Linking curricular experiences to leadership outcomes in a yearlong leadership development program

Leadership skills are increasingly being cited by employers as the skills most needed by recent college graduates entering the workforce (McClellan, 2021; National Association of Colleges and Employers, n.d.). The need to create engaged citizens and workforce-ready graduates has led to postsecondary institutions to respond in kind (Gigliotti, Ruben, & Goldthwaite, 2017; Oberg & Andenoro, 2019). Odom, Woodruff, Shehane, Dooley, and Stein (2021) noted that while leadership education existed in fragmented forms on various college campuses, the need for streamlined leadership education is necessary to meet students’ leadership development needs. Hence, national trends show the proliferation of leadership-focused programs, including academic majors and minors, leadership development programs, co-curricular and extracurricular leadership development programs, and other leadership development opportunities (Diallo & Gerhardt, 2017; Dugan & Komives, 2010; Dunn, Moore, Odom, Briers, & Bailey, 2019; Komives & Sowcik, 2020a; Komives & Sowcik, 2020b; Jenkins & Rocco, 2022).

One such program is a yearlong Leadership Academy at a research-intensive university in the United States. This formal leadership development program is offered to undergraduate students in the colleges of Agricultural Sciences and Forestry. Students from sophomore to senior standing apply and are selected through an application and interview process. The program includes a weekly two-hour leadership seminar, a one-on-one faculty mentorship, and a service-learning project where students make a small, positive impact on campus. Each term is thematically organized: personal leadership development (Fall), change (Winter), and legacy and contribution (Spring). Students register for an upper-division Leadership credit each term and are encouraged to apply for scholarships to further their development. The Academy curriculum, workshops, and speakers are aligned with these developmental themes and designed to scaffold learning across the three terms.

This study explored how students in this Leadership Academy perceive the relationship between curricular experiences and the development of specific leadership competencies. It further investigated how Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory (1984) may help leadership educators understand the connection between learning modes and student-reported development. Understanding these links allows educators to better align learning experiences with desired outcomes and intentionally design programming that supports student growth. The research questions guiding our investigation were:

Leadership development programs aim to equip students with mindsets and competencies for impact (Brungardt, Greenleaf, Brungardt, & Arensdorf, 2006), and these are often delivered through multi-modal, competency-based approaches. Considering the multi-modal instructional possibilities for leadership education programs (Bourgeois, Klaus, & McRay, 2022), as leadership educators at [University], we acknowledge the multiplicity of approaches to leadership education and that leadership can be viewed as a collection of skills or competencies applicable in various contexts. Competencies can be described as “skills, knowledge, experience, attitudes and behaviour that an individual needs to perform their work effectively” (Hirsh & Strebler, 1995, p. 79). Leadership competencies, specifically, are defined as the “knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics required to effectively lead people toward the achievement of organizational goals” (Fowler, 2018, p. 182) or the “leadership skills and behaviors that contribute to superior performance” (Society for Human Resource Management, 2022). There is a wide range of competencies, including multiple themes and broad categories such as organizational leadership, leading the self, and leading others (Gigliotti, 2019).

According to Seemiller (2013), important competencies for leadership development include learning and reasoning, self-awareness and development, group dynamics, civic responsibility, interpersonal interaction, communication, strategic planning, and personal behavior. Leadership competency inventories such as the Emotionally Intelligence Leadership Inventory (EIL) (Miguel & Allen, 2016), the Student Leadership Practices Inventory (SPLI) (Kouzes & Posner, 2013), and the Student Leadership Competencies framework (Rosch, 2018) help students evaluate their beliefs and ability to engage in each competency. A focus on competency development from a leadership educator’s position “allows us to more fully and purposefully explore the intersection of leadership knowledge and skills” (Gigliotti, 2019, p. 8).

