Testing A Pedagogical Pathway to Transformative Learning

You are currently viewing Testing A Pedagogical Pathway to Transformative Learning

Civic Engagement and Community-based Learning: Testing A Pedagogical Pathway to Transformative Learning

Abstract

Harry Boyte (2008) contended that civic agency requires an “enabling environment” and a “broader set of capacities and skills required to take confident, skillful, imaginative, collective action in fluid and open environments where there is no script” (pp. 10—11). The Field Immersion Framework (FIF), an adaptable four-stage pedagogical scaffold, engages students in place-based learning and civic engagement by immersing them in contentious civic issues in the communities in which the issues are contested. In several iterations of an FIF-structured course focused on the stewardship of public lands, we implemented a reflection activity that drew on elements of Hoggan’s (2016) typology for transformative learning outcomes. We asked students to consider their experiences throughout a nine-day immersion learning experience and to map those experiences into the transformative outcomes. Of 136 undergraduate students from a wide range of majors, the majority (>86%) reported transformative outcomes related to changes in their worldview (i.e., changes in values, beliefs, and/or expectations and questioning ideas about social roles). More than half reported outcomes related to epistemology and ontology (i.e., questioning ideas related to previous beliefs and trying out new roles, respectively). When asked to identify specific activities that promoted those transformative learning outcomes, students cited interactions with community partners (>70%) and structured explorations of place (>50%). These results indicate that FIF-based courses that engage students with real civic issues promote transformative learning.

Introduction

In framing the evolution of higher education’s civic-engagement efforts, Harry Boyte (2008) evoked a song made famous by Civil Rights leader Dorothy Cotton, “We are the ones we have been waiting for,” to describe the aim of teaching to support the development of students’ civic agency. This type of teaching requires not only actions by individuals but also “collective capacity to act on common challenges across differences” (p. 10). Boyte contended that civic agency requires an “enabling environment” and a “broader set of capacities and skills required to take confident, skillful, imaginative, collective action in fluid and open environments where there is no script” (p. 10 and 11, respectively). The U.S. higher education ecosystem is diverse and complex with institutions spanning the continuum from urban to rural, the layers of the Carnegie classifications, and the Department of Education’s Minority-Serving Institution designations. Even with unique and interesting institutions filling the diverse niches within that landscape, most institutions share a core commitment to preparing students to be engaged members of their communities and to contribute to the common good. Through curricular and co-curricular efforts, faculty and staff members structure programming to connect students with the core principles of our democracy, learn to ask key questions that draw on lessons of the past while looking to the future, and engage with their communities and the diverse persons who live within them. In doing so, they seek to cultivate that “broader set of capacities and skills” for an engaged civic life.

At Longwood University, a public master’s comprehensive institution in rural Virginia, we use a flexible pedagogical scaffold, the Field Immersion Framework (FIF), to engage students across academic disciplines in learning through contentious civic issues (Pederson et al., 2022). In communities across the continent or a few blocks from campus, students explore big issues that challenge our democracy today and will carry forward into their lives as professionals and engaged citizens. While those issues manifest differently in different communities, students’ explorations of them include elements that transfer across issues and locations: considering contentious questions, genuine experiences with diverse stakeholders and community partners, exploring challenging perspectives through real conversation, grappling with conflicting data, and engaged explorations of built and natural landscapes and the communities therein.

The FIF has four stages that structure students’ experiences. It begins with Foregrounding, the stage in which readings, activities, lectures, and discussions prepare students for the place-based stage. The next stage, Immersion, steep students in key civic issues through experiential learning with fieldwork, community-based research, and dialogue with community partners. Students experience the civic issues in the communities in which they are contested and in conversation with people who live with those issues. The third stage, Reflection, is applied iteratively throughout the course, and it engages students in recording their prior assumptions and evolving understanding during field research. Civic Agency, the culminating stage, challenges students to address a contentious civic issue. 

The origin of the FIF dates back to 2006 when the first course was offered in Yellowstone National Park. Since then, instructional teams have built a diverse portfolio of courses focused on challenging civic issues such as immigration, climate change, stewardship of public lands, water rights, and more. Formally articulated as the FIF in 2015, the framework itself and the courses structured with it have been the subject of scholarly research to understand student learning and faculty experience.

