Coaching Graduate Students Through Early Childhood Focused Community-Engaged Learning:

Abstract

Community-engaged learning (CEL) in graduate-level coursework contributes to professional development and growth. CEL course design requires intentional and time-intensive planning. A graduate-level child development course was designed for CEL using the following process: needs assessment, training for community education, preparing materials, practicing with feedback, presenting to an authentic audience, and reflection on the experience. Students created presentations for authentic parent audiences based on a needs assessment of parent interest in child development topics. Reflections from four students in the course were analyzed using a general thematic analysis technique. Three themes emerged. Students experienced individual growth, students reported community connection from preparing materials for an authentic audience, and students reflected on the importance of peer and mentor support.

Keywords: community-engaged learning, service learning, child development, graduate-level course design

Introduction

Community-engaged learning (CEL) is a high-impact educational practice that integrates academic learning within community settings and is often referred to as learning by doing (Whitmore, 2023). Through this hands-on approach, students and faculty work with community partners as an integral part of their academic coursework. Community partners come from a wide array of fields such as government entities, business institutions, social organizations, or local neighborhoods. This type of collaborative partnership is designed to be mutually beneficial for all parties involved (Morton et al., 2019) by offering practical and professional skill development for students (Cooke & Kemeny, 2014), providing a service or product for the community partners (Whitmore, 2023), and allowing faculty to stay connected in their field of study (LaFrombois & Mittal, 2023). CEL experiences, also referred to as service-learning in some literature, give students a deeper understanding of content while promoting social awareness and civic responsibility. An integral component of the CEL structure is a reflection opportunity for students that enables them to connect their work back to the classroom (Eyler, 2002). This process helps them understand how they and their community partners benefit from the communal sharing of knowledge. The purpose of this study is to give voice to the graduate student perspective of completing community engagement assignments in a graduate-level child development course and to explain the course design of a CEL graduate-level child development course.

Student Learning Through Community-Engaged Experiences

Research confirms that students assess CEL positively (Whitmore, 2023). In this context, they see the practical application of their traditional textbook lessons, which increases their engagement and motivation (Morton, 2019). These experiences allow students to apply theoretical, analytical, and methodological learning while addressing real-life issues within a community setting (LaFrombois & Mittal, 2023). Ngai et al. (2018) found that the most effective service-learning courses “are associated with challenging and meaningful tasks, interest in the subject/project, perceived benefits to people served, preparation for service, and appreciation of the service by the people served” (p. 55).

In CEL courses, students also engage in collaborative processes with faculty, peers, and community partners. This educational process can be more stressful and time-intensive for students (Morton, 2019) because it falls outside of the realm of traditional classroom practices. However, research on CEL shows that when students reflect on the outcomes of their experiences, they describe that their learning developed on a deeper level (LaFrombois & Mittal, 2023).

Graduate Student Perspectives on Community-Engaged Learning

There is an inherent need to understand student perspectives in the development of CEL courses (Caspersz & Olaru, 2015). However, much of the current research provides student feedback from the undergraduate level (e.g., Berard & Ravelli, 2021; Caspersz & Olaru, 2015; Chan et al., 2017; Leary & Sherlock, 2020; Sedlak et al., 2003; Varghese et al., 2012). There is less empirical research that describes graduate student perspectives of these experiences in graduate coursework (e.g., How, 2014; Stolow et al., 2023; Velten, 2016). The research that has explored the graduate student perspective has included reports of expanded professional development and growth (Stolow et al., 2023). Graduate students in Hou’s (2014) study reported an appreciation for the CEL experience and learning that extended beyond a textbook with the focus on creating a more meaningful project because of the authentic community audience. Additionally, they reported a strong engagement with the course, an appreciation for the practicality of learning to work with community audiences and the opportunity to create “concrete products for local communities to use to serve their clients better” (Hou, 2014, p. 7). The present study aims to address the gap in research on graduate student experiences with CEL by highlighting their perspectives on community engagement assignments in a graduate-level child development course. By capturing their insights, this research seeks to inform course design and enhance the effectiveness of CEL at the graduate level.

