 0.54 1.07 0.76 0.84 56 Table 11 (cont’d) Disagreements or differences across stakeholders 3.75 1.04 Respect Establishing and upholding clear, shared expectations across stakeholders Instances of disrespect for expectations, boundaries, or individuals Reciprocity Identifying projects that are in line with community partner needs and student learning objectives/goals Ensuring that projects are both useful and feasible for all stakeholders within the scope and constraints of the course Navigating academic institution systems to fairly compensate community partners for their involvement Power Sharing Navigating changing or unknown power dynamics across stakeholders Navigating the risks, expectations, and logistics of sharing power and control across stakeholders Social Justice Ensuring socially just relationships across stakeholders Determining who defines social justice in the context of the CEL experience Stakeholder biases 57 4.62 4.38 4.88 4.63 3.63 3.75 3.63 4.00 3.50 3.50 0.52 0.74 0.35 0.74 1.06 0.89 0.74 0.93 0.93 0.93 Table 11 (cont’d) Empowerment Ensuring that students are receiving adequate and appropriate levels of support and scaffolding from the facilitator(s) and community partner(s) 4.63 0.74 Role of MSU As can be seen in Table 12, expert ratings reveal which recommended roles of MSU in promoting CEL are most impactful. The most impactful role in the providing support and resources category is providing funding for CEL. The most impactful role in the facilitating relationships and collaboration category is facilitating/hosting opportunities for knowledge sharing and networking. These were also the roles rated most impactful overall. Table 12 Role of MSU in Promoting CEL: Impact on Implementation Ratings Category Theme Impact on Implementation Average Rating Providing Support and Resources Providing funding for CEL Facilitating/hosting CEL trainings/workshops Facilitating/hosting CEL fellowship programs Providing informational materials pertaining to CEL SD 0.89 0.64 1.06 0.92 M 4.25 3.87 3.63 3.63 58 Table 12 (cont’d) Facilitating Relationships and Collaboration Facilitating/hosting opportunities for knowledge sharing and networking Facilitating/supporting outreach 4.00 3.87 0.76 0.84 Engagement with MSU When surveyed in phase one and phase two, participants were also asked about their engagement with resources at MSU, specifically their engagement with the Center for Community Engaged Learning and the Office of University Outreach and Engagement. As can be seen in Table 13, 13 percent of participants in the phase one screening survey reported engaging with the Center for Community Engaged Learning. Experts who participated in interviews mirrored this, with 13.3 percent reporting engagement. These experts were working at MSU at the time of this study. Approximately 15 percent of phase one survey participants reported engaging with the Office of Outreach and Engagement, whereas 20 percent of interview experts had. Two out of the three experts who indicated engagement were working at MSU at the time of this study. In phase two, 25 percent of experts had engaged with the Center for Community Engaged Learning and 25 percent of experts had engaged with the Office of University Outreach and Engagement. All of these experts were working at MSU at the time of this study. Of phase two experts who had engaged with the Center for Community Engaged Learning (n = 2), 100 percent indicated that they intended to continue engagement. Of phase two experts who had not engaged with the Center for Community Engaged Learning, one indicated that they did not intend to engage in the future and five indicated that they were not sure if they would engage in the future. 59 Of phase two experts who had engaged with the Office of University Outreach and Engagement (n = 2), 100 percent indicated that they intended to continue engagement. Of phase two experts who had not engaged with the Office of University Outreach and Engagement, one indicated that they did not intend to engage in the future and five indicated that they were not sure if they would engage in the future. Table 13 Expert’s Engagement with MSU Engagement with MSU Phase One Phase Two Center for Community Engaged Learning Yes No I’m not sure Office of Outreach and Engagement Yes No I’m not sure Screening Survey ( n = 46) Interview ( n = 15) Expert Consensus Survey ( n = 8) n % n % 6 28 2 7 27 2 13.0 60.90 4.30 15.20 58.70 4.30 2 12 1 3 11 1 13.3 80.0 6.7 20.0 73.3 6.7 n 2 5 1 2 5 1 % 25.0 62.5 12.5 25.0 62.5 12.5 60 DISCUSSION There is growing interest in community engaged approaches to teaching and learning in higher education (Da Cruz, 2018). CEL is a promising, albeit relatively new, approach to incorporating community engagement in undergraduate level education. As such, there is a gap in the current literature regarding best practices for implementing CEL in undergraduate education (Da Cruz, 2018; Nguyen & Condry, 2023). To address this gap, I conducted a study in which I aimed to accomplish three goals. The first was to describe how CEL is incorporated into undergraduate education across higher education institutions in a land-grant, research-intensive university’s sphere of influence. The second was to identify facilitators and barriers to the success of CEL in undergraduate higher education across these same institutions. The third was to identify concrete supports that a land-grant, research-intensive university could offer to enhance and strengthen CEL into undergraduate education within their sphere of influence. To accomplish these goals, I conducted a two-phase Delphi study. In the first phase, I recruited and screened potential CEL practitioners to participate in interviews. I then conducted interviews regarding CEL techniques and practices, facilitators, and barriers as well as the role of MSU in promoting CEL within its sphere of influence. In the second phase, I surveyed interview experts utilizing themes from phase one to gain an understanding of their impact and, in the case of techniques and practices, effort required to implement. As will be expanded on in this discussion, findings yield relevant and practical information pertaining to CEL techniques and practices, facilitators, and barriers as well as recommendations for the role of MSU in promoting the practice. 61 Goal One: Describe how CEL is Incorporated in Undergraduate Education across Higher Education Institutions in a Land-grant, Research-intensive University’s Sphere of Influence Key Tenets and Values Experts’ responses aligned with the key tenets and values prevalent in extant literature (i.e., respect, reciprocity, power sharing, social justice, and empowerment; Brabazon, Esmail, Locklin, & Stirling, 2019; Coles-Ritchie, Power, Farrell, & Valerio, 2022; Da Cruz, 2018; Mauro et al., 2024; Nguyen & Condry, 2023; Rubin et al., 2012; Toh & Grover, 2025). Experts also introduced potential additional tenets and values for consideration (see Table 3). Many of these proposed values/tenets pertain to the relational nature of CEL, in line with the literature (Mauro et al., 2024; Rubin et al., 2012; Tryon & Madden, 2019). However, they expand upon this concept by specifically highlighting the values of intentional and participatory CEL practices aimed at social change/action and knowledge generation (e.g., Indigenous practices and ways of knowing). Techniques and Practices Experts also provided recommendations for CEL techniques and practices. Responses included recommendations for engagement, student-focused, and design and methods practices as well as techniques/practices to promote respect, reciprocity, power sharing, social justice, and empowerment. Recommendations ranged from more practical techniques/practices (i.e., utilizing technology to promote collaboration and engagement) to more conceptual techniques/practices (i.e., establishing a foundational, shared understanding of social justice and how it applies to the context of the CEL experience). Experts were then asked to rate the impact of these techniques/practices on CEL implementation as well as the effort required to implement them 62 (see Appendix G). Excel impact matrices were utilized to organize the themes into categories (i.e., quick wins, major projects, fill-ins, thankless tasks). Findings indicate that all of the techniques/practices compiled from the interviews can be either considered quick wins or major projects. As shown in Figures 1 through 8, eight techniques/practices were categorized by experts as quick wins: (1) reflection; (2) promoting student competencies and learning; (3) establishing realistic goals and expectations based on the needs and goals of stakeholders; (4) demonstrating and promoting empathy; (5) encouraging and providing opportunities for students to engage with social justice issues that they find important; (6) demonstrating and promoting genuine interest in listening to - and learning about - others; (7) expressing gratitude and appreciation; and (8) creating safe and inclusive spaces. These practices are considered to require low effort but to also be highly impactful for CEL implementation. These are practices that may be beneficial for all CEL practitioners to focus on, especially newer practitioners. The remaining techniques/practices were categorized by experts as major projects. Six of these are from the engagement category: (1) utilizing a strengths-based approach that centers community partners as experts; (2) dialogue; (3) identifying and addressing power differentials among stakeholders; (4) clear, consistent, and timely communication with all stakeholders; (5) building meaningful and genuine relationships across stakeholders; and (6) involving key stakeholders in decision making. Two are from the student-focused category: (1) encouraging cultural competence and humility and (2) preparing students for successful and beneficial community engagement that avoids harm. Three are from the design and methods category: (1) utilizing evidence-based practices and frameworks to inform design and implementation; (2) utilizing technology to promote collaboration and engagement; and (3) promoting sustainability. 63 Three are from the promoting respect category: (1) demonstrating and scaffolding how to navigate professional relationships; (2) establishing trust across stakeholders; and (3) establishing clear expectations, roles, and boundaries for all stakeholders. Two are from the promoting reciprocity category: (1) fairly compensating stakeholders for their participation and (2) co-creating knowledge. Two are from the promoting power sharing category: (1) facilitating an understanding of group dynamics and how to address challenges when needed and (2) adapting classroom and pedagogical practices to promote equitable distribution of power and knowledge creation. Three are from the promoting social justice category: (1) establishing a foundational, shared understanding of social justice and how it applies to the context of the CEL experience; (2) identifying and addressing biases and systemic social justice issues; and (3) intentionally engaging with community partners with shared social justice values, goals, and practices. Four are from the promoting empowerment category: (1) demonstrating and scaffolding how to navigate challenges; (2) providing encouragement and positive, constructive feedback to stakeholders; (3) promoting engagement and voice of stakeholders; and (4) fostering and scaffolding independence and agency for stakeholders. Given that many of the recommended techniques/practices for successful implementation require high amounts of effort to accomplish, these findings align with those of prior studies, which their authors have interpreted as demonstrating complex requirements for implementing CEL (Rubin et al., 2012; Tryon & Madden, 2019). My findings correspond to an understanding of CEL as a demanding pedagogical practice requiring high levels of effort from practitioners to be successful. 