Theoretical Framework

Pederson et al. (2022) contextualized the FIF within the rich scholarly landscape of transformative learning, particularly the key transformative learning outcomes synthesized by Hoggan (2016). Hoggan grounded his effort in the seminal work of Mezirow (1978, 1991) and its schema of concepts, such as domains of learning and habits of mind, and processes, such as disorienting dilemmas, critical dialogue, and critical self-reflection. In examining the work that built on Mezirow’s foundation, Hoggan (2016) distilled key learning outcomes characteristic of transformative learning and presented a typology to support future work. That typology included worldview (e.g., assumptions learners have about the world in which they live), self (e.g., ways in which learners see themselves and convey their stories), epistemology (e.g., a learner’s way of knowing), ontology (e.g., a learner’s “deeply established mental and emotional inclinations”), behavior (e.g., actions that learners take), and capacity (e.g., changes in learners’ cognitive development and consciousness; Hoggan, 2016). Hoggan’s (2016) typology has been invaluable in our seeking to understand transformative learning within the context of FIF courses.

Science education scholar Mark Newton and colleagues have drawn on the socioscientific issues framework in their research on student outcomes in FIF courses. They have used survey instruments and structured interviews to plumb the student experience. That research has yielded insights as to students’ emotive reasoning (Herman et al., 2020); their learning across key socioscientific outcomes such as ecological worldview, social and moral compassion, and scientific evidence (Herman et al., 2021); and key outcomes often tied to traditional liberal arts (Herman et al., 2018). Newton built on that exploration by connecting with students at multiple time points, including program alumni years after their FIF course experiences (Newton & Olvey, 2025; Newton, 2025).

Other relevant scholarship includes Lettner-Rust et al.’s (2023) work at the nexus of civic engagement and scientific communication. Specifically, they emphasized the ways in which students’ place-based explorations of civic issues promote scientific communication skills. Cannata et al. (2021) explored the experiences of faculty members who are teaching collaboratively within dynamic contexts and often in extra-disciplinary dialogue with colleagues and community members. Consider both theory and practice in teaching-and-learning contexts that include civic engagement and community-based learning. The challenges and opportunities for faculty members and their instructional partners (e.g., student affairs practitioners, librarians) cover a spectrum from the exciting and enriching, to the nearly terrifying. In total, this body of scholarly work emphasizes the value of the FIF in promoting key student learning outcomes as well as providing rich professional experiences for faculty and staff.

Methodology

Study Overview

This study utilized data from an assignment designed to capture transformative learning outcomes while also helping students to reflect on their experiences in Yellowstone National Park. In their Immersion activities, students interrogated contentious civic issues like the reintroduction of wolves, protections for wildlife that migrate beyond park boundaries, and management of visitor activities. Close- and open-ended questions were asked as part of the “Turning Point” activity to capture shifts related to Hoggan’s (2016) typology, including changes in worldview, self, ontology, epistemology, capacity, and behavior. The Turning Point is the culminating activity on the last day of the Immersion stage. On a worksheet formatted to ensure consistency across years, students answered close-ended questions about their experiences during the course and responded to a prompt that asked them to explain a moment at which their perspectives changed in a meaningful and memorable way. After approximately 30 minutes of quiet, individual work, students had the opportunity to share their Turning Points with their peers and instructors.

Participants

The analysis included students who completed the Longwood University at Yellowstone National Park course in 2022, 2023, and 2024. The sample size for all students who completed the Turning Point activity in those three years was 136.

Data Collection and Analysis

Longwood University’s Institutional Review Board reviewed and approved the research protocol prior to data collection; the study qualified for exempt status under federal regulations because it involved minimal risk to participants. Before participating, students were informed verbally that their work may be used for research purposes, and that information provided them with context for some of the close-ended questions. Turning Point worksheets were collected and de-identified, and responses to close-ended questions were entered into a spreadsheet.