Faculty Roles in Community-Engaged Courses

CEL can be an effective pedagogical tool at all grade levels, including in higher education (Dinour et al., 2019). In his call-to-action essay, Boyer (2016) admonished universities to reconnect with their communities by implementing more CEL practices through their coursework and identified this as the “scholarship of engagement” (p. 16). This approach effectively supports land grant universities’ missions of community outreach and service learning (LaFrombois & Mittal, 2023), thus connecting the classroom with the real world in a way that provides students and faculty with the opportunity to share academic content with non-academic community partners.

Implementing CEL pedagogy in higher education requires curricular planning and intentional alignment between course learning outcomes and community needs (Morton et al., 2019). From a faculty perspective, CEL requires more time arranging for the logistics, aligning the syllabi (including course objectives to include learning about community needs and involvement) and overall course planning and execution (Bluth, 2022; LaFrombois & Mittal, 2023; Holtzman & Menning, 2015). In a systematic literature review, Culcasi and Venegas (2023) outlined standards of quality to use in evaluating CEL course design, including structured reflection, small-sized working groups that allow for peer review of work, heterogeneity in skills and knowledge domains, follow-up from faculty, and formal partnerships between the university and community partners. Although quality course design is time intensive, the mutually beneficial relationships for community, student, and teacher improve learning, prompt meaningful classroom reflection and discussion, and support the public good (USU Division of Student Affairs, n.d.).

Research available on the student experience with CEL is often content-area specific. Although little research is available about integrating service learning into undergraduate child development courses (see Miller et al., 2002), the authors are unaware of any available literature on CEL in graduate-level child development courses.

Methods

This study was approved by the authors’ IRB, protocol #13509. After the course ended and IRB approval was obtained, graduate student participants were contacted for permission to use their reflections from the course. Because the sample size is small (n = 4) and the information was not collected, no demographic information is reported on the students. Below, we review our method for designing and delivering the course, followed by the methodology for this study.

Course Design and Delivery

Coaching for Community Education Model

Graduate students were guided through the process outlined in Table 1 as part of their coursework in a graduate-level child development course. There was a mixture of both Ph.D. level and master’s level students at various stages of degree completion. The authors are not aware of any previous experience students had with CEL. One group of students worked on creating presentations and conducting interviews for an online Child Development Education Summit (CDES) while the other created presentations for a Utah Association for the Education of Young Children (UAEYC)-sponsored Playshop (30 community participants) that was delivered face-to-face. The CDES (275 community participants) consisted of online presentations on child development topics, both student-created presentations and presentations from professionals in fields such as nutrition, occupational therapy, early childhood education, and other child development-related fields. The summit included interviews conducted by the graduate students with nationally- and internationally-recognized topic-specific experts. The UAEYC Playshop was a five-hour community-based workshop serving early childhood educators, childcare workers, and parents of young children. The Playshop hosted a keynote speaker and break-out sessions for parents and educators that focused on child development topics. The graduate students led the parent sessions and focused on the topics derived from the parent needs surveys. Student participation in these events was determined by the student enrollment in specific sections of the course. All students were tasked with similar assignments following community member needs assessments.

Needs Assessment

Following Dean’s (2002) model of needs assessments and instructional design, the graduate students involved in the projects gained experience with all four levels of assessment including 1) assessing and developing skills, 2) developing content knowledge, 3) learning about the learners, and 4) understanding the learning contexts. The following section explains the process in more detail.

Assessed and Developed Skills

This required assessing “philosophical assumptions, experience, and skills” (Dean, 2002, p. 2). Each student came with a different background and experience. Together, students shared their experiences and learned to prepare to teach an authentic audience. Weekly class periods and student-led discussions focused on current empirical research ending the discussion period with a focus on how to share the materials with non-academic audience. Content of the course also focused on principles of community education as covered by Duncan and Goddard (2016) and Darling et al. (2022).