64 Implications for Research Although this study’s findings confirm the key tenets/values of CEL commonly found in the literature (i.e., respect, reciprocity, power sharing, social justice, and empowerment; Brabazon, Esmail, Locklin, & Stirling, 2019; Coles-Ritchie, Power, Farrell, & Valerio, 2022; Da Cruz, 2018; Mauro et al., 2024; Nguyen & Condry, 2023; Rubin et al., 2012; Toh & Grover, 2025), they also point to nine additional key tenets/values whose relevance should be considered in future studies (see Table 3). Findings pertaining to techniques and practices reinforce previous observations that CEL is a demanding pedagogical practice (Rubin et al., 2012; Tryon & Madden, 2019). Findings should be further evaluated and confirmed in additional studies. Implications for Practice In this study, I documented experts’ recommended practices for CEL implementation, classifying these as either quick wins or major projects to further inform practice. In Appendix H, I provide a resource that should support CELpractitioners in examining their use of these recommended practices as well as their incorporation of the proposed key values and tenets. As noted in this tool, the techniques and practices categorized as quick wins are listed as basic practices of CEL. The techniques and practices categorized as major projects - listed as advanced practices in the resource provided - require more effort to implement and likely require practice and development over time. These should be discussed prior to implementation and only utilized if determined to be applicable and feasible. 65 Goal Two: Identify Facilitators and Barriers to the Success of CEL in Undergraduate Higher Education across these Same Institutions Facilitators Experts provided information pertaining to CEL implementation facilitators, which include CEL characteristics, implementation settings, stakeholders, and implementation process (see Tables 5 and 9). These categories correspond to four of the domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which is a framework utilized to examine implementation facilitators and barriers (Damschroder, Reardon, Widerquist, & Lowery, 2022). Examining expert responses pertaining to CEL facilitators through this framework highlights the process and contextual factors that promote CEL implementation. The facilitators shared by the experts who participated in this study also highlight the relational nature of CEL. One of the facilitators rated as being most impactful for implementation is well-established, consistent partnerships between the facilitator and community partner(s). This aligns with previous research detailing the importance of genuine and intentional relationship and partnership in CEL (Mauro et al., 2024; Rubin et al., 2012; Tryon & Madden, 2019). Expert ratings also emphasize the importance of preparation and planning for CEL (i.e., planning for CEL implementation success in advance). This is consistent with literature on community-engaged pedagogy (Trudeau & Kruse, 2014). In consideration with extant literature and findings from this study, CEL facilitators should ensure that all stakeholders have the opportunity to be involved in planning (Hoy & Johnson, 2013). An interesting finding is the importance of practitioner characteristics (i.e., faculty/instructor practitioners facilitating CEL implementation are passionate about - and dedicated to - the work/topic/project. They are enthusiastic and respond to challenges with 66 increased drive and determination). This particular facilitator was rated as having the most impact on CEL implementation. To date, researchers have made several attempts to better understand the characteristics and motivations of faculty and instructors who are drawn to community-engaged pedagogy (Morrison & Wagner, 2017; Wade & Demb, 2009). Expanding upon this literature, these findings indicate that those who are motivated by enthusiasm and passion for the work, topic, and/or project are the most likely to facilitate successful CEL implementation. Barriers Experts also shared their perceptions on key barriers to CEL implementation (i.e., obstacles that prevent implementation, progress, or participation; see Tables 6 and 10). Experts highlighted relatively few barriers to implementation, but those noted are substantial. The common thread throughout most barriers is a lack of resources for CEL implementation (i.e., time, funding, transportation). When these resources are lacking or absent, it is incredibly challenging - if not impossible - to implement CEL. Of importance is that experts rated having inadequate time as the barrier most impactful for CEL implementation. Very few scholars have previously focused on the role of resources in the implementation of CEL (see Mauro and colleagues [2024] for a recent exception focused on promoting reciprocity). Nevertheless, insufficient resources have been noted as a crucial barrier to the success of other high-impact pedagogical practices in higher education, including service learning (Hou & Wilder, 2015; VanWyngaarden, Pelton, Oquendo, & Moore, 2024). Challenges Whereas barriers prevent implementation, challenges are points of tension that represent areas for growth that will occur when implementing CEL. I have summarized the challenges 67 identified by the experts who participated in this study in Tables 7 and 11. Experts’ ratings indicate that the most impactful challenges to CEL implementation relate to promoting reciprocity (i.e., identifying projects that are in line with community partner needs and student learning objectives/goals; ensuring that projects are both useful and feasible for all stakeholders within the scope and constraints of the course). This finding is in line with the CEL literature that emphasizes reciprocity as a key, but challenging, component of CEL that differentiates it from other forms of community engaged pedagogy such as traditional service learning (Coles-Ritchie, Power, Farrell, & Valerio, 2022; Nguyen & Condry, 2023). Experts also rated factors related to promoting respect (i.e., establishing and upholding clear, shared expectations across stakeholders) and empowerment (i.e., ensuring that students are receiving adequate and appropriate levels of support and scaffolding from the facilitator(s) and community partner(s)) as particularly impactful challenges to CEL implementation. This once again emphasizes the relational nature of CEL as a practice, in line with extant research (Mauro et al., 2024; Rubin et al., 2012; Tryon & Madden, 2019). However, these findings expand on the literature by pinpointing particular aspects of relationships that may be challenging in the practice of CEL. Implications for Research Findings highlight future directions for research. The facilitators, barriers, challenges, and impact ratings identified in this study should be confirmed in additional samples. This can further clarify the factors that impact the success of CEL efforts. In these future studies, it would be useful for researchers to explore methods of assessing impact beyond subjective self-report (e.g., using more objective assessments at earlier stages to examine the success of CEL efforts). 68 Implications for Practice The findings regarding implementation factors provide several important implications for practice. Broadly, I have identified some factors with strong impacts on CEL implementation. Practitioners might focus on these when undertaking CEL. For example, knowing that establishing consistent partnerships and planning are particularly impactful implementation process factors, CEL practitioners should allocate adequate time and resources to establishing relationships with community partners and planning for CEL implementation. Practitioners can also make similar considerations regarding barriers and challenges. For instance, knowing that time is a significant barrier to CEL might lead practitioners to particularly consider time when designing CEL projects. The challenges involving promoting reciprocity, respect, and empowerment suggest these may be potential areas for support and training for CEL practitioners. In Appendix I, I have provided a tool for practitioners to engage in a self-audit to determine which major factors (i.e., those rated as most impactful by experts) impact their CEL practice and consider resulting implications. Goal Three: Identify Concrete Supports that a Land-grant, Research-intensive University could Offer to Support and Promote CEL in Undergraduate Education within its Sphere of Influence Experts’ recommendations for the role of MSU in promoting CEL centered on the importance of providing support and resources and facilitating relationships and collaboration. Unsurprisingly, experts stressed that funding is a crucial resource that institutions can provide for successful CEL implementation. Expert participants rated facilitating/hosting opportunities for knowledge sharing and networking as the most impactful recommended practice that MSU could 69 undertake to facilitate relationships and collaboration. This is not surprising given the common thread of relationship woven throughout the findings of this study. The key takeaway from these findings is that institutions like MSU can utilize their resources and facilitation abilities to better promote CEL implementation and collaboration. Importantly, pedagogical practices such as CEL require institutional buy-in and support to be successful (e.g., Mauro et al., 2024). These recommendations also demonstrate the relational nature of CEL, as established in the literature (Mauro et al., 2024; Rubin et al., 2012; Tryon & Madden, 2019), given that experts expressed the need for academic institutions to engage in resource sharing and the facilitation of relationships and collaboration. As part of this study, I also gauged experts’ engagement with CEL resources at MSU (see Table 13). Though only a small percentage of experts had engaged with MSU’s Center for Community Engaged Learning and/or Office of Outreach and Engagement, those who had indicated that they would continue to do so. This is a positive finding in terms of continued engagement, though it should be noted that these expert participants were working at MSU at the time of this study. An area for potential growth is that all of the experts who had not yet engaged with either MSU entity indicated that they did not intend to do so in the future or were unsure if they would do so. This suggests that only a small percentage of expert CEL practitioners see MSU as an institution with valuable resources for CEL practitioners. In terms of why experts did not engage with these MSU entities, some expressed that the resources provided by their own institution were sufficient for their CEL practice. Others noted that they were unaware of the resources available at MSU. These findings, paired with the recommendations for the role of MSU in promoting CEL, indicate that there is a key opportunity 70 for MSU to engage in outreach with CEL practitioners at other institutions to promote the practice and collaboration. Implications for Research Future research should be conducted to further examine current findings in additional contexts (e.g., examining roles of different types of academic institutions). It may be of particular importance to further examine how academic institutions can promote specific implementation facilitators and assuage specific barriers and challenges, especially institutional disincentives. Implications for Practice Findings underscore the importance of academic institutions in supporting and promoting CEL. Experts emphasized that academic institutions can promote CEL and support practitioners by providing resources and facilitating connections. Because these findings are contextually bound, administrators at other higher education institutions should closely examine the experiences of CEL practitioners and stakeholders within their sphere of influence. This would allow them to provide tailored supports. Common Thread: Role of Relationality in CEL A common thread across findings for each goal of this study is the importance of interpersonal relationships in CEL. Experts proposed several key values and tenets of CEL that focused on relationships (e.g., intentional and authentic relationships). Many recommended techniques and practices also focused on building relationships across CEL stakeholders (e.g., building meaningful and genuine relationships across stakeholders). Importantly, all relational techniques and practices were considered major projects, having high impact but requiring high effort to implement. This further demonstrates that the relational component of community 71 engaged pedagogy is important, but challenging in practice (Mauro et al., 2024; Rubin et al., 2012; Tryon & Madden, 2019). According to CEL experts, some of the most impactful facilitators and challenges to implementation are also related to its relational nature. One of the key implementation facilitators rated