HomeBlogStudent Voices Implementing Signature Work: Institutional Examples and Readiness Strategiesby Carissa PotterMay 9, 2025 Share: Section NavigationSkip section navigationIn this sectionBlog Home AI and Engaged Learning Assessment of Learning Capstone Experiences CEL News CEL Retrospectives CEL Reviews Collaborative Projects and Assignments Community-Based Learning Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity ePortfolio Feedback First-Year Experiences Global Learning Health Sciences High Impact Practices Immersive Learning Internships Learning Communities Mentoring Relationships Online Education Place-Based Learning Professional and Continuing Education Publishing SoTL Reflection and Metacognition Relationships Residential Learning Communities Service-Learning Signature Work Student Leadership Student-Faculty Partnership Studying EL Supporting Neurodivergent and Physically Disabled Students Undergraduate Research Work-Integrated Learning Writing Transfer in and beyond the University Style Guide for Posts to the Center for Engaged Learning Blog Previous posts in this series have defined signature work, shared examples of types of signature work, explored the development of this potential high-impact practice, and examined its impact for students. In this post, I explore implementation of signature work at three institutions and offer strategies for building institutional capacity. Institutional Readiness: Key Components Successful implementation of signature work requires careful institutional preparation and sustained commitment. Multiple studies emphasize that institutions must develop comprehensive support structures to effectively implement and sustain signature work programs (Budwig and Low 2018; Budwig, Ratcliff-Cain, and Reder 2018; Hayden-Roy et al. 2018). These essential components include: Faculty development programs and ongoing training Interdisciplinary advising frameworks Aligned curricular structures Resource allocation strategies Administrative support systems Clear assessment processes Research indicates these foundational elements create an environment where signature work can flourish, particularly when institutions prioritize both student learning outcomes and faculty support (Budwig and Jessen-Marshall 2018; Low et al. 2018; McClellan 2015; Egan, Kneas, and Reder 2018). Model Programs in Action Several institutions have developed effective approaches to implementing signature work across their campuses, offering valuable insights for others seeking to enhance their programs. Studies of successful implementations emphasize the importance of institutional flexibility and adaptation to local contexts (Egan, Kneas, and Reder 2018; Peden 2015). Nebraska Wesleyan University Nebraska Wesleyan University stands out for its innovative approach to enhancing existing capstone programs. Hayden-Roy et al. (2018) describe how the university has successfully integrated multiple high-impact practices into their signature work initiative, strengthening both student engagement and learning outcomes. Their approach emphasizes seamless integration with existing curriculum while providing robust faculty development and support systems. The university has also incorporated flexibility into its planning, recognizing the inevitable “messiness” of curriculum changes. This adaptability allows institutions like Nebraska Wesleyan to revise plans as students’ needs evolve, ensuring long-term success and sustainability. Portland State University and the Portland Senior Capstone Fair The Capstone Fair is a faculty initiative that provides a venue where students can meet with the Capstone instructors and the community partners associated with Capstones. (Portland State) Portland State University offers another compelling model, particularly in its approach to community engagement via the Portland Senior Capstone Fair. Through strong community partnerships and interdisciplinary collaboration, the university has created meaningful opportunities for students to address real-world challenges through signature work projects (Rhodes and Agre-Kippenhan 2004; Peden 2015). Elizabethtown College Elizabethtown College provides a unique example of balancing structure with student choice. The college implemented a Signature Learning Experience (SLE) requirement, mandating all students complete two out of five high-impact practices (HIPs) beyond their first year. These SLEs included