![. Mean Scores of Honours Versus Non-Honours Students on 'That They [Teachers] Are Demanding'](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stan-Van-Ginkel/publication/274702133/figure/tbl3/AS:669553382154246@1536645374183/Mean-Scores-of-Honours-Versus-Non-Honours-Students-on-That-They-Teachers-Are-Demanding_Q320.jpg)
Content uploaded by Stan van Ginkel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stan van Ginkel on Apr 09, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
National Collegiate Honors Council
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
1100 Neihardt Residence Center
540 N. 16th St.
Lincoln, NE 68588-0627
NON-PROFIT
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
PERMIT NO. 3246
BIRMINGHAM, AL
ISBN
978-09835457-4-3
J
OURNAL OF THE
N
ATIONAL
C
OLLEGIATE
H
ONORS
C
OUNCIL
V
OLUME
13, N
O
. 2
Fall/Winter 2012 Volume 13, Number 2
in this issue
Honors Around
the Globe
Countries and Contributors
Australia—
Deirdre Barron and
Margaret Zeegers
Brazil—
Eunice M. L. Soriano de Alencar,
Aderson Luiz Costa Jr., and
Denise de Souza Fleith
Chile—
Frederick J. Conway, Carlos
Alberto Cioce Sampaio, and
Juan Carlos Skewes
China—
Ikuo Kitagaki and Donglin Li
Mexico—
Mohammad Ayub Khan and
Ruben Morales-Menendez
Netherlands—
Vladimir Bartelds, Johannes
Boonstra, Trijntje van Dijk,
Lyndsay Drayer, Pierre Van Eijl,
Stan van Ginkel, Bouke van
Gorp, Nelleke de Jong, G.
Johan Offringa, Anton Peeters,
Albert Pilot, Karin Scager,
Ron Weerheijm, Jeske
Weerheijm, Fred Wiegant,
Marca V. C. Wolfensberger, and
John Zubizarreta
Qatar—
Byrad Yyelland
Switzerland—
Michaela Ruppert Smith
United Kingdom—
Margaret Lamb
HONORS AROUND
THE GLOBE
JOURNAL EDITORS
ADA LONG
DAIL MULLINS
UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM
The National Collegiate Honors Council is an association of faculty, students,
and others interested in honors education. Executive Committee: Gregory Lanier,
President, University of West Florida; Rick Scott, President-Elect, University of
Central Arkansas; Bonnie Irwin, Immediate Past-President, Eastern Illinois
University; Jim Ruebel, Vice-President, Ball State University; Bob Spurrier,
Secretary, Oklahoma State University; Gary Bell, Treasurer, Texas Tech University.
Executive Director: Cynthia M. Hill, headquartered at University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Board of Directors: Kyoko Amano, University of Indianapolis; Lisa Coleman,
Southeastern Oklahoma State University; Barry Falk, James Madison University;
Laurie Fiegel, Iowa State University; Emily Harris, Montana State University; Jerry
Herron, W
ayne State University; Rachael Hurd, Ball State University; Emily Jones,
Oklahoma State University; Joe King, Radford University; Kim Klein, Shippensburg
University of Pennsylvania; Jared Knight, Iowa State University; Jon Kotinek, Texas
A&M University; Jaskiran Mathur, St. Francis College; Marjean Purinton, Texas
Tech University; Jeremiah Sammons, Gallaudet University; Art Spisak, University of
Iowa; Elaine Torda, State University of New York-Orange; Audrey Van Acker, Ball
State University.
A PUBLICATION OF THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
2
©
Copyright 2012 by the National Collegiate Honors Council
All rights reserved.
ISBN 978-09835457-4-3
ISSN 1559-0151 EDITORIAL POLICY
Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council is a refereed periodical publishing scholarly articles on
honors education. The journal uses a double-blind peer review process. Articles may include analyses of trends
in teaching methodology, articles on interdisciplinary efforts, discussions of problems common to honors pro-
grams, items on the national higher education agenda, and presentations of emergent issues relevant to hon-
ors education. Submissions and inquiries should be directed to Ada Long at adalong@uab.edu.
DEADLINES
March 1 (for spring/summer issue); September 1 (for fall/winter issue)
INDEXING STATEMENT
JNCHC is indexed full-text in the EBSCO and Gale library databases and is archived in the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln’s Digital Commons repository.
PRODUCTION EDITORS
Mitch Pruitt and Cliff Jefferson of Wake Up Graphics, Birmingham, Alabama.
EDITORIAL BOARD
William A. Ashton (Psychology), Associate Professor, Behavioral Sciences Department, City University of New
York at York College; Gary M. Bell (Early Modern British History), Dean of the University Honors College and
Professor of History, Texas Tech University; Bernice Braid (Comparative Literature), Director of Core Seminar
and Advisor to the Provost, Long Island University-Brooklyn;
D. Bruce Carter (Psychology), Associate
Professor of Psychology and Child & Family Studies, Syracuse University
; Joan Digby (English), Director
of the Honors Program and Merit Fellowship, Professor of English, C. W. Post Campus, Long Island University;
Ted Estess (English), Professor of English and former Dean of the Honors College, University of Houston; Jim
Ford (Philosophy/Religious Studies), Director of the Honors Program and Professor of Humanities, Rogers State
University; Jay M. Freyman (Ancient Studies) Associate Professor and former Director of the Honors College,
University of Maryland, Baltimore County; Linda Frost (English), Professor of English and Director of Honors,
Eastern Kentucky University; Nancy Davis Johnson (Psychology), Associate Professor of Psychology, Queens
University of Charlotte; John Korstad (Biology), Professor of Biology and Honors Program Director, Oral Roberts
University; Jane Fiori Lawrence (History of American Higher Education), Vice Chancellor, University of
California, Merced; Dennis Patrick Leyden
(Education; R & D Policy)
, Associate Professor, Department of
Economics, University of North Carolina at Greensboro; George Mariz (History), Professor of History and
Director of the Honors Program, Western Washington University; David N. Mowry (Philosophy), SUNY
Distinguished Teaching Professor, Honors Program Founding Director Emeritus, Plattsburgh State University;
Rosalie Otero (English), Director of the Honors Program, University of New Mexico; Anne Ponder (English),
Chancellor, University of North Carolina Asheville; Jeffrey A. Portnoy (English), Director of the Honors Program
and Professor of English, Georgia Perimeter College; Rae Rosenthal (English), Director of the Honors Program
and Professor of English, Community College of Baltimore County Essex Campus; Rusty Rushton (English),
Associate Director of the University Honors Program and Adjunct Lecturer in English, University of Alabama at
Birmingham; Hallie Savage, Honors Program Director and Professor of Communication Sciences and Disorders,
Clarion University of Pennsylvania; Samuel Schuman (English), Chancellor Emeritus, the University of
Minnesota, Morris, and Professor of Language and Literature, University of North Carolina Asheville; Ricki J.
Shine (American History), Associate Director of the Calhoun Honors College and Director of Major Fellowships,
Clemson University; Stephen H. Wainscott (Political Science), Vice Provost of International Affairs and Director
Emeritus of the Calhoun Honors College, Clemson University; Len Zane (Physics), Emeritus Professor of Physics
and Former Dean of the Honors College, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
3
CONTENTS
Call for Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Submission Guidelines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Dedication to Marca V. C. Wolfensberger. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Editor’s Introduction
Ada Long. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
APANORAMA OF
HONORS AROUND THE GLOBE
“Honours” in the United Kingdom: More Than a Difference of
Spelling in Honors Education
Margaret Lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Honours in Australia: Globally Recognised Preparation for a Career
in Research (or Elsewhere)
Deirdre Barron and Margaret Zeegers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
The Tutorial Education Program: An Honors Program for Brazilian
Undergraduate Students
Denise de Souza Fleith, Aderson Luiz Costa Jr., and
Eunice M. L. Soriano de Alencar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Honors in Chile: New Engagements in the Higher Education System
Juan Carlos Skewes, Carlos Alberto Cioce Sampaio, and
Frederick J. Conway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Establishing a Latin American University Honors Program: The Case
of Campus Monterrey, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Mexico
Mohammad Ayub Khan and Ruben Morales-Menendez . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Self as Text: Adaptations of Honors Practice in Switzerland
Michaela Ruppert Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
An American Honors Program in the Arab Gulf
Byrad Yyelland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
On Training Excellent Students in China and the United States
Ikuo Kitagaki and Donglin Li . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
FALL/WINTER 2012
4
Mission, Performance Indicators, and Assessment in U. S. Honors:
A View from the Netherlands
Vladimir Bartelds, Lyndsay Drayer, and
Marca V. C. Wolfensberger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
ACLOSE-UPOF
HONORS IN THE NETHERLANDS
Laboratories for Educational Innovation: Honors Programs in the
Netherlands
Marca V. C. Wolfensberger, Pierre Van Eijl, and Albert Pilot . . . . . . 149
Qualities Honours Students Look for in Faculty and Courses, Revisited
Marca V. C. Wolfensberger and G. Johan Offringa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Setting Them Free: Students as Co-Producers of Honors Education
Bouke van Gorp, Marca V. C. Wolfensberger, and Nelleke de Jong
. . 183
Building a Vibrant Honors Community among Commuter Students
Stan van Ginkel, Pierre van Eijl, Albert Pilot, and John Zubizarreta
. . 197
Team-Based Learning in Honors Science Education: The Benefit of
Complex Writing Assignments
Fred Wiegant, Johannes Boonstra, Anton Peeters and Karin Scager
. 219
Selecting for Honors Programs: AMatter of Motivational Awareness
Ron Weerheijm and Jeske Weerheijm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
The Reflective Professional Honours Programme of the Dutch Saxion
Universities
Trijntje van Dijk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
Looping up Professional Reflection in Honours Programmes
Trijntje van Dijk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
Honors in the Master’s: ANew Perspective?
Stan van Ginkel, Pierre van Eijl, Albert Pilot, and John Zubizarreta
. 265
Honors Education and Global Citizenship
Marca V. C. Wolfensberger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
NCHC Publication Order Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
The cover design is a collaborative effort by Sarah Halverson and
Wake Up Graphics. The cover image is by Dail Mullins.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
5
CALL FOR PAPERS
The next issue of JNCHC (deadline: March 1, 2013) invites research essays on any
topic of interest to the honors community.
The issue will also include a Forum focused on the theme "Nontraditional Honors
Students." We invite essays of roughly a thousand words that consider this theme in
the context of your campus and/or a national/international context.
The lead essay for the Forum, which is available on the NCHC website
<http://nchchonors.org>, is by Janice Rye Kinghorn and Whitney Womack Smith of
Miami University Ohio; each of them has directed an honors program at a commuter
campus of the university. Their essay—titled “Nontraditional Honors”—describes the
benefits that honors programs and nontraditional students can and should provide to
each other. Contributions to the Forum may—but need not—respond to their essay or
the issues they address.
Questions that Forum contributors might consider include: What is the definition of
“nontraditional students,” and why do they need their own category? Is there any such
thing as a traditional student? Do honors programs have a social, moral, or economic
incentive or responsibility to accommodate nontraditional students? What are good
ideas for recruiting them? Are some kinds of honors programs, e.g., those focusing on
the liberal arts, more easily able to accommodate nontraditional students than others
are? What specific advantages do nontraditional students bring to honors? Are there
down sides to increasing the numbers of nontraditional students in an honors program,
and, if so, what are they? Do nontraditional students participate as fully, less fully, or
more fully in extracurricular honors activities than nontraditional students do? Do the
curricular and co-curricular requirements of honors programs work for non-traditional,
non-residential students? Is a cadre of alumni and alumnae who were nontraditional
honors students a benefit to, for instance, fundraising? Does the current state of the
national and global economy have an impact on the role nontraditional students can and
do play in honors?
Forum essays should focus on ideas, concepts, and/or opinions related to
"Nontraditional Honors Students.” Examples from one’s own campus can be and
usually are relevant, but essays should not simply be descriptions of “what we do at
our institution.”
Please send all submissions to Ada Long at adalong@uab.edu.
FALL/WINTER 2012
6
SUBMISSION GUIDELINES
We accept material by e-mail attachment. We do not accept material by fax or hard copy.
The documentation style can be whatever is appropriate to the author’s primary disci-
pline or approach (MLA, APA, etc.), but please avoid footnotes. Internal citation to a
list of references (bibliography) is strongly preferred, and the editor will revise all inter-
nal citations in accordance with MLA guidelines.
There are no minimum or maximum length requirements; the length should be dictat-
ed by the topic and its most effective presentation.
Accepted essays are edited for grammatical and typographical errors and for infelicities
of style or presentation. Authors have ample opportunity to review and approve edited
manuscripts before publication.
Submissions and inquiries should be directed to Ada Long at adalong@uab.edu or, if
necessary, 850.927.3776.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
7
DEDICATION
MARCA V. C. WOLFENSBERGER
M
arca Wolfensberger has been active in honors education for the past two
decades. She co-founded one of the first honors programs in the
Netherlands in the early 1990s; ten years later she started connecting with
individual members of the NCHC; and, after attending her first NCHC con-
ference in Chicago in 2003, she has been a regular participant in annual hon-
ors conferences, bringing with her numerous colleagues—as many as thirty
at just one conference—from the Netherlands. She has regularly published
and presented on honors education both in the United States and in Europe,
and this year she is an organizer of an international conference in the
Netherlands on “Evoking Excellence in Higher Education and Beyond.” The
volume and seriousness of her research on honors education is reflected in the
inclusion of five essays that she has authored or co-authored in just this one
issue of JNCHC; one of these is an update of an essay she published here in
2004, only one year after attending her first NCHC conference.
Marca heads the research center Talent Development in Higher
Education and Society at the Hanze University of Applied Sciences in
Groningen and is also honors director and researcher at the Faculty of
Geosciences, Utrecht University. She has been appointed by the Minister of
Education to the jury that selects the best primary and secondary schools in
the Netherlands, and, as a member of the Sirius Assessment Committee, she
has reviewed proposals for “excellence” programs from over thirty institu-
tions of higher education on behalf of the Dutch government.
FALL/WINTER 2012
8JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
Since 2008, Marca has held the title NCHC-Recommended Site Visitor
and, both officially and unofficially, serves as an international supporter and
advisor for honors education, always giving first priority to the personal and
intellectual growth of honors students in her own program and in all honors
programs. Marca has often been the first person to introduce NCHC members
to honors outside of the United States through her writing, her conference par-
ticipation, and her enthusiastic conversation. We thus gratefully dedicate this
issue on the theme of “Honors Around the Globe” to Marca Wolfensberger.
9
Editor’s Introduction
ADA LONG
UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM
T
his issue of JNCHC begins by focusing with a wide-angle lens on the
panorama of honors programs that stretch across the globe from Chile to
China and from Qatar to Australia. The focus then shifts to a close-up shot of
honors in one European country, the Netherlands, which has produced multi-
ple programs and an abundance of research about them. This issue on
“Honors Around the Globe” also provides insight into the history of honors,
with its origins in the British educational system, its importation into the
United States less than a century ago, and its exportation within the last cou-
ple of decades to institutions of higher education in numerous other countries.
Honors started out in the U.S. as a replication of the honors system in the
UK, located primarily in the academic disciplines with a specialized focus on
directed research. In response to Sputnik, though, a group of U.S. honors
directors coalesced into a national organization that became the NCHC (see
“The Wisdom of Our Elders: Honors Discussions in The Superior Student,
1958–65” by Larry Andrews, JNCHC 12.2); honors then evolved and
expanded into institution-wide curricula and activities that have largely been
the model for honors programs throughout the world. The organization of this
journal issue reflects that history, starting with the British system, providing
essays on the wide array of honors programs around the world that have
adapted all or parts of the UK and U.S. models, and concluding with a
lengthy and detailed look at honors in the Netherlands, which has perhaps the
most unified, consistent, and self-conscious array of honors programs and
research projects about honors based on the U.S. model.
Margaret Lamb has provided an excellent lead-in to our look at honors
around the world in her essay “’Honours’ in the United Kingdom: More Than
a Difference of Spelling in Honors Education.” Lamb taught in honors for four-
teen years at two English universities before returning to the U.S., where she is
now Senior Associate Director of the University of Connecticut Honors
Program, so she is familiar with honors in both countries. She cites the litera-
ture tracing U.S. honors back to its roots in England and then describes in detail
the meaning of “honours” in the UK. While U.S. honors derives from compo-
nents of the UK system, such as the tutorial, it has come to imply an indepen-
dent curriculum with its own selection and graduation requirements and with
values that include, for instance, original research, creativity, critical thinking,
global awareness, collaboration, interdisciplinarity, and problem-solving.
FALL/WINTER 2012
10
EDITOR’SINTRODUCTION
While these values are not intrinsic to the definition of honours in the UK,
Lamb suggests that they are often present if one looks beneath the surface.
The following two essays describe honors programs that show a primary
influence of the British system. In “Honours in Australia: Globally
Recognised Preparation for a Career in Research (or Elsewhere),” Deirdre
Barron of the Swinburne Institute of Technology and Margaret Zeegers of the
University of Ballarat, both in Victoria, indicate that honors in Australia has
always focused on rigorous disciplinary research. In the past, they write, uni-
versities took for granted that honors successfully prepared students for
advanced post-graduate research in their fields but provided no evidence to
support this assumption. In the past couple of years, government agencies
have started establishing standards for all universities in Australia, and the
authors argue that honors programs should, in this context, be held to high
standards of accountability with documented proof of their effectiveness—an
argument that seems in tune with the assessment and accountability move-
ment in the United States and its proponents among a number of honors deans
and directors. Another component of this essay’s argument that probably res-
onates with most U.S. honors educators is the importance of research rather
than vocational preparation as a primary goal in honors.
Denise de Souza Fleith, Aderson Luiz Costa Jr., and Eunice M. L.
Soriano de Alencar, all of the Institute of Psychology at the University of
Brasilia, describe another UK-based type of honors education in “The
Tutorial Education Program: An Honors Program for Brazilian
Undergraduate Students.” The Ministry of Education in Brazil initiated this
predominantly tutorial-based type of honors program in 1979, starting with
fifteen students and now numbering more than four thousand students and
four hundred teachers throughout the country. The authors describe the gen-
eral structure, goals, requirements, and selection criteria for these honors
opportunities throughout Brazil, and then they explain how the Tutor
Education Program works in their Institute. The authors conclude by assert-
ing that this kind of honors opportunity for academically gifted students is
important not just to the students and to higher education but to the social and
economic health of the country.
On the other side of South America, honors in Chile has been based more
on the U.S. model. The 2006 volume of Honors in Practice included an essay
titled “Honors in Chile: New Engagements in the Higher Education System,”
which is reprinted here with revisions and with a substantial Afterword. The
essay was written by Juan Carlos Skewes, then of the Universidad Austral de
Chile and now the Universidad Alberto Hurtado; Carlos Alberto Cioce
Sampaio, then of the Universidad Regional de Blumenau and now the Paraná
Federal University in Brazil; and Frederick J. Conway of San Diego State
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
11
University. In the original essay, the authors described a remarkable pilot pro-
gram they developed in 2002 at the Universidad Austral de Chile (UACh)—
inspired by honors education in the United States, aided by an NCHC con-
sultant, and funded by the Chilean Ministry of Education—that adapted the
honors concept to unique challenges (rural setting, rainy weather, and poorly
prepared students) and opportunities (strong infrastructure, national concern
about inequities in education, and a living laboratory for environmental stud-
ies) within a specific geographical and cultural context. The Afterword
reports on the success of the program, as it enters its second decade, in
achieving its original mission to merge academic skills with a serious com-
mitment to environmental and social justice in its selection requirements, cur-
riculum, and community involvement. The program has also gained a strong
reputation within the university system. However, national problems that
include restricted funding and social unrest present ongoing challenges to fur-
ther development and expansion of honors in Chile.
Honors at the Tecnológico de Monterrey, Campus Monterrey, in Mexico
also has its roots in the U.S. model, having evolved within the international
degree program with guidance provided by NCHC consultants as well as
numerous contacts made at NCHC conferences. In “Establishing a Latin
American University Honors Program: The Case of Campus Monterrey,
Tecnológico de Monterrey,” Mohammad Ayub Khan and Ruben Morales-
Menendez describe the components of their honors program in terms of the
NCHC’s “Basic Characteristics of a Fully Developed Honors Program.” They
describe the unique components of their program, many of which arise from
its situation within an international degree program. They address some of the
external factors that have determined the nature of their program, such as the
“economic conditions, political situations, socio-cultural variables, demo-
graphic changes, technological developments, and legal issues,” and also the
internal factors that have helped shape their program: “institutional history,
student diversity, faculty diversity, physical facilities, leadership style, orga-
nizational culture, operational issues, and geographical location.”
While the essay on honors in Mexico describes the importation of a U.S.
model of honors education, the following essay describes the exportation of
NCHC’s City as Text™ pedagogy to Switzerland. In “Self as Text:
Adaptations of Honors Practice”—a revised reprint of an essay published in
the 2012 volume of Honors in Practice—Michaela Ruppert Smith recounts
her experience in adapting CAT™ methodology to an orientation activity at
the Collège du Léman in Geneva. To prepare a class of International
Baccalaureate students for a course called Theory of Knowledge, Smith col-
laborated with other teachers in designing a field trip to two museum exhibits
and one very unusual restaurant in Zurich. This trip became an unusual,
FALL/WINTER 2012
ADA LONG
12
challenging, and delightful journey of discovery during which students
“questioned their basic values and integrated new ways of thinking and being
into their lives.”
Another direct export of U.S. honors education—on a grander scale—has
taken place in Qatar. In “An American Honors Program in the Arab Gulf,”
Byrad Yyelland decribes the fascinating consequence of transplanting an
American concept of honors education into the Middle East. As director of
the seven-year-old honors program at Virginia Commonwealth University
Qatar, Yyelland recounts his adaptation of ideas from the VCU Honors
College to the national vision established by the royal family of Qatar: to
maintain Islamic culture while at the same time promoting an ambitious
agenda for economic and technological development. This double mission
plays out in the VCUQatar Honors Program in ways that will interest honors
administrators in other parts of the world, who typically do not face the prob-
lem of, for instance, creating an honors brochure when their students are for-
bidden to be photographed.
A detailed comparison of honors education in the U.S. and China is the
subject of the next essay: “On Training Excellent Students in China and the
United States.” This essay was first published in JNCHC 9.2 (fall/winter
2008), when the authors—Ikuo Kitagaki and Donglin Li—were both at the
Research Institute for Higher Education at Hiroshima University and were
motivated in part by a move toward starting honors programs in Japan. In
response to increasing global competition in advanced research and thus an
accelerating need for high levels of student training, Kitagaki and Li saw the
international growth of honors programs as an important means to meet this
need and were interested in finding the best strategy for national development
of honors programs. Their essay compares the evolution, focus, curriculum,
requirements, and student services of honors programs in China and the
United States. Their findings indicate more broad-based curricula and greater
emphasis on service and leadership in the U.S. and stricter retention standards
and foreign language requirements in China. This comparative study can help
readers in the U.S. and elsewhere design and reflect upon their own honors
programs.
We conclude our panoramic view of honors around the globe with
“Mission, Performance Indicators, and Assessment in U. S. Honors: AView
from the Netherlands” by Vladimir Bartelds, Lyndsay Drayer, and Marca V. C.
Wolfensberger of Hanze University of Applied Sciences Groningen in the
Netherlands. The authors focus on the role of mission statements in U.S. hon-
ors programs and their lack of alignment with either performance indicators or
assessment practices. Based on a survey of 169 programs randomly selected
from the 842 institutional members of NCHC in 2009, the authors conclude—
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
EDITOR’SINTRODUCTION
13
ADA LONG
based on a wide array of quantitative and qualitative data—that not only do
assessment practices typically show little correlation with mission statements
or performance indicators, but they seldom include long-term outcomes for
graduates of the honors program. Indicating that U.S. honors programs may
not always be doing what they claim or believe they are doing, this study will
be valuable to U.S. honors administrators in analyzing their current mission
statements, and it warrants careful consideration in the design of new honors
programs around the globe.
Having viewed U.S. honors programs from the perspective of the
Netherlands, our focus shifts to the Netherlands itself for the remainder of
this issue of JNCHC, starting with an essay titled “Laboratories for
Educational Innovation: Honors Programs in the Netherlands” by Marca V.
C. Wolfensberger of Utrecht University and Hanzehogeschool Groningen and
co-authors Pierre Van Eijl and Albert Pilot of Utrecht University. Within a
broad overview of the rapid growth of honors programs in the Netherlands,
the authors make the specific case that honors fosters innovations in course
content, pedagogy, and program structure that fan out—via the students and
teachers in honors—into the host institutions and eventually into national
policies and practices at all educational levels. The essay focuses on the kinds
of honors programs that have grown up in the Netherlands, the characteristics
that enable them to foster innovation, and the particular dynamics whereby
their innovative practices get transferred beyond honors to promote excel-
lence and talent in Dutch education.
In an update of a 2004 essay published in JNCHC 5.2, Wolfensberger—
now with a co-author, G. Johan Offringa of Hanze University of Applied
Sciences Groningen—offers the results of three surveys conducted in the past
decade. In “Qualities Honours Students Look for in Faculty and Courses,
Revisited,” she and Offringa conclude from the surveys that honors students
in the Netherlands, to a greater degree than their non-honors peers, seek not
only academic competence but individual freedom combined with a sense of
community. They also conclude that honors students’ motivation tends to be
intrinsic—focused on knowledge, learning, and intellectual challenge—
rather than extrinsic; they are motivated less, the authors claim, by grades and
future careers than non-honors students are. The authors hope that similar
studies will be conducted in other countries so that they can determine
whether these findings are unique to the culture of the Netherlands.
“Setting Them Free: Students as Co-Producers of Honors Education” by
Bouke van Gorp, Marca V. C. Wolfensberger, and Nelleke de Jong lays out a
strategy for offering honors students the freedom to help shape their own edu-
cation through student-led classes; these kinds of classes are built into honors
seminars at the Faculty of Geosciences Honors College of Utrecht University.
FALL/WINTER 2012
14
EDITOR’SINTRODUCTION
Giving students this freedom has three goals: encouraging students to explore
their passions, helping them develop their best learning strategies, and getting
them involved in their own education. The authors describe the benefits and
challenges of this approach, stressing that it should focus on developing stu-
dents’ creativity rather than freeing up time for the faculty.
In “Building a Vibrant Honors Community among Commuter Students,”
Stan van Ginkel of Wageningen University and Pierre van Eijl and Albert
Pilot of Utrecht University team up with John Zubizarreta of Columbia
College in the U.S. to discuss methods of creating successful honors com-
munities. The authors use interviews of U.S. faculty and students as one
source for defining honors communities, and they apply the definitions to five
programs in the Netherlands. A primary objective of the essay is to identify
components of successful honors communities that can or cannot be adapted
to honors programs that comprise commuter students. The essay’s conclu-
sions can equally apply to honors programs in the Netherlands, in the U.S.,
and around the world.
Fred Wiegant, Johannes Boonstra, Anton Peeters and Karin Scager, in
“Team-Based Learning in Honors Science Education: The Benefit of
Complex Writing Assignments,” advocate a team-based learning approach
that they have used successfully in honors science courses at Utrecht
University. One of these courses requires undergraduate honors students to
produce proposals for PhD theses, and the other requires that they write a
popular science book. These challenging assignments produce excellent
results, according to the authors, because the students guide and support each
other rather than relying on the teacher to tell them what to do. As a result,
students improve their skills, gain confidence in their abilities, and expand
their understanding of what they can accomplish.
The following three essays focus on honors in the applied sciences. In
“Selecting for Honors Programs: A Matter of Motivational Awareness,” Ron
Weerheijm of Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences and Jeske
Weerheijm of Utrecht University give an overview of research on effective
ways to recruit and select honors students, and they apply that research to the
special mission of the honors programs in the Universities of Applied
Sciences in the Netherlands. Designed to find, foster, and produce students
who meet the standards of an “excellent professional,” these honors programs
adopt many of the same criteria described in the literature but adapt them to
goals of success in the workplace and lifelong learning. Directors of profes-
sional honors programs in the U.S. and elsewhere will find ideas here for dis-
tinguishing honors from the standard curriculum and from traditional liberal
arts programs.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
15
In “The Reflective Professional Honours Programme of the Dutch
Saxion Universities,” Trijntje van Dijk describes the six characteristics that
define the successful graduate of the honors program for professional stu-
dents at the Saxion Universities of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands. The
characteristics create a profile that determines the goals of the program while
also indicating to businesses what they can expect from a graduate of the pro-
gram. Van Dijk describes her interactions with American honors educators
and includes in the essay a fascinating and provocative impression of U.S.
honors programs from the perspective of Dutch honors educators in profes-
sional universities.
“Looping up Professional Reflection in Honours Programmes” is a com-
panion piece to Trijntje van Dijk’s essay on “The Reflective Professional
Honours Programme.” Here she describes the three phases, or “loops,” of
development through which honors students progress, addressing specific
sets of questions in each loop. The questions become progressively more
challenging and require increasing sophistication in personal development,
teamwork, interdisciplinary cooperation, and cross-disciplinary thinking,
causing students to leap beyond the loops and imagine new paradigms for
their professional lives and potential contributions.
“Honors in the Master’s: A New Perspective?” is a study of the prolifer-
ation of master’s-level honors by Stan van Ginkel of Wageningen University
in the Netherlands, Pierre van Eijl and Albert Pilot of Utrecht University in
the Netherlands, and John Zubizarreta of Columbia College in the U. S. The
authors provide a comparative analysis of seventeen master’s-level honors
programs in the Netherlands as well as other programs in the U.S., Canada,
Australia, Germany, Italy, and Ireland. Honors at the master’s level is proba-
bly a topic unfamiliar to most honors educators in the U.S. and may spark
interest in this new and fast-proliferating initiative.
We conclude this special issue of JNCHC with another essay by Marca
V. C. Wolfensberger, in which she provides a lofty and idealistic view of hon-
ors that seems an appropriate final word on “Honors Around the Globe.” In
“Honors Education and Global Citizenship,” Wolfensberger suggests that,
given the serious challenges as well as opportunities of rapidly increasing
globalization, honors programs have an important role to play: to push
changes toward human dignity and world peace. She discusses three peda-
gogical strategies—genuine conversations, interactive learning, and interna-
tional exchange—that encourage honors students to develop the respect for
cultural differences that will make them important contributors to a better
world. Surely these are strategies and goals to which we all aspire, regardless
of geography or national history.
FALL/WINTER 2012
ADA LONG
16 JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
17
A Panorama of
Honors Around the Globe
FALL/WINTER 2012
18 JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
19
“Honours” in the
United Kingdom:
More Than a Difference of
Spelling in Honors Education
MARGARET LAMB
UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT
“. . . [T]ranslating words and phrases is the easy part. It takes years
of Anglo-Amerexperience to understand the thinking behind them . . .
George Bernard Shaw said it best . . . : America and Britain are two
nations divided by a common language. Between us is a Great
Philosophical and Cultural Divide, which is obscured by the familiar
lingo.” (Walmsley 2)
T
he first edition of Jane Walmsley’s book Brit-Think, Ameri-Think: A
Transatlantic Survival Guide came out in 1986. I noticed the book
because she was a familiar name, a TV broadcaster, American by birth (like
me), married to a Brit (like me), and had lived in England for two decades (I
was well into my first decade in England). I recognized from my own expe-
rience many of the examples (often hilarious) cited by the author.
When JNCHC editor Ada Long issued a call for contributions to a spe-
cial issue on “Honors Around the Globe,” Jane Walmsley’s book came to
mind. “Honors” and “honours” are more than different in spelling, I thought;
they are also quite distinct in meaning and practice. There was more food for
thought as Ada’s call for contributions went on to say: “Current plans include
essays on the Netherlands, Chile, Peru, Mexico, China, Australia, Qatar, and
Oxford, UK.” “Oxford, UK”? Oxford was very influential on the develop-
ment of U.S. honors programs, but there is “honors education” to be found in
many other places across the diverse terrain of UK higher education.
Two matters before I go further.
First, what do I mean by “honours” and by “honors education”? I’ll use
the British spelling whenever I refer to matters—features, designations,
courses—that might be the equivalent of what NCHC members would rec-
ognize as “honors education.” Encouragement of critical thinking is at the
core of “honors education,” as defined in the NCHC Monograph Teaching
FALL/WINTER 2012
20
and Learning in Honors; the most important challenge of honors education is
“a challenge to the students’ previous world views and their habitual ways of
developing their ideas and opinions” (West 2). Honors education is incom-
plete without support for the honors student in the sense of initiating the stu-
dent into our own (as educators) ways of making sense of the world, espe-
cially the disciplinary (and interdisciplinary) values, perspectives, assump-
tions, and methods that help us derive meaning from what is around us and
to shape new knowledge (West 2). Honors educational endeavors—teaching,
learning, courses, activities, communities, and more—are all designed and
directed toward the development of students’ “self-reflectiveness; ability to
reason; ability to express themselves in speech and writing, appropriate to the
discourse community while remaining, authentic to the student’s individuali-
ty; ability to integrate and contextualize information; passion for learning and
sense of wonder; ability both to collaborate and to work independently;
appreciation of the common humanity of all people and gratitude for human
differences; capacity to commit to a position, recognize that it may change,
and tolerate uncertainty and ambiguity” (West 3).
Second, what experiences have formed my perspectives on the issues and
questions that I am raising? I graduated from a U.S. Ivy League college that
had both departmental and college honors. I taught undergraduates in two
English universities for fourteen years (1990–2004). My teaching career
began (1990–1992) at a polytechnic university (Humberside Polytechnic,
now the University of Lincoln). I taught for twelve years (1992–2004) at a
highly rated, highly selective research university (University of Warwick). In
both English universities, I taught in an honours degree program. Since 2004
I have directed an undergraduate program at the University of Connecticut,
and for the past three years I have additionally served as Senior Associate
Director of the Honors Program. I advise and teach both honors and non-hon-
ors students.
In this essay I will (1) place some characteristics of Oxford undergradu-
ate education in a wider context of UK higher education, (2) describe some
characteristics of honours across the UK, and (3) highlight some of the fea-
tures of UK honours that readers of JNCHC will most likely recognize as hon-
ors education. (Nota Bene: I refer to the “UK” throughout this essay because
the matters discussed are largely similar across England, Wales, Scotland, and
Northern Ireland. However, there are differences in each region. Scottish uni-
versities have the most distinctive history and continue to have practices that
are different from the others, not least a more persistent practice of “honours”
requiring four years of study and an “ordinary degree” being capable of com-
pletion in three. For this reason, Scottish institutions of higher education have
comparatively more students who complete ordinary degrees.)
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
“HONOURS” IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
21
MARGARET LAMB
PUTTING OXFORD IN CONTEXT
Don’t get me wrong. Oxford is one of the world’s greatest universities
where highly accomplished, smart undergraduates get a wonderful education,
indeed an honors education. Oxford is the educational institution that inspired
pioneering U.S. honors educators early in the twentieth century. Frank
Aydelotte, a U.S. Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, 1905–1907, sought to transplant
in U.S. universities the rigors and rewards of Oxford’s individualized tutori-
al system, its pass/honours curricular approach, and the value placed on stim-
ulating intellectual conversation (Guzy; Rinn, “Rhodes Scholarships” and
“Major Forerunners”). On his return from England, Aydelotte became a dis-
tinguished educationalist (professor at Indiana and MIT, president of
Swarthmore) and over the next four decades advocated the spread and devel-
opment of honors education in the U.S. (Rinn, “Rhodes Scholarships”
31–32).
It was the principles and practices of the Oxford approach to education
that so attracted Aydelotte. At Oxford, he saw at work not an elitist version of
higher education, but, to his way of thinking, a proper implementation of
democratic principles. Rinn summarizes his position:
The word “democracy” is often used to denote equality. . . . Aydelotte
. . . believed the word “democracy” was misconceived. . . . [H]e did
not believe democracy to mean giving equal schooling or equal edu-
cation to all. Rather, while everyone should be given an equal oppor-
tunity for education, everyone should also be given an opportunity to
fulfill his or her own capabilities. . . . By being held to the same
requirements as all students, the brightest students were being held
back and limited in their intellectual potential. (“Rhodes
Scholarships” 33)
Oxford undergraduates still have “tutorials,” but they are not the same as they
were in the early twentieth century (Palfreyman 19–20). Oxford tutorials
today are often not quite as individualized as they were in Aydelotte’s day;
one, two, three, and sometimes more students may participate in a tutorial
together, but they still represent a distinctive Oxford method, powerfully
reflective of the intellectual values—critical thinking, support, intellectual
conversation—that Aydelotte and his peers advocated as the essence of hon-
ors education. Oxford tutorials, offered in the colleges, are part of “a mixed
pattern of teaching . . . a combination of tutorials, lectures, demonstrations
and seminars/classes, much of which is under the control of the faculties
rather than the colleges” (Palfreyman 20).
Arguably the “jewel in Oxford’s crown,” the tutorial system is one that
few UK universities (Cambridge excepted, but in slightly different form) can
FALL/WINTER 2012
22
“HONOURS” IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
replicate in full or in part (Palfreyman 14, 22). The “massification” of UK
higher education over the past three decades (Palfreyman 22) means that very
small group teaching, whether called tutorials or something else, is increas-
ingly beyond the practical reach of most UK universities. In my teaching
career at the University of Warwick, a highly selective university, I never
taught an undergraduate class—even a discussion section—smaller than four-
teen, and I can count on one hand the number of undergraduate independent
studies that I supervised. Even Oxford faculty members worry about how
long their distinctive tutorial system can be maintained in its current form
(Palfreyman). The UK higher education funding regime (in general, rising
tuition fees paid by students to supplement declining amounts of government
funding) places growing pressure on the Oxford tutorial system: increased
calls for improvements in quality from students and their advocates, demands
from peer institutions to eliminate Oxford’s and Cambridge’s special funding
for the tutorial system, and calls from government for Oxford to take more
students (Morgan, “Rise in Number”; Patton). Time will tell whether this
venerable feature of Oxford education will retain its curricular essence and
prominence in the face of cost-saving and the pressure of numbers.
Oxford undergraduates continue to face the hurdles of a first public exam-
ination—preliminary exams (“prelims”) or honors moderations (“mods”)—
and a second public examination (“finals”) with the results of the latter heav-
ily determining the final degree classification. Finals typically consists of
seven or eight “papers,” usually three hours each in duration, taken over a
period of about a week. Unlike in the early twentieth century when graduation
with honours was a minority aspiration, the honours path is now the norm. In
2011–2012, Oxford students graduating with classified honours degrees num-
bered 3,104; only four graduated with unclassified, ordinary degrees (Table 1).
“HONOURS” AS THE NORM ACROSS
UK UNIVERSITIES
In 2010–2011, individuals graduating with first degrees from UK uni-
versities numbered 369,015. Of the total, over 90% were classified
“Honours” degrees (Table 2). Determination of honours degree classification
was summarized by Yorke:
In the UK (apart from Scotland) it is typically the case that full-time
students have merely to pass their first year studies in order to
progress to what, in some institutions, is called ‘Part 2’ of the under-
graduate curriculum. The honours degree classification is usually
based on results from the second and final year of academic study
(i.e. Part 2). . . .
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
23
MARGARET LAMB
The majority of institutions in the UK uses grades in the form of
(what are typically called) percentage marks. These normally map on
to the honours degree classification via mean percentages as follows:
70.0% and above: first class honours
60.0 to 69.9%: upper second class honours
50.0 to 59.9%: lower second class honours
40.0 to 49.9%: third class honours.
A minority of institutions use grade-scales considerably shorter than
the so-called percentage scale, and determine the classification
according to the ‘profile’ of awarded grades. (678–79)
Given that honours is now the norm rather than the exception, it is unsur-
prising that focus has shifted to the quality of the honours classification, with
students, graduate schools, potential employers, and government all being
interested in how many students obtain “good” honours degrees, widely
understood as a “1st (first)” or a “2i (two-one or upper second).” Arguably, a
measure of upwards pressure on the number of “good” degrees creates a form
of UK grade inflation (Morgan, “Rise in Numbers”). Ninety-two percent of
Oxford’s most recent graduates obtained a 1st or 2i (Table 1), as did almost
60% of all UK graduates (Table 2). “Good” degrees have become a bigger
share (from 57% to 61.5% over four years) of all UK undergraduate degrees
(Table 3).
FALL/WINTER 2012
Honours Degree Classification Graduates
Number Percentage
1st 918 29.6
2.1 1932 62.2
2.2 223 7.2
3rd 27 0.9
Other 40.1
Total 3104 100.0
Table 1. Oxford University Undergraduate Degree Classifications
2011/12 (Interim Numbers)
Source: <http://www.ox.ac.uk/about_the_university/facts_and_figures/norrington
table.html> (accessed September 2, 2012).
24
“HONOURS” IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
An “unclassified degree” without honours has come to be understood
almost everywhere as a low performance. (The assumption is less true for
Scotland, where honours degrees typically require four years of study and
ordinary degrees only three years.) A mere 0.1% of Oxford graduates do not
receive a classified honours degree (Table 1). Across England, Wales, and
Northern Ireland, the comparable percentages are 4.9%, 4.2%, and 3.8%
respectively in 2010–2011 (Table 2).
With the focus on “good” degrees, much attention (and faculty time) is
given to defining the boundaries of degree classifications: Where should the
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
Graduate Northern Total
Numbers England Wales Scotland Ireland UK
First 45,050 2,830 4,035 1,300 53,215
Upper Second 141,105 9,110 11,850 4,035 166,100
Lower Second 85,020 6,550 5,535 2,105 99,210
Third/Pass 21,825 1,425 1,210 360 24,820
Unclassified 15,210 865 9,145 310 25,530
Unexplained 130 – 5 5 140
Total 308,340 20,780 31,780 8,115 369,015
Graduate Northern Total
Percentages England Wales Scotland Ireland UK
First 14.6% 13.6% 12.7% 16.0% 14.4%
Upper Second 45.8% 43.8% 37.3% 49.7% 45.0%
Lower Second 27.6% 31.5% 17.4% 25.9% 26.9%
Third/Pass 7.1% 6.9% 3.8% 4.4% 6.7%
Unclassified 4.9% 4.2% 28.8% 3.8% 6.9%
Unexplained 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table 2. Class of Degree Achieved by Students Obtaining First Degree
Qualifications at Higher Education Institutions in the UK by
Location 2010/11
Source: Table 6a, Higher Education Statistics Agency, Statistical First Release 169,
<http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2355&Item
id=161> (downloaded July 27, 2012).
25
MARGARET LAMB
FALL/WINTER 2012
Degree Type 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11
No. %No. %No. %No. %No. %
First 33,030 11.7 37,435 12.6 39,345 13.3 42,750 13.7 48,755 14.7
Upper Second 127,685 45.3 136,860 46.0 137,300 46.2 145,535 46.5 154,525 46.7
Total “good” degrees 160,715 57.0 174,295 58.6 176,645 59.5 188,285 60.2 203,280 61.5
Lower Second 82,250 29.2 84,805 28.5 82,655 27.8 86,325 27.6 88,810 26.9
Third / Pass 18,280 6.5 18,980 6.4 18,865 6.4 19,165 6.1 19,585 5.9
Unclassified 20,755 7.4 19,075 6.4 18,620 6.3 18,845 6.0 18,910 5.7
Total 282,000 100.0 297,235 100.0 296,870 100.0 312,740 100.0 330,715 100.0
Table 3. Class of Degree Achieved by Full-Time Students Obtaining First Degree Qualifications at Higher Education
Institutions in the UK 2006/07 to 2010/11
Source: Table 6, Higher Education Statistics Agency, Statistical First Release 169, <http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_con
tent&task=view&id=2355&Itemid=161> (downloaded July 27, 2012).
26
line be drawn for first-class degrees? What is the numerical difference
between an upper second and a lower second? Does a particular candidate
deserve a pass rather than third-class honours? Do extenuating circumstances
(e.g. illness or bereavement at exam time) justify deeming a particular candi-
date’s degree to fall in a higher classification? Several algorithms are typi-
cally adopted across UK universities to make such distinctions (Yorke et al.,
“Some Effects”). Some features of UK higher education are designed to help
institutions make these decisions with comparability across the whole sys-
tem. The external examiner system (see <http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/
PolicyAndResearch/PolicyAreas/QualityAssurance/HowTheSystemWorks/P
ages/ExternalExaminers.aspx>) operates to ensure that multiple examiners,
inside and outside the particular university, review the assessed work, the
examinations, and the practices that determine degree classification. Degree-
subject benchmark standards “define what can be expected of a graduate in
terms of the abilities and skills needed to develop understanding or compe-
tence in the subject” (see <https://qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/bench
mark/default.asp>). Notwithstanding the many structures and practices
designed to assure system-wide comparability of standards, research studies
demonstrate variation across the system in how degree classification is deter-
mined (Yorke et al., “Enigmatic Variations”); this is one reason (see Elton for
others) that proposals have been made over the last three decades to replace
UK degree classification with another system, perhaps U.S.-style grade point
averages and transcripts, or perhaps a portfolio approach.
COMPETITIVE ADMISSIONS TO
UK DEGREE COURSES
Students at the final stage of UK secondary school apply to particular
universities to study particular degree “courses.” UK university places are
allocated via a (largely) system-wide meritocratic sorting exercise that takes
place every August. UCAS (Universities and Colleges Admissions Service)
provides a system for UK universities to make conditional offers to candi-
dates, for exam results to be collated and tallied, and for degree course places
to be allocated on the basis of either conditional offers being met (matching)
or alternative offers being made and accepted for places not automatically
filled (clearing). Students are matched with their particular university, first, if
it is one of their choices, and, second, if they meet the conditions set for
acceptance in an offer from the particular university. By August, students
have had to decide which conditional offer they prefer and which they hold
in reserve, usually a slightly less demanding conditional offer. Therefore, stu-
dents who are relatively successful in their exams tend to get their first choice
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
“HONOURS” IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
27
or second choice, and those who are relatively less successful take their
chances scurrying for open spots in “clearing.”
For the UK’s academic high-achievers, GCE A level is the most typical
secondary school qualification. Therefore, the currency of admissions offers
for most of the UK’s best and brightest students is GCE A-level exam results.
While exam results are not the only matters considered in admissions deci-
sions, they weigh very heavily, and, in the upper strata of UK universities at
least, conditional offers are framed around A-level exam results. (Scotland
has a separate system of exams known as “highers” that serve similar func-
tions for Scottish applicants).
Many degree courses, especially in the more selective universities,
require that particular subjects have been studied and a threshold level of
exam performance obtained at A level (or its equivalent). In my experience,
English undergraduates on any particular degree course have a more homo-
geneous academic background than their U.S. counterparts. The limited num-
ber of subjects studied at Alevel, the similarity of preparation in many degree
subjects, and the comparative narrowness of UK degree course study itself
explain part of what I observe, but so does an admissions system that com-
petitively allocates spaces in the UK’s public institutions of higher education
to students with comparable exam performance.
Entry standards for UK universities can be compared by calculating aver-
age examination results for entering students (one method based on UCAS
tariff points is described in The Complete University Guide: <http://www.the
completeuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/key/>). The entry standards
index reflects the actual qualifications of entering students. The typical con-
ditional offer is an indication of the admissions threshold. Universities that
frame offers in A-level grades (e.g. A*AA or ABB in Table 4) are, in gener-
al, more selective than those that frame offers in UCAS tariff points, e.g., 240
tariff points, that may be obtained from a much wider range of qualifications.
As a generalization, students with the highest A-level results obtain
places in universities with the most competitive rankings. Oxford and
Cambridge attract the cohort of students with the very best results (see Table
4). Oxbridge is no different from the Ivy League in this sense: recruitment of
such a highly qualified cohort with such high expectations and ambitions
tends to ensure that honors education will be the norm. The interesting ques-
tion is where, in the UK university league table, honors education ceases to
be the norm but continues to thrive in parts of the curriculum. This question
is impossible for me to answer. All I can do is point to some of the features
and places that one would need to examine.
FALL/WINTER 2012
MARGARET LAMB
28
“HONOURS” IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
University For the University For Economics/Business Studies For History
as a whole (single honours) (single honours)
League Average Entry Average Entry Typical Conditional Average Entry Typical Conditional
Table Rank Standards (1) Standards (1) Offers (2) Standards (1) Offers (2)
Cambridge 1 593 613/unlisted A*AA 577 A*AA
Oxford 2 572 594/unlisted AAA 560 AAA
Warwick 7 496 551/483 A*AA/AAA 507 AAA
Edinburgh 26 470 469/442 AAA/AAA 448 AAA
Glasgow 18 459 462/436 ABB/ABB 453 ABB
York 8 450 468/388 AAA-AAB/AAB 520 AAA
Nottingham 13 435 484/408 ABB/AAB 452 AAA
Birmingham 23 433 458/424 AAA/AAB 424 AAB
Lincoln 44 315 Unlisted/301 Nr/260 305 280
tariff points tariff points
Northumbria 57 314 Unlisted/334 Nr/ABB 320 338 ABB 320
tariff points tariff points
East London 115 195 196/180 240 tariff points Unlisted 240 tariff points
Table 4. Extracts from Entry Standards Metrics, The Complete University Guide, 2013
Notes: “Nr” Not reported. (1) Average Entry Standards are expressed as the average UCAS Tariff points of all new university students under age 21 at the par-
ticular university. It is a weighted calculation of A-level grades and other qualifications. See <http://www.ucas.com/students/ucas_tariff/>. In Tariff calcula-
tions, GCE A-level exams graded A*, A, B, C, D, E are awarded the following points respectively: 140, 120, 100, 80, 60, and 40. (2) Some universities pub-
licize conditional offers framed around A-level examinations. Others may frame offers in UCAS Tariff points. Equivalent conditional offers will be written for
students judged to have equivalent qualifications (for example, IB, Scottish Highers, non-UK exams and grades).
Sources: <http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings>. Admissions websites for each individual university.
29
MARGARET LAMB
IN SEARCH OF HONORS EDUCATION IN
UK UNIVERSITIES
U.S. honors education is directed at our best and brightest students and
has an undeniable, functional elitist element to it (Weiner). In general, we
choose our honors students from the general population using a screening
process or a competitive application process. To a great extent, “best and
brightest” is defined in our particular institution’s context, but we do share
some expectations about the character and capacity of our students that will
tend to apply across the board. Whether we are talking about honors students
in public research universities, small liberal arts colleges, or community col-
leges, we hope that all of our honors students will be able to meet and will
choose to meet the challenges of honors education and will achieve levels of
academic excellence, engagement, critical thinking, and preparation for the
future that go well beyond the average achievements of their college peers.
We choose our honors students for their readiness and their eagerness to meet
such challenges.
In my experience, UK universities have nothing comparable to a U.S.-
style honors program or honors college to offer a more challenging or engag-
ing set of opportunities to a cross-section of the undergraduate population in
particular fields or across the board. Once undergraduates have been admit-
ted to particular degree courses, UK universities officially distinguish
between students only in outcomes (including exam results and degree clas-
sifications), not (or rarely) in opportunities. (Unofficially, of course, instruc-
tors know most of their best students, and their interactions with these stu-
dents may be richer and livelier, with more give and take than the norm.)
Admissions materials tend to emphasize general characteristics of degree
courses (e.g., opportunities for study abroad, particular topics to be studies,
pre-professional preparation) and the general competitiveness of the degree
(e.g., the league table rankings, the qualifications of entrants, the competi-
tiveness and quality of graduate placement). In its undergraduate prospectus
<http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/courses/order/warwick_e
xperience.pdf>, the University of Warwick, for example, emphasizes its sta-
tus as “a globally connected University” (“every student is an international
student”) and its “academic excellence,” “first-class teaching,” and opportu-
nities for “involvement in original research.” The emphasis on a common stu-
dent experience is reinforced by policies designed to ensure comparability of
UK higher education in general, e.g., the external examination system, and to
define “threshold” and “typical” standards, e.g., subject benchmark stan-
dards. Opportunities for students who want to be more challenged than their
peers are not commonly mentioned. Even in a Warwick exception to the
FALL/WINTER 2012
30
“HONOURS” IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
general rule, prospective business students are told about extracurricular
ways, not curricular ways, to enhance learning:
At Warwick there are great opportunities to extend your learning and
give you valuable experience, including entering international stu-
dent competitions, exploring a business project as part of your stud-
ies, completing an internship, and joining many entrepreneurial and
business-related student societies. Whichever degree course you
choose to study, you will leave WBS extremely well prepared for a
career in a competitive business environment. <http://www2.war
wick.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/courses/order/course_directory.pdf>
One has to look harder to find honors education in many UK universities
than would be the case in their U.S. counterparts. The clues are evident in
some of the general descriptions. From the Warwick undergraduate prospec-
tus again:
As a student at Warwick, you can share in the excitement of carrying
out original research along with our academic staff. With our well-
established Undergraduate Research Scholarship Scheme, you can
get funding so that you can work as part of a research team, with
training and supervision. . . .
[Y]ou may learn through:
• Lectures: the most formal way of teaching a large group of
students
• Seminars: a group of around a dozen students meeting with a
member of staff to consider a pre-assigned topic
• Tutorials: meetings of individuals or small groups with a tutor to
check out how you’re progressing or discuss a particular topic
in detail
•Laboratory/language classes in specialist facilities
• Performance: Warwick has nationally recognised expertise in
using theatrical performance skills to enhance learning
• Independent study: the key element of your transition to universi-
ty—learning to work either by yourself or as a member of a group
(<http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/courses/order/
warwick_experience.pdf>, 11, 13)
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
31
MARGARET LAMB
CONCLUSION
I know now that, as a Harvard undergraduate, I was immersed in honors
education and so were all of my peers. I took for granted that I would be chal-
lenged in almost every class; I expected to be an engaged participant in well-
informed, lively discussion; I expected to do research, to be encouraged to
take risks, and to find ways to be creative in and out of class; and I expected
to pursue graduate or professional education.
As an undergraduate teacher in one English university of average quali-
ty, the honors-caliber student occasionally emerged in classes where the
majority of students strived to hit the “typical” benchmarks for subject
knowledge and competence. For those occasional students, honors education
came in the form of conversation with faculty members and encouragement
to go beyond the syllabus and explore interesting areas of study. In contrast,
as an undergraduate teacher in another English university of high quality, just
shy of Oxbridge selectivity, the honors-caliber students were a recognizable
group to be engaged in class discussions, encouraged to pursue essays and
research on challenging topics, and enlisted to help motivate and assist oth-
ers less able. Exceptional performance could be recognized using the open-
endedness of assignments and exam questions allied with the open-endedness
of the percentage marking scale with a region (70–100) available to denote
all measures of excellent and outstanding.
As an administrator of undergraduates in highly selective U.S. universi-
ty programs, I know that honors education can be found in the UK not only
in the places where one would expect to find it, i.e., Oxford. My honors stu-
dents studying abroad in a range of UK universities—admittedly in the top
third of most UK league tables—find the challenges and supports equivalent
to honors education in some but not all aspects of their experience. Just the
fact that a course (“module”) is part of an “honours” degree (“course”) does
not mean that it is necessarily honors education.
The secret for those of us looking for honors education in UK universi-
ties is to know how to look beneath the label “honours” and the various sur-
face descriptions for its hallmarks: small class discussion, challenging assign-
ments, room to explore beyond the “threshold” and “typical,” emphasis on
research, and appreciation for originality, creativity, and unconventionality,
all of which are there in most UK universities if one knows how to look for
them. To understand UK honours, one has to be able to locate the challenges
for the very best students and the support that facilitates student success in
meeting the challenges. That’s where one finds honors education in UK
universities.
FALL/WINTER 2012
32
“HONOURS” IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
REFERENCES
Elton, Lewis. (2004). “Should Classification of the UK Honours Degree
Have a Future?” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(4):
415–422.
Guzy, Annemarie. (2003). Honors Composition: Historical Perspectives and
Contemporary Practices. NCHC Monographs Series, accessed online
July 27, 2012, <http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nchcmono/8/>.
