The Society for Experiential Education Definitions and Principles Design Project

This is a summary of the a) background and methods and b) insights from early data collected in response to the initial design question: What problem would a definition of experiential learning solve?

In co-chairing this process we began a design process to lead the Society of Experiential Education (SEE) toward a new definition of Experiential Education and updated principles of practice, at the request of the Board of SEE. In the context of advancements in experiential education through the lens of new research, updated conceptual frameworks, novel models of practice, and broad institutionalization across higher education, the Board of SEE requested that the Research and Scholarship Committee explore and articulate an updated definition and principles of practice. This request led to a plan for a design process that incorporates the insight and experience of practitioners and scholars across experiential education programs and contexts. You might notice some tentative language in this summary as we are in the first of five stages of a design process, and we are circumspect now about knowing what the process will yield in 12 more months. That being said, we engage this reflective process with open minds and community-engaged posture. 

We’re modeling a process on IDEO’s human-centered design phases. It’s a simple and robust method focusing on developing solutions in service of people. It provides a fairly functional framework that people can follow, and serves as a map of both progress and reflection. This toolkit explains the process, in abstract. The project phases begin with Empathy building, understanding a common definition of a problem, ideation/brainstorming, prototyping, and testing. We anticipate an iterative cycle of data, sensemaking, and reflection in each phase. The phases are planned in consideration of academic breaks and common work times (i.e. semesters). The test will be the published updated definition and principles. Here are our operating principles. 

The HCD process includes five smaller investigations or inquiries. Since we aim to share our knowledge, we have established a research project hosted by University of Dayton, led by Dr. Karen Velasquez, and Dr. Michael Odio from the University of Cincinnati. 

1. Empathy. We’re redesigning this definition and values on behalf of stakeholders-members and others who we need to identify and empathize with through data gathering, storytelling, interviews, etc.
1. We’ll aggregate and share this data so everyone who wants to look (now and in the future) can see what the problems our stakeholders are/were facing.
2. Individuals and groups as stakeholders; are universities or schools ‘stakeholders’? 

2. We don’t yet know what challenges these stakeholders face, but once we do, we can co-define a problem or challenge.
1. And put it out for comment, review, feedback. We can make adjustments and finalize a problem statement.
2. time horizons for this version of the vision, meant to evolve 

3. Then we brainstorm concepts and definitions (and updated principles)
1. Present to larger groups, gather feedback, refine 

4. Then we try it out a leading definition and values set (time limited prototype)
1. We gather feedback about how it lands in public
         i.    key metric: what difference does this make?
                   1.  point back to stakeholder needs for functionality 

5. We test an option in the wild (aka deliverable)
1. Watch, learn, discuss, adjust, celebrate and share

Another layer of sharing this outline is that we expect our thinking to change. We will document changes along the way and do our best to acknowledge how our reflections and discussions led us to change our paths. This public iterative process, we believe, is essential to an engaging and useful outcome.

Finally, to create an inclusive and welcoming conversation at all points, we’ve adopted some principles of action in this process.

All are welcome. We’ll include broadly and keep track of who showed up when so we can establish communal input patterns to gather great amounts of insights; and watch for missing layers/groups who we need to hear from.
Participation is flexible. Show up when you can. You’ll be briefed and you’ll have an opportunity to contribute. We all have data gathering/analysis strengths and time constraints, so let's use them as best as we can.
Make and keep commitments. This is volunteer work AND  it shouldn’t last forever, so we’ll establish a schedule and move forward with the best decisions we can, and remain open to revision and reconsideration.
Own our decisions. I’ll be ‘it’ for a while, and we’ll need to establish a core/leadership group who breaks tie votes and whose job it is to seek and name consensus.
Communicate. We’ll keep track via logs, diary, data, attendance, and decisions. We’ll write a lot. We’ll do regular updates. We’ll create slide decks. We’ll tell our story in all the ways we can, during and after.

We want to create a definition and updated principles that are welcome and ultimately informative to SEE members and other experiential educators. The attempts here to document our process serve as a reminder of our commitments to sharing our work as we go through this process. 