The role of leadership educators in shaping curriculum, pedagogy, and developmental relationships to foster leadership competencies has been examined in the literature (Guthrie & Jenkins, 2018; Hastings, Sunderman, & Knopik, 2024). Extant scholarship in leadership education also highlights the value of an experience-based education that emphasizes the importance of the learner within the learning process (Guthrie & Jenkins, 2018; Jenkins, 2020). Jenkins’ (2020) work identified case studies, self-assessments, and discussion-based activities as the most predominantly used strategies in leadership educators’ pedagogical repertoires. Rosch and Jenkins (2020) critique the predominance of class discussion as potentially limiting questioning the degree of experiential learning it affords.

Studies have explored the evaluation of leadership skills and competencies acquired by leadership education students (Johnson & Routon, 2024; Bourgeois et al., 2022). However, clear links between curricular design, pedagogical choices, and competency development are less established, despite several studies exploring the efficacy of college leadership programs and the many positive impacts on students, universities, and employers (Cress, Astin, Zimmerman-Oster, & Burkhardt, 2001; Dugan & Komives, 2010; Kezar & Moriarty, 2000; Posner, 2009; Zimmerman-Oster & Burkhardt, 1999). While numerous models and methods for rigorous and pragmatic leadership development program evaluation exist (Jenkins & Allen, 2017; McKim & Velez, 2017; Peck, 2019; Owen, 2012; Rosch & Collins, 2019), there is a need for more holistic leadership competencies evaluation approaches (Seemiller, 2013).

As the field of leadership development evolves, it is imperative that leadership educators purposefully match data-driven practices with empirical research to design programs that deliver expected outcomes (Jenkins & Rocco, 2022; Owen, 2012). As leadership educators at [University], our goal for this study was to identify links between curricular experiences and specific leadership competencies, particularly through the four modes of Kolb’s (1984) Experiential Learning Theory. Identifying these linkages allows us and other leadership education practitioners to ensure that the outcomes of leadership programs align with their objectives.

Experiential Learning Theory (ELT), developed by Kolb (1984), provides a widely accepted model for understanding how people learn through experience. Grounded in constructivist learning theory, ELT defines learning as “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience” (Kolb, 1984, p. 41). Learning is considered a process rather than a product, which involves a resolution between dialectically opposed modes of adaptation to the world (Baker, Robinson, & Kolb, 2012). Learning is a constant negotiation of reflection and action and involves the whole person, including thinking, feeling, perceiving, and behaving (Baker et al., 2012).

Knowledge is a transformational process that is continually created and recreated, and learning involves transactions between the individual and the environment (Kolb, 1984). In a learning context, the environment might include the concepts, activities, and people (e.g. peers, instructors, guest speakers) with which students interact during a learning experience. Knowledge construction “results from experiences that have been grasped and transformed” (Baker et al., 2012) and involves dynamic tension among four learning modes, which are concrete experience, abstract conceptualization, reflective observation, and active experimentation (Kolb & Kolb, 2009). These modes form a cyclical process, whereby learners experience something (CE), reflect on it (RO), conceptualize or theorize from it (AC), and apply their new understanding (AE). Learning is thus viewed as an adaptive and continuous transformation of experience into knowledge.

Concrete experiences (CE) involve some sort of sensory and emotional engagement in an activity. It involves an encounter with a new situation or a reinterpretation of an existing experience. Concrete experience generally activates engagement through immersion and emotion. Reflective observation (RO) experiences are opportunities to make sense of concrete learning, which can come through listening, discussing, writing, and other forms of elaborating on a given experience. Often, this also involves sense-making around new components of the experience, taking in multiple perspectives, uncovering patterns, and exploring their impact on one’s thinking and being. Abstract conceptualization (AC) is an experience where reflection is concluded into some new learning. This process is slightly more challenging to articulate, but it is the process where theories, concepts, and prior understandings relate to the reflective results to generate new ideas. Active experimentation (AE) is the practical phase where students put their new learning into action or test ideas or behaviors in future contexts. This can incorporate hands-on activities, workshops, or other spaces where learners can practice applying their understanding to different contexts.