Morgan, John. (2012). “Queries Over Special Funding for Oxbridge.” The
Times Higher Education Supplement, August 2, accessed online
September 2, 2012, <http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?
storycode=420748>.
Morgan, John. (2012). “Rise in Number of Students Getting a First or 2:1.”
The Times Higher Education Supplement, 13 January, accessed online
September 2, 2012, <http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?
storycode=418690>.
Palfreyman, David. (2008). “Higher Education, Liberal Education, Critical-
thinking, Academic Discourse, and the Oxford Tutorial as Sacred Cow or
Pedagogical Gem.” Ch. 1 in Palfreyman, David (ed.) The Oxford
Tutorial: “Thanks, You Taught Me How to Think” (2nd ed.). Oxford
Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies, Occasional Paper No. 1,
<http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/Publications/Resources/OxCHEPS_OP1_
08.pdf>.
Patton, Graeme. (2012). “Clearing 2012: Top Universities ‘Should Expand’
Says Higher Education Minister David Willetts.” The Telegraph, August
16, accessed online September 2, 2012, <http://www.telegraph.
co.uk/education/universityeducation/university-clearing/9478426/Clear
ing-2012-top-universities-should-expand-says-higher-education-minis
ter-David-Willetts.html>.
Rinn, Anne. (2003). “Rhodes Scholarships, Frank Aydelotte, and Collegiate
Honors Education.” Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council,
4(1): 27–39, accessed online July 27, 2012, <http://digitalcommons.unl.
edu/nchcjournal/127/>.
Rinn, Anne. (2006). “Major Forerunners to Honors Education at the
Collegiate Level.” Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council,
7(2): 63–84, accessed online July 27, 2012, <http://digitalcommons.unl.
edu/nchcjournal/17/>.
Walmsley, Jane. (2003). Brit-think, Ameri-think: A TransAtlantic Survival
Guide (2nd revised edition). NYC and London: Penguin Books.
Weiner, Norm. (2009). “Honors is Elitist, and What’s Wrong with That?”
Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, 10(1): 19–24,
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
33
MARGARET LAMB
accessed online July 27, 2012, <http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nchcjour
nal/258/>.
West, Rinda. (2002). “Introduction” in Cheryl L. Fuiks and Larry Clark (eds.)
Teaching and Learning in Honors. NCHC Monographs Series. Paper 9,
accessed online July 27, 2012, <http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nchc
mono/9>.
Yorke, Mantz. (2010). “How Finely Grained Does Summative Assessment
Need to Be?” Studies in Higher Education, 35(6): 677–689, accessed
online July 27, 2012, <http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=art
icle&id=doi:10.1080/03075070903243118>.
Yorke, Mantz, Barnett, Greg, Evanson, Peter, Haines, Chris, Jenkins, Don,
Knight, Peter, Scurry, Dave, Stowell, Marie, and Woolf, Harvey. (2004).
“Some Effects of the Award Algorithm on Honours Degree
Classifications in UK Higher Education.” Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 29(4): 401–413, ERIC, accessed online July 27, 2012.
Yorke, Mantz, Woolf, Harvey, Stowell, Marie, Allen, Rick, Haines, Chris,
Redding, Marian, Scurry, Dave, Taylor-Russell, Graham, Turnbull,
Wayne, and Walker, Lawrie. (2008). “Enigmatic Variations: Honours
Degree Assessment Regulations in the UK.” Higher Education
Quarterly, 62(3): 157–180, ERIC, accessed online July 27, 2012.
*******
The author may be contacted at
margaret.lamb@uconn.edu.
FALL/WINTER 2012
34 JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
35
Honours in Australia:
Globally Recognised
Preparation for a Career in
Research (or Elsewhere)
DEIRDRE BARRON
S
WINBURNE
U
NIVERSITY OF
T
ECHNOLOGY
(V
ICTORIA
, A
USTRALIA
)
MARGARET ZEEGERS
U
NIVERSITY OF
B
ALLARAT
(V
ICTORIA
, A
USTRALIA
)
INTRODUCTION
I
n this essay we consider the unique position of honours within undergrad-
uate programs in Australian universities and the consequent implications
for constructing pathways to research. A tension arises in academic disci-
plines that see honours as a fourth-year skilling program focused on the
workplace when, at the institutional level, honours is positioned as the pre-
requisite for entry to a PhD. What emerges are competing pressures for
advanced vocational training and preliminary research training for doctoral
research. The tension is exacerbated by the need for universities to generate
research cohorts in order to attract the funding that such cohorts bring to a
university.
BACKGROUND
Our discussion of honours in Australia occurs at a time when Australian
funding bodies themselves recognise that “Honours, as undertaken at
Australian universities, are not commonly part of degree structures overseas
and are therefore not well understood internationally” (Department of
Industry Innovation Science and Research [DIISR], 2011, 9). Our discussion
occurs also at a time when a First Class Honours degree or equivalent is a
hurdle in eligibility for a government-funded Higher Degree by Research
scholarship. An examination of historic and current documents relating to
honours in Australia is largely informed by the assumption that a vibrant hon-
ours program increases the likelihood of cohorts of well-trained researchers
completing their degree on time, if not early, and providing a potential pool
of future academics to staff university programs.
FALL/WINTER 2012
36
HONOURS IN AUSTRALIA
No specific policy debates or discussions on honours took place until
2011, the only extant document relating to honours programs in Australia
having been that of Murray in 1957. It is worthwhile revisiting Murray’s
Report of the Committee on Australian Universities to illustrate the point we
want to make regarding honours. In the report, he describes the university
library, rendering a description redolent of a cloistered, sequestered apart-
ment in a monastery. The library, he writes, is a
place where [the student] is welcomed and encouraged to pursue a
personal and independent search for knowledge and understanding,
where his [sic] capacities for independence of thought and judgment
are enlarged, and where, above all, he [sic] is treated as a scholar, to
be provided with the peaceful and uncrowded conditions conducive
to scholarly work. (51)
Books and journals are absent from the space he describes, as are desks,
tables, carrels, chairs, and librarians. The ideal is all that furnishes this space,
and it is one to which students come: it is not one that emits the information
it stores in the form of borrowings to remote places or even to the students’
places of study on campus. Murray’s report encapsulates the 1950s percep-
tion of the university student within a university construct that is not con-
nected to country, language, creed, or race. It could be anywhere in the world.
It exists as an infinitive (Zeegers & McCauley). This articulation of universi-
ty study was driving policy-making in relation to universities in 1957, when
Menzies, Prime Minister at the time, accepted Murray’s recommendations for
massive financial assistance to universities, setting the pattern for increasing
Commonwealth Government involvement in university education (Zeegers &
Barron).
In addressing the position of honours programs, the Hansard record of a
2008 hearing by the Melbourne Senate Committee notes that, between
Murray’s 1957 report and the time of the hearing, “We did not even have
manned space flight, computers were almost non-existent, and yet it is some-
thing that is unquestioned” (29). Recent moves towards establishing the
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) and the attendant
Australian Quality Framework (Council for the Australian Quality
Framework) have started to address the inattention to honours programs. The
new standards should go a long way toward addressing the lack of agreement
among universities about honours, grades, and criteria for these, with the
view that:
The purpose of the Bachelor Honours Degree qualification type is to
qualify individuals who apply a body of knowledge in a specific
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
37
DEIRDRE BARRON AND MARGARET ZEEGERS
context to undertake professional work and as a pathway for research
and further learning. (Council for the Australian Qualifications
Framework, 39)
Between 1957 and 2011, honours remained a largely uncontested feature
of Australian universities. The Australian Vice Chancellors Committee
(AVCC) publication Fourth Year Honours Programs: Guidelines for Good
Practice no longer exists as a discrete document but was a 1995 publication
based on the Guthrie Report of 1994. The Guthrie Report is another docu-
ment that is no longer available, so we cannot refer to its recommendations.
Something (but not a great deal) of the importance of the honours award can
be gleaned from the figures generated from the 2002 National Summary of
Post Graduate Awards published by the Australian Vice Chancellors
Committee.
The Graduate Careers Council of Australia’s Course Experience
Questionnaire Tables of 2005 does not distinguish between those who did
and did not graduate with honours on any of its scales for the universities
across Australia, nor do the Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies
(DDoGS) have any information about honours programs or any documenta-
tion to suggest they have ever discussed honours. Even though honours is an
undergraduate and not graduate program, we would expect that—since hon-
ours or at least honours equivalence is the main entry point to the postgradu-
ate studies that they oversee—the Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies
would articulate a public stance on the issue.
As of 2005, the website of the Department of Education Science and
Training (DEST)—which became the Department of Education Employment
and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) after the 2007 change in government—
had been content-free on the subject, as had the site for the Chairs of
Academic Boards. A report conducted on behalf of the Australian Historical
Association (Millar & Peel) did indicate the numbers of honours students in
history at Australian universities, but these data are too specialised to be of
much value in generalisations about honours programs across universities in
the country. A compilation of DEST data sets in relation to enrollments in
honours programs in Australian universities in 2005 (Kleeman) shows a con-
centration of numbers in the larger urban centres, not in rural and regional
universities. The local variations indicated the need for national guidelines
and policy, backed with appropriate funding programs, to ensure a measure
of consistent outcomes of honours programs in relation to national awards,
particularly as these apply to ranking for scholarships.
A2005 comparison of honours outcomes with master’s outcomes was
illuminating at the time. A student wanting to take up higher-degree research
study needed honours or some sort of equivalent, and there was a strong
FALL/WINTER 2012
38
HONOURS IN AUSTRALIA
argument for honours equivalence especially when it came to applications for
scholarships. Master’s by Coursework and Master’s by Research degrees
show percentages of research components undertaken by students. AMaster’s
by Coursework, for example, usually serves as an argument for honours
equivalence given its general inclusion of a 25% research component. No
such transparency is evident across the universities studied in relation to their
honours programs. As a consequence, the universities’research higher-degree
programs have more than likely been geared to graduates from their own hon-
ours programs, but Australian Postgraduate Awards (APAs) and Australian
Postgraduate Awards Industry (APAIs) are national awards, which means that
graduates who would transfer to different universities in pursuit of such
awards may have encountered a measure of variation in expectations in rela-
tion to research skills training that may or may not have been well founded.
The lack of debate, let alone conversation, over the years suggests that
honours has been taken for granted as a pathway through the university sys-
tem and that there has been little need to articulate its place in the system,
hence the lack of documentation produced by universities or related bodies
such as the AVCC, the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF), or the
Department of Education Science and Training (DEST), which is now the
Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR),
up to 2012.
In Australia, honours has a number of appellations to indicate various
classifications. Universities in Australia refer to a First Class Honours as
either a H1 or a H1A; a Second Class Honours is referred to as H2A and H2B
or H11A and H11B; a Third Class Honours may be referred to as simply
Honours. We found a lack of consistency in applying these appellations
across Australian universities, but in this essay we will use H1 to indicate a
First Class Honours and H2 as a Second Class Honours.
Honours programs have traditionally followed two formats in Australian
universities: three years plus one honours year or four years with honours
embedded. Within both formats, we have found that seven Victorian univer-
sities, for example, award H1 for a minimum 80% grade point average while
two award H1 for a minimum 85%. Universities also vary in the ways H2 is
allocated, not to mention H2As, H2Bs, and so on. We have categorised hon-
ours programs for 24 of the 37 public universities in Australia. Three patterns
emerged:
Category 1: H1 is awarded consistently across the university for a
grade of 85+. Eight universities were in this category.
Category 2: H1 is awarded across the university at 80+. Eleven uni-
versities were in this category.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
39
DEIRDRE BARRON AND MARGARET ZEEGERS
Category 3: H1 grades vary between faculties. Five universities were
in this category, one of which had grade variation within its faculties
as well.
The documentation provided by the Australian Vice Chancellors Committee
in 2002 did not give figures for the number of honours degrees awarded in
any of the years it canvassed, but it did give a fifty-page printout of numbers
of honours graduates, with no analysis or breakdown of the figures in partic-
ular universities or the level of honours achieved. What that document did
indicate was a 12% increase in graduates going from honours degrees to
higher research degrees between 1992 and 2001, suggesting that the rele-
vance of honours in relation to APAs and APAIs research project funding was
a salient consideration in outcomes for graduates with honours degrees. After
this document, little relevant material is available. 2010 figures do indicate,
though, that in 2009 there were 44,292 Doctor by Research (which includes
PhD and Professional Doctorate) enrollments and 16,708 in Bachelor’s
Honours degrees (Department of Education Employment and Workplace
Relations).
TOWARD A STANDARD QUALITY FRAMEWORK
Our previous review, in 2008, of universities’ honours programs across
rural, regional, and urban Australia indicated variation in the programs we
canvassed (Zeegers & Barron). We saw that honours was localised and that
there was a lack of consistency in application of policies or procedures in the
implementation of honours programs. The conduct of honours programs has
been very much a given aspect of undergraduate programs but has enjoyed a
privileged position within academia, especially in awarding of research
scholarships.
We examined universities’ statements on honours programs, which indi-
cated a tacit understanding that a dynamic honours program is the basis of a
dynamic research culture within a university, an assumption that had been
unquestioned since it was articulated in the 1957 Murray Report on
Australian universities. In 2008, we did not question the role that honours
may play within a university and its research culture, and we do not do so
now, but we found that honours programs had not been singled out for atten-
tion by major organizations in the higher education field, and this situation
continued until 2011. The AQF was established in 1995 to create a national
system of qualifications but made no reference to honours. In 2011 the
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) took over the
AQF’s role and specified details of requirements for higher education levels,
with honours being classed as a Level 8 course: above Level 7 (bachelor’s
FALL/WINTER 2012
40
HONOURS IN AUSTRALIA
degree) and equal with Graduate Certificates and Graduate Diplomas. This
classification is significant in that it deals with issues of the sort raised in our
previous work.
A strength of TEQSA in relation to honours is that it explicitly addresses
the lack of consistency and transparency as it pertains to research components
understood to be features of honours degrees. TEQSA’s aim is to establish
consistency in degree quality and standards across the country so that hon-
ours students from any university would be qualified for postgraduate
research programs in any other university in the country while at the same
time providing a measure of consistency in the awarding of scholarships.
TEQSA also anticipates that industry will be more informed about the types
of skills and qualities that an honours graduate will bring to any positions
they may take up.
TEQSA has moved to address the variations in honours graduates’ skills
and research standards, an important consideration when it comes to the rel-
ative standing of honours students applying for nationally competitive schol-
arships. What we would argue needs to change, but which has not been
specifically addressed in the new TEQSA arrangements, is the historical dis-
parity in what grade is required to be awarded an H1 in universities across
Australia. Universities can make their own decisions on the minimum grade
and not just follow the past definitions of HIs or H2s. There is the rider:
If a student does not hold a Bachelor degree with First Class
Honours, then the HEP [Higher Education Provider] may determine
that the student has demonstrated an equivalent level of academic
attainment. In determining an equivalent level of academic attain-
ment, a HEP may consider previous study, relevant work experience,
research publications, referees’ reports and other research experi-
ence. (DIISR, 2010, Equivalent Attainment)
A complicating factor is that the Australian government specifies that the
equivalence applies only to H1 and not to H2 and that scholarships will be
made available only to students with HI. This situation is still to be negotiat-
ed, if not actually resolved.
TEQSA has also moved to address questions that may be raised about the
relative abilities of candidates to complete their higher research degrees, as
required by the Research Training Scheme (RTS), which is the policy basis
of postgraduate research programs in Australia whereby research students are
constructed as trainees working with experts in the conduct of rigorous and
trustworthy research. Honours may be seen as a program in which a potential
doctoral student will approximate the research behaviours of more experi-
enced researchers in a given field; in essence, it is research training. A
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
41
question remains: how to evaluate the equivalence of an H1 result to a
Research Masters that has an ungraded pass.
The disparities that we have canvassed above have indicated that honours
programs, even where they have been categorised and examined as disci-
pline-specific, have shown disparities across universities and across various
areas in the same universities in which they were offered. This situation has
been addressed by TEQSA, on paper at least, and its benchmarking means
that all applicants for higher research degrees may be considered equitably.
Before the changes introduced in 2011, if applicants did not have an honours
degree with an H1 grade, they would be judged against the sorts of criteria
that were assumed to underpin an H1 grade, yet there was no evidence that
an honours student who achieved an H1 had met those criteria. Universities
that we investigated had no issue with demanding clear evidence of research-
based activity in an honours equivalence case but accepted unquestioningly
an assumption of a high level of research capacity associated with an
H1 grade.
Indeed, universities had no problem setting criteria for non-honours
graduates. The standard form that we found in the universities we examined
had, and indeed still has, the heading Honours Equivalence, requiring that
applicants make a case that they have engaged in research-based activities or
that their professional practice has required them to engage in critical analy-
sis and implementation of change as part of their professional activities. What
TEQSA has done, then, is articulate the standards against which the criteria
of an honours grade will be measured. What is more, the purpose, knowledge,
and skills as well as the application of knowledge and skills, while being
specified by TEQSA, have an additional “volume of learning” dimension, a
set of specifications that has been lacking. We would suggest, then, a simpler
approach of awarding scholarships on the basis of grade-point achievement,
according to standards that have been established and articulated by TEQSA,
and scrapping the entire nomenclature of H1, H2, and so on.
THE NUMBERS
In 2008, 7,174 students completed a higher degree by research (HDR),
an increase of 41% since 1998 (DIISR, 2009). In 2011, the government sup-
ported 3,270 commencing APAs and at the same time announced that, in
2012, this number would be increased to 3,500 (DIISR, 2011). Of all entrants
to higher degrees by research, 20.4% are honours graduates, with 16.2%
entering via other postgraduate courses, e.g., master’s degrees (DIISR, 2011).
The rise in the numbers taking up established honours pathways to research
degrees, compared with possibilities open to students via master’s degrees,
for example, may show that honours is more attractive in that it gives a
FALL/WINTER 2012
DEIRDRE BARRON AND MARGARET ZEEGERS
42
competitive edge in the award of scholarships. Honours is one point in the
possible pathways to higher research degrees where an undergraduate degree
(a bachelor’s degree with honours) outranks a postgraduate degree (a mas-
ter’s). The honours pathway is also one that, while it has important implica-
tions for research higher degrees, is beyond the scope of any possible moni-
toring protocols by deans of graduate studies. One such dean we interviewed
acknowledged the implied link between honours and the activities of his own
research and graduate studies office but also pointed out that any monitoring
of honours programs within his university occurred within faculty protocols
and practices. This dimension of honours protocols and procedures remains
unchanged in spite of the changes wrought by TEQSA.
An expectation of bachelor’s graduates is that they have practical and
professional competencies in their chosen field. An honours graduate,
though, may be expected to have at least advanced enquiry skills and at most
a demonstrated capacity for undertaking research to generate new knowledge
or to use existing knowledge in new ways. Such an expectation, though, is not
supported by evidence; it is, rather, simply a conventional assumption within
Australian universities. As a pathway into higher research degrees, honours is
claimed by universities to provide an opportunity, first of all, to approximate
the research behaviours of those who have led the field in research activities,
to learn the protocols involved, and to come to the understanding that, like
Einstein, the honours student is standing on the shoulders of giants. Second
of all, honours enables research students to make an authentic contribution to
the world’s store of knowledge by virtue of their engagement with authentic
research activities. We argue that these tacit understandings, of the sort that
Murray took up in his discussion of honours in Australian universities, need
to be foregrounded and reviewed in current RTS contexts that are so much a
part of twenty-first-century research activities in Australian universities.
If Australian universities value research, as they are required to do by the
funding bodies that support their activities, they cannot with any sort of jus-
tification focus only on the vocational features of honours programs. By
vocational features we mean the practical competencies associated with par-
ticular careers or professions rather than the skills associated with enquiry
and scholarship. The research components of honours programs have in
recent years received legislative attention that, we suggest, has created a pol-
icy climate in which Australian universities may now implement even further
innovation to strengthen the position of honours as part of the research path-
ways in Australian universities.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
HONOURS IN AUSTRALIA
43
THE STRENGTHS OF AQF IN THE
POLICY DOMAIN
Policy is now in place to align universities’ activities with national expec-
tations for honours graduates. This policy provides a mechanism for elimi-
nating the sort of variation that we have observed in universities across the
country, especially in awarding APAs and APAIs. The awards of PhD,
Professional Doctorate, and Masters by Research degrees are now under-
pinned by established conventions of examinations by scholars of national
and international repute in their disciplinary areas. We have not found a sim-
ilar underpinning of honours programs; we have instead found variations
across and within faculties even when it comes to the examination of honours
theses. The TEQSA position, though, now means that it has been possible to
establish a national and nationally consistent standard for honours similar to
that used in higher research degrees.
Honours graduates may or may not want to go on to pursue a research
program. They may instead wish to take advanced skills into the workplace
they have chosen as part of their own career paths, which raises the question
of just what these advanced skills may be: vocational skills, critical thinking,
analytical skills, and so on. Defining the standards for providing vocational
training in honours will require a different process than defining standards for
preparing students to do significant research. Our argument is that the latter
standards need to be scrutinised in terms of policy and administrative behav-
iour given their implications for awarding APAs and APAIs.
CONCLUSION
We have given an historical account of the position of honours in
Australian universities. We have mapped a number of assumptions that
Australian universities have taken for granted in relation to their honours pro-
grams. We have shown that, prior to 2011, governing bodies and universities
themselves had been inattentive to the role, content, and grading of honours.
At the same time, there was an unexamined assumption that honours was the
foundation for entry to research higher degree programs, an assumption that
was not necessarily supported by the situation on campuses across the coun-
try. Universities, as self-accrediting bodies, had been able to operate in isola-
tion, unaccountable to each other as far as honours or indeed their entire
undergraduate programs were concerned. This inattentiveness was evident in
the policy drought associated with bodies such as the AVCC and AQF which,
in their advisory roles, had not singled out honours for particular considera-
tion over the years. Honours suffered as this situation continued.
FALL/WINTER 2012
DEIRDRE BARRON AND MARGARET ZEEGERS
44
HONOURS IN AUSTRALIA
We see the new policy and its implementation in 2012 as a major step in
addressing discrepancies, providing a guide to universities as they address
assumptions upon which are based the awarding of scholarships for post-
graduate research within vibrant research cultures. Honours programs are
now open to public scrutiny, the sort of scrutiny which had been absent
since 1957.
REFERENCES
Australian Vice Chancellors Committee. (2002). National Summary of Post
Graduate Awards. AVCC Canberra. Retrieved January 15, 2007 from
<http://www.avcc.edu.au/documents/publications/stats/PGADC02_Nats
um.xls>
Council for the Australian Qualifications Framework. (2011). The Australian
Qualifications Framework: July 2011 edition. Australian Quality
Frameworks Council (a Council of the Ministerial Council for Tertiary
Education and Employment), South Australia
Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations. (2010).
Table (i): Summary of student numbers (a).
Department of Innovation Industry Science and Research. (2011). Defining
Quality for Research Training in Australia: A Consultation Paper.
Canberra: Australian Government.
Department of Innovation Industry Science and Research. (2012). Defining
Quality for Research Training in Australia: National Consultations.
Canberra: Australian Government.
Department of Innovation Industry Science and Research. (2010). Equivalent
Attainment to a Bachelor Degree with First Class Honours. Canberra:
Australian Government.
Department of Innovation Industry Science and Research. (2009). Higher
Education Statistics: Full Year Summary. Canberra: Australian
Government.
Department of Innovation Industry Science and Research. (2010). Higher
Education Statistics: 2009 Full Year Summary. Canberra: Australian
Government.
Department of Innovation Industry Science and Research. (2010). Higher
Education Support Act 2003 – Commonwealth Scholarships Guidelines
(Research). Retrieved February17, 2010 from <http://www.comlaw.gov.
au/Details/F2010L03009/Html/Text#_Toc275939864>.
Graduate Careers Council of Australia. (2005). Course Experience
Questionnaire Tables.Graduate Careers Council of Australia, Canberra.
Retrieved January 15, 2007, from: <http://www.avcc.edu.au/documents/
policies_programs/graduates/2005/CEQ_ASCED_2005.CSV>.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
45
DEIRDRE BARRON AND MARGARET ZEEGERS
Hansard. (2008). Senate Committee Inquiry into research training and
research workforce issues in Australia hearing, Melbourne. September 8.
<http://www.sciencemedia.com.au/search/search.cfm?Cat=761&
Page=53>.
Kleeman, J. (2007). Enrolments in Honours Bachelors level courses 2005
[Personal Communication]. January 17, 2007.
Millar, C., & Peel, M. (2005–6). History Curriculum Review: Honours and
Postgraduate Coursework Programs: Final Report to the
AHA.Australian Historical Association, Adelaide. Retrieved January 15,
2007, from <http://www.theaha.org.au/2006_AHA_Final_Report.doc>.
Murray, K. (1957). Report of the Committee on Australian Universities.
Canberra: Commonwealth Government Printer.
Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency. (2012). The Role and
Functions of TEQSA. Retrieved April 19, 2012 from <http://www.
teqsa.gov.au/>.
Zeegers, M. & Barron, D. (2008). Honours: a taken-for-granted pathway to
research? Higher Education DOI 10.1007/s10734-008-9162-0
Zeegers, M., & Macauley, P. (2000). Distancing libraries: The times they are
a-changing. Paper presented at the Distance Education: An Open
Question? Conference, University of South Australia.
*******
The authors may be contacted at
m.zeegers@ballarat.edu.au.
FALL/WINTER 2012
46 JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
47
The Tutorial
Education Program:
An Honors Program
for Brazilian
Undergraduate Students
DENISE DE SOUZA FLEITH, ADERSON LUIZ COSTA JR., AND
EUNICE M. L. SORIANO DE ALENCAR
INSTITUTE OF PSYCHOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF BRASILIA, BRAZIL
INTRODUCTION
T
he Tutorial Education Program is an honors program for Brazilian under-
graduates, sponsored by the Ministry of Education. Based on philosoph-
ical principles of tutorial education in which small groups of academic tal-
ented students are guided by a tutor, the program is designed to support
groups of undergraduates who demonstrate outstanding performance in their
academic activities. The Tutorial Education Program provides enrichment
activities in order to broaden the academic development of students with
exceptional potential and abilities. Our purpose in this paper is to describe
this honors program for undergraduates from different states in Brazil, focus-
ing on the underlying philosophy of the program, its purposes, the main cri-
teria for the selection of the students, how the program is organized and eval-
uated, the number of participating students, and universities that provide this
program. As an illustration, the paper will also provide a brief presentation of
how this program is conducted in the Institute of Psychology of the
University at Brasilia, Brazil.
BACKGROUND
The advantages of providing programs for academically talented students
have been increasingly recognized by governments and educators in different
countries. One factor that explains this recognition is growing awareness of
the benefits to countries that provide opportunities for their most capable stu-
dents to develop their potential more fully. Kessler and Krejci, for example,
FALL/WINTER 2012
48
THE TUTORIAL EDUCATION PROGRAM
in a meeting of gifted education scholars from different countries that was
organized by the World Council for the Gifted and Talented Children,
remarked that human talent was Austria’s most valuable resource in interna-
tional competition and that measures should be taken to develop the most
capable students.
The interest in academically talented students in Taiwan, according to
Wu, arose from the understanding that an island with few natural resources
needs to fully develop their human resources, including among them those
students with outstanding intellectual potential, who should receive special
attention. Similarly, Gallagher justifies the continued interest in the education
of the most capable students in the United States by pointing out the need for
a supply of highly talented students who can contribute to the country’s lead-
ership in higher education and in science, technology, engineering, and math-
ematics (STEM-related areas). In the same vein, Weinert points out the
increasing awareness, observed in several countries, of human abilities and
talents as the most precious resources to nurture and benefit society.
A vast literature is available about the special characteristics and needs
of the most capable students that should be fostered in order for them to
develop their potential more fully (Alencar & Fleith; Colangelo & Davis;
Fleith & Alencar; Heller, Mönks, Sternberg, & Subotnik; Horowitz,
Subotnik, & Matthews; Shavinina; Van Tassel-Baska; Wallace & Eriksson).
Although numerous strategies on how to educate capable students are
described in the literature, most of the publications focus on services for tal-
ented students at the K–12 level, presenting a description of different types
of enrichment and acceleration interventions in education that address these
students’ intellectual and social/emotional needs. Numerous studies have
also been conducted on the academic and psychological benefits that result
from children’s participation in such acceleration or enrichment programs,
but research on programs and services for academically gifted undergradu-
ate students is comparatively scarce, or so it would seem in analysis of the
literature on gifted education, including the best-known handbooks—such as
those edited by Colangelo and Davis, Heller, Mönks, Sternberg and
Subotnik, and Shavinina—as well as journals such as Gifted Education
International, Gifted and Talented International, and Gifted Child
Quarterly.
Among the programs for academically gifted undergraduates, however,
one that deserves attention is the honors program, available to American stu-
dents for a long time. According to Rinn and Plucker, Harvard University had
special programs for honors students as early as 1873 and the University of
Michigan as early as 1882; in 1922, Swarthmore College initiated an honors
program that was the starting point for the most common types of honors
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
49
FLEITH, COSTA, AND DE ALENCAR
programs in higher education. Nowadays, many American colleges and uni-
versities offer honors programs to attend to the needs of academically talent-
ed undergraduate students (Hébert & McBee). These programs provide
numerous opportunities for students to develop their potential, including (a)
academic challenges in the form of honors courses and seminars; (b) exten-
sive faculty contact; (c) interdisciplinary classes; (d) mentoring; (d) opportu-
nities to participate in leadership activities and research; and (e) intellectual-
ly oriented extracurricular activities. However, little is known about honors
programs for undergraduate students in countries other than the United
States. The current study aims to contribute in this direction.
THE TUTORIAL EDUCATION PROGRAM
In 1979, the Brazilian Department of Improvement of Graduate
Personnel of the Ministry of Education initiated the Tutorial Education
Program with fifteen students from two universities. This number has
increased dramatically since then, and universities from all parts of the coun-
try have requested authorization to implement the program in some of their
departments. The program is based on philosophical principles of tutorial
education in which groups of four to twelve academically talented students
are guided by a tutor. Its purpose is to support groups of undergraduate stu-
dents who demonstrate outstanding performance in their academic activities
as well as high potential and abilities by providing enrichment activities to
broaden their academic development. The program, as defined in 2006, aims
to: (a) offer academic and interdisciplinary activities of excellence, (b)
improve college education, (c) prepare students to become highly qualified
professionals, (d) supply students with opportunities to further develop high-
er-level thinking abilities as well as social responsibilities of citizenship, and
(e) enhance teamwork abilities (Ministry of Education). Also, the activities
implemented by the Tutorial Education Program are designed to strengthen
the partnership between the university and society, favoring cooperative
exchanges and mutual learning. The students should disseminate new ideas
and practices among their academic peers and members of the community
(Libâneo & Costa Jr.).
Undergraduate students are selected for this program during their second,
third, or fourth semester at the university. The main criteria for selection are
high academic achievement, high interest, and motivation in carrying out
their studies. A professor is chosen as the mentor for each group and is
responsible for planning activities and supervising the students. The mentor
is selected from professors who demonstrate real interest in the program, high
academic productivity, and a good relationship with colleagues and students.
The program is evaluated each year. The students receive a scholarship and
FALL/WINTER 2012
50
THE TUTORIAL EDUCATION PROGRAM
remain in the program throughout their undergraduate program (Alencar,
Fleith, & Arancibia). The tutor is also granted a scholarship.
The role of the tutor is (a) to plan and supervise the group activities and
to guide students; (b) to coordinate the students’ selection procedures; (c) to
submit the group’s annual activities proposal to the university and to the
Ministry of Education; (d) to organize data and information about the group
activities to substantiate the annual report to be sent to the Ministry of
Education; (e) to dedicate a minimum of ten hours a week to the Tutorial
Education Program; (g) to control students’ attendance and participation; and
(h) to account for funds received by the group (Ministry of Education
[2006]).
Up to 2010, 4,274 students and 400 tutors from public and private uni-
versities located in different regions of Brazil have participated in the pro-
gram (Ministry of Education [2012]). The program includes 428 groups of
students in distinct fields of knowledge, e.g., business, engineering, econom-
ics, political science, statistics, mathematics, geology, physics, chemistry,
biology, psychology, education, architecture, the arts, and law. Each year
higher education institutions may submit applications to the program. The
Ministry of Education sponsors thirty new groups per year.
To evaluate the effectiveness of the Tutorial Education Program, the
Ministry of Education (2006) adopts the following indicators: (a) annual
report of the group, (b) academic performance of students of the program, (c)
students’ involvement in activities and projects of the program, (d) improve-
ment and innovation of educational practices at the undergraduate level, (e)
students’ publications and attendance at scientific events, (f) annual self-eval-
uation reports prepared by students and tutors of the program, and (g) visits
of Ministry of Education delegates to the groups.
THE TUTORIAL EDUCATION PROGRAM AT THE
INSTITUTE OF PSYCHOLOGY OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF BRASILIA
The current configuration of the Tutorial Education Program at the
Institute of Psychology at the University of Brasilia includes twelve academ-
ically talented undergraduates. The students are expected to participate in the
program for at least two years, after which they receive a Participation
Certificate for the Tutorial Education Program that is issued by the Ministry
of Education. When a student stays in the program for less than two years, he
or she is entitled to receive only a statement of participation issued by the
University of Brasilia.
The selection process is composed of three phases: (a) a school transcript
evaluation, where the candidate must have a global grade average above the
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
51
FLEITH, COSTA, AND DE ALENCAR
70th percentile; (b) a written, knowledge-based test on the specific content of
four fundamental areas of the course (personality, social behavior, learning,
and developmental psychology), in which the candidate must earn at least 70
points out of 100; and (c) an oral exam, on which the student must also earn
a grade of 70%, which assesses the student’s availability, motivation, interest,
and general knowledge. The Tutorial Education Program in Psychology con-
ducts one selection process a year, with results valid for one year only; after
that, another selective process is required.
The student requirements are the following: (a) to ensure the academic
quality of the program; (b) to participate in all activities programmed by the
tutor, including teaching, research, social, and community activities; (d) to
have good academic performance in the undergraduate program; (e) to con-
tribute to the professional development of classmates; and (f) to publish or
present a scientific paper, individually or in group, each year.
In the specific case of the Institute of Psychology at the University of
Brasilia, students engage in a scientific research project throughout the year.
The students may elaborate and develop their own projects under the guid-
ance of the tutor or other professor, or they may join a research team of a pro-
ject that is already under development by another team of students and pro-
fessor. Each project must annually generate a manuscript—a literature review
or empirical study—to be submitted for publication in a journal of psycholo-
gy or a related area. Independently of the research projects to which the stu-
dents are committed, they each must attend a research seminar at the univer-
sity, make an oral and public presentation, and present a paper in a scientific
conference. Other student activities include workshops about themes of inter-
est to the profession of psychology in Brazil, presentations and discussion of
films, symposia about research themes in psychology, debates on polemical
issues in psychology, and symposia on the professional development of
undergraduate psychology students.
Astudent is removed from the Tutorial Education Program in
Psychology in the following cases: (a) graduation, institutional suspension of
registration, or withdrawal from the undergraduate program; (b) a personal
decision to leave the program; (c) underachievement; (d) failing twice on
subjects of the psychology undergraduate program; (e) non-compliance with
the obligations assumed toward the university and the Ministry of Education;
(f) failure to carry out the program duties; and (g) undertaking actions or
involvement that are not consistent with the philosophy of the program or the
University of Brasilia.
FALL/WINTER 2012
52
THE TUTORIAL EDUCATION PROGRAM
CONCLUSION
The commitment of the students who participate in the program is not
only academic and professional but ethical and social as well. The focus of
the program is to provide the holistic development of its participants. For
developing countries like Brazil, investment in the education of academical-
ly talented students is essential, contributing to the improvement of the qual-
ity of life in the broader society. We must therefore continue to develop spe-
cial programs like the Tutorial Education Program in order to meet the needs,
interests, and abilities of future professionals and researchers. We must also
develop studies on the short- and long-term effects of our program on the
lives of those thousands who were part of it at some point in their academic
journeys. The results would help us determine what should be changed and
what new actions should be taken in order to keep alive the spirit of the
program.
REFERENCES
Alencar, E. M. L. S., & Fleith, D. S. (2001). Superdotados: Determinantes,
educacao e ajustamento [The gifted: Determinants, education and adjust-
ment]. Sao Paulo, Brazil: EPU.
Alencar, E. M. L. S., Fleith, D. S., & Arancibia, V. (2009). Gifted education
and research on giftedness in South America. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.),
International handbook on giftedness (pp. 1491–1506). New York:
Springer.
Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. A. (2003). Handbook of gifted education (3rd
ed.). Boston: Allyn and Davis.
Gallagher, J. J. (1993). Current status of gifted education in the United States.
In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International hand-
book of giftedness and talent (pp. 755–770). Oxford: Elsevier.
Fleith, D. S., & Alencar, E. M. L. S. (2007). Desenvolvimento de talentos e
altas habilidades [Development of talents and high ability]. Porto
Alegre, Brazil: ArtMed.
Hébert, T. P., & McBee, M. T. (2007). The impact of an undergraduate hon-
ors program on gifted university students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51,
136–151.
Heller, K. A., F. J. Mönks, F. J. Sternberg, R. J., & Subotnik, R. F. (Eds.).
(2000), International handbook of giftedness and talent. Oxford:
Elsevier.
Horowitz, F. D., Subotnik, R. F., & Matthews, D. J. (Eds.). (2009). The devel-
opment of giftedness and talent across the life span. Washington,
DC: APA.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
53
FLEITH, COSTA, AND DE ALENCAR
Kessler, H., & Krejci, H. (1990). Discovering, developing and utilizing tal-
ent. Vienn: Vereiningung Österreichischer Industrieller.
Libânio, L. & Costa, A. L., Jr. (in press). Projeto “Adolescencia por
Adolescentes” sob o olhar da Psicologia Escolar [Project “Adolescence
by Adolescents” under the eyes of the school psychology]. Revista
Participacao.
Ministry of Education. (2006). Manual de Orientacoes Basicas do Programa
de Educacao Tutorial [Manual of basic guidelines of the Tutorial
Education Program]. Retrieved from <http://portal.mec.gov.br/index.
php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12228:manual-de-orienta-
coes-pet&catid=232:pet-programa-de-educacao-tutorial&Itemid=486>
Ministry of Education. (2012). PET apresentacao [PET presentation].
Retrieved from <http://portal.mec.gov.br/index.php?option=com_
content&view=article&id=12226&Itemid=1195>
Rinn, A. N., & Plucker, J. A. (2004). We recruit them, but then what? The
educational and psychological esperiences of academically talented
undergraduates. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 54–67.
Shavinina, L. V. (Ed.). (2009). International handbook on giftedness. New
York: Springer.
Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1998). Excellence in educating gifted and talented
learners (3rd ed.). Denver: Love.
Wallace, B., & Eriksson, G. (Eds.). (2006). Diversity in gifted education.
International perspectives on global issues. New York: Routledge.
Weinert, F. E. (2000). Foreword. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg,
& R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent
(pp. xi–xiii). Oxford: Elsevier.
Wu, W. T. (2000). Gifted policies in Taiwan. Gifted Education International,
14, 56–65.
*******
The authors may be contacted at
fleith@unb.br.
FALL/WINTER 2012
54 JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
55
Honors in Chile:
New Engagements in the
Higher Education System
JUAN CARLOS SKEWES
UNIVERSIDAD ALBERTO HURTADO;
FORMERLY UNIVERSIDAD AUSTRAL DE CHILE
CARLOS ALBERTO CIOCE SAMPAIO
PARANÁ FEDERAL UNIVERSITY
FREDERICK J. CONWAY
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
[Editor’s note: What follows is a somewhat revised version of an
essay published in Honors in Practice 2 (2006): 15–26. The essay is
followed by an Afterword that provides substantial new material.]
INTRODUCTION
H
onors programs are rare in Latin America, and in Chile they were
unknown before 2003. At the Universidad Austral de Chile, an interdis-
ciplinary group of scholars linked to environmental studies put forward a
pilot project for implementing a new experience in higher education.
Challenged by an educational environment where (i) apathy and mediocrity
have taken over the classrooms, (ii) monodisciplinary training rules the uni-
versity campus, and (iii) authoritarian teaching persists, this has been an
experiment in new ways of approaching the classroom. Stimulated by expe-
riences in the USA, a project proposal was written, finding support in the
Chilean Secretary of Education. Three years of experience have proven that
a Chilean honors program can serve as a model for programs elsewhere in
Latin America. In the following pages we aim to provide a summary of what
this experience has meant, using the most recent class as an example. Some
background about the university and the Chilean system needs to be supplied,
while most of the paper deals with the particular features of this program and
its immediate future.
The honors experience at the Universidad Austral de Chile (UACh) is of
interest not only because of its Latin American context but also because it is
FALL/WINTER 2012
56
HONORS IN CHILE
focused on a particular theme, Environmental Studies and Sustainable
Human Development. After three years, the program has just completed its
pilot phase, and so the time is appropriate to describe its accomplishments
and challenges.
THE INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT
The Universidad Austral de Chile,located in the southern city of
Valdivia, was founded in 1954. A state-sponsored regional university, UACh
is among the five leading universities in the country. A body of almost 10,000
undergraduate students is distributed in its 38 schools (escuelas), which fall
under the university’s 10 faculties (faculdades). The 665 professors belong to
69 institutes (institutos), or research/teaching units.
Improving the quality of higher education has been a permanent,
although not achieved, goal in the university. The low academic performance
of the incoming students and their lack of motivation impede attaining this
goal. Most of the UACh students belong to the lower socioeconomic brack-
ets, and many of them come from families whose parents have never received
a higher education. They graduate from public or publicly subsidized schools
with extremely poor academic records. Selection in the Chilean university
system operates through a national test, and students with higher scores are
concentrated in the capital city of Santiago. Regional universities lag behind
the Santiago universities in the students’ aspirations; students see a better
future if graduating from an institution where all academic and non-academ-
ic resources are concentrated.
Limitations other than the low academic skills of the students affect the
university, including its provision of rigid, traditional classes that tend more
to the reproduction of existing knowledge than to the acquisition of learning
skills or the development of a passion for new knowledge. Non-academic fac-
tors that contribute to poor performance among students at UACh are the
rainy environment and lack of recreational opportunities during the long win-
ter period.
However, some opportunities for reversing these trends are available in
the system. On the one hand, UACh has a great infrastructure, including com-
puter labs and access to information technologies, library, and classroom
facilities. The Chilean Ministry of Education is pumping new resources into
the system; most of these have gone into the construction of new buildings
and the renewal of equipment. A growing concern about inequities in the
higher education system favors innovative initiatives that could help in find-
ing new avenues for better prospects in the university system (Brunner et.al.).
The Chilean educational system, like many in Latin America, is highly
rigid. Upon finishing high school, students choose a carrera (“course of
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
57
SKEWES, SAMPAIO, AND CONWAY
study”) to pursue in the university. Such careers are traditional fields of
knowledge that lead to an academic degree (licentiate) and a professional title
after a four-year cycle. Programs are fixed, and each cohort follows the same
path. As a result, students acquire specific perspectives and tools that enable
them to reproduce this knowledge. In spite of many able students and dedi-
cated faculty, the educational environment is characterized by authoritarian
teaching and by apathy and mediocrity in the classroom. Monodisciplinary
training rules the university campus. Critical thinking, passionate research,
meaningful learning experiences, and serendipity are, for the most part,
absent in this model.
The Center for Environmental Studies (CEAM) at the Universidad
Austral de Chile is a counterpoint to this structure. CEAM is a transdiscipli-
nary space created in 2002 to bring together faculty from the natural and
social sciences to study environmental problems and contribute to policy
making at the national and local levels. The university has an important group
of researchers from diverse fields of knowledge working on these issues. The
Center for Environmental Studies was designed to be a link between the uni-
versity and the community, and between research and teaching.
THE HONORS PROGRAM IN ENVIRONMENTAL
STUDIES AND HUMAN SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT (PILOT PHASE)
The honors program proposal was inspired by U.S. experiences (Fuiks
and Clark; Long; Schuman). What makes the Chilean program different is
that it targets a specific field of thought: environmental studies and sustain-
able human development. The thematic orientation of the program was no
accident since it was developed by the same faculty who organized the Center
for Environmental Studies.
However, beyond the program’s subject matter, there was a deep concern
about the quality of undergraduate studies in the university. The program was
seen as an opportunity for improving teaching and for finding new ways of
creating a classroom environment consistent with the needs of the student
body. The underlying idea was to radiate the ideals of an experience-centered
approach to learning from the honors program to the rest of the school. This
aim was based on the notions that good work deserves to be recognized and
that, if given the opportunity, students would develop academic skills that
otherwise are neutralized under the pressure of a peer-conformist atmosphere.
The honors program was, likewise, conceived as a local contribution to
the process of improving higher education at the national level. As such it was
submitted for a grant from the National Ministry of Education along the lines
of innovation in the academy. The local project was not only to transform the
FALL/WINTER 2012
58
UACh undergraduate teaching system but to help other regional universities
achieve similar goals.
The honors pilot project, from the point of view of the University’s
strategic plan, is the most important teaching initiative of CEAM. It con-
tributes to the aims of “transforming nature as well as knowledge” and of
“searching for answers beyond the horizon”; and by providing a transdisci-
plinary view of environmental issues, it helps to promote a better integration
of the university’s resources. It also becomes a symbol of a university striv-
ing to find new avenues for improved teaching.
The honors program is physically as well as institutionally located in
CEAM, one of four A-frame houses on the campus. Originally built as facul-
ty housing, the Center has three stories of offices, a kitchen, and a large con-
ference room for classes and meetings. Honors students have a place to go,
and they are found in every part of “Casa 4.” The picture windows of the
house overlook the river that separates the campus from the center of
Valdivia. Open to the city and seen from the city, Casa 4 is an apt symbol of
the connection the honors program makes between the campus and the
region.
The goal was to create a transdisciplinary learning setting for undergrad-
uate students from all fields of knowledge, focusing on environmental stud-
ies and sustainable human development. The topic is consistent with the uni-
versity’s strengths, which include ecology and humanities, and with a region
where native forests, biodiversity, and wildlife are undergoing increasing
stress. The honors program pilot project was funded through a grant compe-
tition of the MECESUP Program of the Chilean Ministry of Education
(MECESUP AUS 0202).
The honors program has operated with the following guidelines:
1. To work with an incoming cohort of twenty students, selected among the
best second- and third-year applicants.
2. To offer a seminar taught by at least three professors coming from differ-
ent faculties, followed by two other seminars. After completing three sem-
inars, students qualify for receiving the distinction of Honors on their
diploma when they graduate.
3. To include a seminar style for classes, enhanced by field activities, and
participation in the classroom not only of students and faculty but also
community members and experts.
4. To consider non-traditional forms of evaluation. The program defined
“academic products” as a means of summarizing the students’ learning.
Such products consist of a synthesis of the acquired knowledge, support-
ed by any technical device (a Powerpoint presentation, a bulletin, a poster,
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
HONORS IN CHILE
59
SKEWES, SAMPAIO, AND CONWAY
a representation, or whatever other means available), open to public
scrutiny.
Based on this schema, the program has already served three different cohorts
from the second semester of 2003 through the second semester of 2005. One
hundred forty students from 30 careers have applied to the program, 60 of
them being enrolled. Of these, more than 40% have completed the program.
(Students are recruited from the university campuses: Miraflores and Isla Teja
in Valdivia, and Puerto Montt in that city. A problem has been to sustain the
Puerto Montt students’ participation: they must travel for three hours each
way to attend the class, and it hasn’t been easy to retain them.)
The program has been advertised through the university website, and a
yearly recruitment process is held. Students apply on a voluntary basis,
although they may be encouraged by faculty. The selection process involves
a review of the academic background and interviews of the prospective stu-
dents. Main selection criteria include: GPA; motivation as substantiated in
personal experience, interviews, and references; and an even distribution of
students across different fields.
The seminars that have been offered are the following:
• From Multiple to Trans: Tasting Serendipity
• Coastal Maritime Biodiversity in the Chilean South
• Theory and Solution of Problems of Conservation Biology
• Global Change
• Environmental and Cultural History of the Southern Chilean Temperate
Forests
• Associative Entrepreneurship for the Sustainable Development in Rural
Communities
•
Water as a Means for Learning about the Ecosystem and its Sustainable Use
• Bioethics, Sustainable Development and Conservation in Natural areas
in Chile
•Philosophies of Development: Epistemologies, and Biology of Knowledge
An estimated fifty-five faculty have participated in the experience, thir-
ty-four of them coming from UACh, the rest from other universities and
research centers. Among them are geologists, marine biologists, ecologists,
philosophers, economists, social scientists, zoologists, and foresters. In addi-
tion, a significant number of organizers, experts, and other guests have par-
ticipated in these seminars. Similarly, international visitors, mainly from the
United States but also from South Africa and Brazil, have joined the
experience.
FALL/WINTER 2012
60
HONORS IN CHILE
PHILOSOPHIES OF DEVELOPMENT:
AN ALTERNATIVE PEDAGOGY
To give a more concrete idea of the pedagogical approach of the UACh
Honors Program, we describe the most recent seminar, “Philosophies of
Development,” which was taught during the second semester of 2005. The
coordinator of the course was Carlos Alberto Cioce Sampaio, a Brazilian pro-
fessor of development studies who was conducting a postdoctoral program at
CEAM. This class was inspired by the need for working with the students to
find new, alternative avenues for community development. Rather than
abstract discussions of development philosophy, the course focused on the
real needs of a rural community about forty-five minutes from the university
campus. The community of Tralcao with its indigenous organization,
Tralmapu, was chosen as the site for this experience.
The theoretical layout of the class included three modules:
Epistemologies of Knowledge, Biology of Knowledge, and Cultural and
Socioeconomic Change. Two hypotheses were considered (ex ante) that con-
nected these modules: (1) socioeconomy is based on new forms of social
action oriented not only by a utilitarian rationality but also by a more values-
based rationality rooted in local knowledge (sometimes derogatively seen as
“subjective”); and (2) that subjectivity may become a means of enriching the
decision-making process (Tuan; Berkes; Lévi-Strauss; Oyarzun; Varela;
Maturana & Varela). As suggested by Max-Neef, to deny subjectivity is to
deny differences and the individuality of the human being.
The theme of socioeconomy can be understood through methodologies
of participatory, decentralized, and socially and environmentally responsible
organizational management. This type of management has an emphasis on
networks of organizations where traditional/popular knowledge is valued.
This type of organization can generate ideas and proposals, under the eye of
local people, that are not disengaged or distanced from the details of every-
day life.
What connects the three modules in the course is the search for practical
elements that help to improve the well-being of disadvantaged communities
through the sustainable use of natural resources. So a principal objective was
to reflect critically on models of development and to explore alternatives
based on a new model, called “socioeconomy,” characterized by cooperation,
solidarity, and the articulation of experiences. The socieconomy model is
based on a new culture that values popular knowledge as well as academic
knowledge, practical knowledge as well as theoretical, local solutions as well
as external ones; that supports innovation and creativity; that seeks to recog-
nize the characteristics that give us identity in a global context; that proposes
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
61
a new university closer to the community, capable of speaking a simple lan-
guage and at the same time a scientific language, proposals that are based on
the biology of knowledge and human evolution. The specific objectives were
to: (a) identify Chilean experiences that move in the direction of socioecon-
omy, under criteria pointed out by Sampaio in 2005; and (b) produce materi-
als that can serve as a proposal for implanting socioeconomy practices in the
Tralcao Mapu Indigenous Community Project (Sampaio, Oterro, & Skewes).
The community of Tralcao had been working with the university to
explore opportunities for ecotourism based largely on birdwatching. This is
because Tralcao is located in the Rio Cruces Nature Sanctuary, a renowned
site for migratory birds and especially known for its black-necked swans
(Cygnus melancorypha). It is part of the municipality of San Jose de la
Mariquina (Lakes Region), which is linked to the Sustainable Ecoregion
Program of the Lakes Region, an initiative of the non-governmental organi-
zation Agenda 21, and supported by other units of the Universidad Austral de
Chile: the Institute of Tourism, with its Diploma in Rural Tourism; the School
of Anthropology through the dissertation of one of its students; and CEAM,
through a post-doctoral project. Tralcao has faced unexpected environmental
stress since 2004, when the opening of a paper pulp mill upstream resulted in
the disappearance of the black-necked swans. The community was faced with
few alternatives.
For their class projects, the students identified diverse projects that could
potentially help the community in confronting its new circumstances. At an
initial visit to Tralcao, students met with community members and informed
them about the plans for the class. The students organized themselves into
small groups to identity successful community projects in different parts of
Chile. These projects were examples of community-based local socioproduc-
tive agreements.
These agreements are micro initiatives where raw competition is
bypassed by actions that privilege a horizontal network of cooperation. The
idea is to add value to small businesses, increasing the survival chances for
small entrepreneurs facing an encroaching market. The notion of “communi-
ty-based” suggests alternative modes of production and distribution.
Community cuts across gender, territoriality and poverty. This represents a
local alternative for the inclusion of marginalized (“shoeless”) people, stim-
ulating policies that would avoid the high rates of bankruptcy among local
initiatives, a result of unequal access to the market. In their aim to survive
competition, most of these initiatives, otherwise known as informal, rely
upon low wages, fraud, postponement of social security contributions and
taxes, self-exploitation and even depletion of nature (Sampaio, “Arranjos”;
Sachs; Araujo, Sampaio, & Souza).
FALL/WINTER 2012
SKEWES, SAMPAIO, AND CONWAY
62
HONORS IN CHILE
The students relied upon secondary sources and interviews with experts
to develop their presentations. Each week during the semester the class
focused on a specific project. The student group’s presentation was followed
by commentaries from two experts (a scientist and a “shoeless” philosopher,
a non-academic community member) and open discussion by the rest of the
class. A record was kept of each session, and the learning in the discussion
was meant to improve the group’s project.
The final session of the class was a public presentation to the Tralcao
community of the students’ findings. Community members were asked to
evaluate each of the projects, based on the project’s presentation and a poster,
considering simplicity of language, intelligibility, and pertinence and feasi-
bility for the local organization.
Currently the community is choosing which among the demonstration
projects presented by the students have the greatest possibility for replicabil-
ity in the community. Institutionally, the community is trying to create the
conditions for becoming an incubator of local community-based projects in
the area served by UACh.
The students had the experience of looking at potential community pro-
jects, presenting their findings in a public setting directly to the people most
concerned, and getting feedback not only from their peers and teachers but
from the community itself.
EVALUATION
An initial evaluation of the program, based on a survey and informal
interviews, suggested the following conclusions for the Pilot Phase:
1. As an overall indication of the degree of satisfaction, out of seven points,
participating students evaluated the program with a 5.9 while participating
faculty with a 5.7, and the chairs of the different schools with a 5.1. These
averages are well above those for any carrera in the university, which
rarely reach the 5.0 level.
2. The program is acknowledged as forging the competencies which it aims
for: critical thought, transdisciplinary integration, team working, practical
engagement, and environmental awareness. Students perceived them-
selves as changed in their way of understanding and acting upon the world.
3. The physical setting of the program is an important component. This house
provides students with a rare intellectual “home,” which they use with
enthusiasm.
In interviews, students reported that one of the most stimulating experi-
ences for them in the program was to see how excited the faculty members
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
63
SKEWES, SAMPAIO, AND CONWAY
became when working with colleagues from other disciplines in the team-
taught courses. Faculty members reported the same experience.
Transdisciplinary experiences, as when students in the course on
Environmental and Cultural History of the Southern Chilean Temperate
Forests got to work in the carbon analysis laboratory, or the community
engagement of engineering students are among the most valued experiences
reported by the students, who believe that such experiences have changed
their way of understanding the world.
Another important component valued by students in their learning expe-
rience has been the opportunity of publicly sharing the products of their work.
Each seminar has ended with a public display of the academic products
achieved during the semester. The most important of these was the exhibit
about Conservation, Global Change and Sustainability that was displayed in
the university’s Great Hall as part of the commemoration of the university’s
fiftieth anniversary.