Open-ended questions were coded thematically with two primary themes: community partners and Place as Text explorations. In the close-ended questions, respondents were given 12 statements from the Learning Activities Survey (LAS; King, 2009) and asked to circle any that applied to their experience in the FIF course. The LAS statements included:

  1. This experience has changed my values, beliefs, and/or expectations.
  2. I had an experience that caused me to question the way I normally act.
  3. I had an experience that caused me to question my ideas about social roles. Examples of social roles include how people with certain identities (e.g., student, mother, father, child, cowboy, leader, Native American, scientist, etc.) should act.
  4. As I questioned my ideas, I realized that I no longer agreed with my previous beliefs or role expectations.
  5. As I questioned my ideas, I realized I still agreed with my beliefs or role expectations.
  6. I thought about acting in a different way from my usual beliefs and roles.
  7. I felt uncomfortable with traditional social expectations.
  8. I tried out new roles so that I would become more comfortable or confident in them.
  9. I tried to figure out a way to adopt these new ways of acting.
  10. I began to think about the reactions to and feedback on my new behavior.
  11. I took action and adopted these new ways of acting.
  12. I do not identify with any of the statements above.

These 12 statements were mapped to transformative learning categories (see Table 1). The LAS has been “developed to detect, identify, and categorize transformative experiences” (Caruana et al., 2015, p. 28). To date, however, the LAS has never been connected to Hoggan’s (2016) typology.

Findings

Transformative Learning Outcomes

In the 12 close-ended questions that asked students to reflect on their learning experiences and that mapped to Hoggan’s (2016) transformative learning categories, all students answered that they experienced at least one transformative learning outcome (Table 1). Notably, no student circled the final statement, “I do not identify with any of these statements.” The most frequently cited transformative learning outcome was worldview, which was addressed with two statements: “I questioned ideas about social roles” (affirmed by 63.23% of students) and “This experience changed my values, beliefs, and/or expectations” (affirmed by 86.02% of students).

Table 1. Percent of students affirming transformative learning outcomes.

Turning Point QuestionHoggan’s Transformative Learning CategoriesPercent Affirmed Experience

This experience has changed my values, beliefs, and/or expectations


Worldview


86.02%


Question ideas about social roles


Worldview


63.23%


Changed beliefs


Capacity


40.44%


Question ideas and agreed with previous beliefs


Epistemology


52.94%


Uncomfortable with traditional social expectations


Epistemology


24.26%


Tried out new roles; became more comfortable/confident


Ontology


52.20%


Tried to figure out a way to adopt new ways of acting


Ontology


45.58%


Acted in a different way from usual behavior


Behavior


33.82%


I took action and adopted new ways of acting


Behavior


33.08%


Thought about reactions to new behaviors


Self


41.91%


Question normal actions


Self


48.52%


I do not identify with any of these statements


None


0.00%

Note. N=136

Changes in students’ worldview also were captured in their written responses to reflection questions about their experiences. One student wrote,

In movies and TV shows, we are shown the strife that animals and humans have with one another. Before LU@YNP [the Longwood University at Yellowstone National Park course], I always felt as though it was one of the biggest challenges a species had to deal with…. However, researching the GYE [Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem] for the past ten days has taught me that coexistence is a beautiful and harmonious thing. The first time I ever saw wild animals sharing land, food, or air with each other was when we saw a grizzly bear, a coyote, and a pronghorn sharing the same strip of land. Before this observation, I thought predator and prey could not interact without a fight, but I was wrong.

More than half of students (52.94%) identified with the Epistemology-focused statement, “I questioned my previous ideas/beliefs and agreed with previous beliefs.” While that statement stops short of students’ shifting their viewpoints, in affirming it, students admitted to interrogating and adding to their own perceived knowledge. One student wrote, “My values were strengthened when I met Hannibal [a generational rancher in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem]. He showed a lot of insight into what I want my future career field to be. I feel like that meeting may be a basis for my beliefs in the field of agriculture.”

More than half of students (52.02%) affirmed the Ontology-focused statement, “I tried out new roles and became more comfortable/confident.” This was echoed in some of the open-ended responses in which students discussed becoming more confident. For example, one student was asked to take a leadership role during a hike. Though admittedly “terrified,” she then experienced a Turning Point upon being successful in the role. She wrote, “Self-confidence has always been something I’ve struggled with, so to feel the perspective of myself, my capability, my power – the change was otherworldly.”