Developed Content Knowledge

Prior to the semester of the course, the instructor contacted parents who had children enrolled in the university-affiliated preschool programs. The directors of the preschool programs and parents answered a needs assessment survey about topics of child development that were of interest or important to them. From that needs assessment, the course curriculum was built. After the second needs assessment outlined below, the curriculum was slightly adjusted to address new topics of interest so students could complete a deep dive into the child development topics on which their presentations would focus.

Learned About the Learners

The graduate students developed a second needs assessment at the beginning of the semester. Again, the needs assessment was given to parents with children in the university-affiliated preschool programs. This needs assessment also included questions asking parents about the modality of delivery that best fit their needs (i.e., online, Zoom, podcast, in-person), the length of time of presentations, and the days of the week that worked best for participants for an event. Furthermore, directors of the university-affiliated preschool programs joined the class to explain current needs and common questions received from parents about child development to help build materials.

Understood the Learning Contexts

The course instructor was a Certified Family Life Educator and included materials focused on adult education in nonformal settings. A university instructional designer explained presentation tools, recording for online learning, appropriate length of presentations in online contexts, and strategies for maintaining attention in online settings. For the students working with the UAEYC conference, the conference director provided additional information regarding the context, number of attendees, layout of the room, and access to the presentation room prior to the presentation for an opportunity to practice in the actual space.

Train for Community Education

Weekly course content included current academic, peer-reviewed research on audience-identified topics surrounding child development. Course discussions of the assigned readings ended with the question, “How can we share this information with a non-academic audience?” This discussion facilitated the weekly practice of taking research-based materials and distilling the information into valuable elements for individuals in the target audience. The course content also included materials on adult education, profiles of adult learners, preparing academic materials for community education, and presentation skills.

Prepare Materials

The course was structured to have multiple submissions of the students’ selected presentation materials at various points in the process, with opportunities for feedback from both peers and the instructor. Students prepared lesson plans using academic, peer-reviewed research and other strong materials (e.g., research-based materials developed by national early childhood organizations). The lesson plans were submitted, received instructor feedback, and revised. Presentations were developed, received peer and instructor feedback, and revised.

Practice With Feedback

Class periods close to the events were dedicated to practice. Students practiced during class time with feedback from the class and instructor. Students preparing online materials also prepared recordings before the event, received feedback from a peer and feedback from the instructor, and then updated materials and re-recorded. Students preparing for the live event practiced during class time with feedback and practiced with their peers in their section for additional feedback and revision. Past research suggests peer review in CEL projects can promote internal reflection and evaluation (Nunn & Braud, 2013).

Present to an Authentic Audience

All students prepared materials for individuals with the same target audience: parents with children between the ages of 3–6. Both sets of students received feedback from community members.

Reflect on Experience

Effective CEL in higher education requires student reflection following community engagement (Caspersz & Olaru, 2015; Eyler, 2002). Students were assigned a reflection following their specific community events. Students were asked to write a reflection summarizing their experience, evaluating their performance, and considering improvements for the future. They began by providing an overview of their experience, detailing key moments and insights gained. Following this, they assessed what aspects of their product and process were successful and identified areas that could be improved, encouraging critical thinking about both their outcomes and methods. They then reflected on the entire experience, discussing what they found useful, what worked well, and what they would approach differently in the future. Additionally, they were prompted to think creatively about how they would design their own summit, applying their learning in a hypothetical but practical scenario. The reflection concluded with a synthesis of key takeaways and overall impressions, tying together their insights from the experience.

Beyond being an integral component of CEL, student reflections were used analyze the student experience in this graduate-level child development course. Furthermore, as outlined below, student reflections touched on each element of the course design including Dean’s (2002) needs assessment model, training elements, preparing materials with peer and mentor feedback, practicing, and presenting to an authentic audience.