Experiential Learning Theory (ELT) has been widely adopted across postsecondary contexts, including leadership education, where experience paired with reflection is viewed as foundational for student development and transformative learning. Leadership educators have used ELT as both a conceptual and practical framework to structure leadership education experiences (Allen & Hartman, 2009; Guthrie & Jenkins, 2018) and to guide students’ meaning-making processes (Jenkins, 2012). Bourgeois et al. (2022) claim that experiential methods in leadership learning offer a valuable bridge between conceptual understanding and skill development. Signature pedagogies in leadership education, such as case studies, role plays, simulations, and facilitated discussion (Jenkins, 2012), closely align with Kolb’s learning cycle. These pedagogies provide concrete experiences and invite active experimentation, while also promoting reflective observation and abstract conceptualization through debriefing, peer feedback, and reflection. Jenkins (2020) illustrates how experiential strategies embedded in leadership curricula support students’ identity development by engaging multiple learning modes, including structured reflection and peer interaction. Together, these practices highlight both the conceptual relevance of ELT and its practical utility in enhancing learning through the integration of all four learning modes.

Beyond guiding pedagogical design and sequencing, ELT also offers a framework for personal transformation in leadership learners. Ash and Clayton (2009) contend that structured critical reflection embedded within experiential activities helps students surface assumptions, clarify values, and cultivate leadership identity and critical self-awareness. This view is echoed by Beard and Wilson (2006), who state: “Reflective processes allow learners to examine and reframe their beliefs, assumptions, and behaviors, leading to personal transformation” (p. 151). Intentionally integrating reflection and application into leadership programs has also been found to lead to sustained changes in students’ practices and confidence (Rosch & Collins, 2019). The importance of structured reflection in supporting leadership self-efficacy further underscores the value of reflective observation as a core experiential learning mode (Moore, Boyd, & Dooley, 2010).

While ELT has received critiques regarding its philosophical assumptions, it remains a widely used and valuable framework in applied education fields such as agriculture, forestry, and leadership. Kayes (2002) affirms the centrality of experience in professional development and calls for more nuanced applications of ELT in curricular design. Although previous studies have described how leadership educators broadly incorporate experiential learning, few have explicitly linked Kolb’s four learning modes to specific leadership competency development. This study aims to address that gap by categorizing Leadership Academy activities by learning mode and exploring how students perceive various curricular elements and experiential learning processes as contributing to their leadership growth. By operationalizing ELT in this way, we offer a more nuanced understanding of how particular types of leadership learning experiences align with the development of specific competencies.

The population of this study included 152 postsecondary students at [University] across five cohorts, from 2015 to 2020 (Table 2, column 1). The Leadership Academy is a yearlong program offered to on-campus undergraduate students in the colleges of Agricultural Sciences and Forestry at a research-intensive university in the U.S. The Leadership Academy strives to balance the development of individual leader development and broader leadership processes (Rosch & Allen, 2024). After an application and interview process, students from sophomore to senior standing join a cohort. The program has three primary components: (1) a weekly two-hour leadership seminar which includes leadership workshops, self-assessments, guest speakers, and book discussions, (2) a one-on-one faculty mentorship with mentor meetings occurring at least once per month and (3) a service-learning project where small groups of students are tasked with making one small positive impact on their campus community. Students are also encouraged to apply for scholarship funds to develop their leadership and professional skills further (e.g. attend professional conferences). Students in each cohort participate in the program for three ten-week terms starting in September and ending in June. The program curriculum, speakers, and workshops are often themed by term, starting with personal leadership development in the Fall term, changing during the Winter term, and giving back and leaving a legacy during the Spring term. The time spent during weekly seminars varied greatly (see Table 1 below). As students participate in the program each term, they are asked to register for one upper-division Leadership credit.

Since the inception of the program in 2010, we have used Kolb’s (1984) perspectives on learning to guide the program curriculum in both design and delivery. In the Leadership Academy, we curate and facilitate numerous opportunities for students to engage in experiential learning (EL), with emphasis on different learning modes at different times. Examples of EL in the Leadership Academy include reflecting and discussing results from an emotional intelligence assessment, participating in a campus-wide scavenger hunt using the GooseChase© application, designing and conducting a service-learning project, and interacting with a guest speaker.