Approximately one in three students (33.82%) affirmed Behavior-focused statements that read, “I acted in a different way from my usual behavior” and “I took action and adopted new ways of acting.” While many students did not affirm these close-ended statements, their open-ended responses documented their intention to change their behaviors. One student wrote, “Something about myself I see differently is wanting to preserve wildlife and the importance of really slowing down and trying to connect with nature.” Another student wrote about behavior they did not want to adopt, “Many people get too close to the wildlife, leave trash in the park, drive and park horribly, and basically don’t abide by many of the rules that are available to the public in visitor centers and by park rangers themselves. By seeing most of this behavior during this trip, I learned how to not act in parks or any other area similar to the GYE [Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem].”

Some transformative learning outcomes were affirmed by lower percentages of students. Only 24.26% of students affirmed the statement, “I became uncomfortable with traditional social expectations.” This statement represents Epistemology because it indicates that students are thinking critically, evaluating how they know things, and challenging their own socialization in some way. Though only approximately one in every four students affirmed this statement, the open-ended responses again show that some students did experience this transformation. As one student wrote,

I have had the opportunity to travel to YNP [Yellowstone National Park] before with my family, and I can confidently say that my perspective on the area has changed as a result of this class. On my previous trip, I considered the wildlife to be in the park more for the viewing pleasure of the tourists coming into the park. Now I see that the park is home for them, and they lived in an area that is now YNP long before it was a park. I have a much greater respect for the wildlife of the park and the park as a whole after this experience.

Community Engagement Outcomes

In this analysis, we focused on two community engagement programmatic elements: intentional meetings with community partners and Place as Text explorations. Community partners included guest speakers who shared expert knowledge or direct experience with an issue. These partners accompanied students into the field to convey knowledge in meaningful local contexts, brought resources and information into a classroom setting, or shared their lived experiences on their ranch or in their home. In FIF courses, instructional teams emphasized the connections of students with community partners who brought diverse opinions, educational backgrounds, and experiences. Place as Text, developed by the National Collegiate Honors Council, was a pedagogy that engaged participants in “reading” places through critical observations, conversations, and mapping (Braid & Long, 2000; Braid & Quay, 2021).

Students were asked to identify experiences that influenced their thinking, values, behaviors, or expectations. Most students (>70%) cited interactions with community partners, and more than half cited their experiences during their Place as Text explorations (Table 2). Notably, only 11.76% of students reported any other option (including faculty and peer interactions), which is further evidence of the importance of direct community engagement in promoting transformative learning outcomes.

Table 2. Programmatic elements cited by students as influencing their values, behaviors, beliefs, opinions, or expectations.

Changes in values, behaviors, beliefs, opinions, or expectations

Community Partners
70.59%

Place as Text Community Explorations
50.74%

Other
11.76%
Note. N=136

The students’ written responses further highlight the importance of community partners and the transformative power of learning about civic issues from them. One student wrote, “Seeing how passionate the Wolf Tracker group [an ecotourism company and long-time program partner] was opened my eyes to how important nature and wildlife topics are here.” While another student commented,

Originally, I was leaning more toward the side of a lot of wolf management. As in reducing their numbers significantly to help ranchers. However, after hearing from rancher Anderson [a generational rancher in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem] and the Wolf Tracker guides, I am not sure if that would be a good idea.

Students also reflected on the influence of interactions with community partners on learning about themselves as individuals. One student wrote, “Every time Scott [a community partner who is the Executive Director of Project Indigenous, a non-profit organization] shared his knowledge and experience, … I learned about my own spiritual connection with nature.” Another student wrote, “I really stepped out of my comfort zone because previously, I was only talking to people in my circle. I started approaching people I normally wouldn’t have and unlocked this new way of learning or gaining knowledge.”

Students clearly recognized both the expertise and the passion that community partners shared with them. These interactions shifted their perspectives and beliefs and perhaps even influenced future actions, as this student indicated: “I learned that not everyone is going to have the same perspective as I do, but by listening to [community partners] and treating their views/opinions with respect, I am helping myself to truly be open and be able to truly listen.”

Students cited Place as Text explorations in their Turning Point reflections. These intentional-but-unscripted explorations clearly provided students with new information and perspectives to consider: “When speaking with people in the community, I started to form my own opinions about topics I otherwise was indifferent about.” Another student wrote, “I never really understood how local communities would be impacted by YNP. I understand now there is a balance to preserving one of the most beautiful places in the world but also keeping surrounding communities happy and successful.” Yet another student wrote, “In PAT [Place as Text] at all three locations, I received many different answers to my questions. These interactions changed my thinking and made me question myself and the stakeholders more carefully.”