Data Analysis

Data from student reflections were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This process involved researchers independently immersing themselves in the data, joint discussion of patterns and commonalities, thematic identification, independent data coding using identified themes, joint discussion of coding, and resolution when there was not alignment in coding. Each researcher read through the student’s reflections independently. The researchers met to discuss commonalities in the data. Together, the researchers identified three major themes within the data. With the identified themes, each researcher coded the data independently. When coding did not align, researchers discussed the responses until a consensus was reached. To reach consensus, the researchers revisited the full response, discussed the context of the response, and each explained their coding selection. As Creswell (2013) suggested, an intercoder percentage of agreement was calculated by dividing the total number of coding agreements by the total number of possible codes. There was 87% agreement between coders, which is an appropriate level of agreement in qualitative research (Creswell, 2013).

Results

Data are reported in order of thematic prevalence. The three themes that emerged in the data were 1) individual growth, 2) community connection, and 3) peer and mentor support.

Individual Growth

The primary theme in the data was individual growth. This theme consisted of students’ comfort level with the project, topic refinement, practice opportunities, personalization and owning the project, learning in the process, and gaining skills that extended beyond the course. Across the semester, student comfort level with the project, as well as their confidence, grew. At the beginning of the semester, some students approached “excited” where others came in with “self-doubts” and noted that the project felt “daunting at times.” All students left the semester with confidence in their skills and abilities. They explained it was a “positive learning experience,” that they were able to get “past all my self-doubt,” and they “consider it a huge success across the board.”

Additionally, individual growth was expressed as students detailed how they personalized their materials and took ownership of the elements they were building. Personalizing included personal ownership in material construction and utilizing strengths from past education experiences and applying them to the current task. For example, a student had information from master’s level research that they were able to implement and be a topical “resident expert” for the CDES. This student said:

Preparing for the CDES was my first opportunity to compile what I believed to be the most important information as the resident expert on the topic, a title which was thrilling to hold and which I did not take lightly.

Other students felt growth through the semester and expressed that ownership and personalization contributed to a meaningful experience with the project. A student remarked that this course project felt “much more meaningful than writing yet another literature review.” Similarly, another student noted that the project allowed them to utilize information from graduate school in a meaningful manner. They stated:

. . . the fast-paced environment of graduate school makes it easy to take in information only to dump it the same week in favor of the following week’s content. In . . . compiling my module content, approaching the [assigned topic] as a new researcher and someone who was applying the information to real families was one of the most informative and holistic exercises I have had.

Students spent time researching their topics across the semester. Learning emerged in student responses as a critical element of individual growth. A student who was having difficulty in the process noted that:

Once I decided that this was my presentation and I needed to make it mine and not what I thought everyone else thought I should make it. I need to remember this in the future! . . . I need to remember that I know a lot of this information and have a lot I can share with parents.

Another student noted, “I was never exposed to as much research as many members of the HDFS community as I have been at [this university], largely because of the experiences I sought for and was given by the summit.” For this student, seeking out information because of completing the project led to growth and expanded expertise in child development.

Within individual growth, students also said they gained skills that helped with professional development and could be used in the future. A student reflected, “This is something I would love to continue doing in my future career. I definitely plan to use some of the skills that I gained from the project in the future.” Another student pointed out this was an opportunity to expand knowledge in areas beyond their primary research areas, and they grew as scholars.

Community Connection

Student responses emerged with expressions of the power of connecting with an authentic audience. They discussed the needs assessment the course conducted with a sample of the intended audience and how audience input helped build more robust materials. One student expressed the course had a strong starting point and they “felt like their [the audience’s] precise needs were being met” because of the needs assessment. Additionally, one student reached out to parents with children within the age range while developing materials to ensure the content was meeting their needs. Another student stated:

I also felt that all of the basic domains of childhood (internal and external development, parent concerns, research highlights) were covered extensively, and the summit offered a deep dive into an array of other topics that are not typically touched upon in mainstream parenting resources (sports, siblings technology, conversations that do not perpetuate fear, discussion of the purpose of play, etc.).

Sharing resources was a noted highlight with students expressing they were “excited to share” what they had created, that they had created “an excellent resource for parents.” Furthermore, developing materials for an authentic audience was important and added depth and meaning to the course project.