as most impactful by experts is well-established, consistent partnerships. In terms of challenges, experts rated those highest that involved promoting reciprocity, respect, and empowerment across stakeholders. These findings, in line with extant literature, demonstrate the importance of relationships in CEL as well as areas that may be particularly challenging in forming and maintaining those relationships (Mauro et al., 2024; Rubin et al., 2012; Tryon & Madden, 2019). In discussing the role of MSU in promoting CEL, experts recommended roles pertaining to facilitating relationships and collaboration. Specifically, experts rated the role of facilitating/hosting opportunities for knowledge sharing and networking as the most impactful for facilitating relationships and collaboration. This finding emphasizes the importance of networking as well as collaboration through knowledge sharing for CEL practitioners. These findings are, once again, in line with those of extant research that emphasize the importance of relationship in CEL (Mauro et al., 2024; Rubin et al., 2012; Tryon & Madden, 2019). However, they expand on this literature to provide specific recommendations for how academic institutions such as MSU can support and promote this aspect of CEL. Limitations This study has limitations related to the design and sample. First, the Delphi study design inherently assesses the opinions of a group of experts to establish consensus on experiences with CEL. It is possible that the consensus reached by the experts in this study is not generalizable to 72 other groups implementing CEL. To address this limitation, further studies should be conducted to confirm findings in additional samples. Another limitation is the process of selecting participants as experts in CEL. To address this concern, I implemented selection criteria as outlined in the methods section that promoted the participation of individuals experienced in implementing CEL in their undergraduate level classes. That said, establishing selection criteria that defined the actual implementation of CEL by participants was challenging given that these are not yet widely agreed upon in practice (Nguyen & Condry, 2023). I expect that this limitation can be further addressed in future studies in which selection criteria for experts are informed by my findings. A key limitation of this study regarding the sample is the limited perspective included. First, the sample of experts in this study is predominantly European American women. Additionally, I conducted this study with a focus on the expert input of one group of CEL stakeholders: higher education-based practitioners. Notably absent are the voices and perspectives of other CEL stakeholder groups (i.e., community partners, students, community members, etc.). This limitation should be addressed in continued research on this topic. I hope that this study will serve as a foundation for continued exploration into CEL, especially from the perspectives of additional demographic and stakeholder groups. 73 CONCLUSIONS This study builds upon current literature on CEL, confirming and expanding key values and tenets of the practice. It also addresses some key gaps in the literature identifying core CEL techniques and practices as well as facilitators, barriers, and challenges that may impact implementation. By also examining the role of MSU, I provide insights into how higher education institutions like it can best promote CEL. Notably, the perspectives included in this study are limited to those of expert CEL facilitators. Additionally, these perspectives are likely shaped by the predominance of European American women in the sample of expert participants. I hope that these findings can support future research and practice into CEL, an important, transformative practice with the potential to foster mutually beneficial partnerships between community and higher education stakeholders. 74 REFERENCES Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Armstrong, S. J., Peterson, E. R., & Rayner, S. G. (2012). Understanding and defining cognitive style and learning style: a Delphi study in the context of educational psychology. Educational studies, 38(4), 449-455. Clark-Taylor, A. (2016). Developing critical consciousness and social justice self-efficacy: Lessons from feminist community engagement student narratives. University of Rochester. Coles-Ritchie, M., Power, C. A., Farrell, C., & Valerio, M. (2022). Pedagogy matters: A framework for critical community-engaged courses in higher education. Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement, 15(1), 1-16. Comeau, D. L., Palacios, N., Talley, C., Walker, E. R., Escoffery, C., Thompson, W. W., & Lang, D. L. (2019). Community-engaged learning in public health: An evaluation of utilization and value of student projects for community partners. Pedagogy in Health Promotion, 5(1), 3-13. Croft, G. K. (2019). The US land-grant university system: An overview. CRS Report, 45897. Da Cruz, C. G. (2018). Community-engaged scholarship: Toward a shared understanding of practice. The Review of Higher Education, 41(2), 147-167. Damschroder, L. J., Reardon, C. M., Widerquist, M. A. O., & Lowery, J. (2022). The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. Implementation science : IS, 17(1), 75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01245-0 Dutta, U. (2016). Prioritizing the local in an era of globalization: A proposal for decentering community psychology. American journal of community psychology, 58(3-4), 329-338. Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse education today, 24(2), 105-112. hooks, b. (1994). Confronting class in the classroom. The critical pedagogy reader, 142-150. Hou, S. I., & Wilder, S. (2015). Changing pedagogy: Faculty adoption of service-learning: Motivations, barriers, and strategies among service-learning faculty at a public research institution. Sage Open, 5(1), 2158244015572283. Hoy, A., & Johnson, M. (2013). Future possibilities: High-impact learning and community engagement. Deepening community engagement in higher education: Forging new pathways, 273-281. 75 Hult Khazaie, D., & Khan, S. S. (2020). Social psychology and pandemics: Exploring consensus about research priorities and strategies using the Delphi method. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 23(4), 363-371. Jason, L. A., Glantsman, O., O'Brien, J. F., & Ramian, K. N. (2019). Introduction to the Field of Community Psychology. In Jason, L. A., Glantsman, O., O'Brien, J. F., & Ramian, K. N., Introduction to community psychology: Becoming an agent of change. (pp. 40-60). Rebus Community. Jimenez, T. R., Sánchez, B., McMahon, S. D., & Viola, J. (2016). A vision for the future of community psychology education and training. American Journal of Community Psychology, 58(3-4), 339-347. Mack, E. A., & Stolarick, K. (2014). The gift that keeps on giving: Land-grant universities and regional prosperity. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(3), 384- 404. Mauro, E., Manià, K., Ubels, N., Holroyd, H., Towle, A., & Murray, S. (2024). Reciprocity in Community-Engaged Learning: A Case Study of an Undergraduate Knowledge Exchange Project in an Over-Researched Urban Community. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 30(1). Michigan State University. (n.d.a). Academic Programs. Office of the Registrar. https://reg.msu.edu/AcademicPrograms/Programs.aspx Michigan State University. (n.d.b). Defining Community Engaged Learning at MSU. Center for Community Engaged Learning. https://communityengagedlearning.msu.edu/about/defining-community-engaged- learning-at-msu Michigan State University. (n.d.c). Overview. University Outreach and Engagement. https://engage.msu.edu/about/overview Morrison, E., & Wagner, W. (2017). A Community-Engaged Faculty Typology: A Self-Referent Approach to Understanding Faculty Perspectives. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 23(2), 117-130. Nguyen, J. J., & Condry, D. L. J. (2023, December). Evaluating differences in community- engaged learning and service-learning via the context, input, process, and product model. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 8, p. 1289322). Frontiers Media SA. Peterson, T. H. (2009). Engaged scholarship: Reflections and research on the pedagogy of social change. Teaching in higher education, 14(5), 541-552. 76 Quartiroli, A., Wagstaff, C. R., & Thelwell, R. (2022). The what and the how of self-care for sport psychology practitioners: A Delphi study. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 34(6), 1352-1371. Rubin, C. L., Martinez, L. S., Chu, J., Hacker, K., Brugge, D., Pirie, A., ... & Leslie, L. K. (2012). Community-engaged pedagogy: A strengths-based approach to involving diverse stakeholders in research partnerships. Progress in community health partnerships: research, education, and action, 6(4), 481. Santiago-Ortiz, A. (2019). From critical to decolonizing service-learning: Limits and possibilities of social justice-based approaches to community service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 25(1), 43-54. Sommers, L. M. (1980, January). Some characteristics, problems and trends in the evolution of geography graduate study in the United States: the example of Michigan State University. In Publication Series (Conference of Latin Americanist Geographers) (Vol. 7, pp. 90- 106). University of Texas Press. Thibault, R. T., Bailey-Rodriguez, D., Bartlett, J. E., Blazey, P., Green, R. J., Pownall, M., & Munafò, M. R. (2024). A Delphi Study to Strengthen Research-Methods Training in Undergraduate Psychology Programs. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 7(1), 25152459231213808. Toh, C., & Grover, A. (2025). “I Wish I Could Do More”: Institutional and Systemic Barriers to Effective Community-Engaged Learning for Equity and Inclusion in STEM Disciplines. Trudeau, D., & Kruse, T. P. (2014). Creating significant learning experiences through civic engagement: Practical strategies for community-engaged pedagogy. Journal of Public Scholarship in Higher Education, 4, 12-30. Tryon, E., & Madden, H. (2019). Actualizing critical commitments for community engagement professionals. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 23(1), 57-80. VanWyngaarden, K., Pelton, J. A., Oquendo, P. M., & Moore, C. (2024). High-impact teaching practices in higher education: Understanding barriers, concerns, and obstacles to their adoption. Trends in Higher Education, 3(1), 105-121. Vavuris, T. J. (2021). There is no generalizability in community-based work. Community-Based Service Delivery, 92-103. Wade, A., & Demb, A. (2009). A conceptual model to explore faculty community engagement. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 15(2), 5-16. Washington Monthly. (2024). Washington Monthly’s 2024 College Guide and Rankings. Washington Monthly. https://washingtonmonthly.com/2024-college-guide/ 77 APPENDIX A: PHASE ONE SCREENING SURVEY Informed Consent: You are being asked to participate in this study because you have been identified as a practitioner of community engaged learning (CEL) in undergraduate level courses. The purpose of this study is to gather expert consensus on (1) suggested CEL techniques and practices in relevant coursework, (2) facilitators and barriers to CEL, and (3) recommendations for the role of MSU in promoting CEL within its sphere of influence. You will be asked to answer a series of items aimed at gathering demographic information as well as information pertaining to your experience implementing CEL in undergraduate level settings. Your participation is voluntary. You can skip any question you do not wish to answer or withdraw at any time without penalty. You do not need to answer any items that you feel may compromise your ability to remain anonymous. You must be 18 or older to participate. If you have any questions please contact Taylor Martin, at crismant@msu.edu. By selecting ‘I consent to participate in this survey.’ you indicate that you voluntarily agree to participate in this research study by submitting the survey. If you do not consent to participate, please select the ‘I do not consent to participate in this survey.’ option. ● I consent to participate in this survey. ● I do not consent to participate in this survey. Participant Code: Please provide the following information to establish your anonymous participant code: 1. Two-digit number of the day of the month in which you were born (i.e., 06, 13, etc.) 2. The first two letters of the place in which you were born (city, town, village) Demographic information: 3. For the following items, please type in a response. Responses to these items will allow me to better understand and describe participants in my study. a. What department(s) and field(s) do you teach in? (Example: Psychology Department, ecological-community psychology field_ b. For how many years have you taught undergraduate level courses in your current discipline? c. What is the highest academic degree you’ve completed? d. What is your academic rank? e. What is your gender identity? f. What is your ethnicity? g. What is your age? Community Engaged Learning Items: 4. CEL is an approach to community engagement in education with roots in traditional service learning. CEL differs from service learning primarily in that it has a stronger focus on mutually beneficial community-university partnerships. CEL utilizes 78 meaningful relationships with community partners paired with instruction that emphasizes empowerment, power sharing, reciprocity, respect, and social justice to provide transformative learning experiences for students. a. Have you implemented CEL in any of your undergraduate level courses? i. Yes – proceed to next question ii. No – Thank you page, no interview availability survey link (finished with survey) I’m not sure – proceed to next question iii. 5. How many years have you implemented CEL? 6. How many undergraduate level courses have you taught in which you implemented CEL? Please report the number of courses in total. For example, if you taught PSY 101 twice and PSY 200 once, all having implemented CEL, you would put three as your response. a. What was the average number of students in these courses? b. Please list the program of study these students mainly derived from. 7. Please indicate which of the following elements of CEL you included in the undergraduate CEL courses that you’ve taught (select all that apply): a. Empowerment (i.e., empowering students and community partners to work together toward established goals) b. Power sharing (i.e, acknowledging and shifting power differentials present, especially between academic institutions and community partners; including students as partners in their learning, rather than as passive recipients) c. Reciprocity (i.e., mutually beneficial university-community partnerships) d. Respect (i.e., mutual respect among all parties and acknowledgement of the prior knowledge and experiences that students and community partners bring to the table) e. Social justice (i.e., learning about and/or addressing social inequities of interest to students and/or community partners) f. Other (please describe) 8. Have you ever engaged with the Center for Community Engaged Learning at Michigan State University? a. Yes b. No c. I’m not sure 9. Have you ever engaged with the Office of University Outreach and Engagement at Michigan State University? a. Yes b. No c. I’m not sure 79 Willingness to participate in an interview: 10. Are you able to participate in an interview regarding your experiences implementing community engaged learning in undergraduate level classes? If you select yes, you will be directed to a page that provides a link to a separate survey in which you can provide your contact information. a. Yes - Thank you page with link to interview availability survey b. No - Thank you page without link to interview availability survey Thank you page with link: Thank you for your participation in this survey. Your responses have been recorded. If you have any questions pertaining to this survey, please reach out to Taylor Martin at crismant@msu.edu. To proceed to the interview availability survey, please click this link: [link] Thank you page without link: Thank you for your participation in this survey. Your responses have been recorded. If you have any questions, please reach out to Taylor Martin at crismant@msu.edu. 80 APPENDIX B: PHASE ONE INTERVIEW AVAILABILITY SURVEY Informed Consent (taken from MSU exempt online survey template): You are being asked to fill out this survey because you indicated willingness to participate in an interview for this research study. The purpose of the study is to gather expert consensus on (1) suggested community engaged learning (CEL) techniques and practices, (2) facilitators and barriers to CEL, and (3) recommendations for the role of MSU in promoting CEL within its sphere of influence. In this survey, you will be asked to provide demographic information so that you can be contacted for an interview. Your participation is voluntary. You can skip any question you do not wish to answer or withdraw at any time. You must be 18 or older to participate. If you have any questions please contact Taylor Martin, at crismant@msu.edu. By selecting ‘I consent to participate in this survey.’ you indicate that you voluntarily agree to participate in this research study by submitting the survey. If you do not consent to participate, please select the ‘I do not consent to participate in this survey.’ option. ● I consent to participate in this survey. ● I do not consent to participate in this survey. Participant Code: Please provide the following information (your anonymous participant code): 1. Two-digit number of the day of the month in which you were born (i.e., 06, 13, etc.) 2. The first two letters of the place in which you were born (city, town, village). Contact Information: 3. Please provide your preferred email address for contact regarding scheduling an interview. Thank you page: Thank you for providing your contact information. Please keep an eye out for an email reaching out to schedule an interview. If you have any questions, please reach out to Taylor Martin at crismant@msu.edu. 81 APPENDIX C: PHASE ONE INTERVIEW PROTOCOL Introduction and Informed Consent: ● Thank you for participating in this interview. Your time and input are greatly appreciated. ● My name is Taylor Martin, and I am a doctoral student at Michigan State University in Ecological and Community Psychology. For my dissertation, I’m conducting a study in which I gather and compile expert consensus on community engaged learning, specifically: ○ Suggested techniques and practices ○ Facilitators and barriers ○ Recommendations for the role of MSU in promoting CEL within its sphere of influence. ● As an experienced practitioner of community engaged learning in undergraduate settings, your insights on this topic are valuable and important for my research. ● The interview will take approximately 60-90 minutes, and you can withdraw your participation at any time without penalty. ● I will be taking notes during the interview, but it would also be very helpful for me to have a recording to transcribe and utilize for coding purposes. Notes, recordings, and transcripts will be de-identified and stored on a secure research drive. Further, after transcripts are validated, recordings will be deleted. ○ Do you consent to participating in this interview? ○ Do you consent to being recorded? ○ Do you consent to transcription being enabled? Questions and Prompts: ● Some key values of community engaged learning highlighted in the literature are respect, reciprocity, power sharing, social justice, and empowerment. Many of my questions today will revolve around these tenets of CEL. ● Starting with respect: ○ Describe any techniques and/or practices you have found to be most successful in promoting respect in CEL? ○ Describe challenges you have encountered in promoting respect when implementing CEL? ● We’ll discuss reciprocity next: ○ Describe any techniques and/or practices you have found to be most successful in promoting reciprocity? ○ Describe challenges you have encountered in promoting reciprocity when implementing CEL? ● Next up is power sharing: ○ Describe any techniques and/or practices you have found to be most successful in promoting power sharing. 82 ○ Describe challenges you have encountered in promoting power sharing when implementing CEL. ● Social justice is our next value: ○ Describe any techniques and/or practices you have found to be most successful in promoting social justice. ○ Describe challenges you have encountered in promoting social justice when implementing CEL. ● The final key value is empowerment: ○ Describe any techniques and/or practices you have found to be most successful in promoting empowerment. ○ Describe challenges you have encountered in promoting empowerment when implementing CEL. ● Are there any other values you consider to be key tenets of CEL other than those discussed? ○ Response: ○ Potential prompts: ■ Tell me more about that. ■ Can you provide a definition of this value? ● Switching gears, what factors have facilitated successful implementation of community engaged learning in your undergraduate classes? ○ Potential prompt: ■ Tell me more about that. ● What factors or barriers have made implementing community engaged learning in your undergraduate classes challenging or unsuccessful? ○ Potential prompt: ■ Tell me more about that. ● What other techniques, facilitation practices, and/or challenges have been pertinent in your experience implementing CEL in undergraduate classes that you have not already shared? ○ Response: ● Another aspect of my study is examining the role that Michigan State University may plan in promoting community engaged learning. What recommendations do you have for the role MSU plays in promoting CEL? ○ Response: ● Have you ever engaged with Michigan State University for resources on CEL? 83 ○ If so, what were they? ○ If not, why not? ■ Potential additional prompts: ● Would you consider engaging with MSU for resources on CEL in the future? ● What can MSU do to encourage your engagement? 84 APPENDIX D: PHASE ONE INITIAL CODEBOOK Table 14 Phase One Initial Codebook Code Description CEL Key Values/Tenets Respect Reciprocity Power Sharing Social Justice Empowerment Emerging Examples, definitions, thoughts about this as a key value/tenet Examples, definitions, thoughts about this as a key value/tenet Examples, definitions, thoughts about this as a key value/tenet Examples, definitions, thoughts about this as a key value/tenet Examples, definitions, thoughts about this as a key value/tenet Suggested additional key values/tenets as well as examples/definitions CEL Techniques and Practices - Recommended techniques and practices to promote the successful implementation of CEL in undergraduate settings Respect Reciprocity Power Sharing Social Justice Empowerment Recommended techniques and practices to promote respect in CEL Recommended techniques and practices to promote reciprocity in CEL Recommended techniques and practices to promote power sharing in CEL Recommended techniques and practices to promote social justice in CEL Recommended techniques and practices to promote empowerment in CEL 85 Table 14 (cont’d) CEL Challenges - Challenges encountered in promoting the successful implementation of CEL in undergraduate settings Respect Reciprocity Challenges in promoting respect in CEL Challenges in promoting reciprocity in CEL Power Sharing Challenges in promoting power sharing in CEL Social Justice Challenges in promoting social justice in CEL Empowerment Challenges in promoting empowerment in CEL Facilitators of CEL in Undergraduate Settings CFIR - Innovation Domain - information about the CEL being implemented Source Relative Advantage Adaptability Complexity Design Cost The group that developed or supported the CEL being implemented is reputable, credible, and/or trustable CEL is better than other available innovations or current practice The CEL being implemented can be modified, tailored, or refined to fit local context or needs The CEL being implemented is not complicated, (may be reflected by its scope and/or nature and number of connections and steps) CEL being implemented is well designed and packaged CEL operating costs are affordable CFIR - Outer Setting Domain - Setting in which the Inner Setting exists - outer setting of specific CEL implementation Critical Incidents Local Attitudes Large-scale and/or unanticipated events promote CEL implementation Sociocultural values and beliefs encourage the Outer Setting to support CEL implementation 86 Table 14 (cont’d) Local Conditions Economic, environmental, political, and/or technological conditions enable the Outer Setting to support CEL implementation Partnerships and Connections Inner Setting is networked with external entities Policies and Laws Financing External pressure (a) Societal Pressure (b) Market Pressure Legislation, regulations, professional group guidelines and recommendations, or accreditation standards support CEL implementation Funding from external entities is available for CEL implementation External pressures drive CEL implementation (use to capture codes not included in the subconstructs below) Mass media campaigns, advocacy groups, or social movements or protests drive CEL implementation Competing with and/or imitating peer entities drives CEL implementation (c) Performance Measurement Pressure Quality or benchmarking metrics or established service goals drive CEL implementation CFIR - Inner Setting Domain - the setting in which CEL is implemented (there may be multiple inner settings or levels within inner settings) Inner setting = class, academic institution, and partner entities Structural Characteristics Infrastructure components support CEL implementation (use to capture codes that are not included in the subconstructs below) (a) Physical Infrastructure Layout and configuration of space and other tangible material features support CEL implementation (b) Information Technology Technological systems support CEL implementation Infrastructure (c) Work Infrastructure Relational Connections Organization of tasks and responsibilities within and between individuals and teams, and general staffing levels, support CEL implementation There are high quality formal and informal relationships, networks, and teams within and across Inner Setting boundaries 87 Table 14 (cont’d) Communications Culture There are high quality formal and informal sharing practices within and across Inner Setting boundaries There are shared values, beliefs, and norms across the Inner Setting Tension for Change The current situation is intolerable and needs to change Compatibility Relative Priority Incentive Systems Mission Alignment Available Resources (a) Funding (b) Space CEL fits with workflows, systems, and processes Implementing and delivering CEL is important compared to other initiatives Tangible and/or intangible incentives and rewards and/or disincentives and punishments support implementation and delivery of CEL Implementing and delivering CEL is in line with the overarching commitment, purpose, or goals in the Inner Setting Resources are available to implement and deliver CEL (use to capture codes not included in the subconstructs below) Funding is available to implement and deliver CEL Physical space is available to implement and deliver CEL (c) Materials and Equipment Supplies are available to implement and deliver CEL Access to Knowledge and Information Guidance and/or training is accessible to deliver and implement CEL CFIR - Individuals Domain - Roles and characteristics of individuals involved in CEL implementation Facilitators Students Faculty/instructor practitioners facilitating CEL implementation Students engaging in CEL implementation Community partners Community partners engaging in CEL implementation Community members Community members who engage with CEL implementation or outcomes 88 Table 14 (cont’d) Other Other individuals who engage with CEL implementation or outcomes who do not fall within the established categories above CFIR - Implementation Process Domain - the activities and strategies used to implement CEL Teaming Assessing Needs Joining together, intentionally coordinating and collaborating on independent tasks, to implement CEL Collect information about priorities, preferences, and needs (use to capture codes not included in the subconstructs below) (a) Facilitators Assessing the needs of facilitators (b) Students Assessing the needs of students (c) Community partners Assessing the needs of community partners (d) Community members Assessing the needs of community members Assessing Context Planning Tailoring Strategies Engaging Collect information to identify and appraise barriers and facilitators to implementation and delivery of CEL Identify roles and responsibilities, outline specific steps and milestones, and define goals and measures for CEL implementation success in advance Choose and operationalize CEL implementation strategies to address barriers, leverage facilitators, and fit context Attract and encourage participation in implementation and/or the innovation (use to capture codes not included in the subconstructs below) (a) Facilitators Engaging facilitators (b) Students Engaging students (c) Community partners Engaging community partners (d) Community members Engaging community members Doing Implement in small steps, tests, or cycles of change to trial and cumulatively optimize delivery of CEL 89 Table 14 (cont’d) Reflecting & Evaluating Collect and discuss information about successes and areas for improvement (use to capture codes not included in the subconstructs below) (a) CEL Reflecting and Evaluating CEL (b) Implementation Reflecting and Evaluating implementation of CEL Adapting Modify CEL and/or the Inner Setting for optimal fit and integration into systems and processes Barriers of CEL in Undergraduate Settings CFIR - Innovation Domain - information about the CEL being implemented Source Relative Advantage Adaptability Complexity Design Cost The group that developed or supported the CEL being implemented is not reputable, credible, and/or trustable CEL is not better than other available innovations or current practice The CEL being implemented cannot be modified, tailored, or refined to fit local context or needs The CEL being implemented is complicated, (may be reflected by its scope and/or nature and number of connections and steps) CEL being implemented is not well designed and packaged CEL operating costs are not affordable CFIR - Outer Setting Domain - Setting in which the Inner Setting exists - outer setting of specific CEL implementation Critical Incidents Local Attitudes Local Conditions Large-scale and/or unanticipated events disrupt CEL implementation Sociocultural values and beliefs discourage the Outer Setting to support CEL implementation Economic, environmental, political, and/or technological conditions do not enable the Outer Setting to support CEL implementation Partnerships and Connections Inner Setting is not networked with external entities 90 Table 14 (cont’d) Policies and Laws Financing External pressure (c) Societal Pressure (d) Market Pressure Legislation, regulations, professional group guidelines and recommendations, or accreditation standards do not support CEL implementation Funding from external entities is not available for CEL implementation External pressures hinder CEL implementation (use to capture codes not included in the subconstructs below) Mass media campaigns, advocacy groups, or social movements or protests hinder CEL implementation Competing with and/or imitating peer entities hinders CEL implementation (c) Performance Measurement Pressure Quality or benchmarking metrics or established service goals hinder CEL implementation CFIR - Inner Setting Domain - the setting in which CEL is implemented (there may be multiple inner settings or levels within inner settings) Inner setting = class, academic institution, and partner entities Structural Characteristics Infrastructure components hinder CEL implementation (use to capture codes that are not included in the subconstructs below) (c) Physical Infrastructure Layout and configuration of space and other tangible material features hinder CEL implementation (d) Information Technology Technological systems hinder CEL implementation Infrastructure (c) Work Infrastructure Relational Connections Communications Culture Organization of tasks and responsibilities within and between individuals and teams, and general staffing levels, hinder CEL implementation There are not high quality formal and informal relationships, networks, and teams within and across Inner Setting boundaries There are not high quality formal and informal sharing practices within and across Inner Setting boundaries There are not shared values, beliefs, and norms across the Inner Setting 91 Table 14 (cont’d) Tension for Change There is a lack of tension for change Compatibility Relative Priority Incentive Systems Mission Alignment Available Resources (c) Funding (d) Space CEL does not fit with workflows, systems, and processes Implementing and delivering CEL is not important compared to other initiatives Tangible and/or intangible incentives and rewards and/or disincentives and punishments hinder implementation and delivery of CEL Implementing and delivering CEL is not in line with the overarching commitment, purpose, or goals in the Inner Setting Resources are not available to implement and deliver CEL (use to capture codes not included in the subconstructs below) Funding is not available to implement and deliver CEL Physical space is not available to implement and deliver CEL (c) Materials and Equipment Supplies are not available to implement and deliver CEL Access to Knowledge and Information Guidance and/or training is not accessible to deliver and implement CEL CFIR - Individuals Domain - Roles and characteristics of individuals involved in CEL implementation Facilitators Students Faculty/instructor practitioners facilitating CEL implementation Students engaging in CEL implementation Community partners Community partners engaging in CEL implementation Community members Community members who engage with CEL implementation or outcomes Other Other individuals who engage with CEL implementation or outcomes who do not fall within the established categories above 92 Table 14 (cont’d) CFIR - Implementation Process Domain - the activities and strategies used to implement CEL Teaming Assessing Needs Teaming does not happen or does not support CEL Assessing needs does not happen or does not support CEL (use for assessing needs activities/strategies that do not fall within any of the subcategories) (c) Facilitators Assessing needs of facilitators (d) Students Assessing needs of students (c) Community partners Assessing needs of community partners (d) Community members Assessing needs of community members Assessing Context Assessing context does not happen or does not support CEL Planning Planning does not happen or does not support CEL Tailoring Strategies Tailoring strategies does not happen or does not support CEL Engaging Engaging does not happen or does not support CEL (c) Facilitators (d) Students Not engaging/lack of engaging facilitators Not engaging/lack of engaging students (c) Community partners Not engaging/lack of engaging community partners (d) Community members Not engaging/lack of engaging community members Doing Doing does not happen or does not support CEL Reflecting & Evaluating Reflecting & Evaluating does not happen or does not support CEL (use to capture codes that do not fall within the subcategories) (c) CEL Reflecting and Evaluating CEL is lacking or nonexistent (d) Implementation Reflecting and Evaluating CEL is lacking or nonexistent Adapting Adapting does not happen or does not support CEL 93 Table 14 (cont’d) Role of MSU - role of MSU in promoting CEL in undergraduate settings Role Perceived role that MSU should play in promoting CEL in undergraduate settings Engagement with MSU Engagement with MSU for CEL resources or collaboration Recommendations (a) Resources (b) Collaboration Recommendations for how MSU could encourage/promote CEL (use to capture codes not included in the subconstructs below) Recommendations for how MSU could promote their resources related to CEL Recommendations for how MSU could promote CEL collaborations with practitioners at other institutions Uncaptured Codes - information that is important and unable to be captured in any of the present codes. These should be regularly reviewed to determine if additional codes should be added to the codebook. 