internships, research, community-based learning, cross-cultural experiences, and capstone projects, all designed to emphasize “Real World Learning” (McClellan 2015). Notably, Elizabethtown’s initiative stemmed from a recognition that underserved populations were engaging in HIPs at lower rates than their peers. By embedding SLEs into the curriculum as a requirement, the college ensured equitable access to these transformative experiences while preserving student autonomy in choosing pathways that aligned with their goals. Elizabethtown’s experience also highlights the complexity of defining signature work. The institution’s process for clarifying the characteristics of SLEs revealed significant overlap with existing HIPs, raising questions about whether signature work represents a distinct educational concept or serves as an umbrella for established practices. This ambiguity invites further research into the frameworks that establish signature work and how institutions can develop cohesive strategies to integrate it into their curricula. Summary of Examples These examples collectively emphasize that embedding signature work into institutional frameworks requires intentional design, flexibility, and a commitment to supporting both students and faculty. As shown in Peden’s (2015) survey of institutional practices, many colleges and universities successfully integrate signature work by categorizing it into areas such as applied and community-based learning, capstones, and e-portfolios. These categories reflect a shared commitment to fostering interdisciplinary integration, promoting civic engagement, and ensuring meaningful learning outcomes across diverse student populations. Challenges and Solutions The path to implementing effective signature work programs is not without obstacles. Research from multiple institutions identifies several common challenges that must be addressed for successful implementation (Budwig and Low 2018; Egan, Kneas, and Reder 2018; Hayden-Roy et al. 2018). These include: Resource allocation: Signature work requires significant resources for mentoring students and supporting experiential learning opportunities. Institutions like Elizabethtown College addressed this by embedding Signature Learning Experiences (SLEs) into their curriculum, ensuring resources were aligned with strategic priorities (McClellan 2015). However, supporting such initiatives is labor-intensive and particularly challenging when institutions strive to make them accessible to all students (AAC&U 2015; Budwig and Jessen-Marshall 2018). Faculty workload: Mentoring signature work adds to teaching and research responsibilities. Institutions such as Nebraska Wesleyan University have tackled this by aligning reward structures and offering faculty training to integrate high-impact practices into existing curricula (Hayden-Roy et al. 2018). Professional development and support systems are essential to sustaining faculty engagement (Budwig and Low 2018). Equity and accessibility: Institutions must ensure that underserved populations have equal access to signature work opportunities. Elizabethtown College’s requirement for all students to complete two SLEs addressed disparities in engagement while preserving flexibility for diverse student needs (McClellan 2015). Curriculum Integration and Flexibility: Embedding signature work into academic programs, starting as early as the first year, fosters deeper engagement over time. Institutions must remain adaptable to address the inherent complexities of curricular change and evolving student needs (Hayden-Roy et al. 2018; Peden 2015). Building Institutional Capacity Research consistently shows that building institutional capacity requires attention to multiple interconnected factors (Budwig and Jessen-Marshall 2018; Egan, Kneas, and Reder 2018; Low et al. 2018): Professional Development: Faculty training in mentoring practices, interdisciplinary collaboration, and assessment expertise is crucial for fostering a robust institutional framework (Budwig and Jessen-Marshall 2018; Egan, Kneas, and Reder 2018). Curriculum Integration: Embedding signature work opportunities throughout programs—beginning as early as the first year—ensures students can engage meaningfully across their academic careers (Budwig, Ratcliff-Cain, and Reder 2018; Hayden-Roy et al. 2018; Peden 2015). Resource Alignment: Prioritizing funding and support systems for high-impact practices