Having an authentic audience to develop materials for and to share research in an applicable manner was important for the students completing this project. A student said, “It was encouraging to create a product that I believe could help parents who engaged with the material and put it into practice.” Another similarly stated, “I found that I really enjoyed making something for a non-academic audience, especially because it was directly helping caregivers in some capacity.” Another student stated:

The best part of the summit was developing an information dump of sorts to share with the class and the parents—people who can actually do something with said information. The motivation for research should be to improve the lives of those we study; without a commitment to sharing the information with those it impacts, academics would simply be screaming into the void.

Peer and Mentor Support

The students recognized the value of peer and mentor support through their reflections on mentoring from the instructor of the course, as well as the UAEYC Playshop coordinator. They also noted the value of the scaffolded opportunities and support from peers. Student perceptions of peer and mentor support included seeing value in opportunities for low-stakes feedback before the planned events, and a means for building a supportive team mentality among them.

Students perceived mentor support as including brainstorming and idea generation, resolving concerns while building materials, practicing and receiving feedback, and being informed about the process of building the programming throughout the semester. Mentor scaffolding was mentioned as useful, including “week-to-week training [the instructor] provided.” A student expressed the instructor helped “foster ownership and personal responsibility, while still providing necessary levels of scaffolding and life-skills training.”

Peer support came in the form of practicing with peers, receiving feedback from peers, and peer review of final products. Updates to student projects based on peer support and feedback included refining slide decks, improving the professional appearance of materials, and wording updates for non-academic audiences. A student said, “I am glad that we took the time to present in person as well as do peer reviews for our recorded content. The peer review process was probably the most useful and beneficial portion of our preparation stage.” The perception of peer support built through the process contributed to a student’s thoughts that, “I was incredibly proud of the work that the class put into the summit, as a whole.” Another noted, “members of the course worked well together and sincerely tried to support each other in developing a quality product.”

In summary, student reflections included three primary themes: 1) individual growth, 2) community connection, and 3) peer and mentor support. Student reflections included personal and scholarly growth, including a connection between their scholarly pursuits and an authentic audience. Both peer and mentor support were integral to student success through the project.

Discussion

This study aimed to explain the graduate student perspective on completing community-engagement assignments in a graduate-level course as well as explain the course design. The reflections from the graduate-level students support the value of implementing CEL in graduate courses. The significant themes in the student responses were individual growth, community connection, and peer and mentor support. Student perceptions in this study align with past research and contribute additional voices at the graduate-level of the meaningful nature of CEL.

Individual growth was the most predominant theme in student reflections. Similar to past research, students in this study expressed increased engagement and motivation that moved beyond traditional approaches (Morton, 2019). The experience was viewed as challenging, and student reflections were positive overall, aligning with past research that suggested CEL is assessed as a positive learning experience by students (Whitmore, 2023), including positive professional development and growth (Stolow et al., 2023). By examining the course design and student experiences, this study adds to the understanding of how CEL assignments contribute to personal and professional development in graduate education. Additionally, results from this study support findings from Hou (2014) of appreciation for the experience as well as learning beyond a textbook.

For students in this study, community connection involved creating materials that aligned with actual needs, and students were excited to share what they created using research-based materials. A key goal of the course design was to foster authentic engagement with the community, allowing students to apply their knowledge in meaningful ways. Students in this study shared experiences that aligned with suggestions by Eyler (2002) that service-learning may contribute to students’ positive attitudes toward community engagement, develop lifelong skills, and increase interaction and engagement through an authentic connection with the community. Furthermore, student reflections aligned with past research that suggested effective service-learning projects are challenging, meaningful, and beneficial to the community (Hou, 2014; Ngai et al., 2018). By incorporating community-engagement assignments in graduate child development curriculum, we see CEL coursework enhancing graduate students’ sense of connection to their field and local communities.