A crucial point in the program’s history was its evaluation by professor
Bernice Braid, a former president of the NCHC, in November 2005.
Professor Braid received a self-evaluation report that she had the opportuni-
ty to compare to her own findings through a field visit. Her report is eloquent
in her concluding remarks:
It is astonishing how completely this fledgling Honors Program, even
in its Pilot years, has sought to embody the full range of attributes of
highly successful and long running honors programs. . . .
There is already in place a structure, a clear sense of the value of
Honors in itself and for UACh, and a cadre of professionals on cam-
pus who can help to build on the foundation already established. Since
this Program operates like a departmental honors program, it could
well flourish on campus with other similar transdisciplinary programs.
Where others developed, the model of this one should prove instruc-
tive, and all should be encouraged to work together in open houses
and other forums where the general public is invited. . . . It is clear that
I recommend not only that this Honors Program—Environmental
Studies and Sustainable Human Development—be continued, but be
used as a model for the establishment of parallel Honors opportunities
if such are proposed.
Braid ends by suggesting that the experience be written about, “so that
Chile, Latin America, and the world know more about how much the
Program has accomplished in just three years, and how much it has to offer
others for them to emulate.”
FALL/WINTER 2012
64
HONORS IN CHILE
CHALLENGES
Overall, the honors experience has demonstrated its aptness for a Latin
Amercan regional university such as UACh. Such is the perception not only
of direct participants, but also of other community members. The experience
is seen by chairs of the escuelas as highly innovative and groundbreaking in
academia. As such it is seen as replicable in other similar universities.
The Chilean honors experience might prove to be an avenue for bridging
the gap between highly competitive universities (only three in the country)
and the vast majority of higher educational institutions that deal with a social-
ly and academically vulnerable population. By offering an alternative for
excellence, the honors program contributes an opportunity for setting new
teaching and learning standards in this context.
Of great importance has been the honors students’ engagement in social
and academic activities through which they express an emerging leadership
in environmentally relevant topics such as animal rights, environmental pro-
tection for the surrounding nature sanctuary, and participation in diverse
national and international seminars.
The accomplishments of the pilot phase of the UACh Honors Program
are all the more notable for the fact that both faculty and students participat-
ed in the program without credit. Students did not receive academic credit for
taking the three seminars. Faculty taught the courses without any reduction in
their regular teaching load. This was necessary during the pilot phase, but is
not sustainable in the long run.
Currently, the program aims for its consolidation at the university. In pur-
suing this goal, three major difficulties have been faced:
1. To convince the administration of the value of programs such as the hon-
ors program as an important ingredient both at the undergraduate level as
well as a part of the campus life. The recent evaluation survey showed that
the honors program is not well known on the university campus. The pro-
ject’s coordinators were not well enough aware of the importance of devis-
ing a strategy to involve the university administration. (The evaluator’s
visit proved crucial at this point.)
2. To convince the administration to invest in a program that appears not to
produce immediate returns and that, seen from a different view, might be
criticized for either dragging resources out of the institutos or for its elitist
nature. It is thus important to demonstrate what the honors program can do
for the university, namely:
• Improve the quality of academic teaching
•Attract better and more talented students
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
65
SKEWES, SAMPAIO, AND CONWAY
• Project the work of the University as a regional and national leader on
emerging issues.
3. To develop real honors practices among instructors. Indeed, good profes-
sors mistakenly believe that what best qualifies them is their ability to
attract students’ attention rather than to make the students the true actors
of the process. The experiences and approaches developed in the honors
program can be spread to the university’s regular courses.
4. To raise class requirements among students. As a non-credit course, the
honors class was not seen by the students as a legitimate academic require-
ment. Thus the students’ initial drive would be satisfied by classes involv-
ing open discussions with few or any readings. Giving honors courses reg-
ular credit recognized by the students’ carreras would both legitimize the
program and stimulate active participation.
Such difficulties are counterbalanced by some of the program’s achieve-
ments. In its first three years, the honors program has been able to establish
itself as part of a commonsensical view of the university’s activities. It has
mobilized a great number of students, visitors, faculty, and community mem-
bers. International students and outside researchers and faculty have sponta-
neously offered to join this venture.
If some of the crucial achievements of the Program ought to be under-
lined, the following are certain:
1. The program showed that a transdisciplinary dialogue in the classroom
was not only possible but that it stimulated the formation of new associa-
tions among students, faculty, and even the community.
2. It demonstrated the students’ capabilities to push forward teamwork and to
put forward their findings to their peers as well as to the larger community.
3. It explored new forms of partnership among the university and the local
communities, stimulating a more horizontal relationship between them. It
also integrated community activists both from local organizations and
from the professional world as key players in the classroom.
4. The pilot project demonstrated that honors is a real alternative for region-
al universities such as the Universidad Austral de Chile.
The program’s next step will be an unusual experience of academic
exchange with the Regional University of Blumenau in Santa Caterina,
Brazil: a group of students, faculty and staff of the Universidad Austral de
Chile and other invited staff of nearby universities will travel to Brazil to pre-
sent the experiences of both the honors program and the Philosophy of
Development seminar. This will be an encounter between the Chilean honors
program and potential replicas both in Brazil and in Chile.
FALL/WINTER 2012
66
HONORS IN CHILE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank MECESUP, which financed part of the pilot
phase of the honors program by means of Project AUS0202. We also want to
thank our reviewers for their comments and suggestions. Finally, this article
was finished while one of the authors was visiting University of Cape Town.
Important insights were received from Sophie Oldfield and the staff of the
Department of Environmental & Geographical Science there.
REFERENCES
Araujo, G. P. S., Carlos Alberto Cioce Sampaio, and Márcia Silveira de
Souza. 2004. “Do Turismo de Massa ao turismo educativo em Zonas
Costeiras: diagnóstico do turismo na área de entorno da Lagoa de
Ibiraquera (Garopaba e Imbituba, SC).” VIII Encontro Nacional de
Turismo de Base Local. Curitiba, Brazil, 2004.
Berkes, F. 1996. “Social systems ecological systems and property rights,” in
Right to nature: ecological, economics, cultural and political principles
of institutions. Edited by S. Hanna, pp. 87–107. Washington, DC:
Island Press.
Brunner, J. J., G. Elacqua, A. Tillet, J. Bonnefoy, S. González, P. Pacheco,
and F. Salazar. 2005. Guiar el Mercado: Informe sobre la Educación
Superior en Chile. Santiago de Chile: Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez.
Dourojeanni, A. 1996. “Reflexiones sobre estrategias territoriales para el
desarrollo sostenible.” Conferencia Cumbre sobre el Desarrollo
Sostenible, Santa Cruz, Bolivia, 1996.
Fuiks, C. L., and L. Clark. 2000 Teaching and Learning in Honors: National
Collegiate Honors Council.
Levi-Strauss, C. 1997. Tristes trópicos. Barcelona: Paidós.
Long, A. 1995. A Handbook for Honors Administrators. National Collegiate
Honors Council.
Maturana, H., and F. J. Varela. 2001. A árvore do conhecimento: as bases
biológicas da compreensão humana. São Paulo: Athena.
Max-Neef, M. 2005. Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecological
Econonomics:5–16.
Oyarzún, F. 1998. La persona normal y anormal y la antropología de la con-
vivencia. Valdivia, Chile: Imprenta Universitaria.
Sachs, I. 2003. Inclusão social pelo trabalho: desenvolvimento humano, tra-
balho decente e o futuro dos empreendedores de pequeno porte. Rio de
Janeiro: Garamont.
Sampaio, C. A. C. 1996. Arranjos institucionais para o desenvolvimento sus-
tentável local. Revista de Administração Municipal 43:71.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
67
SKEWES, SAMPAIO, AND CONWAY
—. 2005. Turismo como do fenômeno humano: princípios para se pensar a
socioeconomia e sua prática sob a denominação turismo comunitário.
Santa Cruz do Sul, Brazil: EDUNISC.
Sampaio, C. A. C., L. Otero, and J. C. Skewes. 2005. “Programa de
Asignatura Filosofía del Desarrollo.” Valdivia, Chile.
Schuman, S. 1995. Beginning in Honors. A Handbook. National Collegiate
Honors Council.
Skewes, J. C., C. C. Sampaio, and S. Egaña. 2005. “La transdisciplina hecha
práctica: El Programa Honor de Estudios Ambientales y Desarrollo
Humano Sostenible de la Universidad Austral de Chile.” Encuentro
Internacional: Reforma del Pensamiento: Posibilidades y
Potencialidades de las Universidades Regionales, Osorno, Chile, 2005.
Tuan, Y.-f. 1980. Topofilia: um estudo da percepção, atitudes e valores do
meio ambiente. São Paulo.
Varela, F. J. 2003. La habilidad ética. Barcelona: Debate.
FALL/WINTER 2012
68
HONORS IN CHILE
AFTERWORD
The Chilean higher education system has proven to be a failure in at least
two senses. On the one hand, extreme inequalities have run unchecked since
the inception in 1982 of a subsidiary system of financing and the creation of
private universities by the legal body that regulates the higher educational
system. On the other hand, universities have proven incapable of conferring
degrees based on an integrated approach to professional training. An aerial
view of central-south Chile, for example, shows massive deforestation that
correlates with growing numbers of forestry engineers. Failures in develop-
ment plans, large investment projects, and approaches to social problems
prove that the higher education system is not providing the kind of “human
capital” that the country needs.
Equity and quality are slippery words in the official rhetoric about the
challenges of the new millennium. Under the surface, students and academi-
cians experience a bitter situation in national, regional, private, and public
universities. Along-standing sense of inadequacy, as suggested by the authors
of this article in 2006, evolved into a massive mobilization of university stu-
dents in 2011. The honors program, as its mission states, was designed to help
incoming students within a system that was not prepared to integrate their
studies with the realities of society: to integrate them into a meaningful
course of study and to integrate academic pursuits with addressing problems
of human and environmental development.
The aims of the honors program of the Universidad Austral de Chile were
an early reaction to a complex problem. No one could require a small pro-
gram based in a regional university to solve social and educational problems
of a structural nature. However, a decade later, the program has shown its
ability to create an academic space where major challenges are addressed
and, on a tiny scale, solved. In searching for a proper equation between qual-
ity and equity, the program’s ingredients have been crucial. These ingredients
include a transdisciplinary concept, an understanding of a humanly constitut-
ed environment, and an immediate connection to the larger social arena
where it is placed.
A decade of honors in the UACh provides some hints about possible
solutions to great issues. Inspired by honors programs in the U.S., the Chilean
experience builds upon the notion of enhanced learning; faced with a non-
challenging academic environment, the program was and still is intended to
stimulate students from different fields of knowledge and to expand their
curiosity by sharing a learning space beyond the narrow boundaries of their
disciplines. This model is quite different from the common practice of hav-
ing honors segments within classes and cohorts, an approach that would be
risky in an academic context where social tensions are part of its foundations.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
69
SKEWES, SAMPAIO, AND CONWAY
A tacit assumption of the program has been that disparate social backgrounds
create a learning environment that is sensitive to the needs of the more
socioeconomically disadvantaged students. Presented in a traditional format,
the honors program could aggravate the unequal ground upon which stu-
dents’ academic careers are played out. Instead, the honors program provides
a space where students who have had little or no previous interactions with
each other can share bonding experiences as they search for solutions posed
by the questions raised in honors classes.
Amain avenue for the university to provide a learning environment with
the features of an honors program was in those areas where its academic
strength was greatest. Thus environmental studies arose as a clear option for
confluence between the academic strength of the university and the motiva-
tions of large segments of the student body.
Three main features of the Chilean honors program became established
during its first years: an extra-departmental academic unit integrating stu-
dents and faculty from diverse provenances; a transdisciplinary project in
environmental studies; and a process for selecting student participants that
was not strictly based on academic performance. A general criterion for
recruitment was selection of at least one student from each department; the
student was interviewed by a selection committee, made up of faculty and
former students, who put significant weight on motivation in their consider-
ations. Issues of gender and social background were part of the focus in the
recruitment process, but no formal criteria of this kind were established in the
selection process.
The first three years of the program developed an academic process
where the classroom and some outdoor experiences were the basis for learn-
ing. Based on honors programs at other universities, the classes focused on
problems and questions—about water, for instance—and not on solutions.
Presenting alternative views to explain a given reality was an essential part of
the educational process, and the search for a feasible new solution to given
problems was considered a requirement for each class.
Something was missing, however, in the context of Latin America, where
environmental problems are deeply felt as part of an unequally built society.
On the one hand, the underprivileged classes—peasants, fishermen, indige-
nous communities, countryside workers, and urban poor—experience a gross
overexposure to environmental risks, and on the other hand is the destruction
of nature. In this context, the learning process demanded a link to the com-
munity and its environment as part of the honors project. Community learn-
ing and integration of local knowledge thus became another ingredient of the
Chilean honors program.
FALL/WINTER 2012
70
HONORS IN CHILE
How far the program has arrived is a hard question to answer. The struc-
ture of Chilean universities, based on a strict neoliberal program, allows lit-
tle, if any, space for extra-budgetary initiatives, and the notion of excellence
that is publicly proclaimed in terms of retention and graduation rates has lit-
tle to do with the contents of the educational process. Although there is insti-
tutional recognition of the importance of honors education, such recognition
does not translate into a significant investment. After a decade of honors in
the Universidad Austral de Chile, the program is still a volunteer effort of a
group of faculty that aims for an alternative way of engaging the educational
process with both scholarly and social dimensions. However, the program
has, against the odds, prevailed in the university system, being recognized as
the most innovative experience in the area. As a result, the honors program
has been replicated over the years in the School of Medicine, with the spe-
cific purpose of developing research skills among medical doctors, and in the
area of agronomy, veterinary science, and forestry in the context of an
exchange program with Virginia Tech University.
An important indicator of the social, cultural, and educational appropri-
ateness of the honors program for Latin American societies is the fact that, in
Brazil, a couple of relevant experiences have been created based on the
Chilean honors program. One of them took place at the Universidad Federal
de Paraná, where the program was offered for high school students from rural
areas aiming at their inclusion in a socially committed higher education
system.
A major issue in the Chilean honors experience is how we should under-
stand the success of such an academic initiative. Excellence in this context is
not a technical term but a rather a socioenvironmental and scientific theme
that can only be measured in terms of the program’s impact on the local sit-
uation in which it aims to intervene. The importance of the Chilean honors
program is not in the successful reproduction of a given model but rather in
its recreation in contexts where it can contribute to an alternative educational
project.
One significant change in the decade after the pilot experience in honors
program took place in Chile is the increased awareness of services that are
deeply needed by the higher education system in a country that is so divided
by social inequalities. Excellence is a convenient concept for the promotion
of institutions that aim to find a niche in the market but is far removed from
the social reality that it needs to serve.
Anew ingredient has arisen in the conversation that now takes place
among faculty, students, and community leaders, providing a new twist that
redefines the scope of the program. The transition, however, is uneasy.
Scientists, for the most, prefer to work alone in the solitude of their
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
71
SKEWES, SAMPAIO, AND CONWAY
laboratories. We are used to measuring academic skills in terms of knowledge
and careers but typically pay little attention to the context where such skills
are deployed. Depletion of the once green mountains calls for a renewal in
educational processes, and so does the persistent gap between the haves and
the have-nots. While the Chilean honors program suggests some concrete
ways of improving higher education in Chile while also addressing some of
these issues, we may need to wait until the tide of current social unrest allows
transformation of protests into proposals for generalizing this kind of
learning.
ADDED REFERENCES
Downie, A. 2011. In Chile, Students’ Anger at Tuition Debt Fuels Protests
and a National Debate. Chronicle of Higher Education, 58(9), A28–A30.
Henriquez, C. et.al. 2012. Da crítica para às ideias e das ideias para à pratica:
a experiência formativa do programa de honra em Economia Solidária,
Meio Ambiente e Desenvolvimento de base local da UFPR. In: Anais. III
CEPIAL. Congresso Da Cultura e Educacao para a Integracao de
America Latina. Educação Para O Desenvolvimento Latino-Americano:
Suas Múltiplas Faces. Curitiba, Brasil.
Weinstein, J. 2011. More equity in education: The Chilean students' public
outcry. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(3), 76–77.
*******
The authors may be contacted at
jskewes@uahurtado.cl.
FALL/WINTER 2012
72 JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
73
Establishing a Latin American
University Honors Program:
The Case of Campus
Monterrey, Tecnológico de
Monterrey, Mexico
MOHAMMAD AYUB KHAN AND
RUBEN MORALES-MENENDEZ
TECNOLÓGICO DE MONTERREY, CAMPUS MONTERREY, MÉXICO
HISTORYIN BRIEF
T
he university honors program of Campus Monterrey, Tecnológico de
Monterrey, evolved from the international degree program that was first
offered in the spring semester of 2002. Originally six programs were offered
in the School of Business and School of Engineering:
•BA Business Administration
• BA Financial Management
• BA Finance and Accounting
•BA Marketing
• BA International Business
• BS Industrial and Systems Engineering
Once introduced, the international degree program received such a good
response from the student community that, in the following semesters, the
number of programs available in an international version increased from six
to eleven across new areas of engineering, computer science, and humanities
and social sciences. Since then, the number of academic programs with an
international component has been increasing steadily. Today, thirty-nine
bachelor’s programs are available in this modality.
When first established, the international degree program had the follow-
ing requirements:
• high school GPA , TOEFL score, and admission test score;
FALL/WINTER 2012
74
ESTABLISHING A LATIN AMERICAN UNIVERSITY HONORS PROGRAM
• completion of 33% of the curriculum in a foreign language;
• completion of additional credit, equivalent to an extra course, in either a
foreign language or intercultural topics; and
• a mandatory year abroad (two semesters).
As the program matured, the requirement that 33% of the curriculum be taken
in a foreign language was modified. Rather than focusing on the language of
the classes, we wanted to assure the best quality of our classes regardless of
the language of instruction, so we started offering classes exclusively to stu-
dents in the international degree program and staffing the classes with out-
standing professors on campus. In the spring of 2008, we started calling these
classes “honors.” A requirement of the program then became completion of
at least twenty classes (approximately a third of the curriculum) either in a
foreign language or in the honors format. Another change was that, rather
than optionally studying a language as part of their intercultural electives, stu-
dents were required to dedicate at least three out of their intercultural elec-
tives to the study of a foreign language. The international degree program
successfully graduated its first cohort in the fall of 2005. As of December
2010, five hundred students have graduated with twenty-eight different bach-
elor degrees in the international degree program format.
HOW WE BECAME AN HONORS PROGRAM
Students participating in the international degree program possessed and
maintained a higher level of academic standards than the non-international-
degree-program students. Therefore, we wanted our international degree pro-
gram to be recognized as a fully developed university honors program. We
believed that offering an honors program on our campus would provide addi-
tional growth opportunities for students who have outstanding academic
records and who have the potential and motivation to reach higher academic
and extracurricular goals. We contacted the National Collegiate Honors
Council (NCHC) and became both institutional and professional members,
participating in different activities organized by the NCHC: national confer-
ences in Philadelphia (2007), Denver (2008); and Washington, D.C. (2009).
We participated in the Assessment and Site Visitors workshop offered by
NCHC in 2010. In August 2010, we invited Rosalie Otero from the
University of New Mexico to visit our campus and review our program.
During her visit, Otero met with students, professors, and the directors, and
she visited the university facilities. After her visit, Otero made several rec-
ommendations for transforming our international degree program into a fully
developed university honors program. These recommendations included:
•establishing an honors program office;
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
75
MOHAMMAD AYUB KHAN AND RUBEN MORALES-MENENDEZ
• appointing a full-time honors director, reporting to the office of the
provost;
• developing strategic and annual plans;
• acquiring visible institutional support (staff, space, budget); and
• establishing faculty, student, and advisory boards for the honors program.
Once these recommendations were implemented according to our under-
standing and situation, we requested that Otero review our program again
along with Robert Spurrier of Oklahoma State University. At this stage we
did the following:
• We prepared a self-analysis in line with the seventeen characteristics of a
fully developed university honors program and sent it to Otero and
Spurrier.
• We provided supplementary documents including profiles of students and
faculty as well as student projects.
• We did a three-hour video conference with Otero and Spurrier, in which
honors professors, honors students, honors office staff, the provost, and the
vice-provost participated.
• In May 2010, we visited Otero and Spurrier at their respective universities.
In June 2011, our program was recognized as a fully developed university
honors program by Otero and Spurrier.
OUR HONORS PROGRAM MODEL
Our honors program is designed to identify and select talented students
and to offer them an integrated educational program through our dynamic,
dedicated, and well-prepared faculty. The important components of our
model are described below:
ORGANIZATION OF THE PROGRAM
Our honors program belongs to the Campus Monterrey of Tecnológico de
Monterrey, which is a private educational institution in Mexico that was
founded in 1943. At the present time, the Tecnológico de Monterrey has cam-
puses distributed throughout the country and has academic centers in Mexico
and other Latin American countries; it also has international offices in North
America, Europe, and Asia. We are a private, non-profit, independent educa-
tional institution with no political or religious affiliation. For more informa-
tion about Tecnológico de Monterrey, please visit: <http://www.itesm.edu/>.
The honors program office reports to the office of the provost of Campus
Monterrey, as shown in Figure 1, and the provost reports directly to the pres-
ident of the campus.
FALL/WINTER 2012
76
ESTABLISHING A LATIN AMERICAN UNIVERSITY HONORS PROGRAM
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
Figure 1. Organizational Context of Honors Program
Provost
Secretary
Vice Provost of
Accrediations and
Quality Enhancement
Vice Provost of
International
Program
Vice Provost of
Research and
Graduate Program
Honors Program
Director of
Institutional
Effectiveness
Director of
Planning and
Career Center
Director of
Academic
Development
Chief
Librarian
Dean of
Admissions and
Registration
Associate Dean
for International
Degrees
77
MOHAMMAD AYUB KHAN AND RUBEN MORALES-MENENDEZ
INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT
Our institutional support consists of direct and indirect support staff. The
direct support staff includes:
• honors program management,
• honors program advisory board,
• honors faculty council, and
• honors student council.
The indirect support system includes:
• registration and admission office,
• library,
• student halls,
• international program office,
• scholarships,
•faculty development, and
• academic departments.
MISSION
The honors program of Tecnológico de Monterrey, Campus Monterrey, is
designed based on the ideals of inspiring and nurturing the talent and poten-
tial of academically high-performing students through an optimal combina-
tion of challenging, interdisciplinary, and enriching academic and extracur-
ricular learning and teaching activities.
VISION
The honors program will be recognized by all stakeholders—students,
faculty, parents, partners, university management—nationally and interna-
tionally as a leading honors education model in providing second-to-none
integral educational services offered by a group of highly qualified and moti-
vated faculty to a group of highly motivated, intellectual, and diverse young
learners. Our graduates will become leaders in their field of specialization
and at the same time will have a broader understanding of issues concerning
humanity, now and in the future, locally and globally.
CORE VALUES
Values we promote in our students are: caring about their personal and
professional integrity; respecting the dignity and rights of others; fulfilling
FALL/WINTER 2012
78
ESTABLISHING A LATIN AMERICAN UNIVERSITY HONORS PROGRAM
their duties as local and global citizens; showing concern for others without
discrimination; volunteering to participate in diverse social services; and ded-
icating time to effective and cooperative learning. Through our honors pro-
gram we wish to promote a set of core values among our graduates that we
call value-building blocks:
• Excellence
• Social responsibility
• Ethics and citizenship
• Respect for others
• Hard work
• Planning and organization
• Integrity
• Collaboration
LEARNING OUTCOMES (GRADUATE COMPETENCIES)
Based on several meetings with Samuel Schuman and Ted Estess, we
identified several key learning outcomes that our honors model is already
promoting. We wish our graduates to have the following qualities that are
established in our traditional academic programs and that we further
encourage:
•global knowledge;
• the ability to speak three languages;
• the ability to communicate and to work in multi-disciplinary and multi-
cultural environments;
• personal and professional networks around the world;
•critical thinking and analytical skills; and
•the ability to solve problems and make decisions.
STRUCTURE OF OUR ACADEMIC PROGRAM
Most of our undergraduate degree programs can be completed in nine
semesters. Astudent who enters the honors program has to comply with the
following academic requirements in order to complete the program:
Semester 1, 2, 3: languages courses;
• Semester 4, 5: elective courses*;
•Semester 6, 7: mandatory year of study abroad;
• Semester 8, 9: elective courses*;
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
79
MOHAMMAD AYUB KHAN AND RUBEN MORALES-MENENDEZ
• Minimum 10 courses in honors format; and
• Minimum 10 courses in a language other than Spanish (if Spanish is
her/his native language).
*Elective courses include 3 language courses and 4 courses on cultural and
international issues.
Table 1 compares the criteria for graduation in the regular program with
the honors program.
CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENTS
The admission and graduation requirements for our students reflect the char-
acteristics we seek in our students.
FALL/WINTER 2012
Regular Program
1. Total semesters: 9
2. Total courses to pass: 54
3. Career grade average: 70
4. TOEFL: 550
5. Participation in concentrations
and or modalities (not required
for graduation)
6. Social services required by the
university for graduation
7. CENEVAL (National external
exam)
Honors Program
1. Total semesters: 9
2. Total courses: 54+7*= 61
3. Career grade average
minimum: 85
4. TOEFL: 600
5. Study abroad: Two Semesters
(or equivalent)
6. Speak a Third Language
7. Minimum 10 courses in
English
8. Minimum 10 courses in
Honors format.
9. Participation in concentrations
and or modalities (not required
for graduation)
10. Social services required by the
university for graduation
11. CENEVAL (National external
exam)
Table 1. Regular Program Versus Honors Program
CENEV
AL: Centro Nacional de Evaluacion para La Educacion Superior
80
ESTABLISHING A LATIN AMERICAN UNIVERSITY HONORS PROGRAM
Admission
In order to gain admission to the honors program, a student must comply
with requirements beyond those for the university. The requirements for hon-
ors differ according to the backgrounds of the applicants:
Career average score:
• For students coming from the high schools of Tecnológico de
Monterrey: 85/100
• For students coming from other high schools: 90/100
Admission score (SAT equivalent):
• For students coming from the high schools of Tecnológico de
Monterrey: 1150
• For students coming from other high schools: 1300
TOEFL Score:
•550 for all.
Other requirements include an interview with the honors director, a brief CV,
and an essay showing particular interests in the honors program, commitment
to completion of its requirements, and potential to contribute to the honors
program.
Graduation
In order to graduate from the honors program and receive the Certificate
of Honors, a student must fulfill the following conditions:
• pass 10 required honors courses with a grade of 85+;
• earn a career average of 85+ including the honors courses;
• have a TOEFL score of 600;
•participate in a year-long study abroad program;
• speak a third language other than Spanish and English;
•take a minimum of 10 courses in English language; and
• pass 7 electives.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FACULTY
Our honors faculty members come from different academic disciplines
(engineering, humanities, social sciences, business, and information technol-
ogy) inside the campus, so they are already working as full- or part-time
teachers. An honors faculty member is identified and selected, in direct col-
laboration with the chair of each academic department, based on the follow-
ing criteria:
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
81
MOHAMMAD AYUB KHAN AND RUBEN MORALES-MENENDEZ
• He/she is a full- or part-time faculty member with a minimum five years
of teaching experience at the undergraduate level or higher; two of the five
years must be at Tecnológico de Monterrey. Preferences are given to asso-
ciate and full professors. Alternatively, the honors director may, in collab-
oration with the honors faculty committee, evaluate a potential faculty
member for eligibility based on other criteria.
• For teaching foundation courses, he/she possesses a master´s degree.
• For teaching specialized disciplinary courses and general education cours-
es, he/she possesses a master´s or doctoral degree in the field or
equivalent.
• He/she has received a percentile ranking above 60 in student evaluations
during the last two semesters.
• He/she has received accreditation within the educational model of
Tecnológico de Monterrey.
• He/she maintains an excellent reputation among directors, professors, and
students.
• His/her image and behavior pattern reflect the values and ethical standards
of the institution.
• He/she is proactive in carrying out responsibilities within the academy,
institution, and community.
•He/she has received a minimum training of 40 hours in the field of mod-
ern quality teaching, critical thinking, and honors education.
•He/she is a leader in his or her field of specialization.
• He/she possesses at least one of the following characteristics: fluency in
one or two foreign languages; academic or work experience abroad; activ-
ity in consulting, outreach or research; external relationships with, for
instance, governmental agencies, NGOs, industry, and/or research centers;
and openness to designing and testing new educational models, products,
or research lines involving undergraduate students.
The honors director, in collaboration with the chairs of the academic depart-
ments, routinely (at least once per semester) reviews the performance of hon-
ors faculty members and gives them feedback.
CHARACTERISTICS OF HONORS COURSES
An honors course should possess the following characteristics to differ-
entiate it from a regular course or section of a course:
• A course database must be in advanced Blackboard format.
FALL/WINTER 2012
82
ESTABLISHING A LATIN AMERICAN UNIVERSITY HONORS PROGRAM
• The course must be designated “HONR” in Blackboard, in Banner, and in
student grade sheets.
• The course format must be designed under the guidance of an expert in the
formulation and implementation of honors courses.
• Course reviews, redesigns, and updates—including bibliographies, teach-
ing materials, and teaching activities—should take place each semester
and at the end of the year.
• The teacher must have a pedagogical method, preferably project- or prob-
lem-based. Case-based learning is also acceptable.
• Student-faculty, one-on-one advising sessions are required during the
semester.
• Learning and teaching activities must promote critical thinking in students.
• Learning and teaching activities must demonstrate diversity in some or
many of the following ways:
• structured case discussion in class,
• written assignments based on literature review,
• closed- and open-book exams,
• oral presentations on assigned topics,
• company-based research work,
• case studies,
• field visits,
• laboratory work,
• library visits,
• field-related practical demonstrations,
• guest speakers from industry and/or on emerging topics,
•online team-teaching,
• video conferences,
•simulations,
• role playing,
• debate,
• experimental learning, and
•moral dilemma exercises.
Such activities should be an important component of the final grade in any
honors section.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
83
MOHAMMAD AYUB KHAN AND RUBEN MORALES-MENENDEZ
All courses offered in an honors format should be identified, evaluated,
approved, and scheduled by the honors director in collaboration with depart-
ment chairs. We encourage our honors faculty to teach in different formats,
including team teaching across different disciplines. The class size is limited
to 30, with an average of 15–20, whereas the normal university class size is
at least 40. We value the opportunities that small classes afford students to
frequently interact with each other and with the faculty, and we want faculty
to provide personalized attention to students.
CURRICULUM
The honors curriculum is designed to provide students an integral learn-
ing and teaching environment supported by structured academic programs
that encourage intellectual discovery, talent management, global awareness,
and cultural understanding. Additionally, the curriculum promotes learning
about—and quantitative application of—information and models. Honors
courses, selected from the regular plan of study, are offered across a wide
variety of disciplines:
• Engineering, Architecture, Art and Design;
• Computer Sciences & Information Technology;
• Medicine (under consideration);
•Biotechnology;
• Business;
• Social Sciences; and
• Humanities.
In total, an honor student takes a minimum of 10 honors courses in order to
complete the program. These courses are part of our traditional academic pro-
grams and are identified in collaboration with the directors of academic
departments, divisions, or schools. Currently, we are offering courses in the
basic and general education area plus some electives or optional courses.
However, in the near future we would like to have these minimum 10 cours-
es, which are required for the Honors Program Certificate, distributed among
9 semesters as follows (see Appendix A for our curriculum):
• Foundation courses (common area): 5 courses (8 units per course):
40 units
• Disciplinary courses (specialization area): 2 courses (8 units per course):
16 units
•General education courses (generalization area): 2 courses (8 units per
course): 16 units
FALL/WINTER 2012
84
ESTABLISHING A LATIN AMERICAN UNIVERSITY HONORS PROGRAM
• Independent study (practical or research course): 1 course (8 units per
course): 8 units
The foundation courses provide basic but in-depth understanding of different
disciplines. General education courses provide key competencies such as
ethics, social responsibility, oral and written communication, and global
awareness. Independent studies provide experiential learning, which may
include internships, study abroad, off-campus programs, community service,
independent research, and teaching assistantships. Overall, our honors pro-
gram curriculum, like other models, is guided by the following outcomes for
students:
• acquiring basic skills and knowledge,
• adapting to an interconnected world, and
• connecting knowledge with experience.
INTERNATIONAL OPTIONS
Our honors program’s strength lies in the international experience our stu-
dents have. Tecnológico de Monterrey offers more than three hundred inter-
national exchange programs with numerous universities in different countries
of the world. The international options include:
•International exchange program: studying for a semester or year abroad,
paying the academic fee to the Tecnológico de Monterrey.
• Study abroad: studying in a foreign university, paying the academic fee to
the foreign university and receiving help in planning from our program
director.
•Internships: working at a company in a foreign country during a semester
and getting academic credit, based on how many hours the student works,
or credit toward professional practice.
• Language semester: studying a foreign language abroad and getting cred-
it for the language course or courses at Tecnológico de Monterrey.
•Specialization semester: studying in a foreign country and taking 5 to 8
courses (depending on the workload or work hours required for each
course) in a specific area and getting credit for optional courses at
Tecnológico de Monterrey.
•Certificate of specialization: receiving a certificate from a foreign univer-
sity when the required program is complete (this option requires that a stu-
dent take at least 33% of the career study plan in a language different from
Spanish, obtain a score of 600 in TOEFL, meet the requirements of the for-
eign university, and meet the entry requirements of Tecnológico de
Monterrey).
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
85
MOHAMMAD AYUB KHAN AND RUBEN MORALES-MENENDEZ
• Double degree program: earning a degree from Tecnológico de Monterrey
and the foreign university upon completing the specified requirements of
both institutions (a student must pass 12 to 16 courses or the equivalent in
the foreign university).
• Professional plus master´s degree program: earning an undergraduate pro-
fessional degree from Tecnológico de Monterrey and a master´s degree
from the foreign university after completing the specified admission and
graduation requirements of both institutions.
ACHIEVEMENTS
Number of Courses and Groups
The total number of courses or sections scheduled on campus during the
winter semester of 2011 was 4509, of which 32 were in honors. Table 2 shows
the number of honors courses and sections offered during the years
2008–2011. Typically, we receive fewer students in the winter semester than
in the fall. The slight decrease (-2) in numbers from the winter of 2010 to the
winter of 2011 probably resulted from academic departments offering fewer
courses and wanting to maintain high enrollments. Overall, however, growth
has been steady and positive
Courses Offered in English
Table 3 shows the number of courses offered in English. The rationales
for teaching courses in English are: to offer local students an option to take a
course or two in English in order to learn the language; to support honors pro-
gram students, as they are required to take a certain number of courses in
English; to provide courses in English for foreign students coming to
Tecnológico de Monterrey; and to allow foreign faculty an option to teach
classes at Tecnológico de Monterrey. The decline in the number of courses in
English may have two causes: faculty members feel that it is more work to
FALL/WINTER 2012
2008 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011
Jan–May Aug–Dec Jan–May Aug–Dec Jan–May Aug–Dec Jan–May
Number
of courses 17 17 21 23 25 28 25
Number
of sections 18 26 24 31 34 37 32
Table 2. Number of Courses and Sections Offered During the Last
Few Years
86
ESTABLISHING A LATIN AMERICAN UNIVERSITY HONORS PROGRAM
teach a course in English than in Spanish, and we ask faculty to have a
TOEFL score of 600 plus to teach a course in English. When we started offer-
ing courses in English, there were no such requirements, but later we intro-
duced some training and TOEFL requirements to assure the quality of cours-
es taught in English. To encourage faculty to teach courses in English, we
offer academic as well as financial incentives, such as helping preparing the
course database.
Professors
Since the inception of the honors program, 28 professors (1.56% of the
total campus faculty) professors have taught honors courses in different
fields. The average number per semester is between 25 and 30 faculty mem-
bers. Any honors faculty member can teach one or two honors courses per
semester. Also, we offer some honors courses only once a year, not every
semester. We have offered courses during the summer but would like to dis-
courage this option in the future since honors courses require the time of a full
semester.
Students per Academic Program per Semester
Table 4 compares the number of campus-wide students to those regis-
tered in the honors program per academic area in the winter semester of 2011.
Graduation Statistics
During the winter semester of 2011, Campus Monterrey graduated a total
of 1147 students, of which 35 students graduated from the honors program.
Table 5 shows further details. Graduating 35 students from the honors pro-
gram during one semester is an encouraging number since the program is
demanding and challenging in many ways for students, parents, and the
university.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
2008 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011
Jan–May Aug–Dec Jan–May Aug–Dec Jan–May Aug–Dec Jan–May
Number
of courses 123 124 125 123 115 105 109
Number
of sections 155 158 157 161 149 135 88
Table 3. Number of Courses and Groups Offered in English
87
MOHAMMAD AYUB KHAN AND RUBEN MORALES-MENENDEZ
FALL/WINTER 2012
Academic Area Total Honors %age
Students Students
ENCSH (School of Business, Social Sciences
and Humanities)
392 14 3.57
EITI (School of Engineering and Information
Technology)
445 20 4.49
EBA (School of Biotechnology and Nutrition)
82 1 1.22
EMCS (School of Medicine and Health Sciences)
115 0 0.00
EAAD (School of Architecture, Art and Design)
113 0 0.00
AEP (Professional Programs for Especial Students) 0 0 0.00
IPU (International Programs for Professional) 0 0 0.00
Total
1147 35 3.05
Table 5. Summary Statistics of Graduates per Academic Area
Academic Area Total Honors %age
Students Students
ENCSH (School of Business, Social Sciences
and Humanities) 4935 292 5.92
EITI (School of Engineering and Information
Technology) 5344 418 7.82
EBA (School of Biotechnology and Nutrition) 926 36 3.89
EMCS (School of Medicine and Health Sciences) 1451 0 0.00
EAAD (School of Architecture, Art and Design) 1816 47 2.59
AEP (Professional Programs for Especial Students) 6 0 0.00
IPU (International Programs for Professional) 136 0 0.00
Total 14614 794 5.43
Table 4. Summary Statistics per Academic Area
88
ESTABLISHING A LATIN AMERICAN UNIVERSITY HONORS PROGRAM
Profile of Our Graduates
Table 6 shows the profile of our graduates. Most of our students receive
extra diplomas or awards in addition to the requirements of the honors
program.
Nationality of Students
In January–May 2011, the total campus population was 14614, including
544 foreign students (3.722%). Of the 544 foreign students, 60 (11%) were
honors students.
Students’ Preferences for Foreign Languages
Table 7 shows students’ preferences for foreign languages during the past
several semesters. According to winter 2011 data, 40% of students showed a
preference for German as a third language, followed by French at 39%.
Historically, preference for the German and French languages has remained
persistent. English (foreign) and Spanish (native) are commonly spoken lan-
guages among our students.
Students’ Preferences for Foreign Countries
Generally, our records show that our students prefer the United States,
France, Germany, and Italy for studying abroad. Of course, their preferences
reflect the availability of a particular program in a particular country and area
of studies. For example, students of art and design prefer Italy; Business,
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
Total of Graduated Students 35
Graduated with a Double Degree 10
Graduated with a Minor or Specialization 8
Outstanding Career Grade Average 5
Mention of Honorific Award 11
Mention of Excellency Award 6
Student Development Diploma 9
Students with TOEFL Score >= 600 34
Students with TOEFL Score >= 580 35
Graduated Students with a GPA >=85 35
Table 6. Profile of Our Graduates
89
MOHAMMAD AYUB KHAN AND RUBEN MORALES-MENENDEZ
Social Sciences, and Humanities prefer France, followed by the U.S.; and stu-
dents of Engineering and Information Technology like Germany, followed by
the U.S. (See Appendix B for further details.)
Snapshot of Student Population Mobility in a Single Semester
Table 8 shows the changes in our student population during the semester
of January–May 2011. The program received 39 new honors students but also
lost 65 students who did not register again for the honors program for a vari-
ety of reasons: weak academic performance; unwillingness to accept the chal-
lenges of the honors program; and financial constraints preventing their study
abroad program. We graduated 35 students, and we sent out 162 students
abroad on double degree programs (56) and student exchange programs (106).
PROGRAM EVALUATION AND FEEDBACK
We have designed several mechanisms to monitor the progress of the hon-
ors program on a semester and annual basis. We monitor the following areas:
FALL/WINTER 2012
2008 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011
Jan–May Aug–Dec Jan–May Aug–Dec Jan–May Aug–Dec Jan–May
German 34% 34% 36% 30% 34% 34% 40%
Chinese 12% 9% 9% 6% 7% 5% 1%
French 30% 25% 32% 33% 37% 31% 39%
Italian 12% 10% 12% 13% 11% 13% 4%
English 7% 17% 8% 15% 6% 13% 13%
Japanese 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3%
Table 7. Preferences for Foreign Languages
First-semester students (new entrance to the program) 39
Withdrawals (dropouts) 65
Total re-registration (existing population) for following semester 755
Graduated students 35
Study abroad 162
Table 8. Student Population Mobility
90
ESTABLISHING A LATIN AMERICAN UNIVERSITY HONORS PROGRAM
National Collegiate Honors Council Indicators
Our program has been recognized by the recommended site visitors of
the National Collegiate Honors Council (U.S.), as a successful, fully devel-
oped honors program. The NCHC uses seventeen criteria to determine if a
program is fully developed, and we do self-analysis using these criteria.
Academic Performance Evaluation
We administer a critical thinking questionnaire—California Critical
Thinking Skills Test (CCTST)—to our students. The five variables used in
testing are: inductive reasoning; deductive reasoning; analysis and interpreta-
tion; inference; and evaluation and explanation. We have also administered
an Educational Testing Service (ETS) test to 33% of our freshman, junior, and
senior honors students with excellent results.
Program Impact Evaluation
In order to evaluate the learning outcomes of the program, we use an
online system called System for the Evaluation Management of Academic
Programs or SAEP (Sistema para la Administration de la Evaluacion de
Programa Academicos). Involving faculty and department chairs, experts in
SAEP do the following:
•review the profiles of the graduates (graduate competencies);
• design a plan of evaluation (identify courses that help developing those
competencies; define a specific learning activity within these courses, and
design rubrics to evaluate the learning outcomes with the involvement of
training staff);
• evaluate the results through faculty reports at the end of every semes-
ter; and
•improve actions if necessary.
Faculty
In order to select, develop, and evaluate an honors professor, we use the
following indicators:
• academic preparation;
•faculty status (our preference is full-time rather than adjunct faculty);
• classification (from instructor to full-professor);
• number of teaching years both at and ouside of Tecnológico de Monterrey;
• student evaluations;
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
91
MOHAMMAD AYUB KHAN AND RUBEN MORALES-MENENDEZ
• training records;
• TOEFL scores;
• training in honors education;
• certification in any teaching method;
• participation in research and consulting;
• awards received; and
• other activities such as social service.
Course Indicators
Individual course indicators are measured against the minimum require-
ments established by the honors office. An honors course must incorproate
these elements:
• technological platform (database in the advanced version of Blackboard),
• honors teaching method,
• use of I-clicker,
•research project,
• critical thinking element,
• software or laboratory, and
• field visit.
Student Indicators
The student indicators, as shown in Table 9, are measured against the
minimum requirements established by the honors program office.
PARTICIPATION IN NCHC AND REGIONAL HONORS
COUNCIL ACTIVITIES
1. NCHC Conference in Phoenix, Arizona, 2011.
2. New Directors Institute held in Lincoln, Nebraska, July 7–10, 2011.
Currently we have both institutional and professional memberships and we
are receiving copies of the NCHC Monograph Series, Honors in Practice,
and the Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council.
INTER-HONORS COLLABORATIONS
Mohammad Ayub Khan and Ruben Morales-Menendez visited the
University of New Mexico and Oklahoma State University in the U.S. in order
to learn about their honors programs. During the visit, they visited honors
FALL/WINTER 2012
92
ESTABLISHING A LATIN AMERICAN UNIVERSITY HONORS PROGRAM
facilities and met with honors administrators, honors faculty, and honors stu-
dents. Future collaborative projects they discussed during the visit included:
• honors faculty exchanges,
• honors student exchanges,
• joint summer schools and seminars,
• team teaching, and
• video conferences.
CHALLENGES AND BENEFITS OF OFFERING
AN HONORS PROGRAM.
CHALLENGES
Matching Teaching and Learning Strategies
Teaching and learning have different orientations (Ulrich). In teaching,
the focus is on input and the teacher whereas in learning the focus is on out-
comes and the students (Boyatzis). Bringing these two elements together is a
challenge. The first decision facing honors directors is identifying the best
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
Entry
Checklist
1. Country, State
2. Admission
score
3. Grade average
(high school)
4. Languages
5. Scholarship or
awards
6. TOEFL
7. Gender
8. Career (major)
9. Conduct
Maintenance
Checklist
1. Grade average
2. Semester
3. Participation in
different
activities,
concentrations,
modalities,
4. Honors courses
5. English courses
6. Third language
7. Study abroad
8. Progress on
required 7
elective courses
Graduation
Checklist
1. Career average
2. TOEFL
3. Third language
4. A year abroad
(equivalent of
two semesters)
5. Honors courses
6. Course in
English
7. Completion of
required 7
elective courses
8. Any other
distinction
Post-Graduation
Checklist
1. Year of
graduation
2. Job situation
and position
or post
3. Company,
country
4. Salary average
5. Any other
information
(alumni
association,
social activities,
higher
studies, etc.)
Table 9. Student Indicators
93
MOHAMMAD AYUB KHAN AND RUBEN MORALES-MENENDEZ
combination of teaching strategies and learning styles to support honors
education.
Financial Support
Offering an honors program requires budget allocation and resource
redistribution. Small classroom size means lower class efficiency when uni-
versity classes typically enroll 40+ students. Facilities such as offices, labo-
ratories, and library space require additional investment from the university
(Collins et al.). Universities must allocate enough financial resources to sup-
port the honors program, which is a serious challenge in times of funding
shortages.
Identifying and Developing Activities for Students
Implementing extracurricular activities for honors students requires time
and effort. Such activities include conferences, seminars, internships,
research projects, socio-cultural events, and international programs (Collins
et al.), all of which require management time, logistical support, and finan-
cial help.
Adapting to the Larger University Environment
Another challenging job is maintaining the innovative features of an hon-
ors program within the traditional format of a larger university. Honors stu-
dents are influenced by both the honors program environment and the larger
institutional environment (Campbell & Fuqua).
Elitism
Another challenge facing honors programs is the accusation of elitism
(Spurrier). Some groups—including faculty, students, and even manage-
ment—complain about the use of university resources to serve a small group
of gifted and privileged students and faculty while ignoring the vast majority
of students and faculy, depriving them of equal privileges.
Retention
Another challenge is retention (Mckay). Recruiting students is a chal-
lenge in the first place, and keeping them in the program until they graduate
is an even greater hurdle. Students may leave the program for a variety of rea-
sons, the most important being that an honors education demands extra
efforts from students to maintain a high level of academic standards, that par-
ticipation in extracurricular activities is time-consuming, and that participat-
ing in international exchange programs is expensive, inconvenient, and
intimidating.
FALL/WINTER 2012
94
ESTABLISHING A LATIN AMERICAN UNIVERSITY HONORS PROGRAM
Promotion
Promoting an honors program among local, national, and international
communities is a challenging task. Convincing parents and employers of the
benefits of honors requires management time, resources, and careful
strategies.
THE BENEFITS
Innovative Curricula
An honors program may help faculty develop new curricula as well as
learning and teaching activities, so it can serve as an incubator for innova-
tions that benefit the larger university population (Schmidt).
Creation and Promotion of a Faculty Research Culture
Honors projects can include traditional research, creative work, or a com-
bination of both. By incorporating research into their undergraduate teaching,
faculty members receive intellectual stimulation from the fresh ideas of
undergraduates and can use honors projects to launch further research of their
own. Faculty at universities with established honors programs can involve
undergraduate students in research without having to seek approval from
their academic departments (Black et al.).
Creation and Promotion of a Student Research Culture
Honors work raises undergraduate expectations and strengthens the cur-
riculum, especially in the area of academic research. Honors programs intro-
duce undergraduates to the research process, a skill that is needed before
advancing to graduate studies (Black et. al.).
Improvement of the Academic Environment
An honors program can lead to improvement of the academic environ-
ment for talented students and motivated faculty in several ways: (1) collab-
orative learning, (2) student-faculty contact, (3) level of academic challenge,
(4) enriching educational experiences, and, (5) supportive campus environ-
ment (Brint, Cantwell & Hannerman). Academic and extracurricular activi-
ties organized by honors students on campus, for example, set an example of
hard work, discipline, and leadership for the general university population.
Enhancement of Institutional Reputation and Prestige
Honors programs enhance a university’s reputation by setting high
admission and graduation standards (Otero). An honors program attracts
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
95
MOHAMMAD AYUB KHAN AND RUBEN MORALES-MENENDEZ
outstanding students and committed faculty, thus increasing a university’s
visibility and its opportunities to attract external funding (Pinto).
Enhancement of Employment Opportunities
Students who graduate from honors programs often get better and high-
er-paying jobs than regular students do.
CONCLUSION
Any education model is influenced by forces both internal and external
to the institution. External forces (macro variables) are relatively uncontrol-
lable for any institution, whether education or business, and include econom-
ic conditions, political situations, socio-cultural variables, demographic
changes, technological developments, and legal issues. Internal factors
include institutional history, student diversity, faculty diversity, physical
facilities, leadership style, organizational culture, operational issues, and geo-
graphical location. In designing our honors program, we have taken both
external and internal factors into considerations. Internally, we have strong
leadership; the environment is conducive to learning; the facilities are mod-
ern; Internet connections are available; and the students are diverse. Though
some political, financial, and security problems face the nation, Mexico is
one of the growing economies in Latin America and in the world. Moreover,
our university is located in the heart of the industrialized city of Monterrey,
which is internationally known.
We have found wisdom in the assertion that honors programs offer
unique opportunities and special strengths as well as particular problems and
challenges (Schuman), and we also know that one of the strengths of honors
program is that they are diverse in terms of models (Long). Since there is no
one standard model, universities have options to design their own honors pro-
grams in accord with their unique needs. Like most honors administrators, we
have found that honors courses stimulate creativity, critical thinking, and ana-
lytical skills (Guzy), and we have also learned that challenges range from stu-
dent selection, curriculum design, faculty development, resource availability,
and facility allocation to general program administration. With help from the
NCHC <http://www.nchchonors.org/>, we have found that the benefits far
outweigh the challenges.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Ada Long, Rosalie Otero, and Robert Spurrier
for their help with the publication of his paper.
FALL/WINTER 2012
96
ESTABLISHING A LATIN AMERICAN UNIVERSITY HONORS PROGRAM
REFERENCES
Alon, I. & McIntyre, J. R. (2005). Business and Management Education in
China: Transition, Pedagogy and Training. World Scientific Publishing
Co. Pte. Ltd. Singapore.
Black, C., Grise, K., Barker, J., Thomas, B., and Bollinger, S. (2008). Apparel
Honors Program Builds Research Skills in Undergrads. Journal of
Family and Consumer Sciences, Vol. 100, Iss. 3; pg. 51, 5 pgs.
Boisot, M.H. & Fiol, M. (1987). Chinese boxes and learning cubes: action
learning in a cross-cultural context. Journal of Management
Development, 6 (2), 8–18.
Boyatzis, R.E. (1995). Cornerstones of change: building a path for self-
directed learning,” in Boyatzis, R.E., Cowen, S.C. and Kolb, D.A. (Eds),
Innovation in Professional Education: Steps on a Journey from Teaching
to Learning, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 50–94.
Brint, S., Cantwell, A. M., and Hannerman, R. A. (2008). The Two Cultures
of Undergraduate Academic Engagement, Research in Higher
Education, 49: 383–402.
Campbell, K. C., and Faqua, D. (2009). Factors Predictive of Student
Completion in a Collegiate Honors Program, J. College Student
Retention, Vol. 10(2): 129–153.
Collins, N., Mitstifer, D., Goff B. S. N., and Parker, S. H. (2009).
Undergraduate Research in the Human Sciences: Three Models. Journal
of Family and Consumer Sciences, Vol. 101, Iss. 3; pg. 24, 8 pgs.
Guzy, A. (2003). Honors Composition: Historical Perspectives and
Contemporary Practices. National Collegiate Honors Council
Monograph Series, Lincoln, NE.
Long, A. (1995). A Handbook for Honors Administrators. National
Collegiate Honors Council Monograph Series, Lincoln, NE.
Mckay, K. (2009). Predicting Retention in Honors Program, Journal of the
National Collegiate Honors Council, Vol. 10, No. 1.
National Collegiate Honors Council. <http://www.nchchonors.org/>.
Otero, R. C. (2008). You Say Tomato; I say Tomahto. In The Honors College
Phenomenon, ed. Sedberg, Peter. C. National Collegiate Honors Council
Monograph Series, Lincoln, NE., pp. 87–94.
Pinto, A. I. (2002). Honors College Opens Fall 2002 UTSA, The Hispanic
Outlook in Higher Education, Paramus, V
ol. 12, Iss. 24; pg.9.
Schmidt, P. (2010). University Honors Colleges Pitch the ‘Liberal-Arts
College Experience’, The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Schuman, S. (2006). Beginning in Honors: A Handbook, Fourth Edition.
National Collegiate Honors Council Monograph Series, Lincoln, NE.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
97
MOHAMMAD AYUB KHAN AND RUBEN MORALES-MENENDEZ
Spurrier, R. (2009). To the Charge of “Honors is Elitist,” On Advice of
Counsel “We Plead Guilty as Charged,” Journal of the National
Collegiate Honors Council, 10 (1), 49–51.
Ulrich T. A. (2005). The Relationship of Business Major to Pedagogical
Strategies. Journal of Education for Business, 80 (5), 269.
Vance, C. M. (1993). Mastering Management Education: Innovations in
Teaching Effectiveness. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
*******
The authors may be contacted at
mkhan@itesm.mx.
FALL/WINTER 2012
98
ESTABLISHING A LATIN AMERICAN UNIVERSITY HONORS PROGRAM
APPENDIX A
CURRICULUM
Basic Education (Foundation Courses)
Engineering
• MA1016 Mathematics-I
• MA1018 Mathematics-II
• MA2010 Differential Equations
• F1002 Physics-I
• F1003 Physics-II
• MA1006 Probability and Statistics
• Q1001 Chemical
• IQ1001 Mass Material
• IQ2000 Mass Energy
• F1005 Electricity and Magnetism
• Q1004 Laboratory of Chemical
• M2025 Quantitative Methods in Engineering
• AR3017 Integrative Project-I
• AR3020 Integrative Project-II
• AD1005 Management and Innovation in Business Models
• CF1010 Accounting and Cost Management
• MT1003 Marketing and Creativity
• FZ1006 Personal and Company Finances
• EC1010 Economy for Business Creation
Humanities and Social Sciences
•MA1016 Mathematics I
• MA1018 Mathematics II
• F1002 Physics 1
•DL1009 Creativity and Innovation
• AD1005 Management and Innovation in Business Model
• AV2009 Management and Evaluation of Media Projects
• CF1010 Accounting and Cost Management
• MT1003 Marketing and Creativity
•EC1008 Business Economics
• EC1009 Macroeconomic Environment
• NI2016 Legal Fundamentals of International Business
• RI1004 International Perspective
• CO2003 Quantitative Methods for Social Research
• NI3036 International Business Agreements
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
99
MOHAMMAD AYUB KHAN AND RUBEN MORALES-MENENDEZ
Business
• MA1016 Mathematics I
• MA1018 Mathematics II
• AD1005 Management and Innovation of Business Models
• NI1001 Enterprise, Culture and Business in the World
• MT1003 Marketing and Creativity
• EC1008 Business Economics
• EC1009 Macroeconomics Environment
• D1021 Legal Aspects of Business
• CF1011 Management Accounting
• D1022 Company Law and Intellectual Property
• FZ1006 Personal and Company Finances
• DL1009 Creativity and Innovation
• NI3036 International Business Agreements
General Education
•AR1007 History of Architecture and City
• H1016 Foreign Language
• H1040 Analysis and Verbal Expression
• HS2000 Humanity and Beautiful Arts
• H1018 Ethics, Person and Society
• H2001 Verbal Expression and Professional Environment
• EM1005 Entrepreneurship
• HS2005 Citizenship
• HS2006 Applied Ethics
• H2003 Contemporary Art and Society
• P3011 Civil Society and Citizen Participation
FALL/WINTER 2012
100
ESTABLISHING A LATIN AMERICAN UNIVERSITY HONORS PROGRAM
APPENDIX B
STUDENT PREFERENCES FOR FOREIGN COUNTRIES
School of Architecture, Art and Industrial Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Spain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Italy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
School of Biotechnology and Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Denmark. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Switzerland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
School of Engineering and Information Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Germany. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
South Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
France. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Italy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
School of Business, Social Sciences and Humanities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Germany. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Spain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
France. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
England. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Northern Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Italy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Switzerland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Grand Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
101
Self as Text:
Adaptations of Honors Practice
in Switzerland
MICHAELA RUPPERT SMITH
LRG UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES, SWITZERLAND
[Editor’s note: What follows is a slightly revised reprint of an essay
published in Honors in Practice 7 (2011): 175–80.]