To assess perceived links between leadership competencies and curricular experiences, we embedded a reflection matrix into our quarterly student self-assessment portfolio. Students predominantly completed this reflection by hand during the final seminar of each term, typically in about ten minutes. The reflection matrix was designed primarily as a reflective tool to support metacognitive awareness and offer insight into program outcomes and alignment. The tool listed 13 competencies across the top columns and the Leadership Academy activities from that term down the side. Students were instructed to place a check mark at each intersection where they felt a particular experience contributed to the development of a given competency.

The 13 competencies are: understanding leadership, awareness of self, ethical behavior, sustaining leadership, valuing diversity, enhancing communication, managing conflict, developing teams, leading change, managing projects, practicing citizenship, understanding community, and commitment to serving others. These competencies were originally identified through exploratory factor analysis by Velez, McKim, and Simonsen (2013), who developed a self-reported leadership competency instrument for agricultural leadership development contexts. While our study did not use the instrument, we adopted the competency categories and adapted them into a simplified reflection matrix to capture students’ self-perceptions of learning. Tools like this are commonly used in leadership education contexts to help students reflect on and articulate their learning experiences (e.g. White & Guthrie, 2016). Figure 1 shows a simplified picture of the reflection tool.

Responses were collected and analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). We first summed the frequency with which each competency was selected in a given term. However, each cohort’s experiences varied slightly by term in the activities offered, while maintaining alignment with program goals (see Table 2).

In order to compare all program participants, we calculated standardized scores for each participant, normalized by the number of possible times that participant could have marked a leadership competency as impacted - the number of activities offered that term. The reported normalized scores represent the percent chance, on average, that students in the program connected perceived competency growth with the offered leadership activity. We also analyzed the data to check for any differences across cohorts to be able to group all participants together. No significant differences were found for any of the most and least developed leadership competencies across cohorts in Fall and Winter terms (Tables 3 and 4). There were statistically significant differences across the five cohorts in the Spring term for all the most and least developed leadership competencies. These significant differences led to the creation of two “groups.” Group 1 consists of cohorts from academic year 15–18, and Group 2 represents the cohorts from academic year 18–20. Thus, results will be reported for four sets of participants: fall term (all participants, n = 152), winter term (all participants, n = 152), spring term group 1 (n = 76), and spring term group 2 (n = 76).

To answer research question three, we categorized Leadership Academy curricular experiences into Kolb’s (1984) four experiential learning (EL) modes using the definitions provided in the Theoretical Framework. These modes—Concrete Experience (CE), Reflective Observation (RO), Abstract Conceptualization (AC), and Active Experimentation (AE)—offer a structure for analyzing the learning opportunities embedded in the program.

Concrete Experience activities involve encountering new situations or engaging in meaningful tasks that activate emotional and physical engagement. For example, we coded participation in the [University] Challenge Course—which includes team-building activities and a ropes course (Fall term, Cohorts 1–4; see Table 1)—as a concrete experience. Similarly, a mindfulness seminar involving yoga stretches and breathing exercises (Fall term, Cohort 5) was coded in this category. Reflective Observation activities require learners to critically assess or process prior experiences. One example is a lesson focused on the concept of “grit,” a lesson where students completed a personal grit assessment and reflected on their responses (Winter term, Cohort 3). This activity was coded as reflective observation. Abstract Conceptualization refers to integrating reflections into theoretical frameworks or conceptual models. We coded workshops focused on leadership theory (e.g. managing change) and presentations by guest speakers as instances of abstract conceptualization, as they invited students to connect experiences with abstract ideas. Active Experimentation includes opportunities for learners to apply new knowledge or skills in novel contexts. A representative example is a mock interview activity (Spring term, Cohort 3), which allowed students to test their communication and interpersonal skills in a simulated professional environment.

While we focused on identifying the primary learning mode emphasized in each activity, we acknowledge that this categorization is, to some extent, artificial. Many activities intentionally engage in multiple modes simultaneously, consistent with Kolb and Kolb’s (2009) recognition of the dynamic and cyclical nature of experiential learning. Furthermore, alignment with a particular EL mode does not guarantee learning outcomes; knowledge creation through the transformation of experience is not automatically ensured by pedagogical design alone.