94 APPENDIX E: PHASE ONE FINAL CODEBOOK Table 15 Phase One Final Codebook Code Description CEL Key Values/Tenets Respect Reciprocity Power Sharing Social Justice Empowerment Emerging Examples, definitions, thoughts about this as a key value/tenet Examples, definitions, thoughts about this as a key value/tenet Examples, definitions, thoughts about this as a key value/tenet Examples, definitions, thoughts about this as a key value/tenet Examples, definitions, thoughts about this as a key value/tenet Suggested additional key values/tenets as well as examples, definitions, and thoughts CEL Techniques and Practices - Recommended techniques and practices to promote the successful implementation of CEL in undergraduate settings Engagement Recommended engagement techniques and practices Student-focused Recommended student-focused techniques and practices Design and methods Respect Reciprocity Power Sharing Recommended design and methods techniques and practices Recommended techniques and practices to promote respect in CEL Recommended techniques and practices to promote reciprocity in CEL Recommended techniques and practices to promote power sharing in CEL 95 Table 15 (cont’d) Social Justice Empowerment Recommended techniques and practices to promote social justice in CEL Recommended techniques and practices to promote empowerment in CEL CEL Challenges - obstacles that represent areas for growth or improvement for CEL implementation, progress, or participation CEL Engagement and Dynamics Challenges pertaining to CEL engagement and dynamics Respect Reciprocity Challenges in promoting respect in CEL Challenges in promoting reciprocity in CEL Power Sharing Challenges in promoting power sharing in CEL Social Justice Challenges in promoting social justice in CEL Empowerment Challenges in promoting empowerment in CEL Facilitators of CEL Implementation in Undergraduate Settings CEL Characteristics (CFIR - Innovation Domain - information about the CEL being implemented) Adaptability & Flexibility CEL can be modified, tailored, or refined to fit local context or needs Design CEL well designed and packaged within the broader university and community context CEL Implementation Settings [CFIR - Inner Setting Domain - the setting in which CEL is implemented (there may be multiple inner settings or levels within inner settings) Inner setting = class, academic institution, and partner entities] Established and Consistent Partnerships Well-established, consistent partnerships between the facilitator and community partner(s) Incentive Systems Incentive systems (i.e., compensation, release time, course credit, etc.) promote CEL implementation and participation for stakeholders 96 Table 15 (cont’d) Mission and Value Alignment The overarching commitment(s), purpose, values, and/or goals of stakeholders are well aligned Available Resources (a) Funding Funding is available to implement and deliver CEL through acquiring materials, transportation, compensating stakeholders, etc. (c) Training & Support Training and support are available to implement and deliver CEL Stakeholder Buy-in Stakeholder buy-in promotes facilitation of - and engagement in - CEL CEL Stakeholders (CFIR - Stakeholder Domain - Roles and characteristics of stakeholders involved in CEL experience) Facilitators Faculty/instructor practitioners facilitating CEL implementation: (a) Passion/Dedication (b) Active Involvement Students are passionate about - and dedicated to - the work/topic/project. They are enthusiastic and respond to challenges with increased drive and determination. have active roles in the community and partner organizations related to the work/topic/project beyond the CEL experience alone. Students engaging in CEL are enthusiastic and bring skills that benefit the CEL experience. CEL Implementation Processes (CFIR - Implementation Process Domain - the activities and strategies used to implement CEL) Teaming Planning Joining together, intentionally coordinating and collaborating on independent tasks, to implement CEL Assessing context and needs, identifying roles and responsibilities, outlining specific steps and milestones, defining goals and measures, preparing stakeholders, etc. for CEL implementation success in advance. 97 Table 15 (cont’d) Continuous Improvement Implementing CEL in small steps, tests, or cycles of change to trial and optimize delivery, collecting and discussing information about successes and areas for improvement, etc. CEL Implementation Barriers - obstacles that prevent CEL implementation, progress, or participation CEL Outer Settings (CFIR - Outer Setting Domain - Setting in which the Inner Setting exists - outer setting of specific CEL implementation) Systemic Challenges Systemic challenges that negatively impact the ability of stakeholders to implement, deliver, and/or participate in CEL (i.e., laws, policies, infrastructure, systemic biases, etc.) CEL Implementation Settings [CFIR - Inner Setting Domain - the setting in which CEL is implemented (there may be multiple inner settings or levels within inner settings) Inner setting = class, academic institution, and partner entities] Mission and Value Misalignment Stakeholders do not have well aligned overarching commitment(s), purpose, values, and/or goals Disincentives for Facilitators Disincentives (i.e., administrative challenges, job security/tenure risks) that discourage facilitators from implementing CEL Available Resources (b) Funding (c) Time (c) Transportation Stakeholders do not have access to adequate funding to implement, deliver, and/or participate in CEL Stakeholders do not have adequate time available for CEL implementation, delivery, and/or participation Transportation is not available for stakeholders to implement, deliver, and/or participate in CEL Role of MSU - role of MSU in promoting CEL in undergraduate settings Recommendations for role of MSU in promoting CEL 98 Table 15 (cont’d) (a) Resources and Support (b) Facilitation MSU can promote CEL by providing support and resources such as trainings/workshops, fellowship programs, funding, and informational materials MSU can promote CEL by facilitating relationships and collaboration with internal and external stakeholders (i.e., outreach, hosting opportunities for knowledge sharing and networking, etc.) Facilitator Engagement with MSU Expert/facilitator engagement with MSU for CEL resources or collaboration 99 APPENDIX F: PHASE TWO EXPERT CONSENSUS SURVEY Informed Consent: You are being asked to participate in this study because you have been identified as a practitioner of community engaged learning (CEL) in undergraduate level courses. The purpose of this study is to gather expert consensus on: (1) suggested CEL techniques and practices in relevant coursework; (2) facilitators and barriers to CEL, and; (3) recommendations for the role of MSU in promoting CEL within its sphere of influence. You will be asked to answer a series of items aimed at gathering demographic information as well as information pertaining to your experience implementing CEL in undergraduate level settings. The survey takes between 15 and 30 minutes to complete. Your participation is voluntary. You can skip any question you do not wish to answer or withdraw at any time without penalty. You do not need to answer any items that you feel may compromise your ability to remain anonymous. You must be 18 or older to participate. If you have any questions please contact Taylor Martin at crismant@msu.edu. By selecting ‘I consent to participate in this survey.’ you indicate that you voluntarily agree to participate in this research study by submitting the survey. If you do not consent to participate, please select the ‘I do not consent to participate in this survey.’ option. ● I consent to participate in this survey. ● I do not consent to participate in this survey. Participant Code: Please provide the following information to establish your anonymous participant code: 1. Two-digit number of the day of the month in which you were born (i.e., 06, 13, etc.) 2. The first two letters of the place in which you were born (city, town, village). CEL Techniques and Practices: For this set of questions, you will be asked to rate community engaged learning techniques and practices on their impact (i.e., if the practice/technique were to be implemented, would it have high or low impact on CEL experiences) and effort (i.e., effort required to implement). Techniques and practices will be organized and presented in emergent categories/themes. Note: stakeholders include facilitators/practitioners, students, community partners, and/or community members who implement and/or participate in community engaged learning. 3. Please rate the following engagement techniques and practices on their impact and effort required to implement. 100 a. Reflection (i.e., engaging CEL stakeholders in individual and group reflection practices to examine CEL experiences and outcomes) i. Impact 1. Low, High ii. Effort 1. Low, High b. Dialogue (i.e., engaging CEL stakeholders in intentional and possibly critical discussions pertaining to CEL experiences and outcomes) i. Impact 1. Low, High ii. Effort 1. Low, High c. Clear, consistent, and timely communication with all stakeholders i. Impact 1. Low, High ii. Effort 1. Low, High d. Involving key stakeholders in decision making (i.e., needs/goals assessment, planning, design, implementation, evaluation, assessment etc.) i. Impact 1. Low, High ii. Effort 1. Low, High e. Building meaningful and genuine relationships across stakeholders i. Impact 1. Low, High ii. Effort 1. Low, High f. Identifying and addressing power differentials among stakeholders i. Impact 1. Low, High ii. Effort 1. Low, High g. Utilizing a strengths-based approach that centers community partners as experts i. Impact 1. Low, High ii. Effort 1. Low, High 4. Please rate the following student-focused techniques and practices on their impact and effort required to implement. 101 a. Promoting student competencies and learning (i.e., new skills, career readiness, etc.) i. Impact 1. Low, High ii. Effort 1. Low, High b. Preparing students for successful and beneficial community engagement that avoids harm i. Impact 1. Low, High ii. Effort 1. Low, High c. Encouraging cultural competence and humility i. Impact 1. Low, High ii. Effort 1. Low, High 5. Please rate the following design and methods techniques and practices on their impact and effort required to implement. a. Utilizing evidence based practices and frameworks to inform design and implementation Impact i. 1. Low, High ii. Effort 1. Low, High b. Utilizing technology (i.e, Google Jamboard, Slides, Docs, etc.) to promote collaboration and engagement i. Impact 1. Low, High ii. Effort 1. Low, High c. Promoting sustainability (i.e., long-lasting partnerships, projects that span several classes/semesters/cohorts of students) i. Impact 1. Low, High ii. Effort 1. Low, High 6. Please rate the following techniques and practices for promoting respect on their impact and effort required to implement. a. Establishing trust across stakeholders 102 i. Impact 1. Low, High ii. Effort 1. Low, High b. Establishing clear expectations, roles, and boundaries for all stakeholders i. Impact 1. Low, High ii. Effort 1. Low, High c. Demonstrating and scaffolding how to navigate professional relationships i. Impact 1. Low, High ii. Effort 1. Low, High 7. Please rate the following techniques and practices for promoting reciprocity on their impact and effort required to implement. a. Co-creating knowledge Impact i. 1. Low, High ii. Effort 1. Low, High b. Establishing realistic goals and expectations based on the needs and goals of stakeholders i. Impact 1. Low, High ii. Effort 1. Low, High c. Fairly compensating stakeholders for their participation (i.e., through payment, credits, and/or useful outputs) i. Impact 1. Low, High ii. Effort 1. Low, High 8. Please rate the following techniques and practices for promoting power sharing on their impact and effort required to implement. a. Facilitating an understanding of group dynamics and how to address challenges when needed i. Impact 1. Low, High ii. Effort 103 1. Low, High b. Adapting classroom and pedagogical practices to promote equitable distribution of power and knowledge creation i. Impact 1. Low, High ii. Effort 1. Low, High 9. Please rate the following techniques and practices for promoting social justice on their impact and effort required to implement. a. Identifying and addressing biases and systemic social justice issues (i.e., colonization, oppression, racism, sexism, classism, etc.) i. Impact 1. Low, High ii. Effort 1. Low, High b. Establishing a foundational, shared understanding of social justice and how it applies to the context of the CEL experience i. Impact 1. Low, High ii. Effort 1. Low, High c. Demonstrate and promote genuine interest in listening to - and learning about - others i. Impact 1. Low, High ii. Effort 1. Low, High d. Encourage and provide opportunities for students to engage in with social justice issues that they find important i. Impact 1. Low, High ii. Effort 1. Low, High e. Intentionally engaging with community partners with shared social justice values, goals, and practices Impact i. 1. Low, High ii. Effort 1. Low, High f. Demonstrating and promoting empathy 104 i. Impact 1. Low, High ii. Effort 1. Low, High 10. Please rate the following techniques and practices for promoting empowerment on their impact and effort required to implement. a. Fostering and scaffolding independence and agency for stakeholders i. Impact 1. Low, High ii. Effort 1. Low, High b. Providing encouragement and positive, constructive feedback to stakeholders i. Impact 1. Low, High ii. Effort 1. Low, High c. Promoting engagement and voice of stakeholders i. Impact 1. Low, High ii. Effort 1. Low, High d. Expressing gratitude and appreciation i. Impact 1. Low, High ii. Effort 1. Low, High e. Creating safe and inclusive spaces i. Impact 1. Low, High ii. Effort 1. Low, High f. Demonstrating and scaffolding how to navigate challenges i. Impact 1. Low, High ii. Effort 1. Low, High CEL Implementation Facilitators: For this set of questions, you will be asked to rate certain implementation facilitators (i.e., factors that support implementation) on their impact on CEL implementation (i.e., should the 105 facilitator occur or be present, what level of impact would that have on CEL implementation). Facilitators will be organized and presented in emergent categories/themes. Note: stakeholders include facilitators/practitioners, students, community partners, and/or community members who implement and/or participate in community engaged learning. 