C
ity as Text™, the experiential learning program developed by the NCHC
Honors Semesters Committee, has been adopted and adapted by hun-
dreds if not thousands of educational institutions throughout the United States
and beyond. Having served on the Honors Semesters Committee, I exported
this learning strategy to Switzerland while teaching in an International
Baccalaureate Program in Geneva. I adapted City as Text™ for multi-disci-
plinary college preparatory students in Europe, and that adaptation might now
serve in turn as a model for experiential learning in honors programs and col-
leges in the United States and internationally. The focus and link between the
City as Text™ experiences on two different continents and at two different
levels of education will be what I call “Self as Text.”
The experiential learning experience that is the extension of and variation
on NCHC’s City as Text™ involved an educational trip from Geneva to
Zurich taken by eighty-five International Baccalaureate Theory of
Knowledge students accompanied by eight multi-disciplinary teachers. The
Theory of Knowledge course serves to encourage eleventh- and twelfth-grade
students, through an interdisciplinary inquiry into “what it means to know,”
to gain both a summative and forward-looking perspective on their education
and on themselves as knowers. The course is most effectively taught by
means of active learning, exploring essential questions that challenge stu-
dents to discover and analyze the major ways in which we know and to make
interconnections between these modes of knowing and the subject areas they
have been studying.
The trip served the purpose of initiating the eleventh-graders into the
course. The students had been told that they would be going to two exhibits.
The first was Gunther von Hagens’ Body Worlds, an exhibit of artfully dis-
played plasticized human cadavers, skinned to reveal (as the exhibit brochure
FALL/WINTER 2012
102
SELF AS TEXT: ADAPTATIONS OF HONORS PRACTICE IN SWITZERLAND
announced) their “interior faces” of skeleton, muscles, nerves, and organs.
The second was Buddha’s Paradise at the Rietberg Museum in Zurich, dis-
playing two-thousand-year-old Buddhist art. The students also knew that
most of us would be eating dinner at a restaurant in Zürich where you eat in
the dark. Finally, the students knew that they would be required to produce a
criteria-based, graded, reflective essay on the trip activities.
The students, generally between sixteen and seventeen years old, were a
multi-lingual and multi-cultural group, and for the most part they were used
to that context. All spoke English but in many cases not as their mother
tongue and generally in addition to several other languages. As IB students,
they were an academically select group. The challenge for us teachers in
planning the trip curriculum was to determine what kinds of tasks would
engage students already well-versed in diversity and difference. What kinds
of activities would challenge them to step even further outside of themselves
and gain a yet wider perspective on self/other/world? Martha Nussbaum has
expressed this challenge eloquently in her concept of “narrative imagination”
or “the invitation to become, to a certain extent, philosophical exiles from our
own ways of life, seeing them from the vantage point of the outsiders and
asking the questions an outsider is likely to ask about their meaning and func-
tion” (Gillison 34). I see this questioning of self, what I call “Self as Text,”
as also the end goal of the mapping done in NCHC’s City as Text™.
In planning the trip curriculum, we were fortunate to have a large choice
of exhibits in Zurich to select from, including both Body Worlds and Buddha’s
Paradise, but as a creative and motivated team of teachers we would also like
to take some credit for having chosen to juxtapose these two exhibits. As is
the case in many team initiatives to develop a curriculum, a blending of ideas
and possibilities took place among us, a creative and seemingly magical
process that was not random but intensely purposeful work. As soon as we
learned of these two exhibits, we saw the potential the combination held.
How many of our students, we asked ourselves, had already been to any of
the controversial Body Worlds exhibits? None, as it turned out. How many
were familiar with Buddhism in the context of Gandhara, Pakistan, and
Bamiyan, Afghanistan, two thousand years ago? Several knew that giant
Buddha statues had been destroyed by the Taliban, a fact that was also a cen-
tral component of the exhibition; however, learning about the earlier histori-
cal context of these sculptures and engaging with issues of who decides
whether to destroy or preserve the past, and according to what criteria, was
something new. Newer still was comparing and contrasting this exhibit with
that of Body Worlds and issues it raised about the preservation and/or destruc-
tion of the human body and, some would say, the soul.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
103
MICHAELA RUPPERTSMITH
Once we had realized the potential of the exhibits, the rest of the plan-
ning soon followed. Since the two exhibits conveyed information first of all
through the sense of sight, we imagined a third activity that could not be
experienced visually. We decided to take them to a restaurant in Zurich called
“Blindekuh,” or “Blind Man’s Bluff.” The restaurant is completely dark. You
enter, are led to your table, and are served a three-course meal in total dark-
ness. We chose not to reveal to the students in advance that the waiters and
waitresses were all blind. We were sure that the “Blindekuh” would require
some intense and unfamiliar mapping on the part of the students.
In subsequent reflections on our experience of both the trip and its plan-
ning, I have repeatedly come back to the process of mapping. In the NCHC
monograph Place as Text: Approaches to Active Learning, Bernice Braid
addresses the crucial role of mapping, by now a core concept of honors teach-
ing and learning. Students and teachers engaged in a City as Text™ assign-
ment, she says, are asked to observe a place and its people in their given con-
text—what Braid calls “focused observation” (16). She says that the ques-
tions are: “Whom do I watch? Why? What do I expect? Why? Am I ever sur-
prised? By what?” (15). Braid stresses the importance of knowing how I, the
observer, respond. In the end, mapping becomes a metaphor for a personal
voyage of discovery, of learning how to stand on foreign ground and find a
new touchstone, a place on which to stand, a new perspective from which to
see. True learning brings forth a paradigm shift in our own journeys of dis-
covery—a new way of seeing that is a new way of thinking and of being with-
in ourselves, with others, and in the world. This magic worked itself out
through our mapping and planning of the trip to Zurich as well as the trans-
formations the trip brought forth in our students, who, like their college coun-
terparts, learned how to ask new questions, re-learned how to be surprised by
the unexpected, and responded with their own magic mirror of “Self as Text.”
But let’s go back to those students on the train. As background informa-
tion for their voyage of discovery, we had provided students with a handout
to orient them to the two exhibits and the restaurant. The handout began with
the introduction to the Buddha’s Paradise exhibit from the webpage, fol-
lowed by a list of orienting yet largely open-ended questions and a page of
key ideas or “unifying themes” about Buddhism. We also provided a set of
questions to use for reflection on the Buddha exhibit, focusing on the ethics
of destruction or preservation of the past.
After having seen Buddha’s Paradise and looked into her magic mirror
of “Self as Text,” my student Ethar Abd Al-Shakour wrote: “The past should
be left for the future generations to look back to and reflect. . . . As for me, I
wouldn’t want to destroy any part of me for the future me because everything
I have and am is what makes me me and what makes me unique and different
FALL/WINTER 2012
104
SELF AS TEXT: ADAPTATIONS OF HONORS PRACTICE IN SWITZERLAND
from everyone else.” Ethar’s words demonstrate the active, engaged learning
that went on for this sixteen-year-old student. She reflected on the impact of
the contemporary destruction of an over two-thousand-year-old tradition and
made a personal connection between the ethics of the preserving or destroy-
ing the past and the value of sustaining her own identity; this is important
learning at any age.
Another student, Rebecca, always a strong defender of her faith, reflect-
ed: “I learned a lot about the religion itself, as well, and what I learned from
it is not to agree or disagree, but to understand and accept different beliefs.”
This was no trivial statement for Rebecca, who was empowered through her
active learning experience to lead others not only from the perspective of her
traditional faith but also from a perspective of tolerance that is vital to twen-
ty-first-century global citizenship.
Second on our background handout was a copy of the Body Worlds
exhibit’s mission statement, followed by a page I had put together called “An
Assembly of Random Thoughts,” which could or could not apply to this
exhibit. These thoughts included: “Is it art? Is it science? Is it awesome? Is it
disturbing? ‘The Devil made me do it,’ said Faust. Cultural perspectives on
THE DEAD—are you grateful?” The juxtaposition of these ideas was meant
to be jarring and to trigger creative reflection on the part of the students.
Diana Baranga responded: “The extent to which science has driven
human knowledge is admirable. . . . However, the exhibition was also dis-
turbing. . . . It is true that we use technology for the progression of human
kind, but how far should we be allowed to go?” Her question echoes many
like it that have been asked about this controversial exhibit and asked
throughout history, often after a horrendous event like the bombing of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The key to knowledge is learning how to ask the
right questions, and Diana ranks as an outstanding student in the questions
she raises. I often feel humbled by her philosophical, ethical, and deeply felt
contributions to class discussions. She did not ask her essential question
about human knowledge lightly.
The third component of the background handout related to the restaurant,
and it was a page of questions leading to reflections on sight and light fol-
lowed by a nineteenth-century poem by John Godfrey Saxe entitled “The
Blind Men and the Elephant.” While the ancient story that this poem is based
on is well-known, not all of the students had heard this tale that underscores
a basic honors education call to consider claims as well as counter-claims, to
understand that our knowledge and indeed our ‘truths’ are interpretive in
nature, and to realize that any interpretation is one among many and capable
of being changed.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
105
MICHAELA RUPPERTSMITH
In his reflection on the restaurant experience, Jeremy Dejardin noted: “In
fact, the only people capable of serving the food in pitch black are blind peo-
ple. . . . I started having images projected into my mind’s eye of who and what
was there. I think my hearing was the sense that deceived me the most
because I was focusing too much on it so that I heard things which weren’t
real.” Through his experiential learning at the “Blindekuh,” Jeremy looked at
the reflection in the mirror of self/other/world and no longer found in it the
same conventional images. Instead, like many artistic and literary counter-
parts, he had somehow gone through the magic mirror and come out the other
side, where “who and what was there” were “images projected into . . . [his]
mind’s eye” and he heard things that “weren’t real.” In this dark yet quite
vivid and marvelous world, only the blind could “see.” For Jeremy, Self as
Text took on mythical proportions in the “Blindekuh.”
I think all who went to the “Blindekuh” during our discovery tour to
Zurich would agree that, along with the exhibits, it offered stunning new per-
spectives. Most of us who went on the trip came back with the sense of hav-
ing learned an incredible amount about ourselves, others, and the world. Long
past the debriefings in our large group and in our various small classes, the
Zurich experiences lived on as a reference point in many different contexts.
The bonds that had been formed remained strong as well and continued to
work their magic for students and teachers.
As teachers we felt that we had succeeded in what we had set out to do.
The students had come through their experiential learning orientation to the
course and its emphasis on critical, reflective, and transformative thinking
with flying colors. In the spirit of a City as Text™ “voyage of discovery”
(Braid 14) and of Nussbaum’s “narrative imagination” (Gillison 34), the stu-
dents had brought about their own paradigm shifts and found new touch-
stones of reality, new eyes with which to see themselves and the world. We
could indeed call this process “Self as Text,” which is a life-long process that
both college honors education and pre-college adaptations of it aim to pro-
mote. At all stages of our lives, responsible knowers can never stop seeking
new perspectives, new eyes from which to see. Through our adaptation of an
NCHC practice, our college preparatory students had successfully gone on a
communal and individual voyage of discovery. In their reflective essays they
later articulated, recollected, and preserved this particular voyage in their nar-
rative imagination. Through their adventure in experiential learning they had
ventured outside of themselves, scrutinized evidence, and considered multi-
ple points of view. In dialogue with community and through personal reflec-
tion, they had questioned their basic values and integrated new ways of think-
ing and being into their lives.
FALL/WINTER 2012
106
SELF AS TEXT: ADAPTATIONS OF HONORS PRACTICE IN SWITZERLAND
As their teachers, we felt rewarded for our efforts. We had stimulated and
supported our students’ intellectual, social, moral, and emotional growth,
helping prepare them well for the future journey of higher education, college
honors, and continued life-long learning. All it had taken was work and ded-
ication on the part of a group of teachers who, like our students, were willing
to embark on a journey of “Self as Text” and make the most of it. In the spir-
it of honors teaching and learning at any level, everyone had come home the
richer for having left. Together we had forged strong communal bonds, chart-
ed exciting new intellectual territory, and set new personal goals. We had
deepened our understanding of ourselves, of each other, and of the global cul-
ture that calls on us to be capable and effective leaders.
City as Text™ is innately a tripartite process that encompasses Self as
Text, City as Text™, and World as Text. In honors practices and their many
adaptations, we are empowering future leaders of a new, demanding, social-
ly just, and globally sustainable tomorrow. Part of the magic of “Self as Text”
is that the mirror is large and multi-faceted; it invites us to embark on a life-
long journey where all of us can find and re-find, invent and re-invent, ways
of learning and seeing and knowing in ever-expanding contexts.
REFERENCES
Braid, Bernice. “Honors Semesters: An Architecture of Active Learning.”
Place as Text: Approaches to Active Learning. Eds. Bernice Braid and
Ada Long. Lincoln, NE: National Collegiate Honors Council, 2000.
NCHC Monograph Series.
Gillison, Linda Rutland. “Community-Building in Honors Education.”
Teaching and Learning in Honors. Eds. Cheryl L. Fuiks and Larry Clark.
Lincoln, NE: National Collegiate Honors Council, 2000. NCHC
Monograph Series.
*******
The author may be contacted at
mj.smith@bluewin.ch.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
107
An American Honors Program
in the Arab Gulf
BYRAD YYELLAND
VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY QATAR
INTRODUCTION
T
he first Western honors program to be established in the Arab Gulf is
offered in Doha, Qatar, on a small satellite campus of an American uni-
versity. Doha is the capital city of Qatar, a sovereign Arab state physically
located on a small peninsula bordering Saudi Arabia in the south and jutting
into the Persian Gulf. With a population of only 1.7 million, roughly 11 % of
whom are Qatar nationals (according to the 2010 Qatar Census), Qatar “ranks
as the world’s richest country per capita,” due primarily to wise investment
and control of “the third largest reserves of natural gas in the world”
(Greenfield). Qatar’s ruling monarchy, the Al-Thani family, has strongly sup-
ported education and research in the nation by inviting top-ranked institutions
from around the world to set up campuses in Qatar. One testament to the suc-
cess of this initiative is that 70% of Qatar’s population had attained a sec-
ondary degree by 2010 (Statistics Authority and the Diplomatic Institute).
Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) School of the Arts was the first
external institution invited to Qatar due to its ranking as the #1 American pub-
lic school of art and design. Virginia Commonwealth University Qatar
(VCUQatar) became the first Western university to offer an undergraduate
honors program in this part of the world.
The challenge and opportunity of creating an honors program in Qatar
has been adapting the concept of academic excellence to this country’s
unique national vision as well as to the family- and tribe-oriented culture of
its citizens. While still in its infancy, the honors program is rapidly evolving,
as demonstrated, for instance, in the 2012 graduation of the first male from
this originally all-female program. Like Qatar itself, the VCUQatar Honors
Program reflects a commitment to cultural history and tradition while at the
same time promoting rapid progress in knowledge and technology.
BACKGROUND
VCUQatar is situated within Education City, a fourteen million square-
meter campus in Doha, the capital city of Qatar. As of August 2012,
FALL/WINTER 2012
108
ANAMERICAN HONORS PROGRAM IN THE ARAB GULF
Education City also houses Carnegie Mellon University in Qatar,
Georgetown University School of Foreign Service Qatar, HEC Paris in Qatar,
Northwestern University in Qatar, Texas A&M University at Qatar,
University College London Qatar, and Weill Cornell Medical College in
Qatar. Harvard Law School’s Institute for Global Law and Policy will join in
January 2013 (Qatar Foundation, “Qatar Foundation announces collaboration
. . .”). Students within Education City are able to pursue their own individual
curricula but also benefit from cross-registration at the other universities
(VCUQatar).
In 1995, His Highness the Amir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani
established Qatar Foundation (QF) as a non-profit organization to help the
people of Qatar progress into the twenty-first century through education and
research. His wife, Her Highness Sheikha Moza bint Nasser, is chairperson of
the organization. In 1997, Her Highness asked QF to invite VCU School of
the Arts to set up a campus in Doha. The design field offers a viable business
option for young women in Qatar, and it was believed that formal education
in design would provide these young women with opportunities beyond mere
employment. The goal was to provide young women in Qatar with the abili-
ty to “assume leadership roles in business industry, and contribute in the
development of the world around them” (“Jamila Visit” 153). Richard
Toscan, dean of the School of the Arts, travelled to Doha to meet with offi-
cials from the Qatar Foundation, and VCU was subsequently awarded the
contract to establish a small school under the name Shaqab College of Design
Arts (SCODA), which was the first Western institution to establish a presence
in Qatar. SCODA opened classes in September 1998, offering Bachelor of
Fine Arts degrees in fashion design, graphic design, and interior design.
In 2001, the Shaqab College of Design Arts became the VCU Qatar
College of Design Arts, and then in 2002 it became an official branch cam-
pus of VCU.
The first VCU degrees were awarded to students who completed their
course work in Qatar in June 2002 (“Year-long VCUQ festivities”). The Doha
campus featured male and female staff, but the student population was female
only until September 2007, when the first male students were accepted at the
campus. VCUQatar serves Qatari students but also students from around the
world, including Australia, Britain, Canada, Egypt, India, Jordan, Namibia,
New Zealand, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, and the
United States. As of May 2012, VCUQatar has produced 363 graduates.
In 2004, Christina Lindholm, then dean of VCUQatar, entered into dis-
cussion with Timothy Hulsey, dean of the VCU Honors College, regarding
the possibility of establishing an honors program on the Doha campus. The
VCUQatar Honors Program was launched September 2005. The impetus for
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
109
BYRAD YYELLAND
creating the program lay in VCU’s promise that students in Doha would have
the same educational opportunities as students on the American campuses
and this included an honors education. Lindhom explained,
. . . [The honors program] was meant as an encouragement for excel-
lence and as a recognition of the students who were doing fantastic
work. Several of the students were performing at standards equal to
or better than the ones on main campus. They were a very motivat-
ed and dedicated group and deserved to have the honors designation
on their diplomas.
The objective of this honors program has therefore been to provide an intel-
lectually stimulating and fulfilling environment for those students with supe-
rior academic skills and drive. The objective is consistent with Sam
Schuman’s argument that, “First, and most obviously, honors programs culti-
vate outstanding students by enriching the instructional and co-curricular
careers of students of exceptional promise and/or motivation” (13).
Lindhom and Hulsey collaboratively determined the nature and process
of the VCUQatar Honors Program. They chose to incorporate honors com-
ponents into existing courses rather than offer separate courses for honors stu-
dents because the student population was too small to make honors-only sec-
tions viable. Once Hulsey approved the adjusted syllabi for the program, he
traveled to Doha for the official launch of the honors program. The VCU
Honors College continues to approve each section offering an honors com-
ponent before these courses can be offered. The same goes for Independent
Study contracts carrying honors credit. The first honors graduating class was
in 2009, and as of May 2012, twenty students have graduated with academic
honors. The first male honors student was in the 2012 cohort.
Since its inception, approximately one in seven VCUQatar students have
participated in the honors program. Aformat for strong academic learning,
the VCUQatar Honors Program is an active contributor to Qatar’s national
plan for the future.
QATAR NATIONAL VISION 2030
“In November 2008 His Highness Sheikh Tamim Bin Hamad Al-Thani,
Heir Apparent, launched Qatar National Vision 2030 (QNV 2030)” (General
Secretariat for Development Planning [2012] iii). The focus of this vision is
to protect Qatar’s traditional Islamic values while developing long-term goals
for the country as it moves into the future. The goal is to transform Qatar’s
economy from carbon-based to knowledge-based and, in so doing provide
substantive contributions to the nation of Qatar, the Arab Gulf region, and the
world (General Secretariat for Development Planning [2012]). “The National
FALL/WINTER 2012
110
ANAMERICAN HONORS PROGRAM IN THE ARAB GULF
Vision aims at transforming Qatar into an advanced country by 2030, capa-
ble of sustaining its own development and providing for a high standard of
living for all of its people and generations to come” (General Secretariat for
Development Planning [2008] 2).
Qatar’s national vision rests on four pillars: human development, social
development, economic development and environmental development
(General Secretariat for Development Planning [2008]). Within the overarch-
ing parameters of this vision, the Qatar Foundation (QF) is responsible for
growth in science and research, community development, and education
(Qatar Foundation, “Qatar‘s journey . . . ”). QF’s vision for education is to
focus on “bringing world-class education, work experience and career oppor-
tunities to Qatar’s young people” (“Qatar Foundation’s Three Pillars”).
VCUQatar and its honors program are active contributors to this vision.
STUDENT PARTICIPANTS
In the first few years of the program, students were identified as possible
honors participants by way of faculty recommendations and review of their
grade point averages. Dean Lindholm recalled strong interest in the program
from the beginning:
We then met with [potential students] to ask if they were interested,
stressing that it would be additional work. Many were, but not all. I
think there were about 18 in the first group. In the early years of
VCU, we had a lot of high achieving students, hungry for the oppor-
tunity to ‘do something’. The oil wealth had hit Qatar in the 1970s
and 80s and I think that they were excited by the intellectual chal-
lenge and the chance to prove themselves. Certificates and Honors
are a very big deal in Qatar.
VCUQatar honors students continue to appreciate the medal they receive
upon graduating with honors, the special recognition they receive at convo-
cation, and the social cachet of graduating with honors.
The local culture is based upon strong family and tribal ties. Students are
highly motivated to do well in order to honor the family and tribal name, and
they abhor the thought of bringing shame in any way. These admirable char-
acteristics provide strong motivation to do well enough to enter the honors
program and succeed once admitted into the program. Loyalty to tribe and
family led to a different outcome in one instance, however, when a qualify-
ing student declined to join the honors program because a family member
was not eligible. She did not want her relative to feel left out. Setting herself
apart as an individual within this collectivist culture was not something this
young woman was willing to do.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
111
BYRAD YYELLAND
Initially, faculty took on the additional work of teaching honors curricu-
la on a volunteer basis. Today, any faculty member might be assigned one or
more sections with honors components as part of their standard teaching load.
Students from all design majors, as well as the painting, printmaking, and art
history programs, are able to enter the honors program if they meet the crite-
ria. To be eligible, students must:
• have a minimum 3.5 Grade Point Average (GPA);
• submit a letter of endorsement from a VCUQatar faculty member; and
• complete the application and essay (available on the VCU Honors College
website: <http://www.honors.vcu.edu>) and provide one printed copy to
the coordinator of the VCUQatar Honors Program, Dr. Byrad Yyelland.
Students may apply for entry into the VCUQatar Honors Program during the
second semester of their freshman year or the first semester of their sopho-
more year and must apply to both the VCUQatar Honors Program and the
VCU Honors College.
THE PROGRAM
The honors curriculum has evolved over time. The program required 18
honors credits until 2012, but as of September 2012 that number has
increased to 24. Eighteen of these credits are in Core Education Program
(CORE) courses required for all students. The list below identifies the CORE
honors courses, all of which are three-credit courses.
•UNIV 112 – Focused Inquiry II
•UNIV 200 – Writing and Rhetoric
• ENGL 215 – Textual Analysis
• ENGL 388 – Writing in the Workplace
•PHYS 107 – Wonders of Technology
• SOCY 100 – General Sociology
In addition to the 18 core credits, students are required to complete three
credits in their major.
• Art History: Art Historical Methods
•Fashion Design: Business of Design
• Graphic Design: Business of Design
• Interior Design courses: Business of Design
•Painting and Printmaking: Concepts and Issues (2 credits rather than 3)
FALL/WINTER 2012
112
ANAMERICAN HONORS PROGRAM IN THE ARAB GULF
Honors students may fulfill the remaining honors credits, to achieve a
total of 24, in any combination of the following courses
• General Education courses
• Art History Survey II
• Honors-Only Topics (when offered)
• Introduction to Contemporary Math
• Courses in the major
• Senior Seminar (capstone)
• Senior Studio (capstone)
• Senior Design Studio II (capstone)
The program offers two additional ways for students to earn honors cred-
it. First, students may work with a willing faculty member to develop an hon-
ors component in a course that does not already have an approved compo-
nent. This is known as a non-honors-to-honors course contract. Students can
earn a maximum of six credits with this option. Finally, students have the
option of developing an Honors Independent Study and presenting it to a fac-
ulty member. Should the faculty member agree to work with the student in
supervising and grading the work, and should the contract be approved by the
VCUQatar Honors Program coordinator and the VCU Honors College, the
student may earn a maximum of nine independent-study credits, thus poten-
tially capitalizing on unique study opportunities that might develop external
to the honors curriculum.
In order to graduate with honors, students must meet the following
criteria:
•24 honors credits
• 3.5 overall GPA (including every course attempted)
• 3.2 honors GPA (including every honors course attempted)
• Successful completion and submission of an honors dossier.
The dossier is a form of “capstone or thesis project (and is) one of the most
pervasive characteristics of honors education” (Schuman 50).
While faculty members are automatically assigned to teach honors stu-
dents if they are assigned honors-designated sections of honors-approved
courses, some faculty members have expressed interest in teaching unique
honors-only sections of established courses or courses developed specifical-
ly for honors students. These are two options we are in the process of devel-
oping and plan to initiate in the spring semester of 2013.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
113
BYRAD YYELLAND
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE CAMPUSES
VCUQatar is substantively different from the home campus in
Richmond. “Virginia Commonwealth University is a comprehensive state-
aided institution, comprised of 10 schools, one college, a 750-bed
teaching/research hospital and a Level 1 Trauma Center, located in
Richmond, Virginia and enrolling more than 31,000 students on two cam-
puses” (VCU). VCUQatar, on the other hand, serves a student population of
slightly more than 200 with about 50 faculty members. The VCU Honors
College in Richmond, according to its website, serves approximately 1,000
students whereas the VCUQatar Honors Program features approximately 30
students each year. The VCU Honors College is led by a dean, senior associ-
ate dean, assistant dean, national scholarships director, director of student ser-
vices, coordinator of business and educational services, and coordinator of
academic affairs. Teaching faculty come from all areas of the Richmond cam-
pus on a per-course basis, and the Honors College buys their time from their
home departments. In contrast, the VCUQatar program is led on a part-time
basis by one coordinator and a volunteer faculty member. Neither receives
additional remuneration for these efforts, but the coordinator has been given
a one-course release for the past two years. The faculty member has not been
granted a course reduction but is able to include working with honors as part
of the service requirement of faculty positions. As is the case for most facul-
ty at VCUQatar, the coordinator and faculty volunteer are employed with
one-year contracts. VCUQatar does not have a tenure system.
I have served as coordinator of the VCUQatar Honors Program for three
years. Even though I had no experience in honors administration, I was
offered this role because I serve as Director of the Liberal Arts and Sciences
Program and teach courses within that program at VCUQatar. Like most hon-
ors administrators, I thus serve in the dual capacity of “both faculty and
administration” (Long 8). I have worked with a new faculty volunteer each of
the three years I have served as coordinator. The first faculty volunteer was a
graduate of the VCU honors program and was able to provide extensive first-
hand knowledge during that first year. The two subsequent volunteers had no
knowledge or experience with the honors program but were willing to help
and to learn. Given our limited background in or knowledge about honors, we
have relied heavily on the dean and staff of the VCU Honors College. We
have also gathered additional information from online searches of other pro-
grams around the world, electronic journals, monographs published by the
National Collegiate Honors Council, and workshops and networking at
NCHC conferences.
FALL/WINTER 2012
114
ANAMERICAN HONORS PROGRAM IN THE ARAB GULF
CHALLENGES
One challenge we face at VCUQatar is a tightly restricted offering of
electives in the art and design curricula, keeping the list of possible honors
courses to a minimum and requiring inclusion of some art or design classes
for honors credit. Another factor is the small size of VCUQatar; we do not
have the large slate of courses offered at multiple times and days of the week
that one would find on a larger university campus. A third challenge is that
our faculty members have not received specialized training to teach honors-
level material either in the classroom or in Independent Study contracts.
Fourth, yearly variations in which courses offer honors credit cause confusion
for faculty, administrators, and students; these variations are a consequence
of the flexibility we have incorporated into our process of adding honors
components to non-honors classes, a flexibility that was introduced in order
to help accommodate student needs within our tightly restricted curricula.
Retaining faculty who are experienced with the honors program is the fifth
challenge because an international branch campus like VCUQatar with one-
year contracts creates an intrinsically transient faculty population. Finally, we
regularly face the challenge of students who refuse to be photographed. Some
students on North American campuses might also refuse to be photographed
but, in Qatar, Arabic custom prohibits women from being photographed, and
the vast majority of VCUQatar students, and therefore honors students, are
women. This cultural restriction has caused difficulties in our attempts to pro-
mote the honors program in local and international media.
SUCCESSES
One of our successes is that students enter the honors program each year
and have done so since the program was implemented. A second success is
our high retention rate. Most honors students stay with the program through
to graduation.
Of our four graduating honors cohorts to date, one graduating group
achieved a singular success. All VCU honors students, whether in the U.S. or
Qatar, write and submit capstone dossiers as one requirement for graduation.
These dossiers are graded in a double-blind process, and it is the norm that
students receive a request for revision. All eight VCUQatar honors graduates
of 2010 submitted dossiers that were accepted by the VCU Honors College
with no suggested revisions—an outstanding accomplishment that reflects
the caliber of students in our program, their diligent efforts, and the mentor-
ing provided by faculty members, the instructors in the VCUQatar Writing
Center, and the overall support staff of the Doha campus.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
115
BYRAD YYELLAND
NEW INITIATIVES AND FUTURE PLANS
We have worked extensively with the VCU Honors College to develop a
standardized honors curriculum, and we believe this curriculum will elimi-
nate much of the confusion caused by shifting honors credits. This curricu-
lum also emphasizes a liberal arts focus that has been one of the overriding
goals of the VCU Honors College from its inception; this focus is particular-
ly important in the design programs given the tight focus of their curricula on
design courses alone.
Secondly, during the 2011–2012 academic year we worked closely with
students in the program to develop an Honors Student Association with offi-
cer positions. Our goal is to see our honors association work collaboratively
with the VCUQatar Student Association to enhance the profile of the honors
community within the overall VCUQatar student population. We are actively
encouraging honors student leaders to take the lead in arranging school-relat-
ed activities and social events for honors students. These activities are sup-
ported by our third initiative: regular publication of the VCUQatar Honors
Student Newsletter beginning in January 2013. We also hope to establish a
blog for honors students at VCUQatar. The VCU Honors College already fea-
tures a newsletter and blog, and we plan to contribute periodic supplements
to contribute an active voice on the Richmond campus.
I am also working to provide honors-related training for faculty and
administrators in VCUQatar. One option is to bring personnel from the VCU
Honors College and the Center for Teaching Excellence on the home campus
to provide training. An alternative is for them to develop a series of tutorials
that we can watch online and discuss in training sessions. We have the tech-
nology to hold synchronous video conversations across the campuses, but
planning a large meeting is problematic due to teaching schedules and time
differences (seven or eight hours, depending on daylight savings time)
between the campuses. Pre-taped tutorials running about twenty minutes can
resolve this problem, enabling a group of faculty to watch the tape together,
discuss it, and develop follow-up questions that can be addressed in future
tutorials.
CONCLUSION
The VCUQatar Honors Program has grown from infancy to adulthood in
a relatively short time and now features a standardized curriculum and thriv-
ing student participation. We fully expect to continue fine-tuning and improv-
ing the program as it unfolds and as new challenges and opportunities arise.
One possibility under discussion at the moment is an honors-only course to
be offered in tandem with other Education City universities and to provide
honors credit regardless of where students are registered as long as they are
FALL/WINTER 2012
116
ANAMERICAN HONORS PROGRAM IN THE ARAB GULF
in a recognized honors program within their home university. Whether this
class comes to fruition remains to be seen, but, regardless, we will continue
to work collaboratively with the VCU Honors College, Qatar Foundation,
and other institutions of Education City help achieve the goals laid out by
Qatar National Vision 2030 and the VCU Honors College. The merger of
these two cultures—with their very different histories, traditions, customs,
needs, and expectations—has made the VCUQatar Honors Program a unique
blend of Middle-Eastern and Western values in the service of our most
promising students.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author is grateful to Dr. Christina Lindholm, Dr. Timothy Hulsey, the
staff at VCU Honors College and VCUQatar, and to Ada Long for their sig-
nificant contributions to this paper.
REFERENCES
General Secretariat for Development Planning. (2012). Expanding the
Capacities of Qatari Youth: Mainstreaming Young People in
Development. Doha, Qatar.
General Secretariat for Development Planning. (2008). Qatar National
Vision: 2030. Doha, Qatar.
Greenfield, Beth. “The World’s Richest Countries.” Forbes (22 February
2012). Retrieved August 21, 2012: <http://www.forbes.com/sites/beth
greenfield/2012/02/22/the-worlds-richest-countries/>.
“Jamila Visit.” Jamila Magazine (March 2007): 152–54. Retrieved 19 August
2012: <http://www.jamila-qatar.com/march2007/pdf%5C1%5C4.pdf>.
Lindholm, Christina. (2012). Personal Communication.
Long, Ada. (1995). A Handbook for Honors Administrators. Monographs in
Honors Education. The National Collegiate Honors Council.
Qatar Census. 2010. (2010). Census 2010. Retrieved 24 August 2012:
<http://www.qsa.gov.qa/QatarCensus/Default.aspx>.
Qatar Foundation. 2012. “Qatar Foundation announces collaboration with
elite Harvard Institute” (28 July 2012). Retrieved 31 August 2012:
<http://www.qf.org.qa/news-center/news/news-details?item=338>.
Qatar Foundation. (no date). “Qatar Foundation’s Three Pillars.” Retrieved
21 August 2012: <http://www.qf.org.qa/discover-qf/about-qf>.
Qatar Foundation. (no date). “Qatar National Vision 2030.” Retrieved 21
August 21 2012: <http://www.qf.org.qa/discover-qf/about-qf>.
Qatar Foundation. (no date). “Qatar‘s journey from a carbon based economy
to a knowledge economy.” Retrieved 21 August 2012 from <http://www.
qf.org.qa/discover-qf/about-qf>.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
117
BYRAD YYELLAND
Schuman, Samuel. (2011). Honors Programs at Smaller Colleges. Lincoln,
NE: National Collegiate Honors Council. NCHC Monograph Series.
Statistics Authority and the Diplomatic Institute. (2011). Sustainable
Development Indicators in the State of Qatar: 2011. Doha, Qatar.
“Year-long VCUQ festivities to mark 10th anniversary.” Gulf Times (21
January 2008). Retrieved 19 August 2012: <http://www.gulf-times.
com/site/topics/printArticle.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=196939&ver
sion=1&template_id=36&parent_id=16>.
VCU Honors College. (no date). “The Honors Community.” Retrieved 1
August 1 2012: <http://www.honors.vcu.edu/community/index.html>.
VCUQatar. (no date). “Education City.” Retrieved 21 August 2012: <http://
www.qatar.vcu.edu/about-vcuqatar/overview-facts/education-city/>.
VCU. (no date). “VCU Faculty Vacancies.” Retrieved 20 August 2012:
<http://www.pubinfo.vcu.edu/facjobs/search.asp>.
*******
The author may be contacted at
bayyelland@qatar.vcu.edu.
FALL/WINTER 2012
118 JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
119
On Training Excellent Students
in China and the United States
IKUO KITAGAKI
TOKYO CITY UNIVERSITY/MEDIA-MIRAI INC.
DONGLIN LI
SHENZHEN UNIVERSITY
[Editor’s note: What follows is a slightly revised reprint of an essay
published in JNCHC 9.2 (fall/winter 2008): 45–54.]
INTRODUCTION
I
n many countries, the training of researchers who will be internationally
competitive has become a primary objective, leading to extensive discus-
sion of the curricula, educational content, and methods that may ensure a high
level of student achievement. In this global climate, only the most excellent
students have the potential to engage successfully in international competi-
tion and become leading-edge researchers in the world-wide marketplace of
research. Thus, any country seeking to be internationally competitive must
consider ways to further raise the level of excellent students.
In this study, we investigate university programs, specifically honors pro-
grams, that take special measures for training the most excellent students.
Honors programs can be found in the United States, Canada, the Netherlands,
China, Singapore, Chile, and other countries; among these, the highest num-
ber of honors programs in 2005 were in the U.S. (Digby) and China.
Consequently, the authors chose these two countries as the objects of this
study, surveying and comparing the characteristics of honors programs as
training courses for excellent students. In both countries, the focus of our
study was limited to higher-level universities. In the case of China, only uni-
versities identified by Kitagaki & Fuang in 2008 as “Key Chinese
Universities” were investigated. A small sample of universities in the U. S.
was selected from the 2006 America’s Best Value Colleges (Owens & Meltzer
et al.). Our other major sources of information were university websites and
the literature available through the National Collegiate Honors Council.
In both China and the U.S., honors programs have a common aim to
gather and train particularly excellent students in the universities while the
FALL/WINTER 2012
120
ONTRAINING EXCELLENT STUDENTS IN CHINA AND THE UNITED STATES
specific content of each program and training course is distinct. The charac-
teristics observed in the two countries as well as the comparison of such char-
acteristics may help serve as models for Japan and other countries wishing to
create honors programs.
CHINA
Starting in 1993, the “211 Project” in China targeted key universities for
the twenty-first century with the aim of creating a global revolution in new
technology. This project has now been succeeded by the “985 Project,” with
its central concept being to create world-class universities. As of 2007, over
a hundred universities, including Peking University and Tsinghua University,
have been designated as key universities for developing honors programs.
Our research on these universities has shown that honors programs have
been put into practice in 42 universities. It can be assumed that the existence
of these and future honors programs will exert a great influence on the devel-
opment of science and technology in China.
The authors provide below an overview of the characteristics of honors
programs practiced in the key universities.
CHRONOLOGY
The chronological development of honors programs in China can be
summarized by division into the periods indicated in Table 1, which shows a
rapid increase in the number of honors programs after 1990. The first univer-
sity to introduce an honors program was the University of Science &
Technology of China, which in 1978 initiated a program called “Special Class
for the Gifted Young” for students who had not yet completed a secondary
education. This program was set up to train gifted students in the fields of sci-
ence and technology. Making the most of its successful experience, this uni-
versity also founded the “Experimental Class of Teaching Reform” in 1989
for the purpose of training students who had been evaluated as the most
excellent at the entrance examination of the university.
In 1986, the “Special Class of Mathematics” was established at Nankai
University, and in 1989 Nanjing University established an honors program by
adding two intensified classes to the science curriculum and the humanities
curriculum. Among the key universities, the University of Science &
Technology of China, Nankai University, and Nanjing University were the
first to adopt honors programs.
Other general honors programs have been put into practice since 1985.
The authors counted the number of such honors programs in each specified
time division from 1985 up to 2004. The results of four different data sets are
shown in Figure 1 together with the approximate regression line.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
121
IKUO KITAGAKI AND DONGLIN LI
DISCIPLINES
Table 2 shows the number of honors programs arranged by discipline,
showing that “science” courses comprise over 66% while “humanities”
courses comprise fewer than 25%. It should be noted that “humanities” cours-
es in this instance include economics and business administration.
Because the Fundamental Science Class of Tsinghua University, the top-
ranking university (Searchina Research Institute), was included in the science
FALL/WINTER 2012
Chronological
Period 1975– 1980– 1985– 1990– 1995– 2000– 2005– Total
Percent (Number
of Programs) 1 (1) 0 (0) 3 (3) 5 (5) 13 (12) 41 (39) 38 (36)
100 (95)
Table 1: Chronological Development of Honors Programs in the Key
Universities of China
Course Science Humanities Other Total
Percent (Number
of Programs) 69 (66) 25 (24) 5 (5) 100 (95)
Table 2: Disciplinary Focus of Honors Programs
Figure 1: Changes in the Number of University-Level Honors
Programs in China (1985–2004)
Years of Data Sets
1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000-2004
Number of Honors Programs
100
10
1
approx. regression line
122
ONTRAINING EXCELLENT STUDENTS IN CHINA AND THE UNITED STATES
courses, the authors will describe the outline of its honors program. The
Center for Advanced Study at Tsinghua University was founded in 1997. This
Center has as its objectives to strengthen fundamental research, foster cre-
ative human resources, and expand international academic exchange and
cooperation. Toward these objectives, the Fundamental Science Class was
established in 1998, and the sixty most excellent students were recruited in
1999. In this Class, great importance has been attached not only to fostering
talents in mathematics and physics but also to emphasizing education in the
liberal arts.
Tsinghua University also has an honors program called the “Sino-
Foreign Culture Integrated Class,” which corresponds to the humanities
course. This class was started in 1999 with the recruitment of nearly thirty
students. The objective of this program was to remove a traditional barrier
existing between courses of study and to promote the coordination and unifi-
cation of multiple courses, thus establishing the basis for “Chinese and
English Culture” or, in American terms, interdisciplinary study. Through
reading the sutras as literature, the program has been putting an emphasis on
strengthening the exchange of “Sino-Foreign Culture” as well as the global
expansion of Chinese culture.
Training programs that are difficult to categorize as either humanities or
science courses are classified as “Other.” For instance, the “21st-Century
Student Union” of East China Normal University, which was founded in
1994, is a program aimed at training future leaders and is included in “Other.”
TRAINING
In general, five major points about honors education in China can be
identified.
The first point relates to the goals. Some honors programs have included
education in the liberal arts, but on the whole they have focused on science
and technology. In an attempt to model themselves after world-class univer-
sities, about 70% of all honors programs are focused on science.
The second point relates to preferential treatment. Students who have
been admitted to honors programs are given various privileges such as library
access, scholarships, and residency in privileged dormitories.
The third point is the retention system. An excellent student who has
been admitted to a special class may be eliminated and returned to a normal
class if he/she cannot maintain excellence in examination results. East China
University of Science and Technology, for instance, has a dropout system for
the lowest-ranking students in which roughly 20% of the students—those
whose performance is lowest on a school end-of-term examination—are
weeded out.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
123
IKUO KITAGAKI AND DONGLIN LI
The fourth point is the tutorial system. The number of students admitted
to an honors program is naturally small. Specific teachers are assigned to
these students as individual tutors. In many cases, teachers and students
mutually choose each other.
The fifth point involves the method of selecting excellent students. As is
the case with college entrance exams like the SAT or ACT, the selection
method is based on test results and can be said to be objective. In this way, a
set percentage of all students is selected.
UNITED STATES
The 2006 America’s Best Value Colleges (Owens et al.) lists the names of
respected and competitively priced universities in the U. S. We cross-checked
this list with the information collected in the 2005 edition of Peterson’s Smart
Choices: Honors Programs & Colleges (Digby) and took a sampling of 71
institutions of higher education broken down into 60 public and 11 private
universities. In view of the quantitative underrepresentation of private uni-
versities, we restricted our survey to state universities in this study.
CHRONOLOGY
Sixty state universities listed honors programs and/or colleges in
Peterson’s Smart Choices; one of them listed two programs and another list-
ed three, so we found a total of 63 honors programs/colleges. Forty-two pro-
gram descriptions among these 63 included the year in which they were
established. Table 3 shows the chronology of the establishment of these pro-
grams by decade, starting in the 1950s. Some universities did not record the
establishment year of their program, so the authors computed the year them-
selves. For example, Ohio State University indicated that their honors pro-
gram was twenty years old, so we assumed it was founded in 1985, twenty
years before the publication of this Peterson’s guide.
In the changes seen from the 1950s to the 1990s, there is little evidence
of a steady growth in the number of honors programs despite a general
assumption that such growth has occurred. Instead, within this limited sam-
ple there seem to have been two periods of rapid growth in the 1960s and
1980s. The influence of the Sputnik launch in 1957 on the rapid growth in the
1960s would be an interesting topic for further study. [Editor’s note: The
influence of Sputnik and the Cold War on the growth of honors has been a
focus of several recent studies, most notably “The Wisdom of Our Elders:
Honors Discussions in The Superior Student, 1958–65” by Larry Andrews in
JNCHC 12.2 (fall/winter 2011): 17–46.]
FALL/WINTER 2012
124
ONTRAINING EXCELLENT STUDENTS IN CHINA AND THE UNITED STATES
PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS
The literature about honors programs and colleges in the United States
contains a great variety of essays about leadership (Wilson), internships, social
service (Parker), creation of community (Cobane, Thurman, and Lindsey), and
interactions among class participants. The authors examined references to four
key concepts—interaction among class participants, involvement in society,
leadership, and internships—and tabulated the number and percentage of pro-
grams that referred to these concepts. The results are shown in Table 4.
One example—the concept of “interaction among the class partici-
pants”—will illustrate the methodology we used in devising this table. First,
from the many descriptive sentences that attached importance to this concept,
we took a sampling of the words that appeared frequently. As a result, four
words—“seminar,” “colloquium,” “interaction,” and “communication”—
together with their variations (such as plural forms and other parts of speech)
were obtained and identified as keywords. Then we examined descriptions of
all 63 honors programs and counted the number of keywords. Consequently,
it can be said that, in 45 out of the 63 programs, “interaction among class par-
ticipants” was an important concept. We used the same method of calculation
for the concepts of “involvement in society,” “leadership,” and “internship.”
From Table 4, it can be seen that 75% of program descriptions focused on
the concept of “interaction among the class participants”; almost half focused
on “involvement in society”; and nearly 40% stressed “leadership.”
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
Chronological
Period 1950– 1960– 1970– 1980– 1990– 2000– Total
Percent (Number
of Programs) 5 (2) 33 (14) 12 (5) 29 (12) 14 (6) 7 (3) 100 (42)
Table 3: Establishment of U.S. Honors Programs by Decade Since
the 1950s
Concept interaction among involvement in leadership internship
class participants society
Key words seminar/colloquium/ social/service/ leader internship
interact/communicate community
Percent (Number
of Programs)
75 (45) 48 (29) 38 (23) 32 (19)
Table 4. Use Situations of the Words for Explanation of Honors
College/Programs
125
IKUO KITAGAKI AND DONGLIN LI
CHARACTERISTIC PRACTICES
For the 2005 edition of Peterson’s Smart Choices: Honors Programs &
Colleges, Digby sent a questionnaire to universities with honors programs in
order to obtain details about each program, and she published the replies
without modification. Using these data, we calculated our basic statistics.
Among the respondents, 80% reported on general honors programs that
required more work than departmental honors. In terms of the relative size of
honors programs, 52% were large (with the number of enrolled students over
500), 22% mid-sized (100–500), and the rest small (<100). These results indi-
cate that most major public research universities in the United States have
adopted general programs and that more than half of these enroll over 500
students. However, 62% of the universities have no specialized honors advis-
ing system; 37% do have special academic advising for honors; 22% have a
special honors fellowship advising system; and 5% have special honors grad-
uate advising. Ten percent have both a special academic advising system and
a special fellowship advising in honors.
The literature indicates that the roles of honors directors or deans differ
according to program size. In a small program (fewer than 100 enrolled stu-
dents), the director seems to be responsible for all components and activities
of the program. Large programs (over 500 students), employ several
administrators who divide and/or share the responsibilities (Shuman, 2006;
Long, 1995).
FINDINGS
Our comparison between honors programs in China and the United
States yields the following results:
1. In China, there has been a steady increase in the number of honors pro-
grams since they were introduced in the 1970s. In the United States, where
honors program have existed for a longer period of time, growth may have
been more sporadic.
2. Two of the earliest programs in the United States were established at
Colorado State University in 1957 and Purdue University in 1958. The ini-
tial honors program at a major university in China was started at Nankai
University in 1986, two decades later than in the U. S.
3. Descriptions of honors colleges and programs in the United States focus
significant attention on communication, leadership, internships, social ser-
vice, etc.; it seems that great importance has been attached to such activi-
ties as preparation for students’ social and professional futures. By con-
trast, descriptions of honors programs in China focus on traditionally
FALL/WINTER 2012
126
ONTRAINING EXCELLENT STUDENTS IN CHINA AND THE UNITED STATES
distinct courses of study in the humanities and in science courses such as
electricity, mechanics, physics, and economics.
4. Frequently, science-oriented honors programs in China emphasize the
importance of studying a foreign language as part of the required curricu-
lum. For instance, the importance of learning English is implemented in
the following honors curricula: Special Class for Excellent Students of
Nanjin University of Science and Technology; Longji Class of Lanzhou
University; Experimental School of Harbin Institute of Technology;
Fundamental Science Class of Central South University; and the
Department of Excellent Students of Science and Technology of East
China University of Science and Technology.
5. In both countries, it is usual that the results of nation-wide examinations
are taken into consideration in the admission of students into an honors
system. In China, the entrance examinations are nation-wide and unified;
in the U. S., the SAT and ACT are standard requirements for honors
admission.
6. In any university of either country, there is a tendency to provide various
kinds of preferential treatment to students who are admitted to honors
classes. Such students receive such privileges as access to libraries, schol-
arships, and admission to special dormitories.
7. At a university in either country, even after students are admitted to an
honors class, they must maintain a certain minimum level of grades and/or
examination results. If they fall short of such a level, they are obliged to
return to a non-honors class. In the case of East China University of
Science and Technology, students with a relatively low level of accom-
plishment are automatically eliminated at the end of each school term, and
vacancies are filled by recruiting from the general student population.
United States universities tend to have more diverse and complex policies
on retention.
8.
In U.S. universities, special honors academic advisers are often appointed.
At some universities, honors fellowship advisers take on the role of honors
advisers. In China as well, there is a tutorial system in which a teacher indi-
vidually advises each honors student. However, honors fellowship advising
was not found at universities in China that were surveyed for this study.
CONCLUSION
In the universities of Japan, honors programs are virtually nonexistent.
One of the reasons lies in the fact that there is a cultural emphasis on equali-
ty and distrust of elitism. On the other hand, as the percentage of students
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
127
IKUO KITAGAKI AND DONGLIN LI
who go on to higher-level schools has grown to almost 50%, a wide variety
of learning capabilities is now found in university students. Unless honors
programs are put into practice, Japanese universities will find it difficult to
cultivate excellent students who are able to stand up in international compe-
tition. Our study has resulted from awareness of this issue, and we believe
that the situations of honors programs in China and the United States, includ-
ing a comparison between the two, will be a good guide for Japan and for
other countries facing similar situations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study has been made possible with the active support of Prof. Huang
Futao of Hiroshima University, Research Institute for Higher Education; Mr.
Nobuaki Fujii of Fukuyama Heisei University; and Dr. Ada Long, National
Collegiate Honors Council, to whom we express our gratitude.
REFERENCES
Cobane, Craig T., and Thurman, Lindsey B. 2007. “BBQ with Profs” and the
development of collegial associations. Honors In Practice, 3: 129–37.
Digby, Joan. 2005. Peterson’s Smart Choices; Honors Programs & Colleges.
Thomson-Gale.
Kitagaki & Fuang. 2008. Fostering elite students in China: special treatment
for honors in more than forty ‘Key Chinese Universities.’ Reviews in
Higher Education, Research Institute for Higher Education, Hiroshima
University.
Long, Ada, 1995. AHandbook for Honors Administrators. National
Collegiate Honors Council.
Owens, Eric, Tom Meltzer, and the staff of the Princeton Review. 2006.
America’s Best Value College. Random House.
Parker, Ann T. 2007. Service learning in the honors composition classroom:
what difference does it make? Honors In Practice, 3: 53–9.
Wilson, Anne M., Tyler D Blakley, Kathryn A.Leciejewski, Michelle L.
Sams, and Michelle L. Surber. 2007. Teaching an honors course tied to a
large university event. Honors In Practice, 3: 69–75.
*******
The authors may be contacted at
ikuo@media-mirai.com.
FALL/WINTER 2012
128
ONTRAINING EXCELLENT STUDENTS IN CHINA AND THE UNITED STATES
URLS
Central South University (2008) <http://www.csu.edu.cn/chinese> (in
Chinese)
Colorado State University (2008) <http://www.colostate.edu>
East China Normal University (2008) <http://www.ecnu.edu.cn> (in
Chinese)
East China University of Science and Technology (2008) <http://www.ecust.
edu.cn> (in Chinese)
Harbin Institute of Technology (2008) <http://www.hit.edu.cn> (in Chinese)
Lanzhou University (2008) <http://www.lzu.edu.cn> (in Chinese)
Nanjing University (2008) <http://www.nju.edu.cn/cps/site/newweb/
foreground> (in Chinese)
Nanjin University of Science and Technology (2008) <http://www.
njust.edu.cn> (in Chinese)
Nankai University (2008) <http://202.113.16.33/index.php> (in Chinese)
Ohio State University (2008) <http://www.osu.edu>
Purdue University (2008) <http://www.ku.edu>
Tsinghua University (2008) <http://www.tsinghua.edu.cn/qhdwzy/index.jsp>
(in Chinese)
University of Massachusetts Boston (2008) <http://www.umb.edu>
University of Science and Technology of China (2008) <http://www.ustc.
edu.cn/zh_CN> (in Chinese)
University of South Carolina (2008) <http://www.sc.edu>
Zhejiang University; Chu Kochen Honors College (2008) <http://ckc.
zju.educn/redir.php?catalog_id=4203>
Searchina Research Institute (2008) <http://www.japan-china.org/chinese/
09-01.html>
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
129
Mission, Performance
Indicators, and Assessment in
U. S. Honors:
A View from the Netherlands
VLADIMIR BARTELDS, LYNDSAY DRAYER, AND
MARCA V. C. WOLFENSBERGER
HANZE UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES GRONINGEN, THE NETHERLANDS
INTRODUCTION
A
mission statement that identifies the goals and aims of an honors pro-
gram is a key step in program development. The NCHC’s Basic
Characteristics of a Fully Developed Honors Program states unequivocally
that a successful honors program “has a clear mandate from the institution’s
administration in the form of a mission statement or charter document that
includes the objectives and responsibilities of honors and defines the place of
honors in the administrative and academic structure of the institution.”
According to Mrozinski, mission statements are public definitions of purpose
published in a college‘s catalog, website, or other planning documents and
are generally required by accrediting bodies. Such mission statements have
now become standard for honors programs and colleges.
Before we examine the online mission statements of current honors pro-
grams, we need to look at the history of such statements outside the academ-
ic world. Mission statements have long been standard in the for-profit sector,
where they specify what the company does, how it does it, why it does it, and
where it is going in the future. A mission statement can transform a leader’s
vision into substance in the profit-sector (Drucker). Stone uses the Quaker
State Corporation in 1993 as corporate example of the strength of a mission
statement. The company had fallen on hard times, and, fearing a possible
takeover, the Quaker State board redefined its core mission: “To funnel a
wide range of lubricants through a massive network of mechanics, retailers
and drive-through lube shops” (Murray). By 1995, Quaker State had trans-
formed itself from a company selling motor oil to a branded consumer-prod-
ucts company, a solid number two behind Pennzoil. “Clearly, the new mission
played a key role in shaping Quaker’s turnaround” (Murray). In the context
FALL/WINTER 2012
130
MISSION, PERFORMANCE INDICATORS, AND ASSESSMENT IN U. S. HONORS
of healthcare, Bart concluded in 1999 that sufficient evidence existed to
“challenge those critics and cynics who liked to pronounce (unjustifiably)
that mission statements were not important or that there was no direct link
between a mission statement and performance” (19).