The final theme of peer and mentor support provides new understanding and support for including a peer review element in CEL course design. Similar to the findings by Nunn and Braud (2013), peer review and evaluation were helpful in creating higher-quality projects. Working together in small groups to provide feedback built camaraderie and turned the projects into team-supported efforts. The inclusion of peer and mentor support in the course design was intentional, which allowed us to explore how these efforts shape the graduate student experience in CEL assignments. As a noticed quality indicator of CEL course design (Culcasi & Venegas, 2023), the peer review and support process was mentioned by students as beneficial. The importance of peer review in CEL needs additional research to understand better and improve the practice of integrating peer review into CEL projects.

Implications and Limitations

In support of Morin et al.’s (2016) suggestion to find “innovative ways to embed community engagement within disciplines” (p. 154), this project is an example of one way that graduate-level coursework can be structured to connect with communities. Furthermore, providing opportunities for community engagement in graduate-level education can be preparatory professional development for graduate-level students seeking to continue with the professoriate and those seeking engagement experience for future employment in the public, non-profit, or private sectors (Doberneck et al., 2017).

Student participation in the event was meaningful, and having an authentic audience that could use the materials changed how students approached coursework. As a student mentioned, the project felt “much more meaningful than writing yet another literature review.” As noted by Culcasi and Venegas (2023), “[service learning] strengthens the link between theory and practice, classroom, and reality, education and commitment” (p. 39). Students in the present study verified this.

The study limitations included a small sample size and reflections from only one semester of the course. As LaFrombois (2023) concluded, “a drawback to many of these partnerships is that they are usually based on a discrete project that lasts only one semester” (p. 495). In this study, requests for access to presentations have continued beyond the end of the semester. Suggestions for future research include designing ways to extend community partnerships beyond the typical semester. Future course iterations should be examined for similarities and differences in student experiences as well.

Conclusion

There are challenges and opportunities associated with CEL, as discussed throughout this paper. However, these types of university-community partnerships provide unique opportunities for students to engage with their coursework in hands-on ways that provide benefits to all parties involved. There is a call to action for institutes of higher education to continue to find innovative ways to share knowledge through these collaborative practices (Morton et al., 2019), and CEL is an example of an effective way to do so.

References

Becnel, K., & Moeller, R. A. (2017). Community-embedded learning experiences: Putting the pedagogy of service learning to work in online courses. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 32(1), 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2016.1265443

Berard, A., & Ravelli, B. (2021). In their words: What undergraduate sociology students say about community-engaged learning. Journal of Applied Social Science, 15(2), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1936724420975460

Bluth, S. (2022). Community-engaged teaching: Opportunities and challenges for graduate instructors. In Clem, S. (Ed.), Exploring how we teach: Lived experiences, lessons, and research about graduate instructors by graduate instructors. Utah State University.

Boyer, E. L. (2016). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 20(1), 15–27.

Caspersz, D., & Olaru, D. (2015). The value of service learning: The student perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 42(4), 685–700. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1070818

Chan, S. C. F., Ngai, G., & Kwan, K. (2017). Mandatory service learning at university: Do less-inclined students learn from it? Active Learning in Higher Education, 20(3), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417742019

Cooke, C. A., & Kemeny, M. E. (2014). Student perspectives on the impact of service learning on the educational experience. Schole, 29(1), 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/1937156X.2014.11949715

Culcasi, I., & Venegas, R. P. F. (2023). Service learning and soft skills in higher education: A systematic literature review. Form@re: Open Journal per la formazione in rete, 23(2), 24–43. https://doi.org/10.36253/form-14639

Darling, C. A., Cassidy, D., & Ballard, S. M. (2022). Family life education: Working with families across the lifespan (3rd ed.). Waveland Press.

Dean, G. J. (2002). Designing instruction for adult learners (2nd ed.). Krieger Publishing.

Delano-Oriaran, B., Penick-Parks, M. W., & Fondrie, S. (Eds.). (2015). The SAGE sourcebook of service learning and civic engagement. Sage Publications.