enables institutions to maintain sustainability and accessibility (Egan, Kneas, and Reder 2018). Building institutional capacity is not a one-time effort but an ongoing process of aligning resources, priorities, and strategies. Institutions must cultivate a culture of innovation and adaptability, ensuring that their systems and structures evolve to meet the changing needs of students, faculty, and the broader educational landscape. By addressing these interconnected factors, colleges and universities can create a strong foundation for sustainable and impactful signature work programs. Looking Forward As institutions continue to develop and refine their signature work programs, maintaining a focus on equity and accessibility remains critical. Researchers emphasize the need for regular assessment and adaptation to ensure these programs effectively address evolving student and societal need (AAC&U 2015; Budwig and Jessen-Marshall 2018; Low et al. 2018). Strengthening community partnerships is essential, as these collaborations provide valuable opportunities for students to engage in real-world learning and apply their knowledge to meaningful challenges. Additionally, institutions must prioritize sustained faculty engagement by offering clear reward structures and ongoing professional development. By addressing these priorities, colleges and universities can ensure their signature work programs remain relevant, inclusive, and impactful for all stakeholders. References Association of American Colleges and Universities. 2015. “The LEAP Challenge: Education for a World of Unscripted Problems.” Liberal Education 101 (1–2). https://dgmg81phhvh63.cloudfront.net/content/magazines/Archive/LE_WISP15_Vol101No1-2.pdf. Budwig, Nancy, and Kathryn Low. 2018. “Institutional Readiness for Signature Work.” Peer Review 20 (2): 8–11. https://dgmg81phhvh63.cloudfront.net/content/user-photos/Publications/Archives/Peer-Review/PR_SP18_Vol20No2.pdf Budwig, Nancy, and Amy Jessen-Marshall. 2018. “Making the Case for Capstones and Signature Work.” Peer Review 20 (2): 4–7. https://dgmg81phhvh63.cloudfront.net/content/user-photos/Publications/Archives/Peer-Review/PR_SP18_Vol20No2.pdf Budwig, Nancy, Jane Ratcliff-Cain, and Michael Reder. 2018. “Student Preparation for and Engagement with Signature Work.” Peer Review 20 (2): 15–19. https://dgmg81phhvh63.cloudfront.net/content/user-photos/Publications/Archives/Peer-Review/PR_SP18_Vol20No2.pdf Egan, Mike, Kristi Kneas, and Michael Reder. 2018. “Defining and Framing Signature Work on Your Campus.” Peer Review, 20 (2): 8–11. https://dgmg81phhvh63.cloudfront.net/content/user-photos/Publications/Archives/Peer-Review/PR_SP18_Vol20No2.pdf. Hayden-Roy, Patrick, Tim Elgren, Kristi Kneas, Matt Malsky, and Michael Reder. 2018. “Process of Curricular Change and Strategies for Organizing Signature Work.” Peer Review, 20(2): 12-14. https://dgmg81phhvh63.cloudfront.net/content/user-photos/Publications/Archives/Peer-Review/PR_SP18_Vol20No2.pdf Low, Katherine, Sarah A. Kelen, Kyle Kopko, Fletcher McClellan, and Michelle Bata. 2018. “Assessing Signature Work.” Peer Review 20 (2): 24-28. https://dgmg81phhvh63.cloudfront.net/content/user-photos/Publications/Archives/Peer-Review/PR_SP18_Vol20No2.pdf McClellan, E. Fletcher. 2015. “Increasing Student Access to High-Impact Practices: Signature Learning Experiences at Elizabethtown College.” International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education 5, no. Special 3: 2556–61. https://doi.org/10.20533/ijcdse.2042.6364.2015.0347. Peden, William. 2015. “Signature Work: A Survey of Current Practices.” Liberal Education 101 (2): 22–29. https://dgmg81phhvh63.cloudfront.net/content/magazines/Archive/LE_WISP15_Vol101No1-2.pdf. Rhodes, Terrel L., and Susan Agre-Kippenhan. 2004. “A Multiplicity of Learning: Capstones at Portland State University.” Assessment Update 16 (1): 4–5, 12. https://research.ebsco.com/c/b2qt42/viewer/pdf/i52qb4dxqb About the Author Carissa Potter is a student in the Master of Arts in Higher Education program at Elon University, where she’s also the Graduate Apprentice for the Residence Life office. How to Cite this Post Potter, Carissa. 2025. “Implementing Signature Work: Institutional Examples and Readiness Strategies.” Center for Engaged Learning (blog). May 9, 2025. https://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/implementing-signature-work-institutional-examples-and-readiness-strategies/.