11. Please rate the following facilitators pertaining to CEL characteristics on their impact on implementation. a. Adaptability and flexibility (i.e., CEL can be modified, tailored, or refined to fit local context or needs) Impact i. 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High b. Design (i.e., CEL is well designed and packaged within the broader university and community context) Impact i. 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High 12. Please rate the following facilitators pertaining to CEL implementation settings on their impact on implementation. a. Well-established, consistent partnerships between the facilitator and community partner(s) i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High b. Incentive systems (i.e., compensation, release time, course credit, etc.) that promote CEL implementation and participation for stakeholders i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High c. Mission and value alignment across stakeholders (i.e., overarching commitment(s), purpose, values, and/or goals are well aligned) i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High d. Funding is available to implement and deliver CEL through acquiring materials, transportation, compensating stakeholders, etc. i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High e. Training and support are available to implement and deliver CEL i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High f. Stakeholder buy-in promotes facilitation of - and engagement in - CEL i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High 106 13. Please rate the following facilitators pertaining to CEL stakeholders on their impact on implementation. a. Faculty/instructor practitioners facilitating CEL implementation are passionate about - and dedicated to - the work/topic/project. They are enthusiastic and respond to challenges with increased drive and determination. i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High b. Faculty/instructor practitioners facilitating CEL implementation have active roles in the community and partner organizations related to the work/topic/project beyond the CEL experience alone. i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High c. Students engaging in CEL are enthusiastic and bring skills that benefit the CEL experience. i. Impact 14. Please rate the following facilitators pertaining to CEL implementation processes on 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High their impact on implementation. a. Teaming (i.e., joining together, intentionally coordinating and collaborating on independent tasks) to implement CEL. i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High b. Planning (i.e., assessing context and needs, identifying roles and responsibilities, outlining specific steps and milestones, defining goals and measures, preparing stakeholders, etc.) for CEL implementation success in advance. i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High c. Continuous improvement (i.e., implementing CEL in small steps, tests, or cycles to trial and optimize design and delivery, collecting and discussing information about successes and areas for improvement, etc.) i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High CEL Implementation Barriers: For this set of questions, you will be asked to rate certain implementation barriers (i.e., obstacles that prevent implementation) on their impact on CEL implementation (i.e., should the barrier occur or be present, what level of impact would that have on CEL implementation). Barriers will be organized and presented in emergent categories/themes. 107 Note: stakeholders include facilitators/practitioners, students, community partners, and/or community members who implement and/or participate in community engaged learning. 15. Please rate the following barriers pertaining to CEL implementation settings on their impact on implementation. a. Mission and value misalignment across stakeholders (i.e., stakeholders do not have well aligned overarching commitment(s), purpose, values, and/or goals) i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High b. Disincentives (i.e., administrative challenges, job security/tenure risks) that discourage facilitators from implementing CEL i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High c. Stakeholders do not have access to adequate funding to implement, deliver, and/or participate in CEL i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High d. Stakeholders do not have adequate time available for CEL implementation, delivery, and/or participation i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High e. Transportation is not available for stakeholders to implement, deliver, and/or participate in CEL i. Impact 16. Please rate the following barrier pertaining to CEL outer settings on its impact on 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High implementation. a. Systemic challenges that negatively impact the ability of stakeholders to implement, deliver, and/or participate in CEL (i.e., laws, policies, infrastructure, systemic biases, etc.) Impact i. 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High CEL Implementation Challenges: For this set of questions, you will be asked to rate certain implementation challenges (i.e., obstacles that represent areas for growth or improvement) on their impact on CEL implementation (i.e., should the challenge occur or be present, what level of impact would that have on CEL implementation). Challenges will be organized and presented in emergent categories/themes. 108 Note: stakeholders include facilitators/practitioners, students, community partners, and/or community members who implement and/or participate in community engaged learning. 17. Please rate the following challenges pertaining to CEL engagement and dynamics on their impact on implementation. a. Stakeholder discontinuity (i.e., the stakeholders involved - and their roles - change often) i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High b. Communication challenges present across stakeholders (i.e., communication style/preference differences, language barriers, etc.) i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High c. Disagreements or differences across stakeholders i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High d. Dynamics and logistics of facilitating multiple CEL projects and/or working with multiple community partners i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High e. Issues with stakeholder motivation and/or engagement i. Impact 18. Please rate the following challenges pertaining to promoting respect in CEL on their 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High impact on implementation. a. Establishing and upholding clear, shared expectations across stakeholders i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High b. Instances of disrespect for expectations, boundaries, or individuals i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High 19. Please rate the following challenges pertaining to promoting reciprocity in CEL on their impact on implementation. a. Ensuring that projects are both useful and feasible for all stakeholders within the scope and constraints of the course i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High b. Identifying projects that are in line with community partner needs and student learning objectives/goals i. Impact 109 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High c. Navigating academic institution systems to fairly compensate community partners for their involvement (i.e., approvals, paperwork, etc.) i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High 20. Please rate the following challenges pertaining to promoting power sharing in CEL on their impact on implementation. a. Navigating the risks, expectations, and logistics of sharing power and control across stakeholders i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High b. Navigating changing or unknown power dynamics across stakeholders i. Impact 21. Please rate the following challenges pertaining to promoting social justice in CEL on 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High their impact on implementation. a. Determining who defines social justice in the context of the CEL experience i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High b. Ensuring socially just relationships across stakeholders i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High c. Stakeholder biases i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High 22. Please rate the following challenge pertaining to promoting empowerment in CEL on its impact on implementation. a. Ensuring that students are receiving adequate and appropriate levels of support and scaffolding from the facilitator(s) and community partner(s) i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High Recommendations for the Role of MSU in Promoting CEL: For this set of questions, you will be asked to rate the recommendations for the role Michigan State University in promoting CEL on their impact (i.e., the level of impact the recommendation/role would have on the practice and experience of CEL should it occur or be present). Note: stakeholders include facilitators/practitioners, students, community partners, and/or community members who implement and/or participate in community engaged learning. 110 23. Please rate the following recommendations for MSU’s role in promoting CEL pertaining to providing support and resources on their impact. a. Facilitating/hosting CEL trainings/workshops i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High b. Facilitating/hosting CEL fellowship programs i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High c. Providing funding for CEL Impact i. 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High d. Providing informational materials pertaining to CEL i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High 24. Please rate the following recommendations for MSU’s role in promoting CEL pertaining to facilitating relationships and collaboration with internal and external stakeholders on their impact. a. Facilitating/supporting outreach i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High b. Facilitating/hosting opportunities for knowledge sharing and networking (i.e., conferences, poster sessions, etc.) i. Impact 1. Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High You have likely answered some of these items related to community engaged learning in a previous survey. These items are being asked again due to interest in examining any potential changes over time. 25. How many undergraduate level courses have you taught in which you implemented CEL? Please report the number of courses in total. For example, if you taught PSY 101 twice and PSY 200 once, all having implemented CEL, you would put three as your response. a. What was the average number of students in these courses? b. Please list the program of study these students mainly derived from. 26. Have you ever engaged with the Center for Community Engaged Learning at Michigan State University? a. Yes 111 i. Skip to “Do you intend to continue engaging with the Center for Community Engaged Learning at Michigan State University in the future?” 