The Society for Experiential Education Definitions and Principles Design Project

Phase 2 Summary
Bill Heinrich and Patrick Green

For context, the Society of Experiential Education (SEE) Board has commissioned the Research and Scholarship Committee to engage in the process of exploring an updated definition of Experiential Education and updated principles of practice. See Phase 1 Summary for background on the genesis and early steps in this process: https://www.societyforee.org/see-definitions-principles-project.

Phase 2. January-June 2024

The goals in phase 2 were to first, review and discuss phases 1 & 2 data and insights, and second, to gather feedback on a proposed Problem Statement. As with many human-centered design driven projects, stakeholder data collected in phase 1 informed the definition of the problem in phase 2.  Phase 1 stakeholder data collection focused on needs for an experiential learning (EL) definition and principles of practice. Stakeholders were broadly engaged, including various faculty and educational administrators in higher education, partner organizations that compose SEE membership, and members of other professional organizations committed to and engaged with experiential education. We asked what problem would a definition solve, and for whom? We gathered feedback and insights from the stakeholders in response to these questions through an iterative dialogue process in monthly meetings. In phase 2, we began to organize data into categories and themes to develop insights, and later, problem statements.

Our analyses of stakeholder data revealed three key foundations for a definition and framework for EL, which serve as pillars for this work:

• Prioritize Inclusivity, Accessibility, Authenticity
• Interdisciplinarity and Collaboration is foundational
• Research, Efficacy, Improvement shall be included

 When we arranged data by stakeholders and their needs, we began to see clustering into groups. Our analyses articulated categories of stakeholders engaged and invested in experiential learning:

Our analyses then revealed needs held by these stakeholders:

 We created two images to show our understanding of the arrangement of Experiential Learning work and the stakeholders involved.

First we see generalized arrangements of internal stakeholders related to EL work. A key insight here is the presence of and operations emerging around a campus-wide Experiential Learning Ecosystem, which provides an overview of internal campus stakeholders interested in and directly impacting experiential learning.

Experiential Learning Ecosystem

Next we see an overlay of hypothetical interactions with external stakeholders on top of internal stakeholders. Our key insight here is the role external stakeholders play in driving priorities and decisions, highlighting a need for shared meaning in an ecosystem to better communicate about the purpose, values, and mission of Experiential Learning. The heuristic clearly communicates the many stakeholders and the complexity of the Experiential Learning Ecosystem, which calls for shared meaning in each specific institutional context.

Interactions in the Experiential Learning Ecosystem

Throughout the iterative process of reviewing and engaging the data with stakeholders, we then built on these insights to propose problem statements that a SEE definition and principles project might address. We drafted and pitched these problem statements to stakeholders in May and June of 2024. These statements reflect refined versions following significant stakeholder engagement, challenges, questions, feedback, suggestions, edits, and clarifications. We pose these problem statements in three groups.

Group 1. Experiential Learning Ecosystem

1. How might we socialize practitioners (educators and administrators alike) to the ecosystem of EL? 
2. How might an ecosystem perspective inform individuals about the importance of their function/role on campus for EL?
3. How can a definition support movement through and evolution with the rest of the EL ecosystem?

Group 2. Sustainability and Scale

1. How might a definition lead to sustainability and scale through strategies including:

• Performance metrics
• Feedback loops,
• Decisions; allocating appropriate staffing, funding, & budgets,
• Supportive internal networks/relationships,
• Access, inclusive designs, and equitable participation, and
• Community/industry engagement

Group 3.  Multidimensional experiences lead to rich data

1. How might a definition clarify the inherently multidimensional quality of EL Data?
• Engagement and Purpose
• Student Development & Socio-Emotional
• Academic/Learning, Competency Development
• Career and Work-Readiness
2. How might a definition support Education and Assessment Design, Scholarship & Research gaps, Theory to practice needs, etc?
3. How might a definition create conditions in which data are responsibly transformed, repackaged, and reshared to add value to the EL enterprise at each level of the ecosystem.

In conclusion, as we continue the design process, our collective task is next to clarify our understanding of these challenges through the ongoing iterative process. We then begin phase 3 where we generate ideas (ideation) that might solve for the challenges (problem statements) summarized here. No idea is too big right now, and all ideas are welcome during the ideation phase. We will continue to invite all stakeholders to engage in this iterative process as we move through the design phases.