Our author team comprises four scholars who share a belief in the positive impact that leadership and leadership development programs can have on the lives of postsecondary students. We acknowledge that delays in data collection and dissemination, due to multiple maternity leaves and challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic, may have impacted the transferability of our findings. Nevertheless, we believe it is important to share them in this manuscript.

The results below do have potential limitations. First, each student’s experience with a given activity is likely varied, so we cannot draw definitive or predictive links between specific activities and competencies. Second, students were only able to choose from a list of 13 competencies; other areas of growth may have occurred but were not captured. Third, although students were presented with the name of each competency (e.g. Valuing Diversity), they were not provided with definitions. This may have affected their ability to accurately and consistently connect experiences with outcomes, especially for more ambiguous competencies, such as Sustaining Leadership. Additionally, students completed the reflections immediately following each term, which increases the likelihood of a “honeymoon effect” (Rosch & Schwartz, 2009). Finally, the response rate during Spring 2020 was lower due to the shift to remote instruction and the rushed administration of the assessment.

This study examined the perceived development of leadership competencies among students based on their participation in curricular activities, as well as the relationship between Experiential Learning modes and leadership competency development. We first present the most and least indicated competencies and propose activities from each term that may have influenced student notions of development. We then reveal the number of activities that align with each EL mode and their influence on self-reported competency development.

The leadership competencies that students most often observed developing were consistent across all terms (Table 5). The most marked competency was awareness of self, ranging from 0.64 to 0.84 across the terms. This indicates that, on average, students were likely to identify that an activity during the Fall term developed self-awareness 75% of the time. Similarly high ratings were seen for both enhancing communication (M = 0.60 to 0.80) and understanding leadership (M = 0.57 to 0.72). These competencies show evidence that students are building a strong foundation of awareness of themselves, the responsibilities and characteristics of leadership, and their ability to communicate with others. From this foundation, students will be prepared to continue developing their leadership skills and capacity.

We found differences in experiences and impact among the terms when considering the fourth most frequently developed competencies. In Fall term, students marked those activities developed their sense of ethical behavior (M = 0.50). However, in Winter term and for Spring term Group 2, students felt that they most developed ideas around leading change (M = 0.55 to 0.69). Finally, Spring term Group 1 students identified that activities impacted their valuing of diversity the most (M = 0.45). In reflecting on the different foci for each term of Leadership Academy, we see parallels that show students’ experiences are in line with program goals.

Additionally, several areas of interest emerge when considering the different group experiences as presented in Table 4. We note that Spring term Group 2 had higher averages across most leadership areas compared to the other cohorts and terms. That is, the fourth most developed competency for Spring term Group 1 (valuing diversity, M = 0.45) had an average occurrence that was less than that of every leadership competency for Spring term Group 2 (commitment to serving, M = 0.48).

The least frequently identified leadership competencies also showed trends in student-perceived development (Table 4). The competency of commitment to serving was consistently ranked in the bottom four across all terms (M = 0.20 to 0.48), as was developing teams (M = 0.33 to 0.52), and practicing citizenship (M = 0.29 to 0.55). These normalized scores show that students across all cohorts and terms agreed that activities were least likely to offer opportunities to develop these competencies. For example, fall term students were, on average, likely to check that an activity built commitment to serving skills only 20% of the time.

The fourth competency that was seen as least often developed through the Leadership Academy varied across terms. In the Fall term, students marked those activities developed their sense of managing projects (M = 0.35), which was also in the bottom four leadership competencies for Spring term Group 2 (M = 0.53). Students felt that they experienced limited development of ethical behavior (M = 0.55 to 0.69) during Winter term activities. Spring term Group 1 students did not identify those activities that often impacted their ability to manage conflict (M = 0.33). These additional four leadership competencies highlight areas where programming can be improved to more closely match Leadership Academy goals.