Discussion

Around the United States, faculty and staff members face a daily tension: contributing to an institutional mission focused on preparing students to make contributions to the greater good while navigating the dynamic political context of our higher education ecosystem today. They need tools to promote civic engagement and community connections while avoiding the searchlights of watchdogs looking to punish them. At the core of the FIF is a central tenet: engagement with real, unresolved civic issues in the community in which they are contested promotes students’ transformative learning.

Though previous work (e.g., Pederson et al., 2022) articulated the connections between the pedagogical framework and transformative learning outcomes, the present research makes the critical extension to data on student learning outcomes. After completing the Immersion stage of the FIF-structured course, 136 students were asked to self-report if they had experienced any changes. They were presented with close-ended questions comprised of 12 statements from the LAS (King, 2009) as well as open-ended questions focused on their Turning Point during the course. Every student affirmed at least one close-ended measure of transformation, and every student was able to provide specific examples as to how they had experienced change. In their responses to the close- and open-ended questions, students reported change with respect to transformative learning outcomes, including shifts in worldview and changes in other areas of Hoggan’s (2016) typology. In fact, 86.02% of students self-reported that they had, “changed my values, beliefs, and/or expectations.” When asked what prompted those changes, the most common response was interactions with community partners (70.59%).

Boyte (2008) called for pedagogical approaches to civic agency that extended beyond the work of individuals to “collective capacity to act on common challenges across differences” (p. 10). The students’ self-reporting of the importance of their interactions with community partners and their Place as Text explorations in local communities connects directly to this aim: they learned – not individually but as part of a diverse learning community – to interrogate important challenges and to do so by intentionally seeking out, listening to, and reflecting on different experiences, perspectives, and data. Thus, FIF-structured courses create an “enabling environment” (Boyte, 2008; p. 10) for transformative outcomes through civic engagement. Further, as evidenced in the students’ reflections, the FIF model engages them in practicing with a “broader set of capacities and skills required to take confident, skillful, imaginative, collective action in fluid and open environments where there is no script” (Boyte, 2008; p, 11). 

Acknowledging the real fear felt by faculty and staff members and the perilous contexts in which many of them work, particularly those in certain geographic areas, we contend that the flexible FIF model offers a way forward. It is an approach to promote transformative learning, civic engagement skills, and genuine community connections while navigating institutional boundaries of what is and is not politically charged. We can and must continue to do this important work, to provide our students with the challenge and support needed in the “enabling environment” of a course setting so that they may be better prepared for the hard work of civic engagement in their post-college lives. As professors, librarians, and student affairs professionals, we, ourselves, can take “confident, skillful, imaginative, collective action” in the fluid environments of our time by offering our students a “democracy laboratory” experience within FIF-structured courses. In doing so, “We are the ones we have been waiting for.”

Conclusion

The FIF was created to support faculty in developing and implementing courses focused on place-based teaching and learning within contentious civic issues. In practice, faculty members noticed that students were doing more than just learning about civic issues: they also were developing as individuals. We have used Hoggan’s (2016) transformative learning typology to better understand how FIF-structured courses cultivate change in our students. Based on students’ self-reported data, the greatest changes have occurred in students’ worldviews. While not all transformative learning outcomes were equally achieved, data indicate that all students experienced at least some level of transformation. Students directly linked those changes to experiences with community partners and Place as Text explorations, which are two programmatic elements that embed community engagement into the place-based curriculum.

Directions for Future Research

This study examined student reflections at the end of the Immersion stage to better understand transformative learning in the field. For future research, investigators could focus on transformative learning outcomes at the conclusion of Civic Agency, the FIF’s final stage. While some researchers explored outcomes with a small number of students immediately after Civic Agency and then again one year later (e.g., Newton & Olvey, 2025), expanding the sample size at these critical time points would provide more comprehensive insights.

Limitations

These data are not derived from random sampling, nor are they generalizable to other FIF courses. Therefore, inferential statistics were not utilized in this analysis.