Mission statements are crucial for nonprofit organizations as well, where
achieving the mission is analogous to making a profit in the private sector
(Brinckerhoff). In their book Profiles of Excellence, a study of achieving
excellence in the nonprofit sector, Knauft, Berger, and Gray found in 1999 that
the key to success was having a clearly articulated mission statement along
with goals to carry out the mission. At the same time that mission statements
were becoming standard in the for-profit and nonprofit worlds, colleges and
universities in the U.S. were also embracing the value of an articulated mis-
sion statement (Morphew). Already in 1994, the Association of American
Colleges found that 80% of all universities and colleges were revising their
mission statements. Finally, a well-articulated mission statement seems also a
basic need for honors programs (Morphew): it gives a shared sense of purpose
in the institution (457); it manages the expectations of external publics like
prospective students and parents (469); it is required by accrediting bodies
(458); and virtually all honors programs have one (458).
According to online mission statements of honors programs, directors
and faculty want to achieve more than providing a comfortable environment
for participating students. They want their students, for instance, “to become
intellectually engaged and socially responsible, and to remain so throughout
their lives” (Spelman College). Ideally, an honors program translates its mis-
sion into specific goals, creates a set of performance indicators, and assesses
the outgoing students to see whether they live up to the mission at the end of
the honors program and thereafter: “Note that goals typically flow from the
mission statement, and outcomes are aligned with goals. In addition, the pro-
gram’s mission, goals and outcomes should relate to the mission and goals of
the college and institution’ (Charles Drew University). R. A. Stone has
expanded on this view of mission statement in the following comments:
If the mission is correctly formulated, it will be aligned with the
organization’s strategies, tactics, operations, and administrative sup-
port systems. In addition to the crucial communication phase, man-
agers at all levels need to translate the key elements of the mission
into objectives and goals that guide the execution of the mission and
are meaningful to all employees. The goals and objectives should
also be linked to the reward and performance evaluation system.
Our interest in honors program management is evoked by the development of
honors programs worldwide: the numbers of universities offering honors
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
131
BARTELDS, DRAYER, AND WOLFENSBERGER
programs have been steadily growing both in the United States (Digby; Long)
and in Europe (Ginkel; Kiley). As the U.S. has a long history in honors edu-
cation, it constitutes a valuable point of reference. In this study we investigate
the link between the content of U.S. honors programs’ mission statements,
goals to be achieved, performance indicators, and outcomes in order to deter-
mine if mission statements in the U.S. have served the purpose for which they
are designed; such a determination can offer important guidance to develop-
ing honors programs in other parts of the world.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The overall question of this study is: to what extent do connections exist
between mission statements, performance indicators, and program assess-
ments that might indicate a significant alignment and indicate the effective-
ness of honors programs? Therefore we investigated the following research
questions:
1. What goals are described in the mission statements of honors programs?
2. What performance indicators do honors programs set to reach these goals?
3. How do honors programs assess their outcomes?
METHODS
The study has a mixed methods approach, using document analysis and
open-question email surveys. To identify the goals described in the mission
statements of honors programs, we randomly chose 169 mission statements
from the websites of honors programs and colleges that are members of the
National Collegiate Honors Council. The application of document analysis
techniques identified elements that were embedded in these mission state-
ments (Merriam). To answer the second two questions about performance
indicators and outcomes assessment, we sent a short, open-question email
survey to the directors of the same 169 honors programs.
SAMPLING
The sample of 169 mission statements was randomly selected from the
842 member institutions listed on its website in 2009 by the NCHC, the
largest association of higher education honors programs in the U.S.
(Driscoll). We systematically analyzed every fifth institution on the website
list <http://www.nchchonors.org>. To be included in the subset, the institu-
tion had to meet three criteria:
1. The institution had to be a U.S. institution (membership in the NCHC is
open to foreign institutions, but we limited our study to U.S. institutions);
FALL/WINTER 2012
132
MISSION, PERFORMANCE INDICATORS, AND ASSESSMENT IN U. S. HONORS
2. The institution had to have a three- or four-year undergraduate program so
that we could compare the results to universities in Europe, where under-
graduate programs in general last three or four years; and
3. The institution had to have a mission statement available on its website.
If an honors program’s home institution did not meet all three criteria, it was
not included, and the criteria were applied to the next institution on the alpha-
betical list. In total, 264 U.S. universities were analyzed from the NCHC
website: 262 universities had mission statements available, and 169 indicat-
ed they offered three- or four-year honors programs. This sample of 169 gives
a reliability factor for the total population of NCHC members between 93%
and 94%.
MISSION STATEMENT ANALYSIS
Document analysis techniques were used to identify elements embedded
in the mission statements (Merriam). Two researchers independently ana-
lyzed the sample of mission statements for keywords that expressed an inten-
tion or goal. To avoid the stronger impact that longer mission statements
could have on the results, we counted every key word only once per mission
statement. To check our results we redid the coding, identifying key terms
and key phrases (cf. Morphew 461) using the program MAXQDA (Lewins).
In addition, three native English professors were asked to randomly select
and code six mission statements. The inter-rater agreement was 70% on terms
that we and the alternative raters selected. Our coding turned out to be in clos-
er agreement because 96% of the key words that our alternative raters select-
ed were also selected by us.
QUESTIONNAIRE
All 169 institutions selected for analysis of their mission statements
received an email survey addressed to the honors director. Follow-up con-
sisted of reminder emails and telephone calls. The email survey (see
Appendix) consisted of six questions, with the first two concerning perfor-
mance indicators.
Because the impression exists that performance indicators and assess-
ment are often imposed by higher administration (Achterberg 37–39), we first
asked honors directors to indicate which performance indicators were set by
upper administration. The second question related to performance indicators
set by administrators or faculty: “Which performance indicators have you set
to establish the success of the honors program?”
The third and fourth questions related to the outcomes of the honors pro-
gram, namely whether honors programs systematically kept track of their
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
133
BARTELDS, DRAYER, AND WOLFENSBERGER
alumni and, if so, whether they used a specific instrument to monitor the
accomplishments of their alumni.
The last two questions related to alignment of goals as named in the mis-
sion statement and measurements related to student outcomes. We asked if
directors connect the data from monitoring alumni to the goals they had set
for the honors program: if yes, then how, and, if no, then why not. The last
question of the survey asked if the respondents thought it was important to
measure the success of their honors program.
QUESTIONNAIRE ANALYSIS
The answers to questions 1 and 2 were analyzed for key terms and sepa-
rated into four categories: quantitative output, quantitative level description,
perception, and qualitative, content-oriented performance indicators. The
answers to question 6 were indicated on a 4-point Likert scale.
RESULTS
GOALS CONTAINED IN THE MISSION STATEMENTS
We identified 66 different keywords describing the goals of honors pro-
grams in the selection of 169 mission statements, as indicated in Table 1. The
66 keywords occurred 1,359 times in the sample of 169 mission statements,
leading to an average of 8 different key words used per mission statement.
The length of mission statements varied from 12 to 257 words. Our findings
are similar to the findings of Morphew who found 118 elements in 299 mis-
sion statements of U.S. universities (461).
On the basis of this list of key words, a category system was developed,
starting with individual keywords that were clustered into subcategories: tar-
get group description, educational benefits, educational environment, post
graduation/career benefits, and ethical benefits (Table 2). The results, using
MAXQDA (Lewins), showed that there was virtually no difference between
the keyword clustering and the key-phrase clustering; only 4 of the 66 key-
words moved to a different subcategory in key-phrase clustering, which still
led to the same goal clustering.
Table 3 is a visualization of the distribution of keyword occurrences in
the 5 main goal clusters. Category 1, containing the target group description,
includes keywords like “gifted,” “ability,” “motivation,” and “talented,”
which describe the student population at which the honors program is target-
ed. Of the 1359 total keyword occurrences, 403 (30%) were in this cluster.
Category 2, containing keywords like “research,” “project,” “in-depth,” and
“challenge,” describes methods of teaching and learning; 674 keywords
(50%) belonged in this cluster. Category 3, containing keywords like
FALL/WINTER 2012
134
MISSION, PERFORMANCE INDICATORS, AND ASSESSMENT IN U. S. HONORS
“community” (internal), “intellectual,” and “smaller” (groups), describes the
educational environment; 97 keywords (7%) belonged to this cluster.
Category 4, consisting of keywords like “career,” “employer,” and “success-
ful,” advertises benefits either in graduate programs or in professional life;
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
challenge 82 social 26 inquiry (isitive) 8
intellectual 77 depth (in-) 25 nurture 8
experience 65 achievements(-rs) 23 integrity 8
research 63 discussion 22 society 6
community, internal 62 profession(al) 21 outstanding 5
excellence 49 exceptional 17 breadth 5
scholarship (-stic) 48 encouraging 15 atmosphere 4
leadership 45 ability 14 accomplished 4
motivation 44 responsibility 14 collaboration 3
enriching(d) 41 distinction 14 culture, internal 3
interdisciplinary(-ty) 41 commitment 13 global citizen (-ship) 3
talented 39 rigor 13 dedication 2
critical (thinking) 37 succesful 13 augment 2
smaller 36 stimulation 12 camaraderie 2
creativity 34 innovative 11 dialogue 2
enhance(-d) 31 career 11 credential 2
culture, external 31 gifted 10 valuable 2
community, external 29 diverse 10 discipleship 1
skills 28 potential 10 cross-disciplinary 1
project 28 communication 9 interpersonal 1
independent 27 intensity 9 revolutionary 1
engagement 26 ethical 9employers 1
Table 1. List of 66 Keywords and Number of Occurrences in 169
Mission Statements
Words with an identical meaning, e.g. scholarship and scholastic, were identified as
one keyword. Identical words with a distinctive different meaning were identified with
a qualifier, e.g. “community, internal” to identify the learning community of honors
students as opposed to “community, external” to identify, for instance, community
service.
135
BARTELDS, DRAYER, AND WOLFENSBERGER
FALL/WINTER 2012
Keywords Main category
talented dedication
(high) ability motivation
gifted distinction Target group description
potential outstanding
accomplished scholarship (-stic)
achievements(-rs) exceptional
breadth inquiry (isitive)
challenge intellectual
creativity interdisciplinary(-ty)
cross-disciplinary nurture
depth (in-) research Educational benefits/
discussion smaller aims/methods
encouraging augment
enhance(d) revolutionary
enriching(d) stimulation
excellence skills
experience project
atmosphere culture (int)
community (int) camaradary Educational Environment
collaboration intensity
commitment
critical (thinking) leadership
communication profession(al)
career successful Postgrad/career benefits
credential independent
innovative valuable
employers
community (ext) social
culturally (ext) responsibility
dialogue discipleship
global citizen (ship) rigor Ethical benefits
society (ext) interpersonal
integrity engagement
ethical diverse
Table 2. Keyword Clustering: The 66 Keywords Identified in 169
Mission Statements Categorized into 5 Main Goal Clusters
136
MISSION, PERFORMANCE INDICATORS, AND ASSESSMENT IN U. S. HONORS
109 (8%) keywords belonged to this cluster. Category 5 includes keywords
such as “ethical,” social” (external), “community,” and “global” that describe
ethical benefits to the students; 85 keywords (6%) belonged to this cluster.
The five main goal clusters focus on all phases of student participation
before, during, and after finishing the honors program. Romney categorized
performance indicators into two types: those related to process and to out-
come. Our fist three phases (target group description, educational benefits,
and educational environment) can be interpreted as process-oriented during
the honors program while the last two phases (postgraduate/career benefits
and ethical benefits) relate to outcome. In our results the process of offering
a challenging, interesting, well-run honors program to the appropriate student
population accounts for 86% of the keywords we identified. In contrast, the
results related to outcome, as in the lasting, beneficial effects for students
who have completed the honors program, account for only 14% of the
keywords.
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS IN RELATION TO GOALS
Research on effective performance indicators in higher education, both
inside and outside the U.S., includes Sizer’s and later Ball and Halwachi’s
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
Table 3. Distribution of 1359 Keywords Indentified in 169 Mission
Statements
Categories
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5
Target Group Educational Educational Post Grad/ Ethical
Description Benefits Environment Career Benefits
Benefits
Number of Keywords Mentioned
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
137
BARTELDS, DRAYER, AND WOLFENSBERGER
descriptors: “relevant,” “verifiable,” “free from bias,” “quantifiable,” “eco-
nomically feasible,” and “accepted in the institution.” Our study, however, is
not about passing judgment on performance indicators; we are simply trying
to find out which ones are used in honors programs.
In the responses from 51 honors directors, 30% of 169 to whom we sent
our survey, the idea that performance indicators are imposed on honors pro-
grams is not supported; 40 of the 51 respondents indicated that no formal per-
formance indicators were set for them by higher administration.
A minority of 5 respondents reported they did not use performance indi-
cators to analyze their honors programs whereas 46 respondents reported they
did. The number of performance indicators used by these 46 respondents var-
ied from 1 to 15, resulting in a total of 190 reported performance indicators.
The 38 different performance indicators, together with the number of times a
performance indicator was reported, are shown in Table 4.
We then subdivided the performance indicators into four categories as
shown in Table 5.
FALL/WINTER 2012
PI No. PI No. PI No.
retention rate 23 job starts 4 lifelong Learners 2
graduation rate 20 publications/present 4 academic 2
GPA 14 community (internal) 4visibility 2
entr. grad schools 13 diversity 3 quality Projects 2
thesis 12 scholarships 3 alumni Success 2
total enrollment 8 volunteer 3 SLO 2
program completion 7intellectual 3internship applicants 1
studentsatisfaction 7engagement 3cultural initiative 1
research 7 part.Hons Coursework 3 creativity 1
SAT/ACT 6 program Growth 2 assessment Instrument 1
awards 6 %freshman joining 2 Hons Adv Council
assessment 1
attracting new students 5 grant applicants 2 leadership 1
faculty perception 5rigorous 2
Table 4.
List of Performance Indicators and Number of Times Reported
A total of 46 respondents reported the above performance indicators. The bold-faced
keywords (12 in total) were also identified in our analysis of mission statements.
138
MISSION, PERFORMANCE INDICATORS, AND ASSESSMENT IN U. S. HONORS
Initially, we expected all performance indicators to be quantitative; how-
ever, a number of respondents reported performance indicators based on per-
ception and/or qualitative in nature. Therefore, we made four categories:
1. quantitative output, e.g., retention rate, graduation rate, and percentage of
freshmen joining the program;
2. quantitative level description, e.g., number of awards, number of scholar-
ships, GPA, and SAT/ACT scores;
3. perception, e.g., student and staff satisfaction; and
4. qualitative, content-oriented indicators, e.g., thesis writing, volunteering,
visibility, and leadership.
The most frequently named performance indicators belong to categories A and
B, which have a strong organizational focus. Category C, performance indica-
tors were relatively rare: only 2 of the 38 terms and 12 of the 190 performance
indicators reported to us (6%). One might conclude that honors directors have
taken to heart the warning of Moore and Kuol that “the perceptions of students’
definitions of good teaching are both invalid and misleading” (134). Category
D indicators are mentioned 59 times, but some of these indicators are partly
qualitative and partly quantitative. The top three in this category are research,
thesis, and publications/presentations, which can be seen as similar to a citation
index: quantitative in nature but a strong indicator of qualitative impact.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
Table 5. PIs from 46 Respondents Divided into Four Categories
Categories
Category A Category B Category C Category D
Quantitative Quantitative Perception Qualitative
Output Level Content
Description Oriented
Number of Keywords in PIs
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
139
BARTELDS, DRAYER, AND WOLFENSBERGER
Applying Romney’s categorization of performance indicators, our
research categories A, B, and C can be seen as relating to process goals and
category D as relating to outcome goals. We see a strong emphasis on process
(131 occurrences) and little on outcome (59 occurrences)—the same pattern
we identified in the mission statement analysis.
ASSESSMENT OF OUTCOMES
Finally, we were interested to know if and how honors directors assessed
the success of their program after students completed it. In addition to iden-
tifying a number of key terms in mission statements that indicated lasting
effects on students (category 4 describing post-graduation/career benefits and
category 5 describing ethical benefits), our survey asked about the alumni of
the honors program. Half of the 51 respondents indicated they had no alum-
ni tracking at all, a smaller group (14%) was in the process of developing an
alumni tracking system, 8% had only informal contact, and 28% indicated
that they did have an alumni tracking system.
Alumni tracking appears to be a work in progress among respondents as
42% have a tracking system in place or are in the process of developing one.
That leaves 58% of institutions having no formal alumni-related assessment,
making it difficult to determine if the long term goals of these honors pro-
grams are being met.
CONNECTION BETWEEN MISSION STATEMENTS,
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS, AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
The mission statements of all respondents were compared with their
reported performance indicators to find identical key terms suggesting align-
ment between the two. We saw little alignment between goals as described in
the mission statements (Table 1) and the list of key terms in the performance
indicators (Table 4). Only twelve key terms appeared in both lists (bold in
Table 4).
We also analyzed the connections between mission statements and per-
formance indicators at the level of individual honors program, taking into
account that 30% of institutions responded to our survey. Forty of the 51
respondents (78%) showed no common key terms between the mission state-
ments as published on the website and the performance indicators they
reported to us. Of the eleven that did show overlap, four respondents had one
key term in common in their mission statement and performance indicators,
six had two or three overlapping key terms, and one showed five overlapping
key terms. Of course, the length of the mission statement and the number of
keywords used influenced the results of these analyses.
FALL/WINTER 2012
140
MISSION, PERFORMANCE INDICATORS, AND ASSESSMENT IN U. S. HONORS
In the survey, we asked honors directors whether they thought that the
three elements—mission statement, performance indicators, and assess-
ment—were connected in their honors program. Five of the respondents
(10%) indicated that they were, 8 were working on improving the connection
(16%), and 38 (75%) thought the three elements were not connected in their
programs. In addition, two respondents denied the importance of the
connection.
Of the five respondents who thought their mission statement, perfor-
mance indicators, and outcomes assessment were connected, only one
demonstrated a significant overlap between keywords in the mission state-
ment and performance indicators: half of the keywords identified in the mis-
sion statement were also found in the performance indicators. This respon-
dent was also developing a specific instrument to monitor the accomplish-
ments of honors alumni. This respondent, Debra Schroeder of the College of
St. Scholastica, gave us permission to quote her response: “I think that it is of
utmost importance to measure the success of the Honors Program. Although
I believe that it adds value to the college experience of our honors students,
there are empirical data relevant to whether it really does. Moral, profession-
al, and fiscal pressures require such measurements. That doesn’t mean I’ve
yet succeeded at doing it well. But, I’ll keep trying!”
The last question of the survey asked if the respondents thought it impor-
tant to “measure” the success of their honors program. On a 4-point Likert
scale, 23 respondents answered very important, 20 answered somewhat
important, 2 answered of minor importance, and 5 answered not important.
One respondent commented, “These questions are both motivating and dis-
couraging. We have much to do.” Another wrote that assessment of success
is “[c]ritical. Of course, the debate comes in defining success. Yet, if you
can’t agree on some definition and use this definition to justify resources and
efforts, how can you conclude that an honors program makes an impact?”
DISCUSSION
The National Collegiate of Honors Council proposes that, in order to be
“fully developed,” an honors program should have a mission statement.
NCHC members comply with that guideline; we found that over 99% of the
websites gave a mission statement. Whether members comply with the
NCHC’s definition of a mission statement as a document “that includes the
objectives and responsibilities of honors” is debatable. The strong emphasis
we found in the mission statements is on process (87% of the key terms) as
opposed to outcome (14%). In the performance indicators the same pattern is
visible, though less clear: 69% of the key terms deal with process and 31%
with outcome. Monitoring the accomplishments of alumni is not yet standard
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
141
BARTELDS, DRAYER, AND WOLFENSBERGER
practice for honors programs, with fewer than half having a tracking system
in place or developing one.
The finding of this study is that a connection between mission statement,
performance indicators, and program assessment is not clearly visible in U.S.
honors programs. The small overlap between key terms in the mission state-
ment and the performance indicators, combined with the small number of
programs that have follow-up with their alumni, leads to this conclusion.
While honors programs in the United States, which have been well-estab-
lished throughout the country for half a century, are showing movement
toward aligning these three elements, other countries that are starting to
develop honors programs might do well to build such an alignment into the
design of their programs.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors appreciate the help of Thomas Grupe and Jules Cornet, stu-
dents of International Communication, Hanzehogeschool Groningen, in col-
lecting data.
REFERENCES
Achterberg, C. (2006). Honors assessment and evaluation. Journal of the
National Collegiate Honors Council 7(1): 37–39.
Association of American Colleges. (1994). Strong Foundations: Twelve
Principles for Effective General Education Programs. Washington, D.C.:
Association of American Colleges.
Ball, R. and Halwachi, J. (1987). Performance indicators in higher education.
Higher Education 16: 393–405.
Bart, C. K. (1999). Mission statement content and hospital performance in the
Canadian not-for-profit health care sector. Health Care Management
Review 24(3), 18–29.
Brinckerhoff, P. C. (2009). Mission-based management: Leading your not-
for-profit into the 21st century (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Wiley.
Charles Drew University. Academic Review Handbook, 2009. Retrieved 26
May 2011: <http://www.cdrewu.edu/assets/pdfs/AcademicProgramRe
viewHandbook.pdf>.
Digby, J. (2007). Thomson Peterson’s Honors Programs & Colleges: The
Official Guide of the National Collegiate Honors Council. Thomson
Learning Inc.: New Jersey, U.S.
Driscoll, M. B. (2011). National survey of college and university honors pro-
grams assessment protocols . Journal of the National Collegiate Honors
Council 12(1): 89–103.
FALL/WINTER 2012
142
MISSION, PERFORMANCE INDICATORS, AND ASSESSMENT IN U. S. HONORS
Drucker, Peter F. (1974). Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices.
New York: Harper & Row.
Ginkel, S. O. van; Eijl, P. J. van; Pilot, A. (2011). Honoursprogramma’s in de
master: Een inventarisatie van Nederlandse en buitenlandse honoursmas-
terprogramma’s. Passie voor leren (2011): 22–23.
Kiley, M., Moyes, T. & Clayton, P. (2009). “To develop research skills”:
Honours programmes for the changing research agenda in Australian uni-
versities. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 46 (1).
Knauft, E. B., Berger, R. A., & Gray, S. T. (1991). Profiles of Excellence. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Lewins, A. and Silver, C. (2007). Using Software in Qualitative Research: A
Step-by-Step Guide. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Long, B. T. (2002). Attracting the Best: The Use of Honors Programs to
Compete for Students. Chicago, IL: Spencer Foundation. (ERIC
Reproduction Service No. ED465355).
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Implications in
Education. San Fransico: Jossey-Bass.
Moore, S. and Kuol, N. (2007). Retrospective insights on teaching: exploring
teaching excellence through the eyes of the alumni. Journal of Further
and Higher Education 31(2): 133–143.
Morphew, C. C., Hartley, M. (2006). Mission statements: A thematic analysis
of rhetoric across international type. The Journal of Higher Education 77
(3): 456–71.
Mrozinski, Mark David. (2010). “Multiple Roles: The Conflicted Realities of
Community College Mission Statements.” Dissertations. Paper 25.
Murray, M. (1995). How the man from Campbell taught Quaker State to mar-
ket oil like soup. The Wall Street Journal July 14: B1.
NCHC. “Basic Characteristics of a Fully Developed Honors Program.”
Retrieved 29 September 2012: <http://nchchonors.org/faculty-directors/
basic-characteristics-of-a-fully-developed-honors-program/>.
NCHC. List of Member Institutions. Retrieved February 2009.
Romney, L. (1978). Measures of Institutional Goal Achievement. Boulder,
Colorado: National Centre for Higher Education Management Systems.
Sizer, J. (1979). Assessing institutional performance: An overview. European
Journal of Institutional Management in Higher Education 3: 49–75.
Spelman College. Mission Statement. Retrieved 25 August 2011: <http://
www.spelman.edu/>.
Stone, R. A. (1996). Mission statements revisited. SAM Advanced
Management Journal.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
143
BARTELDS, DRAYER, AND WOLFENSBERGER
OTHER READINGS
Kogan, M. Cave, M. Hanney, S. Henkel, M. (1997). The Use of Performance
Indicators in Higher Education: The Challenge of the Quality
Movement. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Lanier, G. W. (2008). Towards reliable honors assessment. Journal of the
National Collegiate Honors Council 9(1): 81–149.
Moore, S. & Kuol, N. (2005). Students evaluating teachers: exploring the
importance of faculty reaction to feedback on teaching. Teaching in
Higher Education 10(1): 57–73.
Sheehan, K. B. (2001). E-mail survey response rates: A review. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication 6: 0.
*******
The authors may be contacted at
v.bartelds@pl.hanze.nl.
FALL/WINTER 2012
144
MISSION, PERFORMANCE INDICATORS, AND ASSESSMENT IN U. S. HONORS
APPENDIX
Dear NAME HONORS DIRECTOR,
The honors program of NAME UNIVERSITY has been randomly selected
from the member list of NCHC as a research subject, together with 168 other
honors programs in the US.
As research team Excellence in Higher Education and Society of the Hanze
university of Applied Sciences in Groningen, the Netherlands we aim to pro-
vide a deeper understanding of the practice of honors education.
Our 6 questions below focus on two aspects of honors education. The first
part is about performance indicators of honors programs. What targets do you
set yourself or are set for you to deem your honors program successful? The
second part is about how you establish the results of your honors program in
alumni.
We hope for your cooperation in this matter, you are kindly requested to reply
to this email before April 18th 2011. If we have not heard from you by then
we will send a reminding email.
Attached you will find a supporting letter from the previous President of the
NCHC, Mr. J. Zubizarreta.
Kind regards,
Marca Wolfensberger, research team leader
Lindsay Drayer, Ph.D., researcher
Vladimir Bartelds, Bsc, researcher
Start of Survey
1. Which performance indicators are set for you to establish the success of
the honors program (e.g. by the Board of the university)?
2. Which performance indicators have you set to establish the success of the
honors program?
3. Do you keep track of your alumni systematically? If yes, how? If no,
why not?
4. Do you use a specific instrument to monitor the accomplishments of your
alumni? Please elaborate.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
145
BARTELDS, DRAYER, AND WOLFENSBERGER
5. Do you connect these data to the goals you have set for the honors pro-
gram? If yes, how? If no, why not?
6. Do you think it is important to “measure” the success of your honors
program?
n
nnot at all
n
nminor importance
n
nsomewhat important
n
nvery important
END of Survey.
The results of this research will be presented at the Annual NCHC-conference
in Phoenix, 2011. Of course we will provide you with the results personally
as well. These results will be anonymous and untraceable beyond the raw
data, might you be worried about public disclosure of university policies.
FALL/WINTER 2012
146 JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
147
A Close-Up of
Honors in the Netherlands
FALL/WINTER 2012
148 JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
149
FALL/WINTER 2012
Laboratories for
Educational Innovation:
Honors Programs
in the Netherlands
MARCA V. C. WOLFENSBERGER
UTRECHT UNIVERSITY & HANZEHOGESCHOOL GRONINGEN
PIERRE VAN EIJL AND ALBERT PILOT
UTRECHT UNIVERSITY, THE NETHERLANDS
INTRODUCTION
I
n Dutch universities, honors programs are a fast growing development. The
first such programs started in 1993. Twenty years later a large number of
programs are implemented at nearly all research universities and also at many
universities of applied sciences in the Netherlands. Recent data have revealed
significant diversity in the types and structures of honors programs, many of
which have functioned as laboratories of educational innovation within uni-
versity-wide curricula and had positive spin-off effects on the regular cur-
riculum and also on the transfer of talented students from secondary into
higher education. Especially in the last decade, these spin-offs have had a
strong influence on educational policy in the Netherlands at the primary and
secondary as well as university levels.
In 2004 we described in this journal the increasing number of Dutch uni-
versities that had developed honors programs for the more motivated and able
students wanting to do more than the regular curriculum offered them
(Wolfensberger et al., “Honours Programs”). As a result, talented and moti-
vated students were receiving many new opportunities. The development of
honors programs was relevant as an important innovation in higher education
with a wide influence on all university programs. Since 2004, this trend has
continued to a degree that warrants an update of our earlier findings.
BACKGROUND
In the Netherlands as well as most countries in the world, honors pro-
grams are designed to offer educational opportunities that are more
150
LABORATORIES FOR EDUCATIONAL INNOV
ATION
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
challenging and demanding than regular programs, and they are designed for
motivated and gifted students who want more and have the capacity to do
more than the regular curriculum requires from them. Selection and admis-
sion procedures are thus an important component of honors programs.
Selectivity is a rather new phenomenon at most Dutch universities, and hon-
ors admission procedures have attracted criticism as they have done in the
U.S. and other countries. Debates about elitism, equal access, social class,
and diversion of resources to talented students have taken place among fac-
ulty and researchers as well as university administrations (Bastedo &
Gumport; Weiner; Long; Zeegers & Barron). In the rather egalitarian Dutch
society, a focus on talent in the selection process is also an issue for discus-
sion (Van Eijl et al., “Talent”). An emphasis on grades can lead to competi-
tion among students. Selectivity, competition, and differentiation in tuition
are still new and unusual elements in the Dutch educational system, which
has an emphasis on broad educational participation without entrance selec-
tion (Hofstede; Van Eijl et al., “Honours Programmes”; Van Eijl et al.,
“Talent”). Selection does take place at both the start and end of secondary
education when students must take a national examination supplied and reg-
ulated by the government, but, once a student has obtained a diploma, he or
she has traditionally been able to enter any university program. The Dutch sit-
uation has been unlike America, where high schools are typically inclusive
but then students are admitted to universities based on standardized tests.
There have always been debates about what creates excellent education-
al outcomes: the motivation, giftedness, or social background of the students.
Many argue that intelligence is not the exclusive or reliable predictor for suc-
cess (Terman; Oden; Keesen; Carnicom & Snyder). Other predictors have
included personality characteristics such as perseverance, creative thinking,
and problem-solving ability (Reis & Renzulli; Campbell & Campbell) as well
as organizational talent and the power to employ intelligence and wisdom
(Sternberg, “Intelligence” and “WICS”). Mönks as well as Campbell et al.
have described the significance of contexts like family, school, and friends.
In relation to honors programs, one could also argue that it is appropriate or
possible to decide who is gifted only after participation. Among these pre-
dictors, ours focuses on motivation and giftedness because our honors pro-
grams are specially developed for the more motivated and able students who
want to do more than the regular program.
The development of honors programs in the Netherlands has been strong-
ly influenced in the last decade by the implementation of the bachelor-master
structure. All over Europe, the realization of the “European Higher Education
Area” has been an important issue on the agenda of universities and other
institutions of higher education. The main issue has been to implement a
151
MARCA V. C. WOLFENSBERGER, PIERRE VA N EIJL, AND ALBERTPILOT
structure of bachelor’s and master’s programs that will facilitate student
mobility and comparison of grades. Implementation started in 1999 when the
Ministers responsible for higher education from twenty-nine European coun-
tries signed the Bologna Declaration, agreeing on important joint objectives
for the development of a single, cohesive European Higher Education Area
by 2010. In 2003, the Ministers from thirty-three European countries met in
Berlin to review the progress achieved and to set priorities and new objec-
tives for the coming years, with a view to speeding up the European Higher
Education Area. The Netherlands was way ahead of many of the other coun-
tries because, in nearly all Dutch institutions, bachelor-master programs for
all new students had been introduced in 2002 along with many of the reforms
associated with this process.
In the Netherlands, all research universities at present have honors pro-
grams for four main reasons. First, with implementation of the bachelor-mas-
ter, many undergraduate programs were broadened, creating new opportuni-
ties for honors programs that allow for enrichment. Second, it is becoming
more important for students to distinguish themselves in order, for instance,
to be admitted to selective master programs in the Netherlands or abroad, and
honors programs provide opportunities for students to achieve this kind of
distinction through, for instance, an honors certificate or diploma upon grad-
uation. Third, political discussions about the knowledge economy and the
need to strengthen the Dutch and European innovative capacity have led to a
renewed emphasis on talent and research. Excellence in teaching and research
has been on the political agenda of the government in projects like “Ruim
Baan voor Talent” (“Make Way for Talent”) and Sirius (about a hundred mil-
lion dollars for developing talent programs in higher education), and honors
programs have fitted well into this agenda. Traditionally, the emphasis in the
Netherlands has always been on equality, equity, and access (Hofstede), but
the new focus on excellence supports the rapid development of honors pro-
grams at Dutch universities. Maybe in the end Dutch culture will be able to
add excellence to the list without displacing the other traditional emphases.
Fourth and finally, the growth of honors programs at Dutch universities may
be explained by the fact that the Anglo-Saxon Higher Education system
served as a model for the European bachelor-master implementation, and
honors programs are a widespread phenomenon in this model. Considering
the forward position of the Netherlands in the introduction of the bachelor-
master system and in the implementation of honors, honors programs are
likely to spread to other European countries as they adopt the system.
Dutch honors programs demonstrate a great variety in pedagogical
design and organization. Their main goal is to provide academic opportuni-
ties that challenge students to perform at their highest level of excellence.
FALL/WINTER 2012
152
LABORATORIES FOR EDUCATIONAL INNOV
ATION
Additional goals involve stimulating talent, attracting new teachers and stu-
dents of outstanding academic ability, creating connections between educa-
tional programs, and providing a laboratory for educational experiments that
can be adopted by regular programs. The latter is also cited as an important
goal of honors programs in the United States: “[E]ducational innovation and
honors have often been allied. The development of honors courses and cur-
ricula is necessarily an exercise in innovation.” (Austin, Honors Programs
16; cf. also Dennison). Innovation is one of the NCHC’s Basic Characteristics
of a Fully Developed Honors Program “The program serves as a laboratory
within which faculty feel welcome to experiment with new subjects,
approaches, and pedagogies. When proven successful, such efforts in cur-
riculum and pedagogical development can serve as prototypes for initiatives
that can become institutionalized across the campus.”
Given the explicit or implicit goal of innovation, we should expect hon-
ors programs to generate spin-off effects on regular programs. Demonstration
that honors programs are a source of innovation along with understanding of
their spin-off effects strengthens the position of and appreciation for these
programs; it may also help to refute the point of view that they are exclusively
for “a happy few” participating students. At the same time, while we recog-
nize that all students profit from the challenge of learning to do their own
thinking and making their own choices, we also know that not all practices in
honors programs should be transferred to regular programs: “For gifted stu-
dents, the content level involved in the discovery and problem solving could
be at a higher level of abstraction than possible for the average student. . . .
Also, Shore and Delcourt note that ability grouping, acceleration, and differ-
ential programming are particularly useful for gifted students” (Gallagher
688). Our focus is on those innovations that have, in fact, been successfully
realized in regular programs and had their origin in honors programs, whether
or not the adaptation was planned at the outset.
The main research questions of this paper are the following:
• To what extent do Dutch honors programs function as laboratories for edu-
cational innovation in regular programs?
• What kinds of innovations and changes in regular programs do honors pro-
grams generate?
• What characteristics of honors programs are related to this spin-off effect?
These questions are addressed after an explanation of our research methods
and an update on the characteristics of Dutch honors programs.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
153
MARCA V. C. WOLFENSBERGER, PIERRE VA N EIJL, AND ALBERTPILOT
RESEARCH METHODS
We selected honors programs specifically defined as programs developed
to offer educational opportunities that are more challenging and demanding
than regular programs. A first inventory of all honors programs at Dutch
research-based universities was made in 2003, the most recent inventory in
2010 (Wolfensberger et al., “Learning”). The inventory is, we believe, rather
complete; some programs that were currently being developed have now
been included as well as information received until summer 2012. Because of
the fast development in recent years, we expect great changes in the near
future. For this reason, we mainly report qualitative findings.
The first focus in the analysis was on the programs and their characteris-
tics: target group, educational methods, subjects, selection and admission
procedures, duration, assessment, recognition, awards, and the innovation
function. The research was limited to programs that consist of a series of
courses or modules, and individual “honors” assignments within courses
were not included. We made an inventory of innovations that were adopted in
regular programs and had their origin in honors programs. These innovations
were categorized according to content, pedagogy, and structure of the regular
program. In the inventory we also asked about factors that stimulated the
innovations.
We have used the data of a previous study (Wolfensberger et al,
“Honours Programs”), a 2012 inventory of honors programs in research uni-
versities (Wolfensberger et al.,”Learning”), and an overview by the Audit
Committee Sirius in 2012. For the honors programs in the universities of
applied sciences, we used the overview of the audit committee and the inven-
tory by Wolfensberger, de Jong, and Drayer. Additional information came
from documents, websites, and interviews with teachers, coordinators, and
directors of honors programs. Examples of honors program spin-offs were
also derived from a study on the pedagogy of honors education (Van Eijl et
al, “Talent”).
CHARACTERISTICS OF HONORS PROGRAMS
AT DUTCH UNIVERSITIES
The inventory resulted in about 50 honors programs and colleges at 11 of
the 13 research-based universities and about 40 programs at 19 of the 40 uni-
versities of applied sciences. Honors programs are rather new in the
Netherlands: the first started in 1993, but many programs started after 2008.
This recent growth in programs is related to a fostering policy of the univer-
sities and the government and also by the introduction of the bachelor-master
system. Universities and students are discovering that it is becoming more
FALL/WINTER 2012
154
LABORATORIES FOR EDUCATIONAL INNOV
ATION
important to distinguish themselves in the competition for international mas-
ter studies.
Between our study in 2004 and now, the number of programs at research
universities increased from 25 to about 50. Even more important, the number
of students increased to about 5000, roughly 3% of each cohort. Utrecht
University is the frontrunner in this development with more than 15%. A new
phenomenon is the development of honors programs at the Universities of
Applied Sciences. These 19 universities, which focus on professional educa-
tion, saw the number of programs increase from almost zero in 2004 to about
40 in 2010. All 19 have programs within one or more departments; 8 have
programs that involve students of all departments. The number of students is
still low but rapidly growing (Wolfensberger et al., “Learning”). The pro-
grams focus on excellent professionals as well as personal development. The
development of this innovation is attractive for many students, faculty, and
administrators.
Dutch honors programs are rather uniformly distributed among the disci-
plines, including medical, scientific, and technological fields. Programs in the
liberal arts often combine specialization with multidisciplinary study;
University College Utrecht and University College Maastricht are two exam-
ples that provide this kind of integrative combination. Recently, leadership
and personal development are becoming more common elements of honors
education (Wolfensberger et al., “Learning”).
The key characteristic of honors programs we included in our study is
that they have been developed for the more motivated and talented students,
and this purpose is reflected in their selection procedures, study tasks, and
forms of assessment and certification. The programs differ in duration, struc-
ture, types of students involved, years of study in which they are scheduled,
number of credits required, total credit hours, educational methods, and
assessment, but, despite all these differences, they share a number of common
characteristics. Many of these characteristics are found in the United States
(Austin, “Orientation”), but honors programs in the Netherlands are more
likely to focus on the disciplines and research activities, to be additional to
the regular curriculum, and to include a fast-growing number of honors mas-
ter’s programs. Here is a summary of our findings on these characteristics:
a. Honors programs use mainly small-scale educational methods varying
from individual education to groups of twenty students, thus enhancing the
interaction between the participants and between students and teacher as
well as providing more opportunities to follow the individual interests of
students. Active participation is evident, e.g., in discussion and feedback,
presentations of research, and excursions. Peer-interaction is an important
characteristic of honors in the Netherlands.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
155
MARCA V. C. WOLFENSBERGER, PIERRE VA N EIJL, AND ALBERTPILOT
b. Many context-specific and pedagogical innovations as well as up-to-date
content are found in honors programs. Special attention is paid to acade-
mic skills, interdisciplinary pedagogy, reflective student portfolios, stu-
dent participation, challenging course content, new ways of assessment,
peer feedback, and discussion among peers. In a number of programs, spe-
cial attention is paid to research, design, and other professional competen-
cies. Quite a number of programs offer opportunities for honors students
to do research at an earlier stage and at a more advanced level than in reg-
ular programs. Frequently a connection is made with master’s or PhD pro-
grams. Honors programs are often perceived as nurseries for research
talent.
c. Honors programs are more demanding in content and in quantity. In many
honors programs students receive “honors credits,” which have no legal
status but are testimonials to the time spent in the honors program.
However, in an increasing number of honors programs students receive
grade points for having participated in these programs instead of the regu-
lar programs. Completion of an honors program is typically acknowledged
with a testimonial, a certificate, an additional phrase on the diploma, or a
special diploma. Honors graduation is sometimes an official academic
event, e.g., the vice-chancellor presents the honors diploma to the students.
d. Honors programs use different types of admission criteria including GPA
and level of motivation as revealed in letters of application and interviews.
Letters of recommendation from mentors also play a role. We did not find
programs which use only an average number of credits or average GPA.
e. Some honors programs are meant for non-freshman students, but others
are meant for all bachelor’s students. Regular bachelor’s programs at
Dutch research universities take three years after six years of secondary
school or, at universities of applied sciences, four years after typically five
years of secondary school. All students have to complete a bachelor’s the-
sis or other substantial capstone assignment. Most programs have a coor-
dinator or director, usually a teacher or a coach in the program, who orga-
nizes and develops the program. Coaches encourage the students to work
on their academic achievement and to be involved in new challenges.
f. Many honors programs involve innovation in content and pedagogy that
can then be transferred to regular programs. Innovation is usually not stat-
ed as an objective of an honors program but is certainly one of the intend-
ed effects.
FALL/WINTER 2012
156
LABORATORIES FOR EDUCATIONAL INNOV
ATION
STUDENT POPULATION:
DIFFERENCES IN ETHNICITY AND GENDER
In 2009, 3.2 % of the new bachelor’s students in Dutch research univer-
sities participated in honors programs or colleges (Wolfensberger et al.,
“Learning”). In 2011 the highest percentages were at Utrecht University,
where participation was 15%, and at Maastricht University, where it was
9.1% (Utrecht University Board)). The national percentage grew one third in
2009–2011 (Audit Committee Sirius). The number of students in honors col-
leges is rather large: each year 230 students start at Utrecht University
College; 190 at Roosevelt Academy; 200 at Maastricht University College;
200 at Leiden University College; and 200 at Amsterdam University College.
Twente University will start in 2013 with 60–100 students. At the master’s
level, four front-running universities now involve about 2% of the students.
At the universities of applied sciences, the percentage of participating honors
students was lower in 2011 (about 1.5–2%) because they started later, but the
percentage is rapidly rising, the highest now being at Hanzehogeschool with
about 950 students, which is 6.2% of the total enrollment. The overall
dropout rate from honors programs is reported to be between 10% and 30%,
mainly because of schedule conflicts among students and problems in the
development of the new programs. The total number of Dutch honors stu-
dents in 2011 was about 7,000.
The numbers and percentages related to honors should be considered in
the general context that, in 2009, 63% of the Dutch cohort of pupils went into
higher education (67% of the women, 58% of the men). The percentage of
non-western women is about the same as western women while the percent-
age of non-western men is behind but growing (Vogels & Turkenburg).
Although we have no overall data on gender and ethnicity in the population
of honors students in the Netherlands, our impression, based on visits and
interviews, is that the male/female ratio is about 40/60 and that non-western
students are still under-represented in honors programs.
FINANCING HONORS PROGRAMS
We see a lot of diversity in the way honors programs are funded. So far,
some have been financed by grants for educational innovation, some by the
central administration of a university, and some by a department. Until now,
there has been little or no differentiation in the costs for students; all EU stu-
dents in Dutch universities pay about 1771 euros ($2,270 U.S. dollars) per
year for their higher education. Almost none of the honors programs require
students to pay extra for participation. No special grants are available for hon-
ors students. However, general budget reductions in higher education have
led to new debates on the financing of honors programs.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
157
MARCA V. C. WOLFENSBERGER, PIERRE VA N EIJL, AND ALBERTPILOT
BREEDING GROUND FOR
RESEARCHERS AND PROFESSIONALS
In many honors programs at research universities, special attention is
paid to research competencies. Sometimes students get experience in
research by spending a visiting semester at a research institution so that they
can discover whether they are really interested and competent in research.
The university benefits by hosting a breeding ground for highly talented stu-
dents; after a positive evaluation of their activities by the student and univer-
sity, many students enter a master’s and then PhD program.
In honors programs at universities of applied sciences, special attention
is often paid to professional competencies, creating a new initiative for fac-
ulty, students, and professional organizations. This development is especially
relevant in a knowledge-intensive society where professional competencies
are fast-changing not only in science and technology but also in medical, edu-
cational, and entrepreneurial domains.
A TYPOLOGY OF HONORS PROGRAMS
AT DUTCH UNIVERSITIES
Based on analysis of the data in our inventory, we have drawn up a typol-
ogy of honors programs. We can distinguish three types of honors programs:
disciplinary, interdisciplinary, and multidisciplinary.
In disciplinary honors programs, deepening the understanding of sub-
jects, methodologies, and research within a discipline is the main goal.
Students usually take honors courses as add-ons to their regular program. The
departments encourage and finance these kinds of honors programs, and par-
ticipating teachers and students originate from the department.
In interdisciplinary honors programs, the focus is on subjects and themes
that include and go beyond different disciplines and also on interdisciplinary
methodologies. These programs are an add-on for students wanting to broad-
en their academic education beyond the scope of their main subject. These
types of honors program are organized and financed at the level of the uni-
versity as a whole. In most, students and teachers are drawn from all over the
university.
Most of the multidisciplinary programs are liberal arts and sciences col-
leges, offering a full substitute for regular programs and a full honors bache-
lor’s degree. Connections between the disciplines are not an explicit issue for
discussion. Most of these programs are a full substitute for regular programs,
and most are liberal arts and sciences colleges offering a full honors bache-
lor’s degree. Selection is strict, and students must maintain a high GPA.
These full-degree programs are analogous to some honors colleges in the
FALL/WINTER 2012
158
LABORATORIES FOR EDUCATIONAL INNOV
ATION
U.S. and are distinct from the other honors programs. Another kind of multi-
disciplinary program is the so-called TWIN program that leads to a double-
major bachelor’s degree, e.g., math and physics.
SPIN-OFF EFFECTS IN REGULAR PROGRAMS
We have categorized spin-off effects into three main fields of innovation:
course content, pedagogy, and program structure. By spin-off in course con-
tent we mean the development of a new course or a change in the content of
a course in the regular program that is directly induced by the honors pro-
gram. By spin-off in pedagogy, we mean changes in the activities of teachers
and students in non-honors courses. Spin-off in the field of program structure
includes changes in the overall structure, sequence, and outline of a program.
SPIN-OFF EFFECTS IN COURSE CONTENT
Disciplinary honors programs appear to have had sizable spin-off effects
in course content, where a strong content relationship exists between the dis-
ciplinary honors program and the regular program. The innovative and exper-
imental content of honors programs is in most cases closely connected to the
regular program and can be easily integrated into it after proven success.
Many interdisciplinary honors programs develop new courses on inter-
disciplinary subjects. Those courses aim at a deeper understanding of inter-
disciplinary relationships between subjects and are specifically meant for stu-
dents in the honors program. Some of these courses eventually become an
option for students in the regular program as regular courses become dupli-
cates of honors courses.
Examples
A group of students in the honors program of the Department of
Geosciences at Utrecht University did their research projects at universities
in Bergen, Norway, and Barcelona, Spain. They discovered that considerably
more attention was paid to qualitative methods of research abroad than at
Utrecht University. Back in Utrecht, they started a discussion of research
methods with their teachers, leading to discussion in the departmental
newsletter. As a result, the next group of honors students was offered special
lectures on qualitative methods of research. Within a year, these special lec-
tures were made available to all 150 students in the regular curriculum. Ten
years later, all undergraduate students now do a final research project and
write a thesis, using a quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods approach.
Another example is the development of student-driven courses.
Undergraduate students discovered that honors students learned to take
responsibility for their own learning by choosing a course topic and faculty
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
159
MARCA V. C. WOLFENSBERGER, PIERRE VA N EIJL, AND ALBERTPILOT
member and together designing course assignments, e.g., papers, fieldwork,
and films. Now all senior undergraduate students and also faculty members
have the freedom to create such courses.
A more broad-based example has occurred in the same honors program
in Geosciences, a disciplinary program (Harms & Hogenstijn) that evolved
into a three-year interdisciplinary program with about sixty students
(Wolfensberger & Gorp). Despite many changes, the core of the program
remained the same: evoking excellence by connecting cognitive, personal,
and professional development. As citizenship is an important element in the
program, an honors tradition has been interest in ethical and affective issues,
e.g., in dialogues about science and its application (Nussbaum). Honors stu-
dents have introduced these elements of their honors education into their reg-
ular classes, resulting in grants and prizes for the Department of Geosciences.
In the double-major TWIN programs in the Department of Science at
Utrecht University, the spin-off effects flow across disciplines. Typically, the
TWIN-programs offer a rare opportunity for faculty members of two scien-
tific fields to cooperate and co-create an educational program. TWIN-pro-
grams require a rethinking of disciplinary basics as well as fine-tuning of the
content.
SPIN-OFF EFFECTS IN PEDAGOGY
Most of the disciplinary honors programs appear also to have had sizable
spin-off effects in pedagogy. Teachers have acquired new understanding and
skills in instructional methods, assignments, coaching of students, peer feed-
back, and honors communities. They reported transferring these skills rather
easily into the standard program. Spin-off is also stimulated by the flow of
information between honors and non-honors students; honors students func-
tion as agents of innovation. The spin-off effects of disciplinary honors pro-
grams become visible in a relatively short time, and we found that depart-
ments as a whole profit from the educational innovations.
For interdisciplinary programs, it was difficult to get reliable data about
the spin-off effects on pedagogy. However, it appears that teachers in such
honors programs become more conscious of their responsibility to raise the
educational quality within their regular program. The teachers and students of
these interdisciplinary programs come from various departments but join in
the program. These teachers take their new understanding and skills in the
field of pedagogy back to their regular program, but, because the setting in
their department is different and their students have virtually no communica-
tion with those in the honors program, it is likely to be more difficult for them
to apply their new skills. However, we found some clear instances of spin-off
effects, especially when new regular programs were designed or old ones
revised.
FALL/WINTER 2012
160
LABORATORIES FOR EDUCATIONAL INNOV
ATION
Example
The University of Amsterdam uses its interdisciplinary honors program
for motivated first-year students as a breeding ground for different kinds of
instructional activities, e.g., the digital portfolio, that have then been dissem-
inated throughout the university. In this case, the spin-off effects have also
influenced the honors program itself, which has grown from involving six
departments to being implemented in almost all departments of the university.
SPIN-OFF EFFECTS IN PROGRAM STRUCTURE
Honors colleges appeared to provide excellent contexts for experiments
and innovations in interdisciplinary subjects, instructional methods, chal-
lenging assignments, and course organization. The success of such innova-
tions in some cases led to replication in the university as a whole. Students in
these full-degree colleges work only with other honors students and do not
interact with other students at the “mother university”; hence, they do not
function as agents of innovative change in the regular program. However,
faculty members often have positions in both the honors college and host
institution, which means that they can function as liaisons. We found indeed
important examples of innovations along these lines.
Example
University College Utrecht (UCU) has influenced not only other univer-
sity programs at Utrecht University but also honors programs and colleges in
other universities. This first honors college in the Netherlands, despite initial
resistance to it within Utrecht University, found a solid base when it proved
to be a success: the learning results were outstanding; the students were high-
ly motivated and made excellent progress; and the faculty, who were select-
ed because they were known as outstanding teachers, were positive about this
kind of learning and teaching. The students, the University Board, and many
faculty involved in UCU showed their commitment to this innovative pro-
gram in discussions about large-scale curriculum reform when the bachelor-
master system was introduced. After this green light, UCU became a breed-
ing ground for exceptional teachers and students. UCU had attracted a group
of teachers who had authority among their peers and showed enthusiasm for
trying out new educational concepts. As indicated in evaluation data, the
diversity of the student population, many of whom were international stu-
dents brought up in different educational systems, forced the teachers and
staff of UCU to experiment with instructional content and form. The selec-
tion system, which did not exist in regular programs elsewhere in the
Netherlands, brought a capable and motivated as well as diverse group of stu-
dents together and facilitated this experimentation. The interaction between
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
161
MARCA V. C. WOLFENSBERGER, PIERRE VA N EIJL, AND ALBERTPILOT
teachers from different academic disciplines was also a source of inspiration
for spin-off. Teachers thus gained experiences that were later transplanted
into regular programs.
With this international bachelor’s program at an honors level, Utrecht
University obtained a wide-ranging expertise in liberal arts and sciences
learning, a new educational concept in Dutch universities. When Utrecht
University introduced the bachelor-master structure in the whole university,
the UCU program played the role of a visionary model for the new programs,
specifically in its emphasis on a broad spectrum of academic education and
skills; freedom of choice in requirements; coaching of the students; more
tests and feedback within the courses; and marked reduction in the number of
students who had to repeat a course.
Many other research universities also introduced spin-off honors col-
leges—e.g., Maastricht, Amsterdam, Leiden, and Twente—and Utrecht
University started a second one, the Roosevelt Academy in Middelburg.
Utrecht University also started to implement the concept of honors colleges
at the department level, e.g., the Utrecht Law College (Van Gestel et al.). The
Junior College Utrecht was founded as a bridge between secondary education
and research universities (Van der Valk and Pilot), Hanzehogeschool will start
a Junior Honors Academy as a bridge to the universities of applied sciences.
Another example is the Honors College Amsterdam, a combined liberal
arts and sciences honors college of the University of Amsterdam and the VU
University Amsterdam, both large research universities. Started in 2010, this
college offers a series of honors courses for bachelor-level students of both
universities.
KEY ISSUES IN UNDERSTANDING
THE SPIN-OFF EFFECTS
At least four characteristics of honors programs are important to their
spin-off effects on course content, pedagogy, and program structure.
INNOVATION AS AN AIM
In many honors programs, the administration has implicitly or explicitly
encouraged innovation. In seven of ten universities of applied sciences, inno-
vation has been an explicit part of the mission from the start (Wolfensberger
et al., “Learning”). While many interdisciplinary honors programs explicitly
include innovation in their mission, others were established with a unique
goal of some kind and stressing spin-off effects that would be counter-pro-
ductive; even programs like this, though, often indicate that they see spin-off
effects in regular programs. For example, the double-degree programs of the
Department of Science at Utrecht University have demonstrated that teachers
FALL/WINTER 2012
162
LABORATORIES FOR EDUCATIONAL INNOV
ATION
who previously did not communicate very much now show more interaction
about subject matter and pedagogy.
Many teachers and administrators involved in honors are also innovators,
eager to experiment with new ideas and play a liaison role in the flow of
ideas. Some are “early adopters and persons with authority” whose role is “to
decrease uncertainty about a new idea by adopting it and conveying a sub-
jective evaluation of the innovation to near-peers by means of interpersonal
networks” (Rogers 240). These early adopters often work in honors programs
as well as regular programs, hastening the communication and acceptance of
innovations. Van Poucke indicates that, for an innovation to be successful, it
needs to go through the full process of development, crystallization, and real-
ization. Knowing and understanding an innovation—forming an opinion on
it in the ‘safe’ environment of an honors program with a small group of enthu-
siastic students—makes it easier for a teacher to implement it in a regular
program.
EDUCATIONAL INNOVATIONS:
HONORS PROGRAMS AS BREEDING PLACES
Spin-off effects are a consequence of honors programs that serve as
breeding places for innovation, often transforming regular programs while
the honors program continues to evolve even further. Honors programs like
the one in Geosciences at Utrecht University mention this kind of spin-off
effect in their mission statement, defining their honors program as a platform
for innovation of regular programs.