Finally, several areas of interest emerge when considering the different group experiences as presented in Table 5. We note that Spring term Group 2 had higher averages across most leadership areas compared to the other cohorts and terms. That is, the fourth most developed competency for Spring term Group 1 (valuing diversity, M = 0.45) had an average occurrence that was less than that of every leadership competency for Spring term Group 2 (commitment to serving, M = 0.48).

The results presented in response to Research Questions 1 and 2 overviewed how often, on average, leadership competencies were marked as “developed” over all possible activities in each term for a given cohort. Here, we examine the number of activities that aligned with each Experiential Learning group in each term and how competencies were assessed as developed (or not) for those different experience groupings.

The groupings of curricular activities into these four categories for all three terms are reported in Tables 6–8. The fall term (Table 6) consisted of six opportunities for active experimentation, six abstract conceptualization activities, three concrete experiences, and one reflective observation activity across cohorts. The winter term (Table 7) offered 19 unique learning opportunities that focused on abstract conceptualization, although there were only a maximum of 7 of these activities for a given cohort. There were also seven different active experimentation opportunities, three reflective observation experiences, and one concrete experience. The spring term (Table 8) had 13 different abstract conceptualization activities, 11 active experimentation opportunities, three chances to engage in reflective observation, and zero concrete experience-building activities. We note that this shift from concrete experiences to more opportunities for abstract conceptualization and active experimentation is expected over the course of a year-long program, given the cyclical nature of learning as outlined in Kolb’s Theory (1984) and the increased agency and active engagement of program participants. Exploratory Factor Analysis would ideally be used to confirm the theoretical groupings of curricular experiences; however, the data set reported here is not large enough, due to the size of individual cohorts that participated in each activity. This is an area for future study, as well as a limitation of the findings reported here.

Although RQ3 was designed to explore the influence of experiential learning modes across all 13 leadership competencies, the scope of this manuscript focuses on Awareness of Self—the most consistently marked competency—due to space limitations and its alignment with programmatic emphasis. The analysis for the remaining 12 competencies is deferred to future manuscripts. In the Fall term (Table 9), Awareness of Self was marked as developed for, on average, 74.5% of the possible activities cohorts experienced across all types of experiences. When examining only activities classified as active experimentation type, participants reported that Awareness of Self was developed in 82.1% of the possible activities. This was followed closely by 70.7% of all abstract conceptualization activities and 61.8% of all concrete experiences. It is worth noting that only one cohort (academic year 2018–19) participated in an activity marked as reflective observation during the Fall term. However, for that one activity, every single cohort member (n = 24) marked that it helped them develop their Awareness of Self.

In the Winter term, Awareness of Self was marked as developed, with a mean of 0.644 activities out of all possible activities (maximum score 1.00). Reflective observation-type activities made up a large portion of these ratings, with 95.2% of all reflective observation-type activities being marked as developing Awareness of Self. Furthermore, active experimentation activities and abstract conceptualization activities were scored at an average of 0.732 and 0.568, respectively, in developing this competency. There was only one cohort of participants who had the opportunity for a concrete experience during the Winter term, and for that one cohort’s single activity in this category, only 27.8% of students marked that it developed their Awareness of Self.

In the Spring term, Awareness of Self was marked as being developed 67.3% of the time for all possible activities offered to Cohorts 1, 2, and 3, which make up Spring Term Group 1. For these three cohorts, there were no activities offered that fell under the concrete experience label. In terms of reflective observation activities, these were marked as developing Awareness of Self competency 90.2% of the time. On average, 0.66 of all possible active experimentation experiences were seen as developing this competency, as were 43.7% of abstract conceptualization type opportunities. For the second group of participants (consisting of Cohorts 4 and 5), Awareness of Self was marked as being developed 84.8% of the time for all possible activities offered. There were only activities offered to this cohort group that were categorized as active experimentation or abstract conceptualization in the Spring term. However, 83.3% of the active experimentation activities were perceived by students to develop their Awareness of Self.