References

Boyte, H. C. (2008). Against the current: Developing the civic agency of students. Change, 40(3), 8–15.

Braid, B., & Long, A. (Eds.). (2000). Place as text: Approaches to active learning. National Collegiate Honors Council.

Braid, B., & Quay, S. E. (Eds.). (2021). Place, self, community: City as Text™ in the twenty-first century. National Collegiate Honors Council.

Cannata, S. M., Peters, J., Dowling Fink, A., Kinman, E. L., Pederson, J., Poplin, P. L., & Znosko, J. B. (2021). Lost in learning: Mapping the position of teacher in the classroom and beyond. In B. Braid & S. E. Quay (Eds.), Place, self, community: City as Text™ in the twenty-first century (pp. 21–46). National Collegiate Honors Council.

Caruana, V., Woodrow, K., & Pérez, L. (2015). Using the Learning Activities Survey to examine transformative learning experiences in two graduate teacher preparation courses. InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 10, 25–34.

Herman, B. C., Newton, M. H., & Zeidler, D. L. (2021). Impact of place-based socioscientific issues instruction on students’ contextualization of socioscientific orientations. Science Education, 105, 585–627. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21618

Herman, B. C., Owens, D. C., Oertli, R. T., Zangori, L. A., & Newton, M. H. (2019). Exploring the complexity of students’ scientific explanations and associated nature of science views within a place-based socioscientific issue context. Science & Education, 28, 329–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00034-4

Herman B. C., Sadler T. D., Zeidler D. L., & Newton M. H. (2018). A socioscientific issues approach to environmental education. In G. Reis & J. Scott (Eds.), International perspectives on the theory and practice of environmental education: A reader (pp. 145–161). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67732-3_11

Herman, B. C., Zeidler, D. L., & Newton, M. (2020). Students’ emotive reasoning through place-based environmental socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 50, 2081–2109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9764-1

Hoggan, C. D. (2016). Transformative learning as a metatheory: Definition, criteria, and typology. Adult Education Quarterly, 66(1), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713615611216

King, K. P. (Ed.). (2009). The handbook of the evolving research of transformative learning: Based on the Learning Activities Survey. Information Age Publishing.

Lettner-Rust, H. G., Fink, A. D., Kinman, E. L., Pederson, J. G., & Poplin, P. L. (2023). Embedding the scientists: Civic issues as context for teaching and learning. Journal of the Assembly for Expanded Perspectives on Learning, 28, Article 10. https://doi.org/10.7290/jaepl28ekGO

Newton, M. H., & Olvey, C. (2025). In their own words: Student experiences. In A. D. Dowling Fink, J. Pederson, & H. G. Lettner-Rust (Eds.), Experiential civic education: Encouraging student engagement using the field immersion framework (pp. 119–139). Routledge.

Newton, M. H. (2025). Leaving a trace: Program alumni and the lasting impressions of transformative learning experiences. In A. D. Dowling Fink, J. Pederson, & H. G. Lettner-Rust (Eds.), Experiential civic education: Encouraging student engagement using the field immersion framework (pp. 197–208). Routledge.

Pederson, J. G., Lettner-Rust, H. G., Dowling Fink, A. D., Fink, M. L., Gutierrez, A. R., Kinman, E. L., Koski, C. M., Mergen, M. J., Poplin, P. L., Rhoten, M. C., Roberts, B. S., & Znosko, J. B. (2022). The Field Immersion Framework: A flexible pedagogy for experiential civic education. Journal of Transformative Education, 20(3), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/15413446221103175

Authors

JoEllen Pederson is a professor of sociology at Longwood University. A campus leader in integrating service-learning and quantitative methods into a variety of course contexts, she has been part of the faculty team for LU@YNP since 2014 and has co-taught LU@Alaska since 2017.

Phillip Poplin is professor of mathematics at Longwood University and is the past chair of the Department of Mathematics and Computer Science. He has participated in the LU@YNP program since 2011 and has co-taught the LU@Alaska course since 2017.

Alix D. Dowling Fink, professor of biology, currently serves as Longwood University’s associate provost for research and academic initiatives. Through more than two decades of national engagement in honors and STEM education, she contributed to pedagogical innovation in authentic, place-based experiences that promote civic agency, including the LU@YNP program.