As we wrap up this series on signature work in higher education, in this final post, I explore the future of signature work research. 

Current State of Signature Work Research 

The varying types of signature work are not new in higher education, nor are high-impact practices (HIPs) as a whole. Signature work emerged as a term to describe culminating undergraduate experiences that aim to synthesize student learning and apply such knowledge to a real-world situation (AAC&U 2015). While there is substantial research about both general HIPs and the originally defined practices, signature work research is more limited. The existing literature focuses primarily on the benefits of these experiences, such as enhanced critical thinking, deeper engagement, and better preparedness for post-graduate opportunities (Kuh 2008; Budwig and Jessen-Marshall 2018; Bell et al. 2023). However, there is still significant room for exploration and improvement in this area of research.  

Identifying Gaps in Signature Work Research 

The concept of signature work is prevalent in higher education research, but a critical gap lies in the lack of consistent language used to define and describe signature work. Existing research highlights how institutions often use varying terminology to refer to similar activities, which can create confusion among students, faculty, and external parties like future employers (McClellan 2015; Egan et al. 2018). This inconsistency makes it difficult to find existing signature work literature, establish uniform understanding of signature work, and communicate the value of these experiences.  

In addition to these linguistic variations when referring to signature work, there are other gaps and challenges that appear across the research. One such issue is determining whether these experiences should be mandatory for undergraduates. McClellan (2015) suggests that making signature work a requirement can increase and guarantee engagement, but future research should investigate the potential implications of mandatory participation on inclusivity and accessibility. Similarly, much of the existing literature provides suggestions for institutional implementation of signature work experiences, but more research can and should be done internally to understand necessary considerations for specific institutional contexts (Kinzie 2013; McClellan 2015; Bell et al. 2023).  

Finally, there is limited research about the incorporation of a variety of signature work types across disciplines. Kinzie (2013) highlights the most common types of discipline-based signature work, which complements literature-wide findings that certain types of signature work are more prevalent in certain disciplines. For instance, internships are traditionally associated with professional disciplines, while research may be more common in STEM fields. Therefore, future research should investigate how less traditional forms of signature work, such as community-based learning beyond the humanities, can be successfully implemented and integrated into curriculum. Further investigation is also needed to examine the potential of these culminating experiences in other contexts and the possibility of taking a more interdisciplinary approach to signature work (Peden 2015).  

Future Directions for Signature Work Research 

To address the aforementioned gaps, future research should focus on the following directions:  

• Defining Signature Work as a High-Impact Practice: Clarifying the definition of signature work and evaluating its status as a high-impact practice (HIP) is crucial. Future research should also give attention to identifying and assessing consistent student learning outcomes due to engagement with signature work (Kinzie 2013; Budwig and Jessen-Marshall 2018; Low et al. 2018).  
• Mandatory Participation: Investigating the impact of required signature work on outcomes and accessibility is also essential (McClellan 2015). More longitudinal studies are needed to assess long-term outcomes and impacts on equity.  
• Innovative Implementations: Current research demonstrates the benefits of many types of signature work on improving student outcomes (Jach and Trolian 2019). Future research should investigate effective methods for implementing signature work experiences, with an emphasis on flexibility and innovation (Hayden-Roy et al. 2018).For more information about institutional readiness for implementing signature work, refer to the Institutional Examples & Institutional Readiness blog post. 
• Interdisciplinary Approaches: Future research should explore interdisciplinary models of signature work through collaboration across academic departments and fields of study. Integrative learning and synthesis of knowledge are key components of signature work, and therefore, institutions should incorporate these principles when designing opportunities for engagement with these experiences (Peden 2015).  
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI): Future research should focus on how signature work and high-impact practices as a whole can better serve marginalized student groups. Culturally responsive teaching and learning communities have proven to be beneficial in supporting these students, but more research can and should be done to ensure that signature work frameworks provide equitable access and outcomes (Bryant 2021).For more information about addressing DEI in signature work, refer to the Impact of Signature Work blog post. 

Call to Action 

Higher education institutions must collaborate to create a cohesive framework and language around signature work. By sharing insights, best practices, and research findings, institutions can create a more uniform approach to implementing and scaling signature work experiences, which helps to ensure that they are beneficial and accessible to all students. Addressing the gaps in the existing literature and pursuing future research will allow for signature work experiences that better prepare students for success in their academic, professional, and personal lives.  

References 

American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). 2015. “The LEAP Challenge: Education for a World of Unscripted Problems.” Liberal Education 101 (1–2). ERIC. http://www.aacu.org/publications/index.cfm   

Bell, Sandra, Frederick T. Evans, Shannon Murray, and Margaret A. Smith. “Adapting a Capstone: Projects and Portfolios Across Four Courses and Three Institutions,” in Cultivating Capstones: Designing High-Quality Culminating Experiences for Student Learning, edited by Caroline J. Ketcham, Anthony G. Weaver, and Jessie L. Moore, 124-133, New York, NY: Routledge, 2023. https://www.routledge.com/Cultivating-Capstones-Designing-High-Quality-Culminating-Experiences-for-Student-Learning/Ketcham-Weaver-Moore/p/book/9781642674170. 

Bryant, Samantha Jo. 2021. “An examination of high-impact strategies that increase success in marginalized student groups.” Community College Enterprise, 27(2): 58-73. https://home.schoolcraft.edu/cce/27.2.58-73.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   

Egan, Mike, Kristi Kneas, and Reder Michael. 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   

Jach, Elizabeth A., and Teniell L. Trolian. 2019. “Defining Applied Learning and Related Student Outcomes in Higher Education.” New Directions for Higher Education, 188: 7–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20340   

Kenzie, Jillian. 2013. “Taking Stock of Capstones and Integrative Learning.” Peer Review 15 (4): 27–30. http://bonner.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/110067769/Kinzie-%20Taking%20Stock%20of%20Integrative%20Capstones.pdf. 

Kuh, George D., Carol Geary Schneider, and Association of American Colleges and Universities. 2008. High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. https://www.aacu.org/publication/high-impact-educational-practices-what-they-are-who-has-access-to-them-and-why-they-matter. 

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.  

About the Author 

Hannah Southern is an Assistant Registrar at Elon University, where she’s also enrolled in the Masters in Higher Education program.  

How to Cite this Post 

Southern, Hannah. 2025. “The Future of Signature Work Research.” Center for Engaged Learning (blog). 05/16/2025. https://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/the-future-of-signature-work-research.