Results from our study found strong development of awareness of self, enhancing communication, and understanding leadership, through participation in the Leadership Academy. Awareness of self consistently emerged as the most developed competency across all terms, and the normalized scores for these competencies show stability across different cohorts. For example, Awareness of self not only ranked higher in the Fall term but also maintained strong ratings in Winter and Spring terms. This suggests that the program’s activities, structure, and pedagogy foster this internal development.

In investigating differences in scores for terms and cohorts, we identified a few influential activities that could have impacted student experiences. In the Fall term, all students across cohorts had the opportunity to create a Personal Development Plan. This activity was highly rated for its impact on awareness of self and understanding of leadership. Students in the Winter term participated in workshops on vulnerability and active listening, and reported strongly relating to the book club readings and discussions. These activities were all supportive of developing awareness of self and enhancing communication. Finally, in the Spring term, students engaged in service-learning projects and experienced a wide range of guest speakers, many of whom discussed working in teams and learning across cultures. These activities could potentially have impacted students’ perceived development of valuing diversity and leading change.

Considering the above results, we are limited in what this finding tells us. For example, we do not know the degree and nature of these top three competencies. In what ways did students perceive themselves as becoming more self-aware? Are they more aware of their strengths? Areas for growth? Personality? Leadership style? Similarly, how are they thinking about enhanced communication? In what ways do students feel they can communicate better? For example, are students better able to articulate ideas, disagree compassionately, show empathy, listen actively, or make requests? Regarding understanding leadership, in what ways have their conceptualizations of leadership shifted? Data from this study do not allow us to answer these questions definitively; however, we can suggest interpretations about these findings as program directors and instructors.

The prominence of self-awareness in our findings reflects an interesting thread in the broader literature on leadership development. Awareness of self, often described as understanding one’s strengths, limitations, values, and identities, is widely regarded as a foundational leadership competency, serving as a precursor to more relational, interpersonal, or strategic competencies (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, & McKee, 2014; Seemiller, 2013). In our program, students are expected to develop self-awareness through reflective and application-based activities, like Cliffton© Strengths assessment discussions, the values clarification activity, and mock interviews, which encourage students to explore who they are and how they show up in leadership contexts. This aligns with research suggesting that experiential learning strategies, especially those involving reflection and application, are particularly effective in fostering self-awareness (Allen & Hartman, 2009).

Considering the findings from research question two, we observed consistently lower ratings for other-oriented, more interpersonal leadership competencies, such as commitment to serving, developing teams, managing projects, and practicing citizenship, even though students design and conduct a service-learning project during the spring term in small groups. From an experiential learning theory (ELT) perspective, this finding suggests that the project may be less impactful because insufficient time is devoted to reflecting on and processing the outcomes and lessons learned (Kolb, 1984). Additionally, the curricular experiences most likely to support the development of these competencies were not as prominently integrated into or emphasized within the program as those that foster personal development and self-awareness. Additionally, these competencies, such as team development and project management, are inherently complex and action-oriented, and the current structure of the Leadership Activity may not adequately support the long-term engagement required for their development (Johnson & Routon, 2024).

Our data reveals interesting patterns about curricular and instructional preferences. Given the number of activities categorized into the four EL modes, the Leadership Academy favors activities categorized into active experimentation and abstract conceptualization. This is understandable, given the program’s structure. Synchronous engagement is limited to the weekly two-hour seminars that meet in a classroom on campus. This places limits on the types of concrete experiences we might offer, which, of course, influences the opportunities to reflect on those concrete experiences. Illuminating the number of activities in each EL mode is a valuable strategy for highlighting the types of curricular activities we offer. It makes us think about ways we can diversify our offerings. In what ways can we integrate more concrete experiences within the confines of our program (e.g. time, resources, class size, opportunities on campus, etc.)? We wonder if expanding the EL modes through more diverse curricular activities might enable students to develop less often developed competencies (e.g. commitment to serving, developing teams, practicing citizenship) more frequently.

A closer look at awareness of self within the context of ELT offers some useful insight. Activities categorized as reflective observation and active experimentation consistently yielded higher normalized scores for awareness of self. Recall that reflective observation experiences are those that allow students to make sense of concrete learning, which can come through listening, discussing, writing, and other forms of elaborating on a given experience. Often, this also involves sense-making around new components of the experience, taking in multiple perspectives, uncovering patterns, and exploring their impact on one’s thinking and being.