We found that many honors teachers report being stimulated to use their
creativity by working in honors and experiencing freedom as well as respon-
sibility to create new courses that serve the needs of the students (Audit
Committee). Pedagogical innovations and interdisciplinary courses are risky
for teachers, but they transfer a wide range of innovations—reflective digital
portfolios, personal tutors, challenging assignments, seminars, interdiscipli-
nary student collaboration, talent coaching, research projects, peer discus-
sions, peer feedback, peer teaching, peer assessment—to regular programs
even when such transfer is not an official policy.
CREDITS OR NOCREDITS:
INFLUENCE ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF INNOVATIONS
One possibility is that innovation is more easily accepted by and imple-
mented in regular programs when no credits are given to the honors students,
the assumption being that the students’ intrinsic motivation is higher when no
credits are given. Another advantage of this possibility is that, in the Dutch
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
163
MARCA V. C. WOLFENSBERGER, PIERRE VA N EIJL, AND ALBERTPILOT
educational system, there are fewer administrative obstacles (such as accred-
itation procedures) when no credits are given. However, giving credits to all
honors activities consolidates these programs more firmly in the university
structure.
Honors programs vary widely in assignment of credits and/or grades. In
many cases, honors assessments or credits have no influence on students’
grades in their regular program. Programs also differ in the way they are com-
pleted: in some, at least a part of the honors study load is an add-on; in oth-
ers, honors students do a part of their regular curriculum in an honors format
with assignments that are different and more demanding; in still others, stu-
dents do the honors program and the regular curriculum simultaneously.
Students sometimes receive so-called “honorary credits,” which are not offi-
cial credits but do indicate the workload of the course, and some programs
give “extra credits,” which are official but can be used only for electives.
However, most multidisciplinary programs offer a full curriculum instead of
the regular program, and these programs do give official credits and provide
an official bachelor’s diploma.
SELECTION AND MOTIVATION:
FOSTERING SPIN-OFF EFFECTS
Most honors programs have selection and admission procedures that
result in significant self-selection before the official procedure even starts. A
student has to enroll, show some intellectual achievement, and write a letter
of motivation. Above-average grades are required in most programs and pro-
vide information about intellectual performance, but they do not reveal acad-
emic potential, creativity, and personal qualities. In admissions procedures,
therefore, all Dutch institutions look beyond grades and place high value on
motivation. Students selected on the basis of motivation rather than grades
are usually seeking a challenge to perform at their highest level of excellence,
and they appreciate working with other strongly motivated students, as
shown, for example, in the honors evaluations of the Department of
Geosciences at Utrecht University (Van Eijl et al., “Talent”). These students
are committed to each other and to their subject content, so teachers are will-
ing to experiment.
Student participation and feedback are especially useful to faculty mem-
bers when they implement innovations. Birdwell-Pheasant argues,
. . . the single most important distinction between honors and non-
honors courses are [sic] the honors students: dedicated, motivated,
fascinated students with solid foundations in prior work and with
new creative insights. They spark each other (and the professor), and
FALL/WINTER 2012
164
LABORATORIES FOR EDUCATIONAL INNOV
ATION
learning takes on a whole new dimension . . . The essence of honors
programs, I believe, is putting gifted people in touch with one
another.” (25)
The selection procedures are thus crucial to creating a context in which edu-
cational innovations can be developed and tested. Self-reflection and peer
interaction/feedback are important outcomes when mistakes are allowed and
then used to improve performance in a safe learning process. Furthermore, as
the courses are often add-ons, the consequences of failure are rather low.
In our study of the innovative capacity of honors programs, we mainly
focused on characteristics of the programs themselves. However, we found
evidence that the way an honors program is integrated into a department is
also important for its innovative capacity (Van Poucke). An honors program
is often perceived as a network that fosters relationships between students
and faculty, thereby facilitating spin-off effects (Fenwick). The formal and
informal exchange of knowledge and experience among teachers, students,
honors directors, and university administrators appears to be important for
successful spin-off effects. The concept of “learning organizations” (Senge)
helps explain the successful spin-off effects and innovation process at Utrecht
University, focusing on the the kinds of innovative people involved and on
the phases of innovation: (1) initiation (reaching consensus, providing a con-
crete scenario for innovation, and deciding on process factors); (2) imple-
mentation; and (3) consolidation. At Utrecht University the focus of
Havelock and Huberman on infrastructure, authority, and consensus also pro-
vided a better understanding of how to foster of the process. The high level
of faculty authority from the start of Utrecht University College made a big
difference in the spin-off effects into the regular programs (Pilot). The first
results of spin-off then strengthened the implementation of further innova-
tions and the general focus on talent development in the university and
beyond; as Havelock & Huberman suggest, success breeds success.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study has shown that educational innovations in course content, ped-
agogy, and program structure are both characteristics and outcomes of honors
programs; after their obvious advantages had proven successful, they
appeared to spread readily into regular programs as participants adopted and
disseminated the new ideas.
We found five important features of honors programs regarding spin-off
effects in regular programs:
1. Inclusion of innovation in the programmatic mission, whether explicit or
implicit;
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
165
MARCA V. C. WOLFENSBERGER, PIERRE VA N EIJL, AND ALBERTPILOT
2. Intellectual quality and passion that create appeal for students, even when
no credits are given, and for teachers, who then promote innovation
throughout the university;
3. Selection process (including self-selection) that creates a safe learning
environment in which experimentation can take place;
4. Quality and dynamism of educational innovations that produce continuous
programmatic change as well as university-wide dissemination; and
5. Long-term impacts on national educational policy to promote academic
excellence and talent development at all levels of education.
Honors programs are rapidly developing in Dutch universities as a way
to evoke excellence in students and serve as laboratories of innovation. We
expect that this interest in honors programs will grow and evolve, leading to
new questions:
• Will the spin-off from honors programs concentrate on bachelor students
or also involve more master’s-level students in honors programs (Van
Ginkel et al., “Honors in the Master’s”)? Will honors programs involve all
domains in the same way or will there be large differences between
humanities, social sciences, science and technology, and medical sciences?
What will be the position of liberal arts honors colleges and programs?
Will the universities of applied sciences be successful in developing hon-
ors programs related to the professional excellence, and what spin-off will
these programs provide?
•How will the institutions finance honors programs: institutionally, at the
departmental level, and/or with outside funding? How much does the cost
of education for an honors student differ from that of regular students?
How can we show that a higher cost is ‘worth it’ for the institution as a
whole? Should students pay higher tuition for honors programs? Should
honors programs in the Netherlands follow the models of the U.S. and
Canada where honors replaces regular courses rather than being an
add-on?
•How can the assessment of learning outcomes be organized in a valid and
reliable way? What are the best forms of assessment and certification? Do
they differ in important ways from those employed in the regular programs
and courses, and, if they do, what implications does that difference have
for innovations in the regular programs?
•How is further spin-off related to the issue of the added value of honors
programs? What kind of feedback or evaluation of their efforts should stu-
dents receive, and should they get evaluation in the form of a grade? Can
grades be an obstacle to risk-taking and even participation? How can the
FALL/WINTER 2012
166
LABORATORIES FOR EDUCATIONAL INNOV
ATION
organization and the rules for giving credit best be regulated? When all
universities offer honors programs, how can the differences between pro-
grams and certificates be described and perhaps standardized? How can
quality assurance be organized? What procedures are advisable for devel-
oping extracurricular activities?
• What should be the authority and responsibility of honors units in the
structure of the departments and the university? What will be the role of a
Dutch organization of honors programs and colleges: organizing seminars
and conferences on honors, evoking excellence, encouraging scholarly
activities, sharing experiences, and/or fostering innovation? How can such
an organization play a role in professional development of honors teachers
across Dutch universities?
Recent developments in Dutch honors programs have stimulated many
research activities in the past years on important issues in honors education
and opportunities for spin-off: e.g., developing latent talent (Coppoolse et
al.), professional excellence (Paans et al.), challenging assignments (Scager
et al., “Challenging”), citizenship related to global mindedness (Schutte et
al.), honors communities (Van Ginkel et al., “Building”), selection (Scager et
al., “Do Honors Students”) and professional development of honors teachers
(Ten Berge & Scager; Kazemier).
We look forward to continued vitality in research about honors and to
expanding our findings about innovation in honors not just in the Netherlands
but in comparison with U.S. honors programs, which have been offered
across the country for many years, and with newer honors programs around
the globe. We assume that the spin-off effects we have seen in the
Netherlands are characteristic of honors education everywhere, and we look
forward to research that investigates and, we hope, confirms this assumption.
REFERENCES
Audit Committee Sirius. (2012). Sirius Programma Overall Audit Rapport
2011. Den Haag: Platform Bèta Techniek.
Austin, C.G. (1986). Orientation to Honors Education. In: G. Friedman &
R.C. Jenkins-Friedman (Ed.) (1986). Fostering Academic Excellence
through Honors Programs: New Directions for Teaching and Learning,
no 25). San Franciso: Jossey-Bass: 5–16.
Austin, C. G. (1991). Honors Programs: Development, Review, and
Revitalization. Monographs in Honors Education. Lincoln, NE: National
Collegiate Honors Council.
Bastedo, M. N., & Gumport, P. J. (2003). Access to what? Mission differen-
tiation and academic stratification in U.S. public higher education.
Higher Education, 46, 341–59.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
167
MARCA V. C. WOLFENSBERGER, PIERRE VA N EIJL, AND ALBERTPILOT
Birdwell-Pheasant, D. (1997). Quoted in Crockett, L. Fundamental issues in
honors teaching: Data, information, knowledge, and wisdom on the
wired campus. In C.L. Fuiks & L. Clark (Eds.) (2002). Teaching and
Learning in Honors. A Publication of the National Collegiate Honors
Council.
Campbell, T.A., & Campbell, D.E. (1997). Faculty/student mentor program:
Effects on academic performance and retention. Research in Higher
Education 38, 6, 727–42.
Campbell, R.J., Muijs, R.D., Neelands, J.G.A., Robinson, W., Eyre, D., &
Hewston, R. (2007). The social origins of students identified as gifted
and talented in England: a geo-demographic analysis. Oxford Review of
Education 33, 1, 103–120.
Carnicom, S., & Snyder, C.A. (2010) Learning outcomes assessment in hon-
ors: An appropriate practice? Journal of the National Collegiate Honors
Council 11, 1, 69–82.
Coppoolse, R., Spil, S., Van Eijl, P.J., & Pilot, A. (2012). How to involve stu-
dents with latent talents in an honors program? Paper presented at the
International Conference Evoking Excellence in Higher Education and
Beyond 2012 in Groningen. Utrecht: Hogeschool Utrecht and
Universiteit Utrecht.
Dennison, G.M. (2008). Honors education and the prospects for academic
reform. Innovative Higher Education 33: 159–68.
Fenwick, T.J. (2010). un(Doing) standards in education with actor-network
theory. Journal of Education Policy 25, 2, 117–133.
Gallagher, J.J. (2000). Changing Paradigms for Gifted Education in the
United States. In: K.A. Heller et al. (Eds.). International Handbook of
Giftedness and Talent. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 681–693.
Harms, L. & Hogenstijn, M. (2001). The Excellent Tracé, The National
Honors Report, Vol. XXII, nr.1, 8–11.
Havelock, R.G. & Huberman, A.M. (1977). Solving Educational Problems:
The Theory and Reality of Innovation in Developing Countries. Paris:
Unesco.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind.
London: McGraw Hill.
Kazemier, E. (2012). How to enhance the professional development of facul-
ty teaching in honors education? Paper presented at the International
Conference Evoking Excellence in Higher Education and Beyond 2012
in Groningen. Groningen: Hanzehogeschool.
Keesen, F. (1998). All students are equal, but some students . . . Tijdschrift
voor hoger onderwijs en management, 5, 3, 17–21.
FALL/WINTER 2012
168
LABORATORIES FOR EDUCATIONAL INNOV
ATION
Long, B.T. (2002). Attracting the best: The use of honors programs to com-
pete for students. Report for the Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Chicago, IL: Spencer Foundation (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. Ed465355).
Mönks, F.J. (1988). De rol van de sociale omgeving in de ontwikkeling van
het hoogbegaafde kind [The role of the social environment in the devel-
opment of the gifted child]. In G. Kanselaar, J. van der Linden & A.
Pennings (red.). Begaafdheid: Onderkenning en beïnvloeding [Individual
Differences in giftedness: identification and education].
Amersfoort/Leuven: Acco, 205–18.
NCHC. (2012). Basic Characteristics of a Fully Developed Honors Program.
Retrieved 4 September 2012 from: <http://nchchonors.org/faculty-
directors/basic-characteristics-of-a-fully-developed-honors-program/>.
Nussbaum, M. (1997). Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform
in Liberal Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Oden, M.H. (1968). The fulfillment of promise: 40-year follow-up of the
Terman gifted group. Genetic psychology monographs 77, 3–93.
Paans, W., Wijkamp, I., Wiltens, E., & Wolfensberger, M. (submitted). What
is an excellent allied health care professional?
Pilot, A. (2005). The teacher as a crucial factor in curriculum innovations:
The past as perspective for the future. Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association, 2005 Annual Meeting, Montreal.
Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht, 1–12.
Reis, S.M., & Renzulli, J.S. (1984). The reform movement and the quiet cri-
sis in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly 35, 1, 26–35.
Rogers, E.M. (1971). Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press: New York.
Scager, K., Akkerman, S.F, Keesen, F., Mainhard, M.T., Pilot, A., & Wubbels,
T. (2012). Do honors students have more potential for excellence in their
professional lives? Higher Education 64, 1, 19–39.
Scager, K., Akkerman, S.F., Pilot, A., & Wubbels, T. (in press). Challenging
high ability students. Studies in Higher Education.
Senge, P.M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the
Learning Organization. New York: Double Day Currency.
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). Intelligence Applied: Understanding and Increasing
Your Intellectual Skills. London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). WICS as a model of giftedness. High ability studies
14, 109–139.
Ten Berge, H., & Scager, K. (2012). Challenging faculty to challenge their
students. Paper presented at the International Conference Evoking
Excellence in Higher Education and Beyond 2012 in Groningen. Utrecht:
Universiteit Utrecht.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
169
MARCA V. C. WOLFENSBERGER, PIERRE VA N EIJL, AND ALBERTPILOT
Terman, L.M &. Oden, M.H. (1967). The Gifted Group at Mid-Life: Genetic
Studies of Genius. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Utrecht University Board. (2012). Monitor Sirius Programma 2012,
Bachelortrajecten [Monitor Sirius Program 2012, bachelor projects].
Utrecht: Utrecht University.
Van der Valk, T., & Pilot, A. (2012). Empowerment and heterogeneity among
talented pre-university science students in an enriched learning environ-
ment. In B. Ralle & I. Eilks (Eds.). Heterogeneity and Cultural Diversity
in Science Education and Science Education Research. Aachen: Shaker
Publishing.
Van Eijl, P.J., Wolfensberger, M.V.C., Schram, A., & Pilot, A. (2005).
Honours Programmes: A Perspective from the Netherlands. Paper pre-
sented at 11th European Conference for Research on Learning and
Instruction (EARLI) in Nicosia, Cyprus. Retrieved from: <http://igitur-ar
chive.library.uu.nl/ivlos/2006-0801-210528/UUindex.html>.
Van Eijl, P.J., Pilot, A., & Wolfensberger, M.V.C. (Eds.) (2010). Talent voor
morgen. Ontwikkeling van talent in het hoger onderwijs. [Talent for
tomorrow. Development of talent in higher education]. Groningen:
Noordhoff.
Van Gestel, M., Rijpkema, P., Ten Berge, H., Van Eijl, P.J., & Scager, K.
(2008). Het Utrecht Law College na drie ontwikkeljaren [Utrecht Law
College after three years of development]. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht.
Van Ginkel, S., Van Eijl, P.J., Pilot, A., & Zubizarreta, J. (2012). Building a
vibrant honors community among commuter students. Journal of the
National Collegiate Honors Council 13, 2.
Van Ginkel, S., Van Eijl, P., Pilot, A., & Zubizarreta, J. (2012). Honors in the
master’s: A new perspective? Journal of the National Collegiate Honors
Council 13, 2.
Van Poucke, A. (2004). On creating radical innovation in knowledge inten-
sive service firms. PhD thesis. Utrecht: Utrecht University.
Vogels, R. & Turkenburg, M. (2012). Onderwijs [Education]. In R. Bijl et al.
(Eds) De sociale staat van Nederland 2011 [The social situation in the
Netherlands 2011]. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
Weiner, N. (2009). Honors is elitist, and what’s wrong with that? Journal of
the National Collegiate Honors Council 10, 1, 19–24.
Wolfensberger, M.V.C., P.J. van Eijl, & A. Pilot. (2004). Honours Programs
as Laboratories of Innovation: APerspective from the Netherlands.
Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council 5, 1, 115–41.
Wolfensberger, M., & Van Gorp, B. (2008). De Geocase, Talentontwikkeling
door Honours, [The case of Geosciences. Talent development by
Honors]. Onderzoek van Onderwijs 37, 4, 82–87.
FALL/WINTER 2012
170
LABORATORIES FOR EDUCATIONAL INNOV
ATION
Wolfensberger, M.V.C., De Jong, N., & Drayer, L. (2012) Leren excelleren,
excellentieprogramma’s in het HBO. [Learning to Excel: Programs for
Excellence in the Universities for Applied Sciences]. Groningen/Utrecht:
Hanzehogeschool/Universiteit Utrecht.
Zeegers, M., & Barron, D. (2009). Honours: A taken-for-granted pathway to
research? Higher Education 57, 567–575.
*******
The authors may be contacted at
M.Wolfensberger@pl.hanze.nl.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
171
Qualities Honours Students
Look for in Faculty and
Courses, Revisited
MARCA V.C. WOLFENSBERGER
UTRECHT UNIVERSITY AND HANZE UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES
GRONINGEN, THE NETHERLANDS
G. JOHAN OFFRINGA
HANZE UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES GRONINGEN, THE NETHERLANDS
[Editor’s note: What follows is an updated revision of an essay pub-
lished by Marca V. C. Wolfensberger in JNCHC 5.2 (fall/winter
2004): 55–66.]
INTRODUCTION
I
n the eight years since the original version of this study was published, a
lot has changed in the Dutch honours landscape. Stimulated by govern-
mental measures, many new honours programmes were—and are being—
developed, not only within academic universities but now also in more than
half of the universities of applied sciences (UAS) (Wolfensberger, Jong &
Drayer). Honours programmes, which we define as programmes that are
specifically developed to offer educational opportunities that are more chal-
lenging and demanding than regular programmes, are recognized as one of
the primary means to evoke excellence in talented students. They are meant
for the more motivated and gifted students who want more and have the
capacity to do more than the regular curriculum requires from them.
Although the body of knowledge is increasing, our insight into effective
honours programmes has not developed at the same pace as has the number
of honours programmes. For example, we need specified and a priori defined
outcomes in order to evaluate the success of honours programmes. We also
need to make explicit our assumptions about the needs of students, faculty,
and society that honours programmes are said to meet. Our ways of evoking
excellence in students through honours programmes is in need of a theoreti-
cal underpinning. Fundamental to our understanding of effective honours
programmes is the need for clearer insight into the features of students par-
ticipating in honours programmes. Who are those talented and motivated stu-
dents who are able to do more than the regular programme can offer them?
What kind of programme will challenge those students?
FALL/WINTER 2012
172
QUALITIES HONOURS STUDENTS LOOK FOR IN FACULTY AND COURSES
Honours programmes are now widely offered to talented students in the
Netherlands with the assumption that those talented students will be broadly
alike. Honours students are commonly considered to be clever, high-achiev-
ing, full of potential, and intrinsically motivated. Most honours programmes
have admission procedures separate from those of their host university, and
the existence of these procedures suggests that a relevant and accurate dis-
tinction between honours and non-honours students can be made. What we
need to explore is the kind of peers, teachers, courses, and programs that this
special category of students—honours students—look for and need in their
education.
LEARNING CONTEXT
The reasons for designing honours programmes and offering this special
education may be diverse. An honours programme may be a marketing
device, an instrument for helping students to achieve a high profile, a strate-
gy for coping with a diversified student population, a remedy to retain tal-
ented students and faculty, or a laboratory for innovations. We think that,
whatever the reason, honours programmes should motivate students in a way
that engenders commitment, effort, wisdom, and high-quality performance.
We would suggest, supported by the views of Ryan & Deci, that we should
therefore look for an educational context that supports the growth of autono-
my, competence, and relatedness. The idea that those three traits predict
“integrated motivation” and intrinsic as well as extrinsic motivation (Ryan &
Deci 73), which in turn predict study behavior, has been confirmed by many
studies (see overview in Ryan & Deci; also Martens & Kirschner). Autonomy
means, for instance, that students have freedom of choice concerning their
goals and plan making. Focus on competence indicates that it is important
that students have the feeling they are learning, achieving excellence, and
making a difference. Relatedness corresponds with a safe learning environ-
ment or honours community where the faculty is personally involved and
peers are to be trusted. Creating a learning context that supports autonomy,
competence, and relatedness thus enhances motivation and fosters the inter-
nalization and integration of knowledge, ideas, and skills. We assume that
this context is what honours students are looking for, but we need to develop
a better, empirically based understanding of what honours students seek and
need in faculty and courses. This understanding will allow us to identify the
key factors of successful honours programmes.
Do honours students assess teachers and courses differently than do non-
honours students? What motivates students to take part in honours? What are
their opinions about education (teachers, fellow-students, courses), and what
do they value as important qualities? What forms of excellence do they
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
173
MARCA V. C. WOLFENSBERGER AND G. JOHAN OFFRINGA
pursue in honours activities? If honours students are different from non-hon-
ours students, should these differences necessitate curricular, pedagogical, or
personal coaching changes in academic programming? We have a lot of ques-
tions to answer in order to design honours programmes that are appropriate
for all key stakeholders: students, faculty, institutions, and society. The main
research questions that we will try to answer in this article are:
• What are characteristics of honours students and how do they value teach-
ers and courses?
• Are possible differences constant over time and consistent across (types
of) universities?
• Does our theory-based learning context, which is supportive of autonomy,
academic competence, and relatedness through an honours community,
actually correspond with the preferences of our honours students?
Most of the research on honours programmes has taken place in the U.S.
with its longstanding tradition of such programmes, but even in the U.S.
empirical research on students’ motivations, attitudes, and achievements is
scarce. Long & Lange wrote that “[H]onors students and programs would be
better served if there were an available body of scientific knowledge from
which programmatic decisions could be made” (21). We have not seen any
significant shift and growth in research; the body of available U.S. research
on the characteristics of honours students typically focuses on their personal-
ity profiles, their previous academic achievement, or their social activities or
volunteer work; it rarely focuses on “throughput” or added value: what stu-
dents actually expect from and do in honours programmes (Clark; Gerrity et
al.; Harte; Rinn & Plucker; Shushok). A question also remains whether U.S.
results can be transferred to a European national context, where the culture
and the higher education system are different.
METHODS
Given the lack of empirical research, we started with a pilot study. We
designed an exploratory study to investigate differences that might exist
between honours and non-honours. Our questionnaire was based on out-
comes of some studies in the United States so that we would have something
to which we could compare our outcomes (Baur; Gerrity et al.; Harte;
Shushok; Rinn & Plucker; Long & Lange); it also contained questions based
on Dutch (anecdotal) information (among others: evaluation reports; van Eijl
et al.; Wolfensberger, van Eijl, & Pilot). The main idea was to get a first
impression whether there are differences between honours and non-honours
students in the Netherlands and therefore whether it is worthwhile to go on
with research on honours students and their outcomes.
FALL/WINTER 2012
174
QUALITIES HONOURS STUDENTS LOOK FOR IN FACULTY AND COURSES
The present paper strives to validate and expand some of the outcomes
of the 2004 article. Since the pilot study, modified versions of the original
questionnaire were administered to honours and non-honours students from
different fields and universities on several occasions (see Table 1). In total,
1,451 students from two academic and one applied university were ques-
tioned. For the pilot, two different honours programmes from the two largest
research universities were chosen as examples of common types of honours
programmes in the Netherlands: a disciplinary honours programme at Utrecht
University and an interdisciplinary honours programme at the University of
Amsterdam.
As stated in other research (van Eijl, Wolfensberger, et al.;
Wolfensberger, van Eijl et al.), we can divide honours in the Netherlands into
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
University H(onours) or Type of Honours 2003– 2005– 2010–
N(on-Honours) Programme 2004 2007 2011
(pilot)
University of
Amsterdam H Interdisciplinary 45 84 –
University of
Amsterdam N85 – –
Utrecht
University H Disciplinary* 12 37 –
Disciplinary,
Multidisciplinary – – 187
Utrecht
University N 128 326 205
Hanze UAS
Groningen H Combination of
Disciplinary and
Interdisciplinary –– 152
Hanze UAS
Groningen N – – 179
Totals 270 447 734**
Table 1. Number of Respondents by University, Type of Programme
and Survey Period
* Human Geography and Planning;
** Of these, for 11 students either their university or their participation in an hon-
ours programme or both is unclear.
175
MARCA V. C. WOLFENSBERGER AND G. JOHAN OFFRINGA
roughly three organizational categories: disciplinary, interdisciplinary, and
multidisciplinary honours programmes. The first is organized and paid for by
a department with a focus on one discipline. Interdisciplinary honours pro-
grammes are generally organized and paid for by the university. Students, like
the faculty, come from all departments of the university, and they meet only
in honours. Recently combinations of these types of programmes are being
developed. Finally, multidisciplinary honours programmes bear strong simi-
larities to liberal arts and sciences honours colleges in the United States.
In the pilot that we conducted in 2003–2004, we included 3 populations
and 1 stratified sample, resulting in a total of 270 useful questionnaires. From
the interdisciplinary honours programme at the University of Amsterdam, the
whole population filled in a questionnaire (45 out of 48 participants). As a
matching group from this university, we took a stratified sample from the dis-
ciplines. A total of 85 students filled in the questionnaire during various
courses. The honours population of the disciplinary programme Human
Geography and Planning of the Faculty of Geoscience at University of
Utrecht consisted of 13 students, 12 of whom filled in the questionnaire. We
then asked all 128 first-year students in Human Geography and Planning (a
third, matching population) present during an obligatory course to fill in the
questionnaire. First-year honours students were not included in this popula-
tion. Similar procedures were followed subsequently at the same universities
in Amsterdam and Utrecht in 2005–2007 and at Utrecht University and the
Hanze University of Applied Sciences Groningen in 2010–2011.
The pilot questionnaire consisted mostly of closed questions, focusing on
students’ opinions of fellow students, teachers, courses, general life attitudes,
and socioeconomic background. Also, some questions dealt with study and
classroom behaviour, such as how often students asked questions during
courses and if and how often they had informal contact with faculty. Students
were asked to evaluate qualities of fellow students, teachers, and courses
respectively on a simple 1 to 5 scale (1 = very important; 5 = totally unim-
portant). Additionally, honours students were asked to rank the three most
important reasons (from a list) that they had decided to take part in the hon-
ours programme.
In the 2005–2007 version of the questionnaire, modifications were made
to the pilot version. Some items were slightly rephrased, others were added.
In 2010–2011 a shortened version containing 13 questions about teachers
only was administered as part of a larger questionnaire for another study. The
five (almost) identical questions about teachers that were part of all three data
collections are the subject of our new analyses.
We used regular statistical methods for the analyses, especially Pearson
Chi-Square, Cramer’s V. We also gave the means of scores on the 1–5 scale.
FALL/WINTER 2012
176
QUALITIES HONOURS STUDENTS LOOK FOR IN FACULTY AND COURSES
Although this methodology is perhaps not fully correct, the means help pre-
sent the results in a straightforward manner. In this paper, a result that is sta-
tistically significant refers to a confidence level of 95% (a= 0.05). We com-
pared all honours students versus all non-honours students and—with regard
to the pilot—did the statistics for the two programmes separately (in other
words, interdisciplinary honours versus non-honours students of the
University of Amsterdam and disciplinary honours versus non-honours stu-
dents in Human Geography and Planning at the University of Utrecht).
RESULTS OF THE PILOT STUDY:
HONOURS STUDENTS VERSUS
NON-HONOURS STUDENTS
The honours students, being asked to rate qualities of faculty and cours-
es on a scale of 1 (very important) to 5 (totally unimportant), answered as fol-
lows: most important is that the teachers be inspiring (1.5), that courses fit in
with their personal interests (1.5), that courses be challenging (1.6), that
courses awaken their curiosity (1.8), that teachers be friendly (2.0), and that
the reading materials be interesting (2.0). Honours students rated highly that
teachers teach in a clear and structured way (1.5) and that they have clear cri-
teria for what they want from students (1.7).
The top five highest scores of non-honours students indicated different
priorities. They valued none of the given items as very important (score of 1),
so the means are mostly higher than 2, with the exception of the importance
given to clear and structured teaching and to clear criteria (resp. 1.5; 1.5).
Otherwise, the top five characteristics preferred by the non-honours students
were that the courses fit in with their personal interests (1.8), that study tasks
are clearly structured (1.9), that teachers inspire them (2.0), that courses chal-
lenge them (2.0), and that the reading materials are interesting (2.1). Our new
data confirm these differences with a relatively strong emphasis that honours
students put on the awakening of their curiosity and—as we will see in more
detail—non-honours students’ demand for clearly structured study tasks.
The five highest scoring items for the honours students had to do with
inherent enjoyment and indicated internal motivation. They fit with a learn-
ing context focused on relatedness, autonomy, and competence. Our findings
largely correspond with Stephens and Eison, who in 1987 reported that hon-
ours students showed more intrinsic interest in learning and less in grades.
Our study indicated that honours students also were not as concerned that a
course be important for their career (3.0 versus 2.4 in the control group of the
pilot study and 2.9 versus 2.2 in 2005–2007), and they seemed to care less
about study load
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
177
MARCA V. C. WOLFENSBERGER AND G. JOHAN OFFRINGA
In our research, honours students had a higher average score on the items
that relate to intrinsic motivation and a lower average score on the items that
relate to extrinsic motivation; the pilot study’s control group also scored
intrinsic motivation higher than extrinsic motivation but not as markedly as
for the honours group.
Our data show that honours students not only seem more curious but also
ask more questions during courses than non-honours students (Cramer’s
V=3.1). Almost half of the honours students in the pilot study claimed to ask
questions often during courses while 84% of all non-honours students said
that they either never or only occasionally asked questions during courses. On
average honours students scored 2.5 on a scale ranging from 1 (never) to 4
(very often) versus 2.1 for non-honours students. Our newer data
(2005–2007) confirm this difference: 2.1 for honours versus 1.9 for non-hon-
ours students.
Results of the current study seem to agree with claims by Gerrity et al.
and Robertson that honours students expect their classes to be exciting and
stimulating. Gerrity links this expectation to the family backgrounds of hon-
ours students, among other factors. More honours students’ parents tend to
have undergraduate and graduate degrees. Our study does not indicate this
difference because only some of our questions were related to family back-
ground. More questions about personal attitude and background would be
required for further investigation.
TEACHER AND COURSE QUALITIES
The differences between honours students and students in the control
groups are also pronounced in how the students value the five qualities that
were part of all three data collections. Tables 2, 3, and 4 show that honours
students place higher value on having teachers who are demanding, chal-
lenging, and inspiring than non-honours students; the effect sizes for
“demanding” and “challenging” are around 0.5, which is substantial. Non-
honours students have a stronger preference for clarity regarding study tasks
and criteria (see Tables 5 and 6). All five differences between honours and
non-honours students are visible within all three data collections, i.e. through-
out the years and in different educational contexts (types of honours pro-
gramme, type of university). Further, honours students find it much less
important than non-honours students that courses are useful for their profes-
sion or career (pilot: 3.1 versus 2.4; 2.8 versus 2.2 in 2005–2007; not in
2010–2011). Honours students put more emphasis on courses raising ques-
tions they never thought of before, or bringing new ideas to mind than non-
honours students.
FALL/WINTER 2012
178
QUALITIES HONOURS STUDENTS LOOK FOR IN FACULTY AND COURSES
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
2003–2004 2005–2007 2010–2011
Honours 2.4 2.3 2.4
Non-Honours 2.8 2.8 2.6
Table 2. Mean Scores of Honours Versus Non-Honours Students on
‘That They [Teachers] Are Demanding’
(1 = very important, 5 = totally unimportant)
2003–2004 2005–2007 2010–2011
Honours 1.6 2.1 1.8
Non-Honours 2.0 2.6 2.1
Table 3. Mean Scores of Honours Versus Non-Honours Students on
‘That Teachers Challenge Me’.
(1 = very important, 5 = totally unimportant)
2003–2004 2005–2007 2010–2011
Honours 1.5 1.8 1.6
Non-Honours 2.0 2.0 1.7
Table 4. Mean scores of Scores of Honours Versus Non-Honours
Students on ‘That They [Teachers] Inspire Me’
(1 = very important, 5 = totally unimportant)
2003–2004 2005–2007 2010–2011
Honours 2.5 2.3 1.9
Non-Honours 1.9 1.9 1.8
Table 5. Mean Scores of Honours Versus Non-Honours Students on
‘That Study Tasks Are Clearly Structured/Explained’
(1 = very important, 5 = totally unimportant)
2003–2004 2005–2007 2010–2011
Honours 1.8 1.9 1.7
Non-Honours 1.6 1.8 1.5
Table 6.
Mean Scores of Honours Versus Non-Honours Students on
‘That They Have Clear Criteria for What They Want from Me’
(1 = very important, 5 = totally unimportant)
179
MARCA V. C. WOLFENSBERGER AND G. JOHAN OFFRINGA
Our results further indicate that honours students appreciate relatedness.
When we asked, “How often did you have social contacts with a teacher/fac-
ulty member outside class this last year?,” honours students indicated sig-
nificantly more social contact with teachers than non-honours (Cramer’s
V=0.326). More than half of the non-honours students (53%) never had
social contact with faculty while only 4% often or very often do. Of the hon-
ours students, 22% never had social contact with faculty, and 21% had fre-
quent or very frequent social contact (see Figure 1). However, there were
also differences between the two honours programmes that might relate to
organizational structure. A quarter of the interdisciplinary honours students
never had social contacts with faculty versus 10% of the disciplinary hon-
ours, findings that confirm Baur’s observation that when honours students
had seen “one another in more than one class, [they] had more opportunities
to form meaningful social ties within the academic sphere than was true of
other students” (295).
Inspired by Gerrity’s findings in 1993 that honours students are more
interested than non-honours students in nonacademic activities, we asked stu-
dents about their participation level in extracurricular activities organized by
the department or university, but we did not find any significant correlation.
Our research does not indicate that honours students participate more in
extracurricular activities. Maybe the differences between our findings and
Gerrity’s can be explained by cultural differences and by differences in higher
FALL/WINTER 2012
Figure 1. Frequency of Social Contact with Faculty
Frequency
Very Often Often By Occasion Never
Percent
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Honors
Non-Honors
180
QUALITIES HONOURS STUDENTS LOOK FOR IN FACULTY AND COURSES
education. More research on cultural differences with regard to gifted stu-
dents is needed like that of Peters, who found that academic self-concept is
more correlated with intelligence in the Netherlands than in a Chinese sam-
ple. It would be worthwhile to repeat our research in an American setting, but,
since some phenomena may display themselves differently in different cul-
tural environments, we might also need different ways of investigating.
THE CHOICE OF HONOURS
The overall impression derived from our study is that honours students’
evaluation of their academic environment indicates a high level of intrinsic
motivation. The high grades that they attain are not driven by career orienta-
tion (extrinsic motivation). Honours students appear to be interested in the
subject, in asking new questions, in new knowledge. This impression is rein-
forced by 60% of their responses to why they take part in the honours pro-
gramme, which include “getting a deeper and broader knowledge and under-
standing,” “learning to think critically,” and “having more intellectual chal-
lenge.” Also, the community of their peer honours students appears to be an
important reason for joining an honours programme. External reasons, such
as better qualification for graduate school or career, are of little to no
importance.
CONCLUSION
Our research indicates differences between honours and non-honours stu-
dents in the value that they place on specific qualities of teachers and courses.
Alearning context that is supportive of relatedness, provides freedom, and
encourages academic competence seems to fit honours students well. These
findings could help us formulate some pedagogical and curricular changes in
academic programming. Amentoring relationship with faculty members—
thus fostering relationships—could be part of this honours pedagogy. When
faculty members are personally involved, they transfer their attitudes and val-
ues along with their knowledge. Teachers can then become role models of
scholarly leaders who have the courage to synthesize wisdom, intelligence,
and creativity. Since honours students appreciate freedom, courses designed to
suit their personal interests are advisable. They like demanding teachers and
challenging courses that enlarge their competence without promoting compe-
tition; external outcomes seem to be irrelevant to them.
We hope to see similar research on students participating in honours pro-
grammes in the United States and other countries so that we can join forces
in designing honours programmes that engender commitment, effort, wis-
dom, creativity, and high-quality performance. Such programmes, as
described elsewhere in this issue of JNCHC, can have strong spin-off effects
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
181
MARCA V. C. WOLFENSBERGER AND G. JOHAN OFFRINGA
on the regular curriculum and on the whole institution, ultimately allowing us
to send off graduates who are willing and able to make a meaningful differ-
ence in the world.
REFERENCES
Balkenende, J.P. (2003). Innovatieplatform van start – Opening Academisch
jaar, Tijdschrift voor hoger onderwijs en management, 10(5): 4–6.
Baur, E.J. (1969). Learning in an Honors Program. Improving College and
University Teaching, 291–296.
Clark, L. (2000). A Review of the Research on Personality Characteristics of
Academically Talented College Students. In: Clark, L. & Fuiks (ed.)
Teaching and Learning in Honors, NCHC Monograph, 7–19.
Gerrity, D.A., Lawrence, J.F., & Sedlacek, W.E. (1993). Honors and Non-
Honors Freshmen: Demographics, Attitudes, Interests, and Behaviors.
NACADA Journal, 13(1), 43–52.
Harte, T.B. (1994). Honors and Non-Honors Students: How Different They
Are. The National Honors Report, 15(2): 12–14.
Long, E.C.J. & S. Lange (2002). An Exploratory Study: A Comparison of
Honors & Non-Honors Students. The National Honors Report,
23(1): 20–30.
Martens, R. & Kirschner, P. (2004). How Many Factors Predict Intrinsic
Motivation? A preliminary exploration. Paper presented at Onderwijs
Research Dagen, 31e Proceedings, juni, Utrecht, Nederland.
Peters, W. (1998). The Self-Concept of Able Young Adolescents in China and
the Netherlands: A Comparative Study. Dissertation.
Rinn, A.N., & Plucker, J.A. (2004). We Recruit Them, But Then What? The
Educational and Psychological Experiences of Academically Talented
Undergraduates. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48 (1), 54–67.
Robertson, J.H. (1966). The Superior Students: Characteristics, Aspirations
and Needs. In: J.W. Cohen (Ed.) The Superior Student in American
Higher Education, New York: McGraw-Hill, 50–75.
Ryan, R.M. & E.L. Deci (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the
Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development and Well-Being.
American Psychologist, 55(1): 68–79.
Shushok, F. Jr. (2002). Educating the Best and the Brightest: Collegiate
Honors Programs and the Intellectual, Social and Psychological
Development of Students. Michigan MA: UMI Dissertation Services.
Smith, D.M. (2004). From Location Theory to Moral Philosophy: Views from
a Fringe. In: R. Lee & D.M. Smith (Ed.) Geographies and Moralities:
International Perspectives on Development, Justice and Place. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing, 284–298.
FALL/WINTER 2012
182
QUALITIES HONOURS STUDENTS LOOK FOR IN FACULTY AND COURSES
Stephens, J. & Eison, J.A. (1987). A Comparative Investigation of Honors
and Non-Honors Students. Forum for Honors, fall/winter, 17–25.
Sternberg, R.J. (2004). Leadership is a Decision. Lecture at the Pace Center,
Yale University.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). WICS as a Model of Giftedness. High Ability Studies,
14: 109–139.
Stoller, R. (2004). Honors Selection Processes: A Typology and Some
Reflections. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council,
5(1): 79–86.
van der Vaart, R., Wolfensberger, M.V.C. (2004). Honours in Geography:
What Forms of “Excellence”? Paper presented at the session on
Pedagogic Research in Geography in Higher Education at The 30th
Congress of the International Geographical Union, Glascow, England.
van Eijl, P.J., Wolfensberger, M.V.C., Cadee, M., Siesling, S., Schreve-
Brinkman, E.J., Beer, W.M., Faber G., & Pilot, A. (2003).
Plusprogramma’s als proeftuin. Mededeling 69. IVLOS, UU, Utrecht.
van Eijl, P.J., Wientjes, H., Wolfensberger, M.V.C., Pilot, A. (2004). Het
uitdagen van talent in onderwijs. Notitie voor de Onderwijsraad, IVLOS,
Utrecht, 2004.
Wolfensberger, M.V.C., Jong, N. de, Drayer, A.L. (2012). Learning to Excell:
An Analysis of Honours Programs in Dutch Higher Education.
Groningen, The Netherlands: Professorship Talent Development in
Higher Education and Society.
Wolfensberger, M.V.C., van Eijl, P., Pilot, A. (2004). Honours Programmes as
Laboratories of Innovation: A Perspective from the Netherlands. Journal
of the National Collegiate Honors Council, 5 (1): 115–142.
*******
The authors may be contacted at
M.Wolfensberger@pl.hanze.nl.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
183
Setting Them Free:
Students as Co-Producers of
Honors Education
BOUKE VAN GORP, MARCA V. C. WOLFENSBERGER, AND
NELLEKE DE JONG
UTRECHT UNIVERSITY, THE NETHERLANDS
INTRODUCTION
O
ne of the factors that differentiate honors from regular teaching at the
Faculty of Geosciences at Utrecht University, the Netherlands, is the
freedom that honors students enjoy, a freedom that evokes excellence because
it is focused and targeted. This targeted freedom takes three different shapes
in our honors program and comes with specific challenges for both students
and teachers. While the attractions and advantages of such freedom are both
theoretically and practically significant, our experience has also demonstrat-
ed drawbacks that need to be addressed and resolved in creating effective
honors education.
Frank Aydelotte, one of the founders of honors education (Swarthmore
College Faculty; Pennock; Guzy; Rinn) endorsed the importance of freedom
and autonomy in the earliest beginnings of honors programs in the United
States, and freedom has remained an important focus in the honors literature
ever since. Freedom fosters scholarship in the student’s field of interest
(Robinson; Vallerand et al.); it supports intrinsic motivation and fosters
scholastic excellence (Ryan & Deci; Niemiec & Ryan; Simmons & Page);
and it challenges students to develop an open mindset and step “out of the
box” in order to make great achievements (Dweck). However, freedom also
poses certain challenges to students, teachers, and the faculty in general;
these challenges include guarding a program’s coherence and quality, mar-
keting the freedom in a clear and effective way, and ensuring that students
challenge themselves.
Course evaluations of the honors program of the Faculty of Geosciences
at Utrecht University have demonstrated that students value freedom; they
believe that it enhances their learning and stimulates creativity. They appre-
ciate the opportunities to discover and follow their own fields of interest as
well as to take initiative and responsibility (Wolfensberger, 2008). At the
FALL/WINTER 2012
184
SETTING THEM FREE
same time, this freedom comes with a challenge: freedom is not, in fact, free,
nor is it easy or optional.
The challenges and struggles as well as the rewards that we have experi-
enced might be familiar to honors educators around the world, but they are
also shaped by the particular contexts of our program within the Faculty of
Geosciences, within Utrecht University, and within the Netherlands, contexts
that we will now introduce.
HONORS COLLEGE GEOSCIENCES
AT UTRECHT UNIVERSITY
The Honors College Geosciences accommodates undergraduate students
enrolled in undergraduate programs of earth sciences, physical and human
geography, planning, environmental sciences, and innovation management
within the Faculty of Geoscience. (See Appendix A for a contextual history
of the college.) The aim of the honors college is to contribute to four realms
of a gifted student’s development: a) academic skills, b) geosciences content
(both in-depth and across the disciplines), c) the position of students in
society, and d) personal growth and leadership (Honours College
Geowetenschappen). Students are thus offered opportunities to practice
research skills, become involved in the academic community of the faculty,
do projects that make a societal contribution, and reflect on their positions as
geoscientists in society. Undergraduate research projects and the honors the-
ses offer ample opportunities to gain in-depth knowledge. Other multidisci-
plinary courses as well as extracurricular offerings like the geo home debate
evenings offer “broader geo-content.” Finally, students learn reflective skills
to think about who they are, who they want to be, and how they can use the
honors program to reach their aims.
Students enter the honors college either halfway their freshman year or
at the start of their second year as undergraduates. Both grades and motiva-
tion are important in the selection and admission procedure. After a student
with above average grades applies for the program, an intake meeting takes
place during which both the honors coordinator and the candidate can assess
if the candidate’s motivations and ambitions are in line with program; candi-
dates should be open, for instance, to crossing the borders of their geo-disci-
pline. Not all gifted students find their ambitions matched to those of the pro-
gram. Although students are admitted to the program with the expectation
that they will finish it, they have to apply again each year (Honours College
Geowetenschappen).
The Honors College Geosciences is a college but does not have its own
building or dean. Students follow the majority of their courses in one of the
bachelor’s degree programmes mentioned above. An honors degree consists
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
185
V
AN GORP, WOLFENSBERGER, AND DE JONG
of 210 credits instead of the 180 credits for a regular degree (60 ects is the
equivalent of one year in the European credit transfer system), and honors
students are expected to finish their undergraduate program in three years,
just like regular students. Honors students take 30 credits of honours courses
that substitute for regular courses in the different undergraduate programs;
they write an honors thesis instead of a regular bachelor’s thesis; and they
take 30 credits in additional courses such as honors seminars.
The students within the honors college are treated as one community
even though they are enrolled in different undergraduate programs. Slightly
over a third of the honors credits are spent on courses in which the whole
group participates: the weekly honors seminars, the bimonthly “Geohuis”
(Geo home) debates, and a multidisciplinary project. The remaining credits
are invested in courses that have a disciplinary focus. All honors students
write an honors thesis for 15 credits, with requirements determined within
their discipline. Honors students see each other regularly, do projects togeth-
er, and end each academic year with an honors conference where they present
the outcomes of their (research) projects. Honors students are thus part of an
honors community, and freedom is an integral value within this community.
TARGETED FREEDOM
The honors program of the Faculty of Geosciences at Utrecht University
offers its students “targeted freedom” aimed at academic and personal devel-
opment. This freedom comes in three guises: (1) freedom for students to dis-
cover their own field(s) of interest and to follow their passion; (2) freedom to
develop their own learning strategies; and (3) freedom to be involved in and
responsible for their own education. These three kinds of freedom, each
described in detail below, are interrelated and are integral to the honors pro-
gram but at the same time can deter or undermine the value of the honors
experience for both teachers and students and so must be balanced by struc-
tured requirements and collaboration between students and faculty.
PASSION
Honors students are invited to explore their fields of interest both inside
and outside the geo-sciences and to discover how to combine these interests
in their education. Pursuing their passion should evoke excellence because it
motivates students to persist in deliberate practice (Ericsson; Vallerand,
Blanchard, et al.; Fredericks et al.; Bonneville-Roussy et al.).
The exploration of passions within our honors college is future-oriented,
focusing on students’ ambitions for their future lives as members of society,
researchers, policy makers, consultants, entrepreneurs, or teachers. To learn
how to handle this freedom, students learn to reflect on their personal
FALL/WINTER 2012
186
SETTING THEM FREE
development. Freedom to follow your passion implies that you know how to
choose between many alternatives, and over the years we have noted that
choosing does not always come naturally to gifted students. Honors students
often find it difficult to focus on one ambition or to set priorities because dur-
ing their educational careers they have combined many tasks and performed
all of them well. Other honors students might not yet have discovered their
passions and ambitions or do not connect those to their education. When stu-
dents are not clear what their fields of interests are or when they still want to
pursue the whole field of physical geography or environmental science, they
might get into trouble when they have to choose a topic for a research pro-
ject. They might vacillate between many alternatives or just not find a topic
that really excites them. To help students deal with this freedom and discov-
er their passions, ambitions, and strengths, we ask them to write a mission
statement.
According to yearly evaluations from 1998 onwards, students especially
value this first kind of freedom. In a 2008 survey, alumni explicitly mention
this freedom within an existing overall structure as a strength the program
should maintain (Sweijen & Wolfensberger). The 2011–2012 evaluation
again confirms how important students find this freedom (see Appendix B).
The autonomy that the honors program offers students has helped them dis-
cover and follow their ambitions. As one example among many, a student
used the undergraduate honors program to combine his interest in art with
geography, eventually leading to a PhD thesis that he defended in March
2012 (Zebracki). But there are many more stories of students who discovered
their drive or their passion within the honors program. A detailed case study
and numerous quotations from students and alumni are available in
Wolfensberger (2008) as well as Sweijen & Wolfensberger.
In practice, this freedom means that students can choose the topic not just
for their honors theses but for some of their courses such as the Creative
Challenge Project, an open-ended course where students not only choose the
topic of their individual projects but also set the goals, decide on the output,
and set their own deadlines. The aim of the course is to stimulate students to
step “outside the box” and do projects that do not offer the comfort of regular
course work. Finishing a research project for an honors thesis requires an even
more substantial amount of time and effort from the students. A well-chosen
topic that matches students’ fields of interests or ambitions is an important
motivator during the process. At the same time, requirements for the thesis
place limits on students’ freedom that include the rigors of original research
and strict deadlines. These rules apply equally to all students writing a thesis
and place limitations on their free time as well as free choice. Nevertheless,
some honors students are able to do research abroad or in an internship.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
187
V
AN GORP, WOLFENSBERGER, AND DE JONG
Although all honors students support the notion that a well-chosen topic
keeps them motivated, they do not all have an easy time coming up with a
researchable topic even though they have practice at proposing their own top-
ics in other honors courses. Therefore, we ask them to start their search for a
suitable topic early on and brainstorm with teachers about their ideas.
Students have also organized peer feedback with each other.
LEARNING STRATEGIES AND BEHAVIOURS
Autonomy in learning strategies and behaviours is important in fostering
motivation (Niemiec & Ryan). Honors students are invited to explore which
learning strategy suits them best. Although the regular undergraduate pro-
gram does not prescribe how students must learn, lectures, coursework, and
exams do set a framework. We think it is important for honors students not
just to be aware of learning strategies and behaviours but also to combine dif-
ferent strategies and behaviours (Hayes).
Honors students are selected based on their motivations and grades.
Good grades mean that the students have mastered the way exams and assign-
ments are organized, but these are not necessarily the ways students learn the
best or most. Some students might not be aware of their optimal learning
strategy as they are not really challenged to learn new things. Students in the
honors program, though, are granted the freedom to find out how they learn
best both as individuals and within a group. Being able to work with other
motivated and gifted students is an opportunity that honors students highly
value in the program (Schippers). Unlike group work in regular courses, hon-
ors students do not have to drag along unmotivated group members or com-
pensate for work from students who are too easily satisfied. Working with
other talented and motivated students on a research project challenges them
to figure out how to achieve outstanding outcomes. Collaboration also con-
fronts them with qualities of their own work that they might have taken for
granted, for example how they tackle problems or plan projects. They might
thus discover their strengths and preferences but also learn to value the input
and strategies of their fellow students.
Freedom related to learning strategies and behaviors is visible in the stu-
dent-led classes where students organize the course and choose what class-
room activities match their preferences for learning. Such freedom is built in
many other projects within the honors program, and in many courses—such
as the multidisciplinary project, learning research, and creative challenge pro-
jects—students cooperate in small groups of two to four members.
FALL/WINTER 2012
188
SETTING THEM FREE
INVOLVEMENT
Honors students are asked to be involved in their education and in the
honors program. This involvement requires leadership: taking responsibility
and making deliberate choices. This third freedom is thus strongly related to
the other two kinds of freedom because it means that students are trusted to
make their own plans and, at least partly, to set their own learning aims. In
some courses, such as Creative Challenge Project and Honours Learning
Research: Human Geography and Planning, students are free to plan their
own schedule and activities with no official start-time or deadline. Students
recognize and value this freedom (see Appendix B).
Involvement and responsibility mean more than taking charge of your
own learning aims or planning. Typically honors students should be chal-
lenged to become more than just (critical) consumers of education. We invite
students to become co-producers and co-owners of the honors college. Some
honors students thus organize the yearly honors conference; others publish
the yearly honors booklet; again others prepare student-led classes or make a
presentation at a Geo home meeting. Honors students also participate in infor-
mation meetings of the honors college, and some do research projects on hon-
ors education. Students find this involvement an important part of their edu-
cation. In the 2008–2009 yearly evaluation of the honors program, students
stressed that they wanted to have a formal say in the honors college. As a
result, the honors educational committee was founded by the students as an
advisory board. Besides advising the program leaders, this board organizes
mentors for newly arrived honors students and takes the lead in the yearly
evaluations.
TARGETED FREEDOM IN PRACTICE
The freedoms we have implemented within the Geosciences Honors
College are advantageous to students but often pose challenges for teachers,
for instance in the student-led honors classess. These classes take place with-
in the curriculum of honors seminars, which are organized weekly for all
undergraduate honors students in the Faculty of Geosciences. The aim of the
honors seminars is to make connections between academic skills, “geo-con-
tent,” the student’s position in society, and the student’s personal development.
These seminars have been part of the honors program from the early begin-
nings in the late 1990s. Since the fall of 2011, the seminars have been grouped
in five subsequent themes: leadership, differences in academic disciplines,
writing skills, fieldwork and practice, and entrepreneurship and employment.
In 2012 the following themes will be heroes, politics of sciences, writing a
research proposal, ethics and choices, and logics and argumentation.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
189
V
AN GORP, WOLFENSBERGER, AND DE JONG
The student-led honors classes that are part of the honors seminars are
organized five or six times a year by a small group of students. Student-led
classes, which are not graded, are included in the program because they
involve students in the program, provide practice in organizational skills, and
develop their ability to combine their fields of interest with the program. The
students are responsible for choosing the topics for these classes, which have
ranged from urban development in earthquake-prone areas to electric cars,
from fair trade to the geopolitics of the North Pole, from an entrepreneurial
game to different academic views on recent developments in Libya.
All three freedoms are involved in these student-led classes. Because stu-
dents are free to select the topic, they can connect the class to their own fields
of interest; because they are free to choose the classroom activities, they can
opt for experiences that fit their learning strategies; and because they are
responsible for organizing these classes, they learn to take ownership.
The program has a long tradition of these student-led classes, which are
highly valued by the students as demonstrated by evaluations as recent as
2008–2009 and as far back as 1998–1999 (Wolfensberger, 2009). More
recently, the 2011–2012 evaluations show that 77% of the respondents (high-
ly) value the freedom to organize part of their own education and 78% feel
that organizing parts of their own education is an important skill (Schippers).
The student-led classes can also be considered a success because, although
student-led classes might be organized at the last minute, no students have
failed to deliver the class.
Over the years, most of these student-led classes have taken the shape of
lectures by one or two guest lecturers either from within and from outside of
the faculty. Most of these guest lecturers are enthusiastic and honoured to be
invited; they give interesting presentations and leave room for questions and
debate. A few student-led classes have taken a very different shape, such as
role-playing, debate, fieldtrips, or simulation games. Students acquire orga-
nizing skills as they arrange one or several guest lecturers or plan the struc-
ture of the meeting. Not all persons they invite as speakers immediately reply
or agree, so they have to develop alternatives as well.
At the same time, the student-led classes do not always meet all their
aims or live up to the teachers’ expectations. Although students value the
opportunity to shape part of their education themselves, the learning effect
from organizing the student-led classes seems a bit meagre. In the 2011–2012
evaluation, about half of the fifteen respondents to this question felt that they
had learned (a lot) from these classes whereas two said they had learned noth-
ing at all (Schippers). This result from the evaluation roughly coincides with
teachers’ perceptions. Most of the student-led classes have a “traditional”
character, resembling ordinary lectures: students sit and listen while a (guest)
FALL/WINTER 2012
190
SETTING THEM FREE
teacher speaks. Organizing such a seminar might require little more than
inviting speakers, so students may feel they have not learned much from
organizing a class because they have given little attention to the possibilities
of the topic itself, to possible classroom activities, or to the aims of the meet-
ing. Also, if students are active members of student organizations, as quite a
number of them are, they have invited speakers before and will not really be
challenged by doing that.