Dinour, L. M., Szaro, J., Blumberg, R., & Bose, M. (2018). A convergent mixed-methods exploration of the effects of community-engaged coursework on graduate student learning. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 50(6), 598–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2018.01.019

Doberneck, D. M., Bargerstock, B. A., McNall, M., Van Egeren, L., & Zientek, R. (2017). Community engagement competencies for graduate and professional students: Michigan State University’s approach to professional development. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 24(1), 122–142. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/mjcsl

Duncan, S. F., & Goddard, H. W. (2016). Family life education: Principles and practices for effective outreach (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

Eyler, J. (2002). Reflection: Linking service and learning—Linking students and communities. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 517–534. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00274

Felter, E. M., & Baumann, S. E. (2019). Development of a community-engaged classroom for teaching health communications: Lessons learned from nine semesters of implementation. Pedagogy in Health Promotion, 5(4), 246–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/2373379918824353

Harrington, C. (2021). Keeping us engaged: Student perspectives (and research-based strategies) on what works and why. Routledge.

Haddix, M. (2015). Preparing community-engaged teachers. Theory Into Practice, 54(1), 63–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2015.977664

Holtzman, M., & Menning, C. (2015). Integrating experiential learning and applied sociology to promote student learning and faculty research. College Teaching, 63(3), 112–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2015.1019825

Hou, S. I. (2014). Integrating problem-based learning with community-engaged learning in teaching program development and implementation. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2014.020101

LaFrombois, M. E., & Mittal, J. (2023). Introduction. In M. E. Heim LaFrombois & J. Mittal (Eds.), Routledge handbook of university-community partnerships in planning education (1st ed.). Routledge.

LaFrombois, M. E. (2023). Conclusion: Transforming the practice of planning through the collective impact of university-community partnerships. In M. E. Heim LaFrombois & J. Mittal (Eds.), Routledge handbook of university-community partnerships in planning education (1st ed.). Routledge.

Morin, S. M., Jaeger, A. J., & O’Meara, K. (2016). The state of community engagement in graduate education: Reflecting on 10 years of progress. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 20(1), 151–156.

Miller, K. K., Yen, S. C., & Merino, N. (2002). Service learning and academic outcomes in an undergraduate child development course. In S. H. Billig & A. Furco (Eds.), Service learning through a multidisciplinary lens. Information Age Publishing.

Morton, M., Simpson, A., Smith, C., Westbere, A., Pogrebtsova, E., & Ham, M. (2019). Graduate students, community partner, and faculty reflect on critical community engaged scholarship and gender-based violence. Social Sciences, 8(2), 71. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8020071

Ngai, G., Chan, S. C. F., & Kwan, K. (2018). Challenge, meaning, interest, and preparation: Critical success factors influencing student learning outcomes from service-learning. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 22(4), 55–80. https://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/jheoe/article/view/1417

Nunn, J. A., & Braud, J. (2013). A service-learning project on volcanoes to promote critical thinking and the earth science literacy initiative. Journal of Geoscience Education, 61(1), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.5408/11-271.1

Olwert, C. T., Toker, Z., & Minassians, H. P. (2023). Best practices from 28 planning program-community partnership projects. In M. E. Heim LaFrombois & J. Mittal (Eds.), Routledge handbook of university-community partnerships in planning education (1st ed.). Routledge.

Sedlak, C. A., Doheny, M. O., Panthofer, N., & Anaya, E. (2003). Critical thinking in students’ service-learning experiences. College Teaching, 51(3), 99–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567550309596420

Stolow, J., & Lederer, A. (2023). “I was learning every step of the way”: Student perceptions about a new required foundational Master of Public Health program planning course. Public Health Reports, 138(2), 378–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/00333549221074384

Varghese, J., Boeswald, B., & Campbell, S. (2012). Peer helpers in community-engaged learning (CEL): Reflections on a pilot. Teaching and Learning Innovations, 15.

Velten, J. C. (2016). Engaging the graduate student in learning through service learning: A case study. Journal of Service Learning in Higher Education, 5(1). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1186283

Whitmore, C. B. (2023). Teaching evaluation through community-engaged learning courses. American Journal of Evaluation, 42(2), 270–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/10982140221100448

Utah State University Division of Student Affairs. (n.d.). Community-engaged learning. Retrieved January 4, 2024, from https://www.usu.edu/cel/