Recall that active experimentation is where students put new knowledge into action. In the Leadership Academy, we categorized curricular experiences in active experimentation when students were asked to directly apply content or concepts to their current or future lives in some capacity. One example is a book discussion. Over the course of the five years, cohorts read a variety of texts and were asked to participate in facilitated discussions during weekly seminars. As program facilitators, we designed these seminars to ensure concept understanding and reflection (e.g. which idea most resonated with you?) and challenged them to consider how applying the concepts would enhance their leadership and relationships (e.g. In what ways can you apply [concept] to your life?). Another activity that was categorized as active experimentation was a mock-interview activity. This activity challenged students to apply strategies discussed in a prior seminar to an activity that would take place in their near futures. It is interesting that active experimentation specifically yielded higher normalized scores for awareness of self compared to other EL modes. What is it about the process of putting knowledge into action through these particular learning experiences that results in self-reported self-awareness? Answering this question would warrant qualitative research.

Other learning modes, such as abstract conceptualization, also contributed to developing awareness of self, but to varying degrees. During abstract conceptualization, students connect their experiences to broader concepts and theories, which guide them in forming generalizations. We categorized activities such as networking workshops, running an effective meeting, and a seminar on managing change into the abstract conceptualization category. This finding is related to existing literature that demonstrates activities focusing on problem solving, critical thinking, and application of leadership principles lead to increased self-awareness (Bauermeister et al., 2016; Yildiz, 2021).

One thing is clear: students’ awareness of self is consistently marked as being developed across several EL learning modes. However, it is worth noting the distinctions in the EL modes as this may influence program design and the facilitation of a given learning experience.

The results from this study reveal lingering questions as well as practical recommendations. First, we encourage leadership educators to consider the EL mode when designing curricular experiences and structuring learning environments, as it may influence competency development. As practitioners who advocate for Experiential Learning, we found the consideration of EL mode to be both helpful in the planning process and revealing in informal program evaluation. Reflecting on the alignment between curricular activities and the modes of ELT also surfaced the pedagogical choices that shape competency development. We invite others to engage in similar reflective practices to enhance instructional design.

We also recommend programs that, when applicable, expand EL modes through more diverse curricular activities, which may help students develop less often developed competencies (e.g. commitment to serving, developing teams, practicing citizenship) more frequently. As previously mentioned, this may prove challenging when operating within the confines of the academic system (i.e. limits on space, time, and resources). Regarding future scholarship, we recommend that future research continue to build upon the existing leadership education research by exploring the connections between EL modes and programmatic outcomes (Rosch & Allen, 2024).

Future studies and program evaluations would also benefit from collecting qualitative data to better understand how students interpret their growth, especially in relation to specific learning activities. These data could also reveal whether the connections students make align with the original goals behind each activity. Further research exploring activities by ELT mode could clarify how each mode supports targeted competencies. Since some competencies may be emphasized over others, it is also worthwhile to explore whether students perceive different levels of importance—and how those perceptions align with program objectives.

This study provides an initial exploration of aligning program design with leadership competencies and demonstrates how an Experiential Learning lens can support this alignment. It contributes to the growing literature connecting curricular experiences in formal leadership programs to the development of specific competencies. Students reported the most growth in awareness of self through activities that prompted them to apply leadership concepts to their present and future lives.

Although Experiential Learning (EL) has been explored as a tool for developing leadership competencies in other studies (Yildiz, 2021; Bauermeister et al., 2016), ELT, viewed through its multi-modal lenses, has not been explored at the time of this study’s reporting. This lens also provides additional guidance for practitioners seeking to offer a range of experiential activities that foster student leadership competency development (Rosch & Allen, 2024; Rosch & Wilson, 2022; Rosch & Hastings, 2022). Findings from this study can support leadership educators and scholars in designing intentional, high-impact programs that foster meaningful student growth.