All the targeted freedoms are combined in these student-led classes but
do not automatically lead to creativity. We might expect honors students, as
critical “consumers” of education, to have clear opinions on education and on
what works best for them, so we might expect them to step “out of the box”
when they are free to organize their own education. Honors teachers are fre-
quently surprised, therefore, that students choose to organize lectures. Is this
the kind of education gifted students prefer? Do they simply enjoy sitting
back and listening for two hours when the topic is not part of their core cur-
riculum? How much creative thinking is involved in the organization of such
a seminar? Are students using the freedom they are granted to the fullest? And
what examples have teachers been setting?
To start off with the last question: if teachers are somewhat disappointed
in the students’ creativity, then we need to look in the mirror and wonder how
creative we are in designing honors seminars or education in general. We
hope to be inspired by students, but what they offer might be a reflection of
what they “learn” by taking classes and courses at the Faculty. Perhaps, we
have to step out of the box ourselves more often and find different classroom
activities that fit our aims.
Setting the example ourselves might induce more creativity in students.
On the other hand, if we feel that students do not use the freedom offered to
the fullest and take the easy road when organizing a seminar, then we have to
check whether the aims and requirements are clear. Demanding creativity is
far-fetched, but students should learn to think beyond content into aims (what
do you want to achieve with the seminar? what do you want your audience to
learn?) and into what classroom activities are suited to reach these aims.
Experiences over the years have shown that creativity cannot be achieved
simply through a list of conditions and requirements, which seem to conflict
with freedom, responsibility, and ownership, but we need some such lists to
have students move beyond thinking about content.
To the teachers, these student-led classes thus pose a challenge. Students
clearly do not fail at organizing a class, but not all classes live up to the
expectations. Freedom means handing over responsibility and thus having
confidence in the students, not meddling with their strategies or trying to re-
take charge when students do last-minute work. At the same time, freedom
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
191
V
AN GORP, WOLFENSBERGER, AND DE JONG
does not mean total laissez-faire. Students ought to have secure back-up and
advice, to know the teacher is involved and cares about the seminar, but over
the years few students have come to their teachers for advice, instead per-
ceiving the student-led classes as do-it-yourself events. Some students who
did come by with (practical) questions proved to have all sorts of original and
creative ideas but perhaps not the experience and confidence to try these
ideas out. Teachers need to invite students for consultation and brainstorm-
ing, to show they are willing to share their teaching experience with the stu-
dents, without meddling in their plans. Students can thus take the lead while
counting on a teacher to guide and advise them.
CONCLUSION
Many honors programs offer degrees of freedom or autonomy for their
students as a necessary condition for the fullest development of the students’
talents. Such freedom might come in many guises. The honors program of the
Faculty of Geosciences fosters three kinds of freedom: passion, learning
strategies and behavior, and involvement. These freedoms are valued by
students and have proven effective over the years but are not easy. Our
student-led classes are a successful component of the honors program but do
not seem to reach their full potential. The targeted freedoms offered in this
case often translate into do-it-yourself education and result in traditional lec-
tures. Students seem to focus on content and not on organizing a class in cre-
ative ways.
Freedom, it turns out, can only lead to extraordinary achievements when
it comes with conditions and requirements. Such requirements have to be
clear but also relevant to the students. Freedom thus needs to be scaffolded,
especially in honors programs because critical consumers of education do not
necessarily know how to organize education. Co-ownership is not the same
as co-producership, which asks for a very different role for teachers, who
have to step back but still be fully involved; this role takes teachers beyond
the classroom and makes them advisors and counsellors as well as teachers.
Student-led classes are therefore not more time-efficient for teachers and
should not be misinterpreted as a quick fix toward greater teacher efficiency,
a topical debate given the shrinking state funding for Dutch universities. We
hope we have shown that that freedom should encourage creativity, not sim-
ple efficiency, and that, for both students and teachers, it is never cheap or
easy but is consistently rewarding.
REFERENCES
Bok, M., Koster, A. & Van der Vaart, R. (2012). Honours Colleges aan de UU,
notitie Universiteit Utrecht.
FALL/WINTER 2012
192
SETTING THEM FREE
Bonneville-Roussy, A., Lavigne, G. & Vallerand, R. (2011). When passion
leads to excellence, the case of musicians. Psychology of Music, 39(1):
123–138.
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: the new psychology of success. New York:
Random House.
Ericsson, K. (2007). Deliberate practice and the modifiability of body and
mind: Toward a science of the structure and acquisition of expert and elite
performance. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 38(1): 4–34.
Fredricks, J. Alfred, C. & Eccles, J. (2010). Developing and Fostering
Passion in Academic and Nonacademic Domains. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 54(1): 18–30.
Friedman, B. A., & Mandel, R. G. (2011). Motivation predictors of college
student academic performance and retention. Journal of College Student
Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 13(1): 1–15.
Guzy, A. (1999). Writing in the other margin: A survey of and guide to com-
position courses and projects in college and university honors programs
(Doctoral dissertation, New Mexico State University, 1999).
Dissertation Abstracts International: A. The Humanities and Social
Sciences, 60, 2011.
Harms, L. & Hogenstijn, M. (2001). The Excellent Trace. The National
Honors Report, 27(1), 8–10.
Hayes, C. (2006). The integrated student, fostering holistic development to
advance learning. About Campus 10(6): 17–23.
Honours College Geowetenschappen (2011). Studiegids Honours College
Geowetenschappen 2011–2012, digital course manual available at
<http://www.uu.nl/SiteCollectionDocuments/GEO/PDF/2011-2012_
STUDIEGIDS_honours_college.pdf>
Honours College Geowetenschappen, website of the Honors College
Geosciences at the official webpage of the Faculty of Geosciences
Utrecht University, <http://www.uu.nl/faculty/geosciences/NL/Onderwi
js/honourscollege/Pages/default.aspx>(accessed spring 2012).
Niemiec, C. & Ryan, R. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in
the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational prac-
tice. Theory and Research in Education,7(2): 133–144.
Pennock, J. (1953). The Swarthmore Honors System. The Journal of Higher
Education 24(2): 57–63.
Rinn, Anne N. (2003). Rhodes scholarships, Frank Aydelotte, and collegiate
honors education. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council,
4.1 (2003): 27–39.
Robinson, N. (1997). The role of universities and colleges in educating gift-
ed undergraduates. Peabody Journal of Education: 217–236.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
193
V
AN GORP, WOLFENSBERGER, AND DE JONG
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facili-
tation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.
American Psychologist, 13: 273–289.
Schippers, V. (2012). Analyse jaarevaluatie Honours College
Geowetenschappen 2011–2012.
Simmons, A.M. & M. Page (2010). Motivating Students through power and
choice. English Journal 100(1): 65–69.
Swarthmore College Faculty (1941). An adventure in education: Swarthmore
College under Frank Aydelotte. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Sweijen, S. & Wolfensberger, M. (2008). Alumni over de meerwaarde van
hun honours programma. Verkennend onderzoek naar de honours alum-
ni van de opleiding Sociale Geografie en Planologie Universiteit Utrecht,
Mededelingen nr. 86, Interfacultair Instituut voor Lerarenopleiding,
Onderwijsontwikkeling en Studievaardigheden Universiteit Utrecht,
Utrecht.
Vallerand, R. J., Blanchard, C., Mageau, G. A., Koestner, R., Ratelle, C. F., &
L´eonard, M., et al. (2003). Les passions de l’ˆame: On obsessive and har-
monious passion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85:
756–767.
Vallerand, R., Salvy, S., Mageau, G., Elliot, A., Denis, P., Grouzet, F. et al.
(2007). On the role of passion in performance. Journal of Personality,
75(3): 505–534.
Van der Vaart, R. & Wolfensberger, M. (2004) Honours in geography: what
forms of excellence? Paper presented at the Higher Education Sessions
of the International Geographical Congress, Glasgow, August 2004.
Wolfensberger, M. (2008). Honors programma Geowetenschappen – Een
casusbeschrijving over talentontwikkeling door een honors programma
en de meerwaarde ervan, Mededeling nr. 87, Interfacultair Instituut voor
Lerarenopleiding, Onderwijsontwikkeling en Studievaardigheden
Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht.
Wolfensberger, M., ed. (2009). Honours Evaluatie 2009, evaluatie uit voor-
gaande bundels, Faculteit Geowetenschappen, Universiteit Utrecht.
Zebracki, M (2012) Public artopia: art in public space in question.
Dissertation. Pallas Publications, Amsterdam.
*******
The authors may be contacted at
b.vangorp@uu.nl.
FALL/WINTER 2012
194
SETTING THEM FREE
APPENDIX A
HONORS EDUCATION AT THE FACULTY OF GEOSCIENCES,
UTRECHT UNIVERSITY—A SHORT HISTORY
The Department of Human Geography and Planning first experimented with
honors education in 1995 (Harms, L. & Hogenstijn, 2001). From 1997
onwards the department offered a fully fledged honors program
(Wolfensberger, 2008). This was one of the early honors initiatives in the
Netherlands. From 2003 onwards the Dutch educational field and the State
Ministry of Education became more and more aware of the necessity to
accommodate talented students with additional challenges and opportunities.
In 2003 the government discussed a report titled “Het opschudden van de
gelijkheidsdeken,” a telling title that was translated into Lifting the blanket of
equality by Van der Vaart and Wolfensberger (2004). This report presented a
clear breach with a “tradition” of equality thinking in Dutch education in
which “extra staff time and effort tends to be spent on weaker students (more
tutorial help, making and grading of exam retakes, etc.)” (Van der Vaart and
Wolfensberger, 2004: 3). With two national programs Ruim Baan voor Talent
(2004–2007) and Sirius (2008–2012) experiments in and developments of
honors programs were supported.
Since 2008 talented students of all the undergraduate programs of the facul-
ty of Geosciences have the opportunity to participate in the faculty-wide hon-
ors college. The Honors College Geosciences aims to accommodate the 5 to
10% best performing students, but currently accommodates approximately 50
students (5.5%). Because of their longer tradition in honors education and the
larger number of students in the department of Human Geography and
Planning this groups of students has in the past years outnumbered partici-
pants from the other departments. However, the group is becoming more
mixed every year.
Although honors education is anchored in Dutch education by now, the cur-
rent times are exciting times. The State Ministry of Education and Utrecht
University have agreed to increase membership of honors colleges from 5%
in 2006, to 9% in 2010 and even 12% in 2016 (Bok, Koster and Van der Vaart
2012). Moreover, the University of Utrecht “updates” its educational model
for bachelor’s level education, and this has consequences for the organization
and structure of the honors programs.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
195
V
AN GORP, WOLFENSBERGER, AND DE JONG
APPENDIX B
STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF FREEDOM
The 2011–2012 evaluation of the Honors College Geosciences demonstrate
that students recognize and value the targeted freedom. Out of the 58 original
participants 27 completed the detailed evaluation form. Of these respondents
96% feels that the honors program grants students more responsibility than the
regular program. Students recognize this responsibility for example in making
their own planning and setting their own deadlines in certain projects. Making
their own planning is seen as important by 96% of the respondents. In their
explanations some students indicate that making your own planning makes
you more responsible and offers important lessons to be learnt.
All respondents claim that they find it important that they can follow their own
passions and 70% of them feels that the honors program offers more freedom
to follow their own interests en passions than the regular program. They rec-
ognize this freedom in projects where they can choose their own topic.
Source: Analyse jaarevaluatie Honours College Geowetenschappen [Analysis, Annual
Evaluation of Geoscience Honors College] 2011–2012
FALL/WINTER 2012
196 JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
197
Building a Vibrant
Honors Community among
Commuter Students
STAN VAN GINKEL
WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY, THE NETHERLANDS
PIERRE VAN EIJL AND ALBERTPILOT
UTRECHT UNIVERSITY, THE NETHERLANDS
JOHN ZUBIZARRETA
COLUMBIA COLLEGE, U.S.
INTRODUCTION
R
esearch has shown that honors programs often provide active networks
of students that contribute to the development of the students’ talents (De
Boer & van Eijl; van Eijl, Pilot & Wolfensberger). These contact networks are
also described as “learning communities” (Wilson et al.) and “honors com-
munities” (van Eijl, Pilot & Wolfensberger). Such communities foster pro-
ductive interaction among students, teachers, and other professionals during
their affiliation with the program and beyond. As a result of such connections,
students discover new learning opportunities and gain experience in organi-
zational and leadership skills. In honors programs, in particular, these con-
tacts are an essential component of what defines and separates honors activ-
ities as special enhancements of a student’s overall educational experience
(van Eijl, Wolfensberger & Pilot). Our study focuses on design principles,
key characteristics, strategies, and successful examples that characterize the
development of honors communities.
We focus particularly on commuter students because they comprise the
majority of honors students in the Netherlands. Nearly all universities in the
Netherlands are city universities, where students either rent rooms in the
neighborhood or live at home. One of the challenges for an honors director is
to create a vibrant honors community within this specific context. We make
the assumption that for commuter students a more careful and intentional
implementation of an honors community is necessary because most students
leave campus when classes are finished (Jacoby). And, as Kuh, Gonyea and
Palmer found in their research, commuter students are overall less engaged
FALL/WINTER 2012
198
BUILDING AVIBRANT HONORS COMMUNITY
than students who live on campus. Extra activities have to be organized and
strategically timed to suit these students, and the challenge is complicated by
competition with numerous other events taking place in the city. Our study
analyzes five different honors communities of commuter students in order to
suggest some best practices for creating maximum benefits for students.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Our focus on communities in education is supported by constructivist
learning theories, which assume that learners construct knowledge in an
active manner within an authentic context (Brown & Campione). Socio-con-
structivist learning theories further suggest that learning is more effective
when it occurs in a social context (Wenger) rather than as an individual, iso-
lated activity that usually occurs in a classroom. The learning theory of situ-
ated cognition (Greeno) states that learning is embedded in social interactions
among people in a specific situation and has a positive effect on personal
development. For example, when newcomers join an established community,
they develop critical knowledge and practical skills by observing and per-
forming tasks in that community while learning how the group works, thus in
time becoming full participants.
McMillan & Chavis consider a community in general as “a feeling that
members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and
to the group, and a shared faith that members’ needs will be met through their
commitment to be together” (9). Cross defines learning communities more
specifically as “groups of people engaged in intellectual interaction for the
purpose of learning” (4). Cross combines the concept of learning communi-
ties with the design of a curriculum and cites the structuring of the program
and the frequency of contacts between students as important factors.
Wilson, Ludwig-Hardman, Thornam, and Dunlap also stress the connec-
tion with the curriculum by introducing the concept of a “bounded learning
community.” According to these researchers, a learning community is bound-
ed by a particular course or curriculum. Participating students collaborate
with other students and a teacher, working together within a fixed timetable
and with an explicit requirement to seek contact with others by communicat-
ing and working online; the teacher plays a crucial role in facilitating the cre-
ation of such a learning community. Besides factors such as “shared goals of
the community” and “safe and supporting conditions,” teachers are a critical
component of learning communities (Sherin, Mendez & Louis; Shulman &
Sherin); their task is to provide the infrastructure for work and interaction,
model effective collaboration, monitor and assess learning, provide feedback,
troubleshoot and resolve problems, and establish trusting relationships with
students (Wilson et al. 8).
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
199
V
AN GINKEL, V
AN EIJL, PILOT, AND ZUBIZARRETA
The structure and dynamics of learning communities vary depending on
the characteristics of the program. Although there are several existing mod-
els for the development of a community (Tuckman; Wenger; Wilson et al.),
three broad stages can be distinguished. In the case of a bounded learning
community, these stages can be termed initiation, participation, and closure.
Wilson et al. explain the stages as follows: “Students are asked to engage in
a pre-defined sequence where they first learn the ropes, then enter into inten-
sive interaction with peers, then conclude the experience with reflection and
some kind of ritualized closure experience” (11). Within such a community,
not every member is equally active, creating layers of participation: the core
group, active members, and passive members (Hanraets, Potters & Jansen).
Another characteristic of the community structure is the existence of signifi-
cant networks (Roxå & Mårtensson) that take place in both formal and infor-
mal situations.
Such communities can enhance learning outcomes (Lankveld & Volman;
Tinto & Russo), increase the pace of study (Eggens), raise the level of reflec-
tion (Cross; Tinto), improve the attitude of students (Tinto & Russo), and
strengthen emotional support among students (Lankveld & Volman).
Furthermore, these contact networks can influence the extent to which stu-
dents interact outside classrooms (Tinto & Russo), support a positive evalua-
tion of the program (Light), and create a “sense of community” (McMillan &
Chavis). This latter aspect is a challenge for many honors directors and teach-
ers (Koh, Chaffee & Goodman) because education tailored to high-achieving,
motivated, and talented students—particularly those in honors programs—
should also take place in an atmosphere of excellence in order to empower
the students (van der Valk, Grunefeld & Pilot). This atmosphere or culture of
excellence is frequently mentioned as an important characteristic of an hon-
ors program (Ford; Mariz; Slavin; van Eijl, Pilot & Wolfensberger).
Previous research has shown that communities are essential to many hon-
ors programs (De Boer & van Eijl, 2010), but we know little about the spe-
cific factors and mechanisms for success. This knowledge is needed to estab-
lish design principles for community development in the context of com-
muter students in honors. The following research questions served as a guide
for our analysis of several case studies:
1. What characterizes honors communities of commuter students?
2. What are the functions of honors communities for commuter students and
faculty?
3. What strategies, factors, and design principles promote community build-
ing among commuter students in honors programs?
FALL/WINTER 2012
200
BUILDING AVIBRANT HONORS COMMUNITY
METHOD
In this exploratory study, a mixed methods approach was used for both
data collection and data analysis (Creswell & Plano Clark). Within this
approach, qualitative and quantitative methods are combined because
answering each research question requires a combination of different types of
data. To achieve a set of initial design principles for community building
among commuter students, we conducted a cross-case analysis in the
Netherlands (Bryman). From four universities, the following five cases were
selected: Utrecht Law College; Professional School of Arts; Top Class
Healthcare; Honors Program in Biology; and Interdisciplinary Honors
Program. Our data collection was based on interviews, questionnaires, and
document analysis. Furthermore, we interviewed teachers and students from
different American honors programs in order to gain insight into (1) the key
characteristics and additional qualities of honors communities, (2) their func-
tions, and (3) development strategies. The results of these interviews and
insights were arranged to present a basic set of characteristics, functions, and
strategies. This framework was used to conduct an interpretative analysis of
information on the five Dutch case studies with a member check for confir-
mation and specific case details.
The yield of the study consists of three tables presenting the extent to
which the key characteristics/additional qualities, functions, and strategies to
develop communities are recognizable in the Dutch case studies of commu-
nities within the population of commuter students. These tables can be found
in the appendices. In addition, the characteristics, functions, and strategies are
scored for each case study, with each judged on a three-point scale: “+” (fully
present), “+/-” (partly present), or “-” (not achieved). We used the criterion
“fully” when eighty percent of the students acted according to at least eighty
percent of the criteria (Juran). If none or just one or two of the students acted
according to the formulated characteristics, functions, and strategies, we used
the term “not achieved.” The term “partly” refers to outcomes in between
“not achieved” and “fully achieved.”
RESULTS OF THE INTERVIEWS IN THE U.S.
At the NCHC conferences in Kansas City (2010) and Phoenix (2011),
eight interviews were conducted with teachers and eight with students from
various honors programs of different American universities. Interviews with
NCHC-recommended site visitors at the NCHC conference in Philadelphia
(2007) were also included (van Eijl, Wolfensberger & Pilot). The interviews
with honors teachers revealed that they considered honors students to be the
prime members of the honors community and that they saw themselves as
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
201
V
AN GINKEL, V
AN EIJL, PILOT, AND ZUBIZARRETA
catalysts for creating a community among honors students. Both teachers and
students indicated that developing a sense of community was crucial for the
formation of study groups, the stimulation of personal growth, and the devel-
opment of effective study habits.
The interviews further showed that size, structure, and level of activity
and interaction vary among honors communities. Two types of communities
can be described as (1) minimal learning communities with little contact
among students and (2) living-learning communities where students live
together and have intensive contact with each other. Living-learning commu-
nities are common because many American universities have campuses
where students live in dormitories. Other universities have more commuter
students (i.e., students who live a distance from the university) and are thus
similar to the Dutch situation in which students rent a room near the univer-
sity and continue to travel back to the family home.
From the interviews, several characteristics of honors programs emerged
that may strengthen the sense of community among students. First, mutual
contacts are more easily made if students are in the same class or group.
Second, these contacts are enhanced by the use of “linked courses” in which
students study together for several courses. Third, these contacts become
more intensive if students work closely together on a challenging task in the
context of a project.
In addition, honors staffs in U.S. universities regularly organize social
and extracurricular activities that deepen the bonding of the community. One
example is a sponsored event such as “Pizzas and Profs,” where students
come together with teachers in an informal way to discuss course topics.
Other such efforts to bridge students’ learning experiences within and outside
the classroom include guest speakers and excursions. The interweaving of
social and professional activities helps create a seamless learning environ-
ment where students’ intellectual, social, and personal lives can come togeth-
er. Another important factor in promoting community is a permanent place or
shared accommodation for students on the university campus.
CASE STUDIES ON HONORS COMMUNITIES
WITH COMMUTER STUDENTS
From previous literature and the interviews conducted with American
honors teachers and students, the following five key characteristics of honors
communities can be posited: a network with frequent contacts, a shared pas-
sion for challenge and excellence, a sense of community and shared owner-
ship, a culture of excellence, and a common interaction repertoire (see Table
2 in the Appendices). Accompanying these key characteristics are some addi-
tional qualities such as a core group of active students, shared status and
FALL/WINTER 2012
202
BUILDING AVIBRANT HONORS COMMUNITY
interests, a safe environment for encouraging the development of talents, a
physical location for honors students, and the opportunity to live together. In
order to meet our definition of a fully developed community, all key charac-
teristics have to be present. The additional qualities provide a more complete
picture of the community.
In addition to the key characteristics and associated qualities, the func-
tions of communities and the strategies to build honors communities specifi-
cally within the context of commuter students are further arranged within
three matrices to match the five Dutch case studies (see Tables 2, 3 and 4).
First, we will present a short description of the five cases.
UTRECHT LAW COLLEGE (ULC)
The Utrecht Law College in the research-oriented Utrecht University
provides a three-year honors program for a Bachelor of Law. This program
focuses on motivated students who are willing to take the initiative to deep-
en and extend their education. Seventy-five places are available annually, and
applications outnumber available places three to one. During the program,
students gain experience through internships, extra assignments, research
projects, guest lectures, and legal practice courses. Students of the program
have formed their own association called Sirius, which organizes an impres-
sive range of social and extra-curricular activities.
THE PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL OF ARTS UTRECHT (PSAU)
PSAU is a selective, interdisciplinary, one-year master’s program orga-
nized by Utrecht University (UU) in collaboration with the School of Arts &
Technology Utrecht (University of Applied Arts Utrecht, HKU).
Approximately ten to fifteen master’s students from various BA disciplines
can be admitted to the program. This master’s program is divided into a pro-
fession-oriented semester and a more research-oriented semester. The first
semester consists of challenging real-life tasks involving external clients.
During this period, PSAU and HKU students with specific knowledge and
expertise work together in groups in order to create a computer game or doc-
umentary. In the next research-oriented semester, the PSAU students write
their thesis, sometimes combined with an internship. In addition, students
have many opportunities to take courses at other universities.
TOP CLASS HEALTHCARE
Bachelor students from the Faculty of Healthcare at the University of
Applied Sciences Utrecht (HU) attend the Top Class program on top of their
regular disciplinary bachelor’s program. The objective of the honors program
is for students to focus on personal development in relation to their field of
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
203
V
AN GINKEL, V
AN EIJL, PILOT, AND ZUBIZARRETA
study and to acquire skills beyond their own discipline. The size of the group
averages between twenty and twenty-five students, which is about five per-
cent of the total number in the regular program. During this two-and-a-half-
year program, students develop skills in leadership, collaboration (by partic-
ipating in multidisciplinary teams), research, and innovation (by discovering
new methods in healthcare). Students who participate in this Top Class are
involved in special projects, and they learn to collaborate with students from
other disciplines within the Faculty of Healthcare.
HONORS PROGRAM IN BIOLOGY
The Honors Program in Biology at Utrecht University is offered in addi-
tion to the regular biology curriculum. This program, specially developed for
approximately fifteen to twenty motivated and talented biology students,
broadly consists of five parts: thematic meetings with discussions, using
(popular) academic books and articles; a group assignment in which students
perform all (professional) activities necessary to write a book, including writ-
ing chapters, peer feedback, editing, lay-out, making illustrations, and pre-
senting the product in a self-organized symposium; an individual or group
assignment in which students prepare and perform a challenging educational
session in a (first-year) course for their fellow students; performing an indi-
vidual assignment (honors thesis) focused on research or professional prac-
tice; and participation in the interdisciplinary honors program of the Faculty
of Science. In 2010, a number of students wrote and published a book on top-
ics that will be of importance within the field of biology in the twenty-first
century; in 2011, the theme of the students’ book was “Synthetic Eden,”
focused on various aspects of biotechnology; and in 2012 the theme was
“Sustainability.”
INTERDISCIPLINARY HONORS PROGRAM
This three-year program at the University of Applied Sciences Leiden is
offered in addition to the regular curriculum. Approximately twenty-five stu-
dents from different disciplines in this university may be admitted to the pro-
gram. Ambitious students interested in interdisciplinary problems are given
real-world assignments by faculty members or external clients, and each stu-
dent works with students from different disciplines in smaller thematic
groups. Examples of program assignments are innovation in a virtual envi-
ronment, diagnosis of Lyme disease, and new acquisition methods for chari-
ties. The students have their own space to work on assignments and engage
in informal contact, and they are guided by teachers committed to developing
their talents.
FALL/WINTER 2012
204
BUILDING AVIBRANT HONORS COMMUNITY
CHARACTERISTICS OF HONORS COMMUNITIES
WITHIN COMMUTER STUDENT GROUPS
The five cases we have selected for analysis (see Table 2 in Appendix)
do not have the same characteristics equally reflected in them, which is a
reminder of the complexity of seeking and sustaining community within the
context of commuter student populations in honors programs.
The first characteristic of an honors community is its network of frequent
contacts among students. Sometimes teachers and professionals also belong
to the community and play an encouraging role, but the students are the main
owners. A good example of a network with such characteristics is the Utrecht
Law College and its student association, Sirius, which reflects the strong
identity of this community.
A second characteristic is that the students are usually highly motivated,
have a passion for challenge and excellence, and share the same interests. In
the case of the Professional School of Arts, however, a variance in interests
is reflected in the dual mission of the program: profession-oriented and
research-oriented. PSAU students scored only 2.8 on a five-point scale of
“shared passions” among students. PSAU, therefore, cannot be considered a
full-blown honors community. Passions may also differ according to class
levels or interests, as in the Honors Program in Biology, where a group of stu-
dents harbored the ambition to publish a book that was written as a group
assignment and to implement it as educational material in first-year biology
programs of different universities, but this goal was not shared by all honors
students.
A third characteristic is the sense of community and shared ownership.
Working together on a real-world assignment is a strong factor in creating this
feeling within the Honors Program in Biology. In the Top Class Healthcare,
students develop leadership skills at the start of the program during a kick-off
weekend. Students in the Utrecht Law College also described their sense of
community as crucial to the success of the program.
A fourth characteristic is an atmosphere or culture of excellence in which
students are ambitious and strongly motivated. Students from the
Interdisciplinary Honors Program of Leiden were praised for their “high
potential” during a recent international seminar in Brussels. A culture of
excellence is also reflected in the student association Sirius, which organizes
every year what they call Sirius Playground, an opportunity for legal offices,
businesses, and governmental institutions to meet the ambitious students of
the Utrecht Law College.
A fifth characteristic is the way students interact with each other; this so-
called “common interaction repertoire” is clearly evident in each honors
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
205
V
AN GINKEL, V
AN EIJL, PILOT, AND ZUBIZARRETA
community we examined, as demonstrated in student association meetings,
the organization of events, or websites and social media.
In our study, all characteristics are scored to indicate how strongly they
are present. Most characteristics are present in each of the cases. Lower
scores on the characteristic of “network with frequent contact” and the “com-
mon interaction repertoire” occur in the PSAU program and Top Class
Healthcare; if a program has only a few set meetings, the intensity of com-
munity contact receives a low score. The “culture of excellence” is typically
not present at the start of a program; e.g., in the Leiden program it began after
the intervention of the international seminar. The “sense of community” was
generally not strong in the PSAU group, but it was strong in the project group
where students worked with other students outside the program.
The additional characteristics reflect the pluriformity of honors commu-
nities. A core group, for instance, was found in four out of the five cases. In
the fifth case (PSAU), however, it turned out that nearly all students were
involved in a so-called “significant network” working with four other stu-
dents. Among the other cases the core group of the ULC was remarkable for
its honors student union, which organized a series of co-curricular activities
during the three years of the bachelor study in law. In the other three cases,
committees of honors students were active.
Other specific characteristics of honors programs such as disciplinarity
or interdisciplinarity, duration (one year or several years), and the starting
point of the program differ between the cases. Students from a broad range of
disciplines are involved in the interdisciplinary honors program at Leiden
while, in the ULC case of Utrecht, students concentrate on one discipline.
The characteristic of a “safe environment” is less clear. In most cases stu-
dents report being enthusiastic about working with other motivated students,
but sometimes competition and domination create an environment where less
assertive students feel insecure and find it hard to prosper.
We addressed the issue of a location for honors students to meet within
the university buildings: four out of five programs have rooms for their activ-
ities. Having a designated space is important because commuter students typ-
ically do not live together.
FUNCTIONS OF HONORS COMMUNITIES
Honors communities fulfill three main functions: (1) they stimulate
learning and development; (2) they enhance social and emotional wellbeing;
and (3) they stimulate the organization of activities at the university (see
Table 3). Based on our interviews with American and Dutch honors teachers
and students, we identified cognitive development and personal growth as the
key functions of an honors community.
FALL/WINTER 2012
206
BUILDING AVIBRANT HONORS COMMUNITY
Depending on the mission of the program, cognitive development might
occur through a focus on various academic and communication skills. For
example, the ULC focuses on developing organizational and debating skills
while the PSAU champions the development of more professional, practical,
and research skills. In the Honors Program in Biology, the development of
writing skills is an important goal.
The second important function is the development within the communi-
ty of social and emotional values. All the honors communities in these case
studies strongly encouraged students to help each other; they stimulate net-
working with professionals and teamwork to fulfill real-world assignments.
In the case of the ULC, the formation of a student association served the func-
tion of socialization.
SEVEN STRATEGIES FOR
IMPLEMENTING COMMUNITIES
From our study, seven strategies can be distinguished for the develop-
ment and maintenance of communities within the special population of com-
muter students in honors programs. Both teachers and students can use these
strategies; the teachers are often in the best position to initiate them even
though the ultimate goal is that students own their community and take the
initiative themselves. The seven strategies are listed in Table 1.
First, the matching of students is important because students need to be
informed beforehand about the content and intentions of the program. The
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
1. Matching students based on willingness and capabilities to cooperate
2. Programming challenging teamwork activities that are student-
regulated
3. Facilitating students’ initiatives without taking the lead
4. Creating an intense period of interaction to deepen and enhance
bonding
5. Organizing a series of interactive activities during the program to
stimulate the community
6. Highlighting the performance of a teacher as a role model for
development of talent and as a coach for community building
7. Involving community activities in feedback procedures and student
evaluations
Table 1. Strategies to Stimulate Honors Communities for Commuter
Students in Honors Programs
207
V
AN GINKEL, V
AN EIJL, PILOT, AND ZUBIZARRETA
selection procedure should focus on the extent to which students would like
to work actively with other students or interact with teachers and profession-
als. For example, at the ULC the following criterion played an important role:
“students need to contribute to the program, instead of passively follow the
program.” At the start of the program, arranging the students into groups is
important. Depending on the type of assignment, teachers need to encourage
interdependence among students by matching students’ complementary pas-
sions or disciplines in order to fulfill a particular goal. At PSAU, for exam-
ple, students can design games for real clients only by combining their exper-
tise as game designers, graphic designers, and programmers.
Second, the programming of challenging teamwork activities that are
student-regulated focal events, as in the case of PSAU, can enhance collabo-
ration among students. Furthermore, the interaction among students and
between students and faculty mentors can be improved by facilitating a per-
sonal project space, providing a budget, and supporting the use of social
media and communications platforms. Interdependence in producing an actu-
al product is another strategy that promotes teamwork among students, as
demonstrated in the Honors Program in Biology, and mutual interaction can
be further enhanced by the use of peer feedback. Interviews with American
teachers and students showed that “common ground” is an important prereq-
uisite for stimulating student interaction, but the study of the interaction pat-
terns among students of PSAU showed us that not every student is equally
active in a group and that this pattern may change during the year.
Third, facilitating student initiatives that fit into the aims of the honors
program and its culture can be a powerful way to strengthen student owner-
ship of an honors community, as demonstrated in the cases of ULC and Top
Class Healthcare. The staff can encourage such initiatives through contacts
with industry, project budgets, or appropriate facilities (including physical
spaces) for the honors students.
Fourth, implementing an intense period of interaction in the initial phase
of a program is important for creating a sense of community. Some programs
start with a workshop or an orientation weekend, as in Top Class Healthcare
with its course on leadership skills. The Interdisciplinary Honors Program in
Leiden is another example where interaction among students was strength-
ened after an international seminar in Brussels.
Fifth, organizing a series of interactive activities with formal and infor-
mal meetings during the program stimulates community building in honors
programs. At ULC, for example, Sirius organizes many activities for the hon-
ors students. ULC and PSAU also provide important stimuli to an active com-
munity life through fixed groups and regular meetings within the program. A
site visitor to an American honors program described this point as follows:
FALL/WINTER 2012
208
BUILDING AVIBRANT HONORS COMMUNITY
“shared experiences are the key issue.” Ideally, a strong sense of community
leads to continued mutual contacts after the termination of the program, as in
the PSAU program where students continue meeting with each other on a
monthly basis.
Sixth, the performance of the teacher as a role model is indispensable. In
honors programs, contacts between students and teachers are extremely
important. A site visitor highlighted the following: “the interchange between
faculty and students is one of the hallmarks of honors.” The teacher is expect-
ed to give individual attention to the learning process, provide students with
the opportunity to posit questions, and challenge students to find new paths.
The teacher must involve students in decisions about the content of the pro-
gram, give students responsibility for specific tasks, emphasize cooperation
instead of competition, stimulate presentations to a relevant public, and take
initiative in providing feedback to community members. Thus, the teacher
functions not only as a regulator but as a catalyst to promote and coach the
community. An American honors student described this dimension of a fac-
ulty member’s role in helping to build community as follows: “The faculty
should help to shape the ideas, but not originate the ideas.”
Seventh, community activities can be considered as part of the honors
diploma. Some programs use honors portfolios and meetings with tutors or
coaches to review the involvement of individual students in the program and
in community activities.
Finally, these strategies to build a vibrant community should be more
than separate interventions; the combination of these strategies is what pro-
duces a well-functioning honors community.
CONCLUSION
This study has illustrated the characteristics, functions, and initial design
principles of honors communities within the context of the special challenges
faced in establishing and sustaining a community for commuter students.
Honors communities vary in structure, duration, and program scope, but they
share a culture of excellence and passion for challenge. The intensity of inter-
action, group identity, and discipline are nevertheless different for each com-
munity, and such diversity increases in the unique situation of honors pro-
grams with commuter students.
Our research and the experiences of many others in the field of honors
education underscore that honors communities enhance learning and interac-
tion. Furthermore, they fulfill multiple social and emotional functions for
participants, encouraging them to support each other and undertake new
initiatives while providing a platform for discussion and collaboration on
both academic and social fronts. Depending on the stage of the community’s
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
209
V
AN GINKEL, V
AN EIJL, PILOT, AND ZUBIZARRETA
development, three main factors improve honors education for a given group
of students: the honors program itself, the staff, and the resources. This study
suggests seven strategies for developing and stimulating an honors commu-
nity among commuter students (see Table 1). These strategies are formulated
on the basis of interviews and experiences in a selection of case studies, and
they are supported by a theoretical framework, but empirical research is need-
ed to determine conclusively if they provide the intended results.
We conclude with a discussion of six issues related to developing honors
communities.
First, selecting an unambiguous definition of an “honors community” has
proved to be difficult. This concept is still being explored in educational lit-
erature, and there are minor differences in opinions between the American
and European interviewees, making it difficult to provide accurate definitions
for characteristics of an honors community. Eventually, we decided to make
a distinction between key and additional characteristics.
A second issue is the difficulty in choosing the moment to observe the
activities of a community. This study uses general impressions over time
rather than quantitative measures at a certain moment. “Community” is such
a qualitative, ever-changing, evolving phenomenon that capturing it is a chal-
lenge. However, the value of our research study is that it offers some theory,
guidelines, objectives, and strategies for replicating good practices and ensur-
ing success.
A third issue concerns the comparability of the Dutch cases. The disci-
plines, nature, and extent of the communities are different for each case study.
The levels of activity and interaction also differ for each group.
Afourth issue relates to the seven strategies for creating a favorable envi-
ronment. Students, teachers, and instructional designers concerned with the
particular needs and expectations of commuter students involved in honors
programs should understand that the absence of honors housing means that it
is not always possible to organize events, facilitate communication, and pro-
vide intensive interactions for honors students. “Pizzas and Profs” or other
similar activities that bring students together and form bridges between stu-
dents and faculty are difficult to arrange for a commuter population because,
after finishing their course responsibilities, students usually return home or,
as in the prevalent examples of Dutch commuting students, to their rooms in
different buildings all over the city and beyond. Some commuter students
have lunch at the university, but many of them eat at different establishments.
A fifth point is that the creation of communities in interdisciplinary pro-
grams presents an additional challenge because, on most Dutch and European
campuses (and in many American institutions, too), students in such pro-
grams come from different buildings and faculties and sometimes even
FALL/WINTER 2012
210
BUILDING AVIBRANT HONORS COMMUNITY
different campuses. Therefore, the shaping of a community for commuter stu-
dents in honors programs requires exceptional attention and imagination.
The final issue is whether the key characteristics of honors communities
can also be found in communities of students in non-honors programs. What
makes a learning community of students in honors different or more power-
ful than communities formed elsewhere across our various institutions? Do
honors students have a different propensity for developing strong communi-
ties focused on learning because of their presumed higher levels of motiva-
tion and talent? Do they subscribe in more dedicated ways to the “culture of
excellence” that is a special characteristic of a successful honors community?
Can viable models of learning communities be sustained with appropriate
modifications to enrich the educational, social, and personal experiences of
commuter students? As we see more honors programs explore the benefits of
learning community strategies, what else do we need to know about the
rewards and challenges of building an honors community to help us serve the
diverse populations that compose our honors programs? These and other
questions deserve our attention as we continue to explore the value of honors
education worldwide.
REFERENCES
Brown, A. L. & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of
learners. In McGilly, K. (Ed.) Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive
theory and classroom practice, pp. 229–270. Cambridge, MA.:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Mixed Methods Research.
Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Cross, P. (1998). Why learning communities? Why now? About Campus,
3(3), pp. 4–11.
De Boer, D. & van Eijl, P. J. (2010). Naar een onderzoeksagenda voor talen-
tontwikkeling in het hoger onderwijs. (Towards a research agenda for
talent development in higher education). Tijdschrift voor Hoger
Onderwijs (Journal for Higher Education), 28(4), pp. 239–250.
Eggens, L. (2011). The student X-factor: social and psychological determi-
nants of students’ attainment in higher education. PhD thesis, University
of Groningen, the Netherlands.
Ford, J. (2008). Creating an honors culture. Journal of the National
Collegiate Honors Council, Spring/Summer 2008, pp. 27–29.
Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning and research.
American Psychologist, 53(1), pp. 5–26.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
211
V
AN GINKEL, V
AN EIJL, PILOT, AND ZUBIZARRETA
Hanraets, I., Potters, H. & Jansen, D. (2006). Communities in het onderwijs
– Adviezen en tips, een handreiking voor moderatoren. (Communities in
education – Advice and tips, a guide for moderators). Heerlen: The
Netherlands: Open Universiteit.
Jacoby, B. (2000). Why involve commuter students in learning? In Kramer,
M. (Series Ed.), & Jacoby, B. (Vol. Ed.). New directions for higher edu-
cation: Number 109. Involving commuter students in learning (pp.
3–12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Juran, J. M. (1974). (Ed.) Quality Control Handbook. Third Edition. London:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Koh, K., Chaffee, J. & Goodman, E. (2009). Networking an honors commu-
nity out of fragmentation. Honors in Practice, 5, pp. 161–170.
Kuh, G.D., Gonyea, R.M. & Palmer, M. (2001). The disengaged commuter
student: fact of fiction? National Survey of Student engagement. Indiana
University, Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning.
Lankveld, T. A. M. & Volman, M. L. L. (2011). Ondersteuning van docenten
bij onderwijsvernieuwing: de rol van communities of practice.
(Supporting teachers in educational reform: the role of communities of
practice). Tijdschrift voor Hoger Onderwijs (Journal for Higher
Education), 29(1), pp. 41–53.
Light, R. J. (1992). The Harvard Assessment Seminars: Second Report.
Harvard University School of Education.
Mariz, G. (2008). The culture of honors. Journal of the National Collegiate
Honors Council, Spring/Summer 2008, pp. 19–25.
McMillan, D. W. & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition
and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), pp. 6–23.
Roxå, T. & Mårtensson, K. (2008). Significant conversations and significant
networks – exploring the backstage of the teaching arena. Studies of
Higher Education, 34(5), pp. 547–559.
Sherin, M. G., Mendez, E. P. & Louis, D. A. (2004). A discipline apart: The
challenges of “fostering a community of learners” in a mathematics
classroom. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), pp. 207–232.
Shulman, L. S. & Sherin, M. G. (2004). Fostering communities of teachers as
learners: Disciplinary perspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
36(2), pp. 135–140.
Slavin, C. H. (2008). Defining honors culture. Journal of the National
Collegiate Honors Council, Spring/Summer 2008, pp. 15–18.
Tinto, V. (1995). Learning communities, collaborative learning and the peda-
gogy of educational citizenship. American Association of Higher
Education Bulletin, 47(7), pp. 11–13.
FALL/WINTER 2012
212
BUILDING AVIBRANT HONORS COMMUNITY
Tinto, V. & Russo, P. (1994). Coordinated studies programs: Their effect on
student involvement at a community college. Community College
Review, 22(2), pp. 16–25.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups.
Psychological Bulletin, 63, pp. 384–399.
van der Valk, A. E., Grunefeld, H. & Pilot, A. (2010). Empowerment en leer-
resultaten bij getalenteerde bètaleerlingen in een verrijkte onderwi-
jsleeromgeving. (Empowerment and learning results with talented upper-
secondary science students in an enriched learning environment).
Pedagogische Studiën (Educational Studies), 88(2), pp. 73–89.
van Eijl, P. J., Pilot, A. & Wolfensberger, M. V. C. (Ed.) (2010). Talent voor
morgen. (Talent for Tomorrow). Groningen, The Netherlands: Noordhoff
Uitgevers, The Netherlands.
van Eijl, P. J., Wolfensberger, M. V. C. & Pilot, A. (2008). Talentontwikkeling
bij Amerikaanse honoursprogramma’s en honours colleges. Site visitors
van de National Collegiate Honors Council over talentontwikkeling
(Talent development in American honors programs and honors colleges.
Site visitors of the National Collegiate Honors Council about developing
talent). Mededeling 83. Interfacultair Instituut voor Lerarenopleiding,
Onderwijsontwikkeling en Studievaardigheden (Institute of Education),
Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht, pp. 1–29.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning and
Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, B. G., Ludwig-Hardman, S., Thornam, C. L. & Dunlap, J. C. (2004).
Bounded community: Designing and facilitating learning communities in
formal courses. The International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning, 5(3).
*******
The authors may be contacted at
stan.vanginkel@wur.nl.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
213
V
AN GINKEL, V
AN EIJL, PILOT, AND ZUBIZARRETA
APPENDICES
FALL/WINTER 2012
Key Characteristics
Network with
Frequent Contact
Share a Passion for
Challenge and
Excellence
Sense of Community
and Shared
Ownership
Utrecht Law College
(UU)
+ Network enhanced
by association of
honors students
+ Highly motivated
students, content of
their passions varying
+ Indicated as crucial
for the program.
Students organize
many extracurricular
activities and their
association
Professional School of
Arts (UU/HKU)
+ Network, usually in
‘significant networks’
with four students
+ Passions for
profession or
research, content of
passions varying
+/-
Some students
have a strong connec-
tion with their project
groups. Ownership of
the community is
not clear
Top Class
Healthcare (HU)
+/- Network strong in
first period with joint
activities, less
intensive later with
individual projects
+ Passions with
different foci in
relation to mission of
the program
+ Especially within
group, developed in
‘kick-off’ weekend
and the first common
course in leadership
skills
Honors Program
Biology (UU)
+ Network, especially
in challenging
assignment of book
writing in first honors
year
+ Present, strongly
influenced by
authentic assignment
+ The authentic
group assignment
reinforces the
interdependence and
has strong influence
Interdisciplinary
Honors Program (LU)
+ Intense contacts
formed in the first
months, later in small
group projects
+ Motivated students
cooperating in
interdisciplinary
groups
+ Built in first series
of meetings about
community building
Table 2. Characteristics of Honors Communities of Commuter Students in Dutch Honors Programs
Explanation of the contents of the table: Qualification: +, fully present; +/-, partly present; -, not achieved / not present
Description: in key concepts
214
BUILDING AVIBRANT HONORS COMMUNITY
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
Key Characteristics
Culture of Excellence
Common Interaction
Repertoire
Core Group of Active
Members
Utrecht Law College
(UU)
+ Students regard their
culture of excellence
as crucial
+ In class meetings,
group assignments and
student association
+ Core group as
student council and
committees with many
active members
Professional School
of Arts (UU/HKU)
+ Students share an
ambition to develop
their talents
+/- Common
repertoire in first
semester, different in
second semester with
individual projects
+/- Not a core group,
but significant
networks of four
students
Top Class
Healthcare (HU)
+ Students work on
challenging activities
and perform to a high
level
+ Meetings of project
group and classes,
many informal
contacts in social
media
- Not evident
Honors Program
Biology (UU)
+ Observable
especially in
assignment
+ Interaction
repertoire is strongly
influenced by type and
intensity of activity
+ Core group of
editorial committee
Interdisciplinary
Honors Program (LU)
+ An international
seminar they joined
sparked their position
as ‘high potentials’
+ Own internal
organization structure
with physical location
+ Core group of active
students, especially
the ‘communication
committee’
Table 2. Continued
Explanation of the contents of the table: Qualification: +, fully present; +/-, partly present; -, not achieved / not present
Description: in key concepts
215
V
AN GINKEL, V
AN EIJL, PILOT, AND ZUBIZARRETA
FALL/WINTER 2012
Key Characteristics
Duration, Discipline
and Number of
Students
Safe Environment for
Encouraging the
Development of
Talent
Physical Location of
Honors Students
Living Together
Utrecht Law College
(UU)
Start in first year and
active in the whole
bachelor program.
Alumni association
+ Safe environment,
some competition
+ Study rooms for
students available
- Not present
Professional School
of Arts (UU/HKU)
Whole master
program, alumni
participating in the
program
+ Students work with
personal learning
plans, own initiative is
crucial
+ Project rooms
available
- Not present
Top Class
Healthcare (HU)
Start in the second
year, until the end.
Students from
different disciplines
within health care
+ Focus on developing
leadership skills and
safe environment for
talent development
- Not present
- Not present
Honors Program
Biology (UU)
Start in second
bachelor year, until
end of third bachelor
year
+ Safe environment
for initiatives of
students
+ Meeting rooms
available within the
building
- Not present
Interdisciplinary
Honors Program (LU)
Start in second year,
until fourth year of
bachelor program
+ In the first meetings,
attention for building
a safe community
+ Physical location
available, intensely
used
- Not present
Table 2. Continued
Explanation of the contents of the table: Qualification: +, fully present; +/-, partly present; -, not achieved / not present
Description: in key concepts
216
BUILDING AVIBRANT HONORS COMMUNITY
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
Functions
Learning and
Development
Function
Social and Emotional
Functions
Functions of the
Honors Community
for Teachers and
Faculty
Utrecht Law College
(UU)
+ Formal learning
takes place mostly in
class, but outside class
informal learning and
extra curricular
activities
+ They quickly get to
know each other,
support each other
and join in common
activities
+ Organization of
activities, strengthen-
ing of connections
with professional
organizations
Professional School
of Arts (UU/HKU)
+ Practical
assignments, research
courses
+ Working in a
professional team on
an authentic task
+ Student groups
providing the faculty
with new contacts and
clients
Top Class
Healthcare (HU)
+ Professional assign-
ments and leadership
course, where students
cooperate intensively
and learn to initiate
and design
+ Working together on
personal leadership
skills and supporting
each other
+ Strengthening
connection with
professions,
stimulated by students
Honors Program
Biology (UU)
+ Professional and
writing assignments,
intensive
communication,
reflection by
interaction
+ Working in a team
on a group task,
intensively supporting
each other
+ Providing the
faculty a new product
(for example a book
or a course module)
Interdisciplinary
Honors Program (LU)
+ Practical
assignments,
organizational courses
and initiating activities
+ Close cooperation in
a team
+ Strengthening
connection with
professions
Table 3. Functions of Honors Communities of Commuter Students in Dutch Honors Programs for Students and Faculty
Explanation of the contents of the table: Qualification: +, fully present; +/-, partly present; -, not achieved / not present
Description: in key concepts
217
V
AN GINKEL, V
AN EIJL, PILOT, AND ZUBIZARRETA
FALL/WINTER 2012
Strategies
Matching of Students
Programming of
Challenging
Activities with Team
Work and Student-
Generated Activities
Facilitating Students’
Initiatives
Realizing an Intense
Period of Interaction
Utrecht Law College
(UU)
+ Based on shared
ambitions and
previous performances
+ Series of class
seminars, co-
curricular activities
and professional
activities
+ Co-curricular
activities mainly
initiated by students
+ International
excursion
Professional School
of Arts (UU/HKU)
+/- Based on
performance, not
necessary sharing the
same passion
+/- First semester with
challenging activities
+ Students initiate
seminars
- ‘Kick-off’, but no
intense period of
interaction
Top Class
Healthcare (HU)
+/- Mainly based on
motivation and
performance in the
freshman year
+ Start with
challenging project,
‘kick-off’ weekend
and leadership course
+ Many activities
initiated by students
and facilitated by staff
+ ‘Kick-off’ weekend
and course in
leadership skills
Honors Program
Biology (UU)
+/- Based on
willingness and
capabilities to
cooperate
+ Challenging project
and series of monthly
discussion meetings
+ Initiatives
encouraged by staff
+ International group
excursion
Interdisciplinary
Honors Program (LU)
+/- Based on projects
after the “kick-off”
+ Series of meetings
to build a learning
community. Later on
students work in
project groups
+ Choice of projects is
students’ initiative
supported by staff
+ Group excursion
and international
seminar
Table 4. Strategies to Build Honors Communities of Commuter Students in Dutch Honors Programs
See for explanation of the contents tables 2 and 3.
218
BUILDING AVIBRANT HONORS COMMUNITY
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
Strategies
Organizing a Series
of Interactive
Activities During the
Program
The Performance of
the Teacher as a Role
Model
Community
Activities in
Feedback Procedures
and Evaluation
Utrecht Law College
(UU)
+ Series of meetings
and co-curricular
activities
+ Interactive
pedagogy, coaching
and guiding co-
curricular activities
+ Portfolio includes
community activities
Professional School
of Arts (UU/HKU)
+/- Class meetings in
first semester
+ Coaching of
students and guest
teachers
+ Feedback on
activities by personal
learning plans and
coaches
Top Class
Healthcare (HU)
+/- Series of meetings
within the leadership
course, later on small
group meetings in
projects
+ Active role of the
teacher staff in the
first period, later on
coaching role
+/- Focus on
developing leadership
skills. Portfolios
discussed with the
staff
Honors Program
Biology (UU)
+ Interactive activities
depend on the type of
authentic group task
+ Teaching staff plays
important role in
facilitating activities
+ Self-reflection is
included in program,
initiated by staff
Interdisciplinary
Honors Program (LU)
+ Both initiated and
led by teaching staff
and students
+ Coordinator and
teachers enhance
community learning
and coaching
+/- Experiment started
with personal learning
plans
Table 4. Continued
See for explanation of the contents tables 2 and 3.
219
Team-Based Learning in
Honors Science Education:
The Benefit of Complex
Writing Assignments
FRED WIEGANT, JOHANNES BOONSTRA, ANTON PEETERS
AND KARIN SCAGER
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE UTRECHT AND UTRECHT UNIVERSITY
INTRODUCTION
C
ooperative learning and team-based learning have been widely recog-
nized as beneficial strategies to improve all levels of education, includ-
ing higher education. The benefits have been widely researched and are now
well-established (Johnson et al.; Michaelsen, Bauman Knight, et al.;
Michaelsen & Sweet; Slavin; Springer et al.). The studies have indicated a
positive relationship between cooperative learning and student effort,
achievement, persistence, and motivation. Just forming groups, however,
does not automatically lead to better learning and motivation; cooperation
flourishes only under appropriate conditions (Fink; Gillies; Parmelee et al.).
This potential for cooperation and learning is maximal when groups are struc-
tured in such a way that students understand what is expected of them and
how they are supposed to work together (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith;
Michaelsen & Sweet).
High-ability students learn differently than their peers; they are quicker
in their thinking, more flexible in their strategies, and better at memorization;
they know more and prefer complexity (Freeman; Shore & Kanevsky;
Wallace). Furthermore, high-ability students need less structure (Snow &
Swanson). Finally, when motivation is an important selection criterion for
honors students, as it is in Dutch programs, these high-ability students are
more motivated than their peers. Given these differences, high-ability stu-
dents require different instructional conditions to benefit optimally from
assignments based on cooperative learning.
We can provide two examples of student-driven honors courses in which
students work in teams on complex assignments. These courses, which are
designed based on characteristics of cooperative and team-based learning,
FALL/WINTER 2012
220
TEAM-BASED LEARNING IN HONORS SCIENCE EDUCATION
have revealed that team-based learning works best for honors students when
(1) courses are student-centered rather than teacher-driven, (2) the teacher’s
role is to coach and facilitate, and (3) the assignments are complex and
challenging.
SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING
AND TEAM-BASED LEARNING
Fink distinguishes between three general uses of small groups in higher
education: casual interaction, cooperative (or collaborative) learning (CL),
and team-based learning (TBL). An example of casual groups is the “think-
pair-share” strategy, where short interactions between students are designed
to enrich large-group lectures. After the teacher asks a question, the students
discuss possible answers with their neighbors, sharing some of the answers
before the teacher continues lecturing.
The distinction between CL and TBL is mainly the level of interaction
and interdependency, which is more intense in teams. A team is more cohe-
sive than a group because the students spend a long period of time working
together and/or have a higher level of accountability and shared responsibil-
ity. Teams have two major advantages over groups in an educational setting:
individual team members learn to commit a high level of effort to a project,
and learning teams can solve problems beyond the capability of even their
most talented members (Fink; Michaelsen, Watson, et al.; Michaelsen,
Bauman Knight, et al.). Michaelsen and Sweet describe four essential ele-
ments of TBL that transform newly formed student groups into high-perfor-
mance and cohesive learning teams:
•Groups need to be properly formed and managed.
• Students must be accountable for the quality of their individual work as
well as their group work.
•Students must receive frequent and timely feedback.