1. Yes 2. No 3. I’m not sure b. No - i. Skip to: “Do you intend to engage with the Center for Community Engaged Learning at Michigan State University in the future?” 1. Yes 2. No 3. I’m not sure c. I’m not sure i. Skip to: “Do you intend to engage with the Center for Community Engaged Learning at Michigan State University in the future?” 1. Yes 2. No 3. I’m not sure 27. Have you ever engaged with the Office of University Outreach and Engagement at Michigan State University? a. Yes i. b. No i. Skip to “Do you intend to continue engaging with the Office of University Outreach and Engagement at Michigan State University in the future?” 1. Yes 2. No 3. I’m not sure Skip to: “Do you intend to engage with the Office of University Outreach and Engagement at Michigan State University in the future?” 1. Yes 2. No 3. I’m not sure c. I’m not sure i. Skip to: “Do you intend to engage with the Office of University Outreach and Engagement at Michigan State University in the future?” 1. Yes 2. No 3. I’m not sure 112 Thank you for your participation in this survey. Your responses have been recorded. If you have any questions pertaining to this survey, please reach out to Taylor Martin at crismant@msu.edu. 113 APPENDIX G: CEL TECHNIQUES AND PRACTICES – IMPACT AND EFFORT RATINGS Table 16 CEL Techniques and Practice - Impact and Effort Ratings Category Theme Impact on Implementation Average Rating Effort Required Average Rating M SD M SD Engagement Reflection Dialogue Clear, consistent, and timely communication with all stakeholders Involving key stakeholders in decision making Building meaningful and genuine relationships across stakeholders Identifying and addressing power differentials among stakeholders Utilizing a strengths-based approach that centers community partners as experts 2.00 1.88 1.88 0.00 0.35 0.35 1.38 0.52 1.50 0.54 1.63 0.52 2.00 0.00 1.88 0.35 2.00 0.00 1.88 0.35 1.63 0.52 1.50 0.54 2.00 0.00 1.50 0.54 114 Table 16 (cont’d) Student-focused Promoting student competencies and learning Preparing students for successful and beneficial community engagement that avoids harm Encouraging cultural competence and humility Design and Methods Utilizing evidence based practices and frameworks to inform design and implementation Utilizing technology to promote collaboration and engagement 2.00 0.00 1.38 0.52 2.00 0.00 1.63 0.52 2.00 0.00 1.63 0.52 2.00 0.00 1.50 0.54 1.75 0.46 1.63 0.52 Promoting sustainability 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 Respect Establishing trust across stakeholders Establishing clear expectations, roles, and boundaries for all stakeholders 2.00 0.00 1.75 0.46 2.00 0.00 1.75 0.46 115 Table 16 (cont’d) Demonstrating and scaffolding how to navigate professional relationships Reciprocity Co-creating knowledge Establishing realistic goals and expectations based on the needs and goals of stakeholders Fairly compensating stakeholders for their participation Power Sharing Facilitating an understanding of group dynamics and how to address challenges when needed Adapting classroom and pedagogical practices to promote equitable distribution of power and knowledge creation Social Justice Identifying and addressing biases and systemic social justice issues 1.88 0.35 1.63 0.52 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.88 0.35 1.38 0.52 1.50 0.54 1.75 0.46 1.88 0.35 1.50 0.54 1.88 0.35 1.88 0.35 2.00 0.00 1.75 0.46 116 Table 16 (cont’d) Establishing a foundational, shared understanding of social justice and how it applies to the context of the CEL experience Demonstrate and promote genuine interest in listening to - and learning about - others Encourage and provide opportunities for students to engage with social justice issues that they find important Intentionally engaging with community partners with shared social justice values, goals, and practices Demonstrating and promoting empathy Empowerment Fostering and scaffolding independence and agency for stakeholders Providing encouragement and positive, constructive feedback to stakeholders Promoting engagement and voice of stakeholders Expressing gratitude and appreciation 1.88 0.35 1.50 0.54 1.88 0.35 1.25 0.46 2.00 0.00 1.38 0.52 2.00 0.00 1.88 0.35 2.00 0.00 1.13 0.35 1.88 0.35 1.75 0.46 1.88 0.35 1.50 0.54 1.88 0.35 1.57 0.54 2.00 0.00 1.13 0.35 117 Table 16 (cont’d) Creating safe and inclusive spaces 1.88 0.35 1.25 0.46 Demonstrating and scaffolding how to navigate challenges 1.75 0.46 1.50 0.54 118 APPENDIX H: CEL IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST Basic Techniques and Practices Utilize the checklist below to track utilization of recommended basic techniques and practices for community engaged learning implementation. These practices are considered quick wins (i.e., they require low effort to implement and have high impact). Reflection Promoting student competencies and learning Establishing realistic goals and expectations based on the needs and goals of stakeholders Demonstrating and promoting empathy Demonstrating and promoting genuine interest in listening to - and learning about - others Encouraging and providing opportunities for students to engage with social justice issues they find important Expressing gratitude and appreciation Creating safe and inclusive spaces Advanced Techniques and Practices Utilize the checklist below to track utilization of recommended advanced techniques and practices for community engaged learning implementation. These practices are considered major projects (i.e., they have high impact, but require high effort to implement). To promote clarity, these techniques and practices are categorized by common themes. Engagement-focused __ Utilizing a strengths-based approach that centers community partners as experts __ Dialogue __ Identifying and addressing power differentials among stakeholders __ Clear, consistent, and timely communication with all stakeholders __ Building meaningful and genuine relationships across stakeholders __ Involving stakeholders in decision making Student-focused __ Encouraging cultural competence and humility __ Preparing students for successful and beneficial community engagement that avoids harm Design and Methods __ Utilizing evidence-based practices and frameworks to inform design and implementation __ Utilizing technology to promote collaboration and engagement __ Promoting sustainability 119 Promoting Respect __ Establishing trust across stakeholders __ Demonstrating and scaffolding how to navigate professional relationships __ Establishing clear expectations, roles, and boundaries for all stakeholders Promoting Reciprocity __ Fairly compensating stakeholders for their participation __ Co-creating knowledge Promoting Power Sharing __ Facilitating an understanding of group dynamics and how to address challenges when needed __ Adapting classroom and pedagogical practices to promote equitable distribution of power and knowledge creation Promoting Social Justice __ Establishing a foundational, shared understanding of social justice and how it applies to the context of the CEL experience __ Identifying and addressing biases and systemic social justice issues __ Intentionally engaging with community partners with shared social justice values, goals, and practices Promoting Empowerment __ Providing encouragement and positive, constructive feedback to stakeholders __ Demonstrating and scaffolding navigating challenges __ Promoting engagement and voice of stakeholders __ Fostering and scaffolding independence and agency for stakeholders 120 Key Values and Tenets Consider the community engaged learning values and tenets presented below. Utilize the prompts to reflect on their presence in your CEL practice. This may be considered broadly as an exercise in examining the values most prevalent in your practice generally or may be considered for a specific implementation of CEL. Respect Implemented? If yes, how? If not, how could it be? ___Yes ___No Reciprocity Implemented? If yes, how? If not, how could it be? ___Yes ___No Power Sharing Implemented? If yes, how? If not, how could it be? ___Yes ___No Social Justice Implemented? If yes, how? If not, how could it be? ___Yes ___No Empowerment Implemented? If yes, how? If not, how could it be? ___Yes ___No 121 Intentional and authentic relationships Implemented? If yes, how? If not, how could it be? ___Yes ___No Ethics Implemented? If yes, how? If not, how could it be? ___Yes ___No Evidence-based practice Implemented? If yes, how? If not, how could it be? ___Yes ___No Social change/action Implemented? If yes, how? If not, how could it be? ___Yes ___No Indigenous practices and ways of knowing Implemented? If yes, how? If not, how could it be? ___Yes ___No Reflection and introspection Implemented? If yes, how? If not, how could it be? ___Yes ___No 122 Sustainability Implemented? If yes, how? If not, how could it be? ___Yes ___No Participatory community engagement Implemented? If yes, how? If not, how could it be? ___Yes ___No Place and space Implemented? If yes, how? If not, how could it be? ___Yes ___No 123 APPENDIX I: CEL FACILITATORS, BARRIERS, AND CHALLENGES FACTOR AUDIT Consider the major factors that impact community engaged learning, presented below. Utilize the prompts to reflect on their impact on your CEL practice, including how these factors may be leveraged and/or addressed. Note: These may be considered broadly as an exercise in examining the factors most prevalent in your practice generally or may be considered for a specific implementation of CEL. Facilitators (factors that promote/support CEL implementation) Well-established, consistent partnerships between the facilitator and community partner(s) Present? ___Yes ___No If present: ways that this facilitator could be leveraged in CEL implementation: If not present: strategies for gaining this facilitator: Impact (1 = low to 5 = high) __1 __2 __3 __4 __5 Planning for CEL implementation success in advance Present? ___Yes ___No If present: ways that this facilitator could be leveraged in CEL implementation: If not present: strategies for gaining this facilitator: Impact (1 = low to 5 = high) __1 __2 __3 __4 __5 Faculty/instructor practitioners facilitating CEL implementation are passionate about - and dedicated to - the work/topic/project. They are enthusiastic and respond to challenges with increased drive and determination. Present? ___Yes ___No If present: ways that this facilitator could be leveraged in CEL implementation: If not present: strategies for gaining this facilitator: Impact (1 = low to 5 = high) __1 __2 __3 __4 __5 124 Barrier (factors that prevent CEL implementation, progress, or participation) Stakeholders do not have adequate time available for CEL implementation, delivery, and/or participation Present? ___Yes ___No If present: ways that this barrier could addressed: If not present: strategies for ensuring that this barrier does not occur in the future: Impact (1 = low to 5 = high) __1 __2 __3 __4 __5 Challenges (factors that represent areas for growth or improvement for CEL implementation, progress, or participation) Identifying projects that are in line with community partner needs and student learning objectives/goals Present? ___Yes ___No If present: ways that this barrier could addressed: If not present: strategies for ensuring that this challenge does not occur in the future: Impact (1 = low to 5 = high) __1 __2 __3 __4 __5 Ensuring that projects are both useful and feasible for all stakeholders within the scope and constraints of the course Present? ___Yes ___No If present: ways that this barrier could addressed: If not present: strategies for ensuring that this challenge does not occur in the future: Impact (1 = low to 5 = high) __1 __2 __3 __4 __5 Establishing and upholding clear, shared expectations across stakeholders Present? ___Yes ___No If present: ways that this barrier could addressed: If not present: strategies for ensuring that this challenge does not occur in the future: Impact (1 = low to 5 = high) __1 __2 __3 __4 __5 125 Ensuring that students are receiving adequate and appropriate levels of support and scaffolding from the facilitator(s) and community partner(s) Present? ___Yes ___No If present: ways that this barrier could addressed: If not present: strategies for ensuring that this challenge does not occur in the future: Impact (1 = low to 5 = high) __1 __2 __3 __4 __5 126