•Design of group assignments must promote both learning and team
development
In TBL, small groups are a semester-long instructional strategy in which a
sequence of activities is designed and linked so that they accomplish deepen-
ing of student learning as well as enhancing the development of team cohe-
sion (Fink; Michaelsen & Sweet). In contrast, CL is often focused on assign-
ments that can be finished in days or weeks, generally too little time to allow
formation of cohesive teams.
The two science honors courses we designed at Utrecht University
implement TBL in complex, semester-long assignments in which students
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
221
WIEGANT, BOONSTRA, PEETERS AND SCAGER
write PhD proposals or a year-long project of writing a popular science book.
We also introduced such features as student-driven course design, student
leadership roles, teacher-as-facilitator roles, and complex writing assign-
ments. Students in both courses are motivated and eager to create products
that surpass the products produced by previous groups, which, according to
their teachers, they regularly do.
ASSIGNMENTS AND STUDENT ACTIVITIES
IN SCIENCE HONORS COURSES
WRITING A RESEARCH PROPOSAL IN THE ADVANCED
MOLECULAR CELL BIOLOGY COURSE AT UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE UTRECHT, THE HONORS COLLEGE
OF UTRECHT UNIVERSITY
In this course, three small teams of four or five students cooperate inten-
sively during a semester of fifteen weeks to formulate three PhD proposals
within an overarching theme. Since the course is student-led, all decisions are
made by the students with instructors playing a facilitating role by asking
critical questions and providing feedback throughout the course. The instruc-
tors refrain from guiding the students in their decisions about the various ele-
ments of their research proposals.
This course is designed to have a number of phases and aims (Wiegant et
al.). First, students become familiar with background research by not just
reading but also presenting and discussing primary papers in the field of their
proposals. Next, students identify a gap in knowledge and formulate research
questions aimed at getting beyond what is currently known. The third phase,
typically the most challenging, is identifying a set of techniques that are most
appropriate to answering the research questions; in this phase, students con-
tact experts and visit laboratories to grasp the state-of-the-art advanced
research technologies in the field of molecular and cellular biology. Finally,
students formulate a research program and design PhD projects that they will
present and defend before a jury of experts.
During this fifteen-week course, the student teams cooperate intensively
to achieve their goals, producing numerous presentations and discussions on
ideas and on the progress of their research projects. Aprogram leader, togeth-
er with project leaders, is responsible for making the program coherent and
preventing overlap between projects. Critical readers provide peer feedback
on each other’s projects, and a layout team is responsible for printing the
research program plus proposals. An important factor in achieving coopera-
tive learning and team coherence is the requirement that all students be
FALL/WINTER 2012
222
TEAM-BASED LEARNING IN HONORS SCIENCE EDUCATION
accountable for the content of the project and be able to answer critical ques-
tions at every stage of their project. Examples of research proposals written
in the Advanced Cell Biology course appear at: <http://www.uu.nl/university/
college/EN/studying/advancedcellbiology>.
WRITING A POPULAR SCIENCE BOOK IN THE
HONORS PROGRAM OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY,
UTRECHT UNIVERSITY
This honors program is offered in addition to the regular biology cur-
riculum and has been developed for fifteen to twenty motivated and talented
biology students. An important element of the program is a group assignment
in which students perform all the activities necessary to write, edit, and pro-
duce a book: selecting a theme and chapter topics, writing the chapters, seek-
ing expert feedback, receiving and providing peer feedback, editing chapters,
designing layout, making illustrations, and presenting the product at a self-
organized symposium.
Students read primary articles on their topic of choice, invite guest speak-
ers on relevant themes, and contact experts for interviews as well as for feed-
back on drafts of chapters they write. The student editorial board composes a
time-table to which all need to adhere, solves problems, and enforces dead-
lines. Students assign themselves the tasks that are required to finish the pro-
ject in time.
In 2010, the biology honor students wrote and published a book on bio-
logical topics that they considered important to the twenty-first century
(ISBN 978-90-77024-60-7). In 2011, the theme of the book was “Synthetic
Eden” <http://urandom.nl/synthetic/bundle.html> and focused on various
aspects of biotechnology. In 2012, the students wrote the book Life Support,
which was inspired by topics in the field of sustainability (ISBN 978-90-
77024-65-2).
SUPPORTING TBL IN HONORS EDUCATION
STUDENT-LED COURSE DESIGN AND
STUDENT ACCOUNTABILITY
An important element in our honors education is to provide less structure
and guidance than is usually offered in regular courses and at the same time
to express high expectations for what students have to achieve. In our stu-
dent-driven environment, students themselves are challenged to create the
environment in which they can perform optimally.
The students know from the outset that they are accountable not only for
their own team project but also for the coherence of all the projects within the
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
223
WIEGANT, BOONSTRA, PEETERS AND SCAGER
overarching topic. Students thus must communicate well within their team as
well as with other teams and must support other teams when needed. This
positive interdependence, which is the main precondition for effective coop-
erative learning (Johnson & Johnson), is a natural byproduct of the courses’
complex writing assignments. Students develop cohesive teamwork when
they know that they are individually and collectively accountable for an actu-
al product like a PhD proposal or a book, and they develop a sense of shared
ownership that further supports team spirit.
The advisability of assigning roles to increase accountability is contro-
versial in the literature on CL and TBL (Michaelsen, Bauman-Knight, et al.).
In CL, teachers usually assign specific rotating roles to allow all students to
experience each role, learn the required skills, and contribute equitably to the
group process. In TBL, assigning roles is generally unnecessary and some-
times even counterproductive (Fink). In our honors courses, we encourage
students to assign themselves specific tasks that are required to achieve a suc-
cessful product at the end of the course, i.e., being a program leader, project
leader, or critical reader in the PhD proposal course. The main aim of having
students assign their roles in honors courses is twofold: to develop leadership
skills and to allow them to structure the course in such a way that obtaining
content knowledge as well as the creative process of writing a complex
assignment is most optimally organized. In this way, the students develop a
sense of ownership and independence while also facilitating the teacher’s
communication with the student teams.
THE TEACHER AS COACH AND FACILITATOR
IN HONORS COURSES USING TBL
The role of the teacher in CL and TBL is described as facilitative, a term
that includes structuring the process, determining the learning objectives,
deciding on the cooperative structure, monitoring progress, and assessing stu-
dents’ learning (Johnson & Johnson; Michaelsen, Bauman Knight, et al.;
Parmelee et al.). Since students in TBL are more actively engaged in the
learning process, teachers often report being more relaxed and experiencing
more joy (Michaelsen, Bauman-Knight, et al.; Bauman-Knight). In TBL, the
teacher is supposed to provide guidance in the form of well-planned and well-
structured activities together with prompt feedback, an important feature to
improve student learning. In our honors courses, however, such guidance has
been reduced to a minimum so that students can develop activities and initia-
tives they consider most relevant to their goal; the teacher’s role is thus to ask
critical questions, to facilitate, and to coach in order to encourage the students
to excel and to go beyond their comfort zones.
FALL/WINTER 2012
224
TEAM-BASED LEARNING IN HONORS SCIENCE EDUCATION
In a student-centered honors course, emphasizing what the teacher
should not do is also important. We encourage student-led decisions in shap-
ing the course and thereby their final product, thus enhancing their sense of
ownership and their pride in what they have achieved, so teachers should
keep some distance from the students’ decision-making process. Teachers ask
critical questions on ideas and hypotheses that students suggest, and they pro-
vide feedback on drafts of texts but refrain from offering their ideas of best
solutions or strategies. Even though students expect more direction from their
teachers, they have reported learning much more by feeling lost at times but
managing to find solutions themselves (Wiegant et al.; Scager et al. [2012 and
in press]).
CHALLENGING HONORS STUDENTS
WITH COMPLEX WRITING ASSIGNMENTS
Honors students need a higher level of complexity to challenge them
(Kanevsky and Keighly). Writing assignments such as a PhD research pro-
posal or a popular science book are exceptionally complex for undergradu-
ates. Writing a research proposal, for instance, requires that they read prima-
ry texts, find gaps in knowledge where research can go beyond what is cur-
rently known, find the best techniques and research strategies to fill the gaps,
write a coherent PhD proposal, and defending the proposal in front of a jury
of experts. Many of these activities require higher-order cognitive skills
including analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Bloom; Wood). Practicing
these skills also supports the development of critical and creative thinking,
two of the academic competencies encouraged in honors education.
WHAT IF STUDENTS ARE (OVER)CHALLENGED?
According to Csikszentmihalyi, learning takes place most efficiently
when the challenge of assignments is in balance with the skills students have
developed. During some phases of our Advanced Cell Biology course, stu-
dents reported that the challenge was much greater than their skills. Although
they reported that this imbalance affected their motivation in a negative way,
they nevertheless indicated that they extended their efforts and learned a lot
(Scager et al. [2012]), and they were able to come up with high-quality pro-
jects that impressed the jury of experts. At the end of the course, students
were interviewed using the so-called story-line method (Beijaard et al.); we
asked the students to identify the elements of the course that they experienced
as challenging in order to analyze how the high level of challenge as well as
working in teams affected their learning outcomes.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
225
WIEGANT, BOONSTRA, PEETERS AND SCAGER
STUDENT EXPERIENCE
In the first two phases of the course focused on writing a PhD proposal,
students experienced a balance between challenge and skills. However, in the
third phase, when they needed to identify appropriate techniques, the chal-
lenge was much greater than what they thought they could handle. They often
felt frustrated and, when looking back, said they missed having guidance
from the instructors. Nevertheless, students reported that they continued to
learn a lot, that the lack of guidance stimulated their learning, and that final-
ly they were able to produce an excellent and coherent research program that
included three PhD proposals. The jury members were without exception
impressed by the high quality of what the students produced as well as the
mastery of the subject matter they demonstrated during the defense (for more
details, see Wiegant et al.). Students also indicated that the group work was
mainly what had enabled them cope with all the challenges; they helped each
other out of pitfalls and achieved a product they were proud of.
The factors that students have experienced as most challenging in this
course include the following:
•The complexities of the task, including the novelty of working with pri-
mary research articles, the specialized field of knowledge in cell biology,
the dynamics of the process in which a large number of decisions needed
to be made, and the conflicting demands of writing a research project that
was novel, relevant, and feasible;
• The lack of guidance by the instructors, which was sometimes experienced
as too challenging but which students eventually recognized as the best
way to learn during the process; and
• The high expectations of the teachers combined with the students’ desire
to outdo the groups of previous years (Scager et al.[2012 and in press]).
We deduce from these reactions the following conclusions:
• Students learn most during the phases when they are over-challenged;
• Temporary frustration does not appear to be detrimental; and
•Less guidance is beneficial for learning.
Team-based learning is probably the explanation for the fact that honors stu-
dents performed exceptionally well even in situations where challenges and
skills were not in balance.
CONCLUSION
Our experience with team-based learning leads us to recommend it as an
effective and appropriate strategy for teaching honors students. Complex and
challenging assignments in the context of TBL enable undergraduates to
FALL/WINTER 2012
226
TEAM-BASED LEARNING IN HONORS SCIENCE EDUCATION
stretch their skill, confidence, and motivation to perform better than they
imagined they could. The frustrations they inevitably feel in facing assign-
ments that seem beyond their reach are mitigated by the support of their
groups, and, by turning to each other rather than to the teacher for guidance,
they experience the world of research as it is experienced by graduate stu-
dents and professionals in the field, giving them and also their teachers a high
level of pride and satisfaction.
REFERENCES
Bauman-Knight, A. (2004). Team-Based Learning; A strategy for
Transforming the Quality of Teaching and Learning. In: L.K.
Michaelsen, A. Bauman Knight, L.D. Fink (eds.), Team-Based Learning;
A Transformative Use of Small Groups in Teaching. Stylus Publishing,
Sterling. pp.197–207.
Beijaard, D., van Driel, J., and Verloop, N. (1999). Evaluation of Story-Line
Methodology in Research on Teachers’ Practical Knowledge. Studies in
Educational Evaluation, 25, 47–62.
Bloom, B.S., and Kratwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook 1
Cognitive Domain. Longmans, New York.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond Boredom and Anxiety: Experiencing
Flow in Work and Play. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Fink, D.L. (2004). Beyond Small Groups; Harnessing the Extraordinary
Power of Learning Teams. In: L.K. Michaelsen, A. Bauman Knight, L.D.
Fink (eds.), Team-Based Learning; A Transformative Use of Small
Groups in Teaching. Sterling, Stylus Publishing, pp. 3–26.
Freeman, J. (1998). Educating the Very Able: Current International
Research. The Stationery Office, London.
Gillies, R.M. (2004). The Effects of Cooperative Learning on Junior High
School Students during Small Group Learning. Learning and Instruction
14, 197–213.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R T. (2008). Social Interdependence Theory and
Cooperative Learning: The Teacher’s Role. In: R.M. Gillies, A. Ashman,
& J. Terwel (Eds.), The Teacher’s Role in Implementing Cooperative
Learning in the Classroom. (pp.9–35). Springer, New York.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Smith, K. (2007). The State of Cooperative
Learning in Postsecondary and Professional Settings. Educational
Psychology Review 19(1): 15–29.
Kanevsky, L. and Keighly, T. (2003). To Produce or not to Produce?
Understanding Boredom and the Honor in Underachievement. Roeper
Review 26(1): 20–28.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
227
WIEGANT, BOONSTRA, PEETERS AND SCAGER
Michaelsen L.K., Watson W.E., and Black R.H. (1989). A Realistic Test of
Individual versus Group Consensus Decision Making. Journal of
Applied Psychology. 74(5): 834–839.
Michaelsen, L.K., Bauman-Knight A. and Fink D.L. (eds.) (2004). Team-
Based Learning; a Transformative Use of Small Groups in College
Teaching. Stylus Publishing, Sterling.
Michaelsen L.K. and Sweet M. (2008). The Essential Elements of Team-
Based Learning. New Dirtections for Teaching and Learning 116 (win-
ter): 7–27.
Parmelee, D., Michaelsen, L.K., Cook, S., and Hudes, P.D. (2012). Team-
Based Learning: A Practical Guide: AMEE Guide no.65. Medical
Teacher 34: e275–287.
Scager K, Akkerman S., Boonstra J., Pilot A. Wiegant F. and Wubbels T.
(2012). Uitdagen van excellente studenten. Onderzoek van Onderwijs
41: 16–21.
Scager K, Akkerman S.F., Pilot A. and Wubbels T. (in press). Challenging
High Ability Students. Studies in Higher Education.
Shore, B.M., and Kanevsky, L.S. (1993). Thinking Processes: Being and
Becoming Gifted. In H.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, and A.H. Passow (Eds.).
International Handbook of Research and development of Giftedness and
Talent. Pergamon, New York. pp.133–147.
Slavin, R. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational
Leadership 48, 71–82.
Snow, R.E. and Swanso, J. (1992). Instructional Psychology: Aptitude,
Adaptation, and Assessment. Annual Review of Psychology 43: 583–626.
Springer, L., Stanne, M.E. and Donovan, S.S. (1999). Effects of Small-Group
Learning on Undergraduates in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and
Technology: A Meta Analysis. Review of Educational Research
69(1): 21.
Wallace, B. (2000). Teaching the Very Able Child. David Fulton Publishers,
London.
Wiegant, F.A.C., Scager, K. and Boonstra, J. (2011). An Undergraduate
Course to Bridge the Gap between Textbooks and Scientific Research.
CBE-Life Sciences Education 10: 83–94.
Wood, W.B. (2009). Innovations in Teaching Undergraduate Biology and
Why We Need Them. Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology
25: 93–112.
*******
The authors may be contacted at
F.A.C.Wiegant@uu.nl.
FALL/WINTER 2012
228 JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
229
Selecting for Honors Programs:
A Matter of
Motivational Awareness
RON WEERHEIJM
ROTTERDAM UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES
JESKE WEERHEIJM
UTRECHT UNIVERSITY
INTRODUCTION
T
he honors programs at the Universities of Applied Sciences in the
Netherlands were almost all initiated around 2008 and thus so far have
yielded few data about outcomes, but we have a broad consensus that the
honors programs should provide a better-than-average professional for the
workplace and should give students a chance to perform to the best of their
abilities. With this shared mission, we have had an ongoing discussion dur-
ing our recruitment process about what criteria to use in the selection process.
In January of 2012, there was an online discussion on the NCHC listserv
about the role of the GPA in honors recruitment and retention in the U.S.
Because Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences does not use grade-based
admission requirements, relying instead on a competence profile that is added
onto the existing competence profile the discipline uses, we were asked to
provide insight into our methods. This request, combined with the NCHC
email discussion, provided a reason to analyze the available literature con-
cerning factors that lead to successful completion of an honors degree and
that produce excellent and successful professionals. We have reviewed cur-
rent selection criteria according to three models of excellence in order to
determine the best criteria for accomplishing the mission of honors.
BACKGROUND
Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences is a multidisciplinary
University of Applied Sciences (UAS) with over 32,000 students in roughly
eighty different disciplines divided over eleven educational departments. In
2010, Rotterdam UAS started implementing an honors program after prepa-
rations that began in 2008. Two questions were of primary importance to the
FALL/WINTER 2012
230
SELECTING FOR HONORS PROGRAMS
design of the program: what profile does Rotterdam UAS want to use for the
honors program, and which students will be admitted to the program? The
Universities of Applied Sciences had little to no information or experience on
honors programs in 2008, so in 2007 Eijl, Wolfensberger, Schreve-Brinkman,
& Pilot conducted a survey focused on excellence and honors programs.
Based on this survey, Rotterdam UAS, as an institution for vocational educa-
tion, consulted with its partners in the workplace and its relevant stakehold-
ers to define an “excellent professional” as one who can “actualize innova-
tive solutions with a practical function to the taking in hand of societal rele-
vant problems while working together with others” (HR). The slogan
“Surpass Yourself” was already in use at Rotterdam UAS to stimulate stu-
dents to perform to the best of their abilities and linked up well with our def-
inition of an excellent professional. We then developed our definition by
describing five competencies that will be discussed later in this essay.
Initially, “Innovation Labs” were developed for the final year of the hon-
ors curriculum. These twenty-week labs are the essence of the honors pro-
gram, with students performing multidisciplinary research for a real client
and eventually offering them a solution or problem-solving approach. We
now have two years of experience with these kinds of projects, and in
September 2012 the third crop of students will start the labs. The number of
students in the honors program is rapidly increasing, so we need to define a
more exact recruitment policy that identifies students who fit our profile of
an “excellent professional.”
Extensive research exists on admission criteria for honors students. The
most common criterion is the grade average (GPA in the U.S.) in a student’s
previous education. However, the survey by Eijl et al. shows that using a
different set of criteria—for instance, motivation—also leads to good results
and that a causal link between the GPA and success in honors is by no means
a given.
Our concern is whether the construction of the current honors program of
Rotterdam UAS links up sufficiently with the theoretical framework sur-
rounding it and whether there is enough research available on which to fur-
ther develop the program, and so our two primary research question is:
“Which factors are sufficient for making a reliable prognosis for profession-
al excellence, and how can these factors be used to further develop recruit-
ment for honors programs?” Our assumption in response to our research
questions is that sufficient factors for making a reliable prognosis can be
found in instruments through which potential honors students are detected
early in the process so that they can start their orientation phase early in their
education and improve their academic and professional qualities more
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
231
RON WEERHEIJM AND JESKE WEERHEIJM
effectively. Accordingly, student counselors need to be better equipped to
quickly recognize such qualities in all students.
METHODS
We did research in the literature of educational sciences research to find
factors that produce a reliable prognosis of student success in their education.
Based on the factors we found, we devised a system focused on subject and
place as primary factors in educational success. With this system as a model,
our goal was to offer a point of reference for teachers to use in the efficient
and sufficient recruitment of students for the honors program. Because the
honors programs at the Universities of Applied Sciences are still in their early
years and have yielded few data on recruitment, we looked at recruitment cri-
teria for regular education, where a lot more evidence was available. Among
the multiplicity of literature surveys examining success in education from dif-
ferent angles, we focused on which recruitment methods were effective for
the intended further education. Although most of the surveys we examined
were administered to non-honors students, they were useful because they
focused on personal qualities of students that were relevant to the honors
program.
THEORY
A major question in the literature is the role of GPA in a prognosis for
academic success. The results vary from “no prognosis possible” to “some
prognosis possible” and “partial prognosis possible” (Harackiewicz et al.
[2002]; Leverett-Main; McClelland; Robbins et al.; Scager et al.). Few of
these surveys indicate the kind of the education in which the GPA was
acquired or the further education for which it serves as recruitment criterion.
ADutch study on enrollment in two separate bachelor’s programs (van den
Berg, Hofman, & Stoppelenburg) states that students with a fairly average
GPA(7–7.5 on a 10-point scale) are more inclined to enroll in a second bach-
elor’s program, thus voluntarily increasing their workload, than students with
a high GPA (8–8.5). The implication here is that a high GPA is not necessar-
ily a prognosis for success but might indicate instead a linkup between high
grades and “coursing through” an easier curriculum, possibly indicating
decreased persistence.
Afactor other than GPAthat has been studied as a predictor of success in
education is motivation (Van der Hulst & Jansen; Linnenbrink & Pintrich;
Nuland), with different forms of motivation investigated along with their
effects on educational success. Goals that students set themselves
(Harackiewicz et al. [2000]; Linnenbrink & Pintrich; Pekrun, Elliot, & Maier)
contribute in different ways to educational success. The goal theory defines
FALL/WINTER 2012
232
SELECTING FOR HONORS PROGRAMS
and analyzes both short- and long-term performance goals (Harackiewicz et
al. [1997]). Further, curriculum characteristics like the number of courses to
be followed simultaneously or the attractiveness of courses to students con-
tribute to educational success (Van der Hulst & Jansen); this survey, inciden-
tally, finds a possible prognosis for educational success in technical education
by using the average grades for mathematics and physics in previous educa-
tion. A final and altogether different factor is the student himself. For
instance, Finn and Rock found resilience to be a factor in educational success
while Leverett-Main focused on having or developing analytical, creative,
and practical skills.
From these different surveys, three separate factors can be deduced that
together have an influence on a student’s educational success: personal char-
acteristics, motivation, and study environment.
CASE STUDY:
ROTTERDAM UAS
Rotterdam UAS has, based on the standards of the national incentives
program Sirius, chosen the development of “professional excellence” as a
central theme for its honors program, in which learning to innovate is the
essence of professional excellence in five separate competencies (Drenth &
Veltman). These competencies together form the profile Learning to Innovate
and can be described as followed:
1. Innovation-Driven Competence
To be able to contribute to the development of an innovative and profes-
sional production, the student will show an inquisitive attitude and will see
and use, in a creative way, possibilities and opportunities to create inno-
vation in the workplace.
2. Question-Driven Competence
To be able to act from an innovative point of view, the student will show
awareness of his study environment, in which he will function as a pro-
fessional and will see opportunities and possibilities to actualize innova-
tion in the workplace.
3. Competence for Collaborative Learning
To be able to participate in innovative processes, the student will behave
as a team player, showing that he is able to use communicational, cooper-
ative, and networking skills that lead to his being able to effectively and
efficiently contribute to product-oriented cooperation with all the profes-
sionals involved in the innovation.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
233
RON WEERHEIJM AND JESKE WEERHEIJM
4. Competence for Interactive Learning
To be able to guide his own permanent development, the student will
acknowledge the necessity of lifelong learning and will work to gain the
study skills required for this process.
5. Knowledge-Creation Competence
To be able to keep developing, improving, and updating his own knowl-
edge, the student will learn not only within formal contexts (like school)
but also in the workplace.
Generally these competencies as defined here are not a part of the regular
bachelor’s studies, are evaluated at a different and lower level, or are not fea-
tured simultaneously as one coherent evaluative profile. The competencies
have been made into quantifiable criteria by formulating characteristics of
attitude and behavior and by defining products as results in as concrete a way
as possible (McClelland). A cumulative portfolio should demonstrate that a
student has a thorough command of these competencies in as real a work sit-
uation as possible. In a criterion-referenced assessment interview, the student
is interviewed by two different assessors.
The current layout of the honors curriculum is divided into two parts and
is composed of additional program courses parallel to or partially embedded
in the bachelor’s program: a voluntary and optional part in the first two and
a half years and an obligatory part in the last year and a half (figure 1).
The “recruiting & promotion” part of the program offers students a
chance to discover their field of interest within their future profession. Each
project in this period results in a product and is evaluated and assessed by
means of the Learning to Innovate profile. Counseling and formative evalua-
tion are centered in personal conversations to make the students comfortable
with the competence profile and to give them practice negotiating the evi-
dence supporting their own development toward becoming an “excellent pro-
fessional.” Selection is carried out in this semester based on motivation and
progress; students should be active participants in this process and be able to
show development or a desire to develop. Freedom of opportunity is the basis
for this semester: if you prove yourself, you may proceed. This freedom
makes “recruiting & promotion” attractive in that it offers the freedom to
study multiple subjects or themes. The attractiveness of the program is impor-
tant as students ask, “What’s in it for me?” (Freyman). We need to discover
at this stage in what ways students were not stimulated enough in their pre-
vious education and how they can be activated to work on challenging
projects (Derriks & Vergeer): how can we help student counselors recognize
student potential in as early a stage as possible, and how can we optimally
motivate prospective honors students? Since the Dutch educational situation
involves almost no competition between students or competition to be
FALL/WINTER 2012
234
SELECTING FOR HONORS PROGRAMS
admitted into a discipline (a selection process before admission is customary
only in a few specific disciplines such as art or music), student counselors
need instruments at their disposal that can contribute to recognizing potential
in individual students interested in the honors program (Leverett-Main).
The “research & innovation” part of the program focuses on the innova-
tive side of vocational practice in order to accentuate the necessity of contin-
uous improvement in one’s practices and knowledge within the domain of
work (OECD; Stelsel). Between the fifth and sixth semesters, a selection pro-
cedure is carried out based on a motivational letter, a recommendation from
a teacher, and an interview. Until now, the procedure has been an experiment;
we have no proof of the effectiveness of our selection process, and there is a
continuous PDCA (plan – do – check – act) program in place to develop and
test our procedure.
In the sixth semester, an additional project (or task within an existing pro-
ject) and an additional course are required; in the seventh semester, students
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
Year of Semester Part of the Obligatory Part Additional Parts
Studies Program of Curriculum of the Honors
Bachelor’s and Curriculum
Honors Program
11recruiting & add. project
2 promotion add. project
23 (voluntary) add. project
4 add. project
35 internship additional
(end of research
semester: last assignment
possibility to
enter into honors
program)
6 research & add. theory when starting
innovation and project here: program
(obligatory) for late-bloomers
47 Innovation Lab
8 bachelor’s thesis research with
Knowledge Center
Figure 1. Set-Up of the Rotterdam UAS Honors Program
235
RON WEERHEIJM AND JESKE WEERHEIJM
participate in an Innovation Lab; and in the eighth semester, students gradu-
ate within their discipline but with an enhanced degree and with additional
counseling from a lector involved with one of six Knowledge Centers.
Especially in the last phase, linkage with research programs in the
Knowledge Centers or research outside of the university is essential. The
Knowledge Centers provide for projects and research subjects; they have a
large network of clients or contacts at their disposal; and they have a feel for
current developments in the vocational practice(s) of their domain. Since the
Knowledge Centers have extraordinary expertise in the field of theoretical
and practice-based research, they can provide lectors and researchers who are
effective in counseling and evaluating students. In this period, the use of
Knowledge Centers within the educational program is especially focused on
deepening research questions and methods within the student’s discipline.
Cooperation with partners from the workplace itself is also a key education-
al ingredient.
The design of our honors curriculum has come about through the tight
cooperation of a teacher-development team that includes a teacher from each
educational department. These teachers are top-of-the-line when it comes to
innovation and improvement of their own curricula or quality of education
within their own departments. Their knowledge and experience have been
pooled together to develop our program. Practical challenges concerning this
cooperation mostly relate to the different time schedules of teaching and
researching, the exchange of teachers and researchers, and the additional
workload of involvement in the honors program. Solving these problems can
seem hopeless, but we are trying to reach optimal cooperation with the
Knowledge Centers and with the exchange of lectors, researchers, teachers,
and students between the Knowledge Centers and disciplines.
Dividing the program into an optional and an obligatory part enables
late-bloomers—students who only during their internship discover their pas-
sion for the discipline—to partake in the honors program. At the transition
from “recruiting & promotion” to “research & innovation,” an exploratory
student assessment is made that becomes part of the admission process; the
purpose of the assessment to determine the student’s motivation, goals, and
development in relation to the five competencies. In line with Freyman’s rec-
ommendations, the teacher considers the student’s breadth of interests,
curiosity, primary learning questions, and ability as well as willingness to
invest study time. “Learning for living, not just for making a living,” accord-
ing to Freyman, is an important motivation for honors students, and the ques-
tions our teachers have formulated are practically the same as Freyman’s list
even though they did not do a preliminary literature search or survey but for-
mulated questions from their work experience.
FALL/WINTER 2012
236
SELECTING FOR HONORS PROGRAMS
As soon as students are official participants in some part of the program,
active involvement in and contribution to the honors community are manda-
tory. The honors communities are partly Communities of Learning, partly
Communities of Practice, and, above all, strategies for creating internal and
external effectiveness. These communities feature issues from the students’
professional fields, on which the students work together with the Knowledge
Center. Not only teachers but also lectors, researchers, professionals, and
experts are important in the community. The communities also form a home
base for the students and facilitate individual meetings in which counseling
and feedback are given.
RECENT SURVEYS
Because “excellence” has been on the political agenda in the Netherlands
for a couple of years now, several recent surveys have been developed and
implemented to provide a coherent model and point of reference. Three such
surveys and their results are discussed below.
THE SCHUURMAN MODEL
The model of excellence described by Schuurman, van den Berg, &
Baeten concerns a survey conducted among young people, aged twelve to
twenty-five, in different school systems; the survey focuses on their drive and
motivation to perform or succeed. The survey is especially focused on the
way to enhance students’ success in their current or future education.
Because “excellence” is not a popular word among this group of young
people, the term “exceptional” is mostly used, meaning being better at some-
thing than other people. The survey focuses on two types of motivation: (1)
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and (2) performance and mastery motiva-
tion. Nuland clarifies that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation differ with the
study environment of the student and that there is not one obvious way to
stimulate behavior. Linnenbrink and Pintrich focus on goal theory to gain
insight into performance and mastery motivation. Performance motivation
mostly concerns the short term and is often seen in the first few years of
studying. Mastery motivation, on the other hand, focuses on the long term
and can be perceived in the final years of study (Harackiewicz et al. [1997,
2002]). Other indicators involved in the survey include doing “just enough,”
being aware of one’s future, social checking, and experiencing educational
challenge. From interviews, four different types of young people can be
deduced: the Self-Conscious Generalist, the For-Convenience’s-Sake
Enjoyer of Life, the Acquiescent Follower, and the Status-Focused Future
Thinker. Ordering these four types by educational type and gender, along
with a profile illustrated by an individual example, constructs an image of
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
237
RON WEERHEIJM AND JESKE WEERHEIJM
where the different students can be found and how they can be optimally
motivated.
This model of excellence can be used to recognize and identify students
in groups or as individuals; it also offers concrete recommendations for each
type of student so that student counselors can intervene to enhance the stu-
dent’s learning process and motivate the student to excel. The survey thus
offers student counselors points of reference to interpret visible behaviors and
attitudes, adapting counseling to these findings. The report closes with con-
crete recommendations to educational institutes on how to enhance excel-
lence in students and what to do in the near future.
In terms of our research question, this survey offers insights about why
the honors program might be interesting to students. The survey also covers
a possible reason for educational success among some students and failure
among others: when a student is fully able to state his own learning motiva-
tion, he has a better chance at educational success. The same insight can also
be found in goal theory.
THE WOLFENSBERGER MODEL
In her model of excellence, Wolfensberger, without specifying a socioe-
conomic context, she links two aspects of education: “education and meet-
ings” and “student and student life.” “Education and meetings” centers on the
contact between teacher and student, specifying three important conditions:
learning and actualizing academic and professional competencies; creating a
passionate community; and offering freedom within bounds. “Student and
student life” defines four criteria that can potentially cause the student to
excel: motivation and passion; analytical, creative, and practical cleverness;
perseverance; and leadership. Students who meet these conditions and crite-
ria are potentially able to achieve excellence. This model offers a point of ref-
erence for designing education, for creating an educational context, and for
stimulating students. It is also possible to design a selection procedure with-
in the framework of this model so that student counselors are better equipped
to recruit and challenge students to participate in the honors program: stu-
dents can be assessed for admission on the basis of the four criteria and the
three conditions.
In the framework of our research question, this model allows us to look
at students and the educational environment in a coherent way but does not
offer enough insight into how students should be selected and counseled to
facilitate full development. Within this model, a student should be or become
interested in performance—in development of self and development in the
workplace—which is a mastery goal, but how a student reaches this kind of
performance is not considered in the model. The model nevertheless provides
FALL/WINTER 2012
238
SELECTING FOR HONORS PROGRAMS
important recommendations for teachers and institutions on how to enhance
the education of potentially excellent students.
THE SCAGER MODEL
The third and last model was constructed by Scager and has as a point of
departure the three-ring model by Renzulli. The three-ring model offers a
possibility for sorting out indicators of “excellent professionals,” a concept
about which little other research is available. Scager replaces “above average
ability” in Renzulli’s model with “general intelligence” and replaces “task
commitment” with “motivation” but continues to use the term “creativity.”
Scager uses earlier research to delineate and define the three indicators, at the
same time adopting six characteristics (in the article called “talent factors”)
that are also available in the original model: intelligence, creative thinking,
openness to experience, desire to learn, drive to excel, and persistence. Based
on these talent factors, a questionnaire was constructed and distributed among
1,122 honors students. The results show that honors students, with the excep-
tion of “persistence,” scored higher than non-honors students on all talent fac-
tors as well as on the entire profile. The most significant differences were
found in “desire to learn,” “drive to excel,” and “creative thinking.”
“Intelligence” showed the least significant difference (which could make one
wonder about using the GPA as an excluding criterion in selection). A strik-
ing difference with the U.S. is that in the Netherlands “desire to learn” scored
higher than “drive to excel” (Scager) while in the U.S. it scored lower.
In the framework of our research question, this model refines the talent
factors that can be configured for students. By naming and describing six
indicators, thoroughly supported by models from the educational sciences,
this model gives us more specific grounds on which to evaluate the students
regardless of academic discipline. It is still unclear, though, whether the
resulting profile of the excellent professional will be valid in the workplace.
This model will require that teachers, based on their experience in the work-
place, determine whether the six indicators form a basis for educational and
professional success. The manner of developing the required types and levels
of skills is not yet clear, and perhaps looking at the educational process from
a long-term as well as short-term student perspective is a solution here.
Each of the three models offers insight into the concept of excellence and
ways to implement it in education. The three models are completely different
in focus, though: Schuurman et al. consider previous education and student
personality; Wolfensberger emphasizes students and their study environment;
and Scager stresses excellence in education and professionalism in the work-
place. The models nevertheless overlap in several respects: the Wolfensberger
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
239
RON WEERHEIJM AND JESKE WEERHEIJM
model presents the complexity of the links between the study environment,
teacher, and student; the Schuurman model of excellence presents four types
of students that fit partly into Wolfensberger’s “student and student life” and
thus offers an opportunity to be more exact in the selection and counseling of
students interested in joining the honors program. Moving from the model
“excellence in education” to the “excellent professional,” Scager provides an
important model of talent factors, about which a lot of theoretical as well as
practical literature is available, but additional research will be required to val-
idate the significance of these talent factors in the workplace. The Scager and
Schuurman models enable us to enhance the Wolfensberger model into one
that provides wide opportunities for selection of students and for feedback
from the workplace.
CONCLUSION
Our research question was: “Which factors are sufficient for making a
reliable prognosis for professional excellence, and how can these factors be
used to further develop recruitment for honors programs?” We can now indi-
cate that three factors—personal characteristics, motivation, and study envi-
ronment—are probably the most important indicators for professional excel-
lence. Personal characteristics are defined by the six talent factors Scager
identified: intelligence, creative thinking, openness to experience, desire to
learn, drive to excel and persistence. Criterion for admission to the honors
program would be evidence of these talent factors, in a specific and high-
scoring manner, depending on the student’s discipline. Motivation should be
considered from a long-term point of view; students setting mastery goals for
themselves eventually have a better chance of educational success than stu-
dents setting performance goals. The combination of personal characteristics
and motivation requires an environment that stimulates students to excel by
leading them from performance to mastery goals and from learning for the
sake of grades to learning for the sake of the process while practicing and
learning from feedback. In the Communities of Learning and Communities of
Practice lie the best opportunities to give meaning to the students’ education.
They offer an environment in which student and teacher can confront each
other and in which learning in education and learning in the workplace meet
each other.
For the second part of the research question, the model for excellence by
Schuurman offers a good point of departure in refining our recruitment and
selection process as do Wolfensberger’s discussion of “student and student
life” and Scager’s focus on motivation and talent factors. Within this context,
GPA is less important because any causality between GPA and educational
success has not been substantially proved. Research needs to focus more on
FALL/WINTER 2012
240
SELECTING FOR HONORS PROGRAMS
motivation, goal theory, the starting points the Schuurman model offers for
exceptional students, and the six talent factors defined by Scager. Most cur-
ricula focus on competencies specific to their intended profession, such as
knowledge, skills, and the development of a professional attitude whereas the
honors programs at the Universities of Applied Sciences focus especially on
professional attitude, making knowledge and skills development the students’
responsibility and thus following the life-long-learning principle. Thus, there
is a strong difference in focus between honors programs and the regular dis-
ciplines in Universities of Applied Sciences.
What skills then should teachers have at their disposal when looking to
improve the recruitment and selection process and its linkage to “education
and meetings”? The simplicity and clarity of Jay Freyman’s remarks—along
with Schuurman’s models, Wolfensbergers’s coherence, Scager’s talent fac-
tors, and the lived experience of our teachers—can allow us to design cours-
es that help teachers select and counsel students. However, we still need fur-
ther investigation of which indicators, in what relationship to each other, pre-
dict and produce success in the workplace. Universities of Applied Sciences
claim to educate “excellent professionals” through student profiles, and we
need to support these profiles with sufficient data.
REFERENCES
van den Berg, M., Hofman, W. H. A. & Stoppelenburg, C. (2001). Bollebozen
in het hoger onderwijs: stimulansen en belemmeringen bij het volgen van
twee opleidingen. (Outliers in higher education: stimulating and
obstructing when being enrolled in two separate bachelors studies).
Rotterdams Inst. voor Sociaal-Wetenschappelijk Beleidsonderzoek.
Derriks & Vergeer. (2010). Van havo naar hbo. (From highschool to UAS).
Amsterdam.
Drenth, H. & Veltman, F. (2010). Uitwerking competenties honors program-
ma Hogeschool Rotterdam. (Definition competencies honors program
Rotterdam UAS). HR (interne publicatie).
Eijl, P., Wolfensberger, M., Schreve-Brinkman, L. & Pilot, A. (2007).
Honours, tool for promoting excellence. Eindrapport van het project
“Talentontwikkeling in Honors programma”s en de meerwaarde die dat
oplevert.’IVLOS, Universiteit Utrecht, Mededeling, 82.
Finn, J. D. & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk
for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 221. American
Psychological Association.
Freyman, J. (2005). What is an honors student? Journal of the National
Collegiate Honors Council, 6(2), 23–29.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
241
RON WEERHEIJM AND JESKE WEERHEIJM
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., Lehto, A. T. & Elliot, A. J.
(1997). Predictors and consequences of achievement goals in the college
classroom: Maintaining interest and making the grade. Journal of
Personality and Social psychology, 73(6), 1284. American Psychological
Association.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M. & Elliot, A. J.
(2000). Short-term and long-term consequences of achievement goals:
Predicting interest and performance over time. Journal of educational
psychology, 92(2), 316. American Psychological Association.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M. & Elliot, A. J. (2002).
Predicting success in college: A longitudinal study of achievement goals
and ability measures as predictors of interest and performance from
freshman year through graduation. Journal of Educational Psychology,
94(3), 562. American Psychological Association.
HR. (2009). Excellente studenten overtreffen zichzelf, de inzet van de
Hogeschool Rotterdam voor het Siriusprogramma. (Excellent students
excel themselves, the aims of Rotterdam UAS in the Siriusprogram).
Van der Hulst, M. & Jansen, E. (2000). Effecten van curriculumkenmerken
op studievoortgang en uitval van studenten techniek. (Contribution by
curriculum characteristics to educational proceeds and technical students
resigning their education). TIJDSCHRIFT VOOR ONDERWIJSRE-
SEARCH, 24(3/4), 237–247. VERENIGING VOOR ONDERWIJSRE-
SEARCH.
Leverett-Main, S. (2004). Program directors’ perceptions of admission
screening measures and indicators of student success. Counselor
Education and Supervision, 43(3), 207–219. ACA.
Linnenbrink, E. A. & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for aca-
demic success. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 313–327. National
Association of School Psychologists.
McClelland, D. C. (1973). Testing for competence rather than for“ intelli-
gence.” American psychologist, 28(1), 1. American Psychological
Association.
Nuland, H. J. C. (2011). Eliciting classroom motivation: Not a piece of cake.
Education Studies, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Leiden
University.
OECD. (2011). Lessons from PISA for the United States. OECD Publishing.
Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J. & Maier, M. A. (2009). Achievement goals and
achievement emotions: Testing a model of their joint relations with aca-
demic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 115.
American Psychological Association.
FALL/WINTER 2012
242
SELECTING FOR HONORS PROGRAMS
Renzulli, J. S. (2012). Reexamining the Role of Gifted Education and Talent
Development for the 21st Century A Four-Part Theoretical Approach.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(3), 150–159. SAGE Publications.
Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R. & Carlstrom, A.
(2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college out-
comes? A meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 130(2), 261. American
Psychological Association.
Scager, K., Akkerman, S. F., Keesen, F., Mainhard, M. T., Pilot, A. &
Wubbels, T. (2011). Do honors students have more potential for excel-
lence in their professional lives? Higher Education, 1–21. Springer.
Schuurman, J., van den Berg, R. & Baeten, A. (2011). Het Excellentiemodel.
<http://www.platformexcellentie.nl>: Platform Beta Techniek.
Siriusprogramma: <http://www.siriusprogramma.nl/> (text available in
English)
Stelsel, C. T. H. O. (2010). Differentiëren in drievoud: omwille van kwaliteit en
verscheidenheid in het hoger onderwijs. Den Haag: Ministerie van OCW.
Verdonschot, S. G. M. (2009). Learning to innovate: a series of studies to
explore and enable learning in innovation practices. University of
Twente.
Wolfensberger. (2011). Excelleren in Hoger Onderwijs en Samenleving: een
integratief model rondom uitmuntende prestaties. OVO, 8.
*******
The authors may be contacted at
c.e.weerheijm@hr.nl.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
243
The Reflective Professional
Honours Programme of the
Dutch Saxion Universities
TRIJNTJE VAN DIJK
SAXION UNIVERSITIES OF APPLIED SCIENCES, THE NETHERLANDS
INTRODUCTION
T
he Reflective Professional Honours Programme of the Saxion
Universities of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands centers on a profile
of what graduates of the program should have accomplished in addition to
their regular bachelor’s degree program. The development team for our pro-
gramme first investigated what the profile should be, interviewing roughly
three hundred business representatives to discover what they considered an
excellent honours student profile. All the interview information was trans-
formed into a concept profile. An Honours Council evaluated the concept,
and the project team adapted it. Then the steering committee evaluated and
approved it after further adaption. Finally the president of the University
Board approved the profile.
Each academy within the Saxion Universities can start a programme on
a four-year experimental basis. The areas of experiment are entrance selec-
tion, programme contents, programme didactics, coaching characteristics,
student profile, and honours community characteristics. The aim is to exper-
iment and share the best practices. All in all, sixteen programmes have been
started. The programmes run alongside the regular university programmes,
and no study credits are given; students proceed after positive assessments.
Some programmes are within an academy, and some are independent.
Programmes are assessed in the third year of the four-year experiment. Some
are validated and gain the title Reflective Professional Honours Programme.
Others are characterised as exceptional.
The student profile has been the key element in the development, imple-
mentation, and success of the Reflective Professional Honours Programme,
and its six characteristics are the foundation of this unique honours
programme.
FALL/WINTER 2012
244
THE REFLECTIVE PROFESSIONAL HONOURS PROGRAMME
THE REFLECTIVE PROFESSIONAL:
SAXION DEFINITIONS
Successful graduates of an honours programme at the Saxion
Universities of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands, after completing their
bachelor’s degree, have distinguished themselves with six characteristics that
provide a unique profile as they enter the labour market. The ingredients of
this profile (source: <http://www.saxion.nl/buitengewoon>) involves ingredi-
ents that are never all present to the same extent but, in some combination,
mark the graduates as reflective professionals.
1. Breadth and Depth of Knowledge
On the one hand, reflective professionals are specialised and, on the other
hand, have a broad outlook. They have a wide mental framework and the
ability to creatively combine knowledge with complex systems and impor-
tant issues of professional practice. They search for challenging issues in
knowledge centres or reputable companies. They can make regional and
international comparisons, knowing that almost all professions have an
international component.
2. Metacognition
Reflective professionals are able to understand the development of their
profession within a historical and philosophical context. They possess
metacognitive skills such as analysing, setting targets, planning, and eval-
uating—metaprocesses that stimulate the profession to develop further.
They both develop and share knowledge within a high-quality network,
learning quickly and inspiring fellow professionals to higher levels of
development.
3. Professional and Social Awareness
Reflective professionals are enterprising in pursuit of new solutions with
social meaning. Exercising cross- and multi-disciplinary thinking, being
able and willing to take responsibility, and being able to communicate con-
vincingly enable them to devise new concepts for professionals, compa-
nies, and sectors. Their professional journey is more intriguing as a “dance
of change” than as a destination (Senge), and in this context they are aware
of their professional position within a team, organization, or society.
4. Methodological Attitude
In addition to evidence-based thinking and substantiated assessments,
reflective professionals continuously evaluate the strategies they use. Fed
by a strong analytical-intellectual ability and interest in theoretical depth,
they arrive at new professional and social accomplishments.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
245
TRIJNTJE VA N DIJK
5. Professional Detachment
Reflective professionals have the ability to reflect on issues from an extra-
ordinary perspective. Professional detachment is a pre-condition for plac-
ing issues in an alternative framework that incorporates paradigm shifts.
Reflective professionals have the inclination and ability to consider issues
based on systematised experience and theoretical models, to see the issues
on a micro, meso and macro level, and to take a point of view in this con-
text. They repeatedly create and articulate their own learning questions as
well as those of the professional environment. They both seek and create
challenges and new paradigms.
6. Differentiated Profile Development
Reflective professionals usually develop a specific profile within which
they function in a high-quality way to distinguish themselves, whether in
entrepreneurship, management, or research.
In short, reflective professionals are innovators in professional practice, per-
ceive new trends in society or in the world, take up their positions in a pro-
fessionally responsible and innovative way, create new knowledge in order to
consciously improve the system (double-loop learning), and even change a
sector or market (triple-loop learning). They create the dynamics of innova-
tion and see learning as a social challenge for the future.
THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING AN
HONOURS PROGRAMME FOR
REFLECTIVE PROFESSIONALS
Various phases defined the evolution of our programme to develop a
cadre of reflective professionals in the Saxion Universities. The first phase
was the exploration of ways the participating professional universities of
applied sciences (hogescholen) in the Netherlands had formulated their pro-
grammes. The second phase was a survey within Saxion. During the third
phase, a research group was set up to carry out specialised research in sup-
port of the profile; these surveys are currently in progress. In the fourth phase,
international feedback has been requested. The various phases and findings
are outlined below.
PHASE 1:
NATIONAL SURVEY AND LITERATURE SEARCH
Our programme team initially made contact with other universities of
applied sciences that had initiated such a project either recently or some time
ago. The team visited universities of applied sciences such as the
Hanzehogeschool in Groningen, attended nationally or regionally organized
FALL/WINTER 2012
246
THE REFLECTIVE PROFESSIONAL HONOURS PROGRAMME
conferences, and participated in national research groups. The programme
team also studied relevant websites and other publications.
During the Conference on Excellence, Research & Development in
September 2010, our team was introduced to important resources. The article
“Een goede hbo-er is geen wo-er: het profiel van de excellente professional”
(A good higher education institution student is not a university student: the
profile of the excellent professional), written by Freddy Veltman-van Vugt
and Daphne Hijzen, Hogeschool Rotterdam, made it clear that a successful
undergraduate professional student is not automatically comparable to a suc-
cessful nonprofessional university student. This distinction was an eye-open-
er. Rotterdam takes the position that undergraduates in professional fields
will be working in a context characterised by change, as a result of which
they have to be innovative and multidisciplinary.
Another important article was “Wat heeft excellente beroepsbeoefenaars
gemaakt tot wie ze zijn?” (What has made excellent professional into what
they are?) by Dr Claudia Hoeksema-van Orden of the Hanzehogeschool
Groningen, who asserts that personal characteristics to look for are passion,
single-mindedness, motivation, perseverance and leadership. These insights
supported the multidimensional concept of the original Saxion design, mix-
ing intelligence, learning ability, reflection, curiosity, creativity and
motivation.
Our literature search on reflective practices led us to authors such as D.
Schon (The Reflective Practitioner, 1983) and H.J. Hartman (“Teaching
Metacognitively,” in Metacognition in Learning and Instruction, 1990); these
authors provided guidelines for reflection in direct, interactive, and practical
situations. Research at Lewis-Clark State College’s Division of Education
<http://www.lsc.edu/> provided a link with The Reflective Professional and a
set of reflective standards for the teacher.
PHASE 2:
MEETINGS AND INTERVIEWS
WITH ACADEMICS AND PROFESSIONALS
In order to form a consensus about excellence, we held talks with senior
lecturers and educators as well as boards of directors and various academic
representatives within Saxion. We interviewed and filmed representatives of
the academies who visited national conferences, and we also interviewed stu-
dents (see Appendices A and B.) The result was a vast database of word
images, out of which certain key elements emerged that became the basis for
our profile of reflective professionals as described in our six characteristics.
Further confirmation of these elements came from the literature. Argyris,
for instance, prompted our identification of several scales or loops relating to
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
247
TRIJNTJE VA N DIJK
professional individuals, teams, organizations, systems, and sectors. A reflec-
tive professional learns, applies knowledge, and innovates with an ever-
increasing scope.
PHASE 3:
RESEARCH
During the third phase, a research group was set up to carry out spe-
cialised research in support of the profile. These surveys are currently in
progress.
PHASE 4:
SURVEY REFLECTIVE PROFESSIONAL:
FEEDBACK FROM NCHC EXPERTS
During the 46th Annual Conference of the National Collegiate Honors
Council in Phoenix, Arizona (October 2011), we consulted various experts in
the Consultants Center to get feedback on our profile of the reflective pro-
fessional. (See Acknowledgments a list of these consultants.) We discussed
our six distinct characteristics of the reflective professional, and the consul-
tants offered positive appraisals of each of them as well as some additional
insights or suggestions. Below are some highlights of their commentary.
1. The six characteristics of the reflective professional add to the seventeen
NCHC Basic Characteristics by focusing on interdisciplinarity and risk-
taking.
2. The focus on breadth and depth addresses both liberal arts and profession-
al students in a balanced way.
3. Curiosity should be fed and nourished rather than taught.
4. Professionals need a high level of competence within their field but also
need to communicate their knowledge to the public and to understand peo-
ple of different backgrounds.
5. In the United States, service learning is an important component of hon-
ours, and students are expected to want to carry out professional activities
for the benefit of society. The progress made in this context in Europe is
viewed with a certain amount of envy. Americans seem less fully devel-
oped as members of society compared with Europeans; they see them-
selves as individualists and often have a paradigm of us and them, espe-
cially in relation to Mexican immigrants.
6. Reflection is an important goal, and ideally students should learn not in a
comfortable but in an uncomfortable manner. Peer evaluation is one model
FALL/WINTER 2012
248
THE REFLECTIVE PROFESSIONAL HONOURS PROGRAMME
in the U.S. that encourages reflection and often discomfort. Reflection also
includes looking ahead to formulate new long-term strategies or policies
for a student’s discipline.
7. Civic engagement encourages students to later view their jobs with a sense
of responsibility to give something back to society.
8. Our differentiated profile is a highly effective strategy that not only
explains what skills students will have at the end of the programme but
also makes clear to an employer why an honours student is a better candi-
date than the average graduate. Employers are keen to know exactly what
they can expect from a reflective professional and how he or she can help
a company advance. It may be possible to communicate these accom-
plishments more clearly through a certificate or through some kind of
check sheet indicating how well an individual student has attained each of
the six characteristics.
9. A liberal arts programme that makes use of the world classics might be
useful in enhancing all six characteristics of the profile, with the caveat
that the classics no longer come solely from the West but also from the
Middle East, India, the Far East, and Africa.
OUR PERCEPTIONS ABOUT
U.S. HONOURS PROGRAMMES
Based on our experience at the NCHC conference in Phoenix, we drew
several conclusions about American honours programmes that distinguish
them from our experience in the Netherlands:
• American programmes have great freedom as far as objectives are con-
cerned, but, driven by accreditation requirements, people are looking for
concrete criteria and requirements a student must meet. Our profile of the
Saxion reflective professional is an example of a further step in the process
of formulating concrete requirements.
• American programmes are often focused on self-cultivation based on the
world classics whereas the Saxion profile offers room for excelling in both
the liberal arts domains and the transdisciplinary sphere.
• Members of the American programmes are often young people from the
well-to-do classes and are protected from the outside world, which may
not be the best manner of development for future leadership. On the other
hand, honours students are expected to take responsibility during their
studies and in their professional lives for contributing to society.
•The American teacher is often a portal to other cultures, standards, and val-
ues. For example, an art history teacher had students experience the South
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
249
TRIJNTJE VA N DIJK
American Day of the Dead as well as Halloween. A teacher of Greek
acquainted her students with the Greek philosophers as a stepping stone to
world philosophers.
• The educational community in the United States has an unprecedented
degree of strategic flexibility and volatility. Rapid changes of provosts,
deans, and directors result in the sudden and rapid abolishment or forma-
tion of honours programmes, costing a lot of energy and causing instabil-
ity and fear.
• Honours programmes in the U.S. maintain strong relationships with the
parents of honours students, who are often funders of the programmes, but
do not develop relationships with disciplinary or professional organiza-
tions that monitor the quality of academic content.
• American honours programmes are strongly focused on publicity about
extraordinary performance; they adhere to a certain ethos without its being
linked to a validated profile. Several speakers introduced themselves by
making remarks that they had the best students in terms of, for instance,
national test scores or national fellowships or intrinsic intelligence or
motivation.
• The developers of U.S. honours programmes are very keen to learn. The
participants in the NCHC conference feel a certain solidarity in the shared
learning experience during the conference, but few participants appear to
exchange contact information.
• City as Text™ is a conference feature that focuses on historical, transdis-
ciplinary, and cultural awareness, or Bildung, through urban exploration
and through reading a city as if it were a literary text. With maps of the
city, students and faculty are sent out to experience cathedrals, cemeteries,
museums, parks, and neighbourhoods. Participants might explore, for
instance, the way that events such as Katrina had an impact on the devel-
opment and layout of a city, or, by reading tombstones in the various rich
and poor cemeteries, they might learn what kinds of diseases and other
causes of death have affected different social classes of a population.
Following their explorations, participants—both students and faculty
together—present their findings to each other. One objective of this pro-
ject is community formation.
• The keynote speeches during the conference did not focus on honours edu-
cation but on topics such as pesticides, music, floods, death, poetry, and
art. About 40% of the audience for these general-interest lectures were stu-
dents accompanying their teachers at the conferences. These lectures were
a chance for students and teachers to learn and interact together.
FALL/WINTER 2012
250
THE REFLECTIVE PROFESSIONAL HONOURS PROGRAMME
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author thanks the following NCHC consultants for their time and
advice: Rae Rosenthal, The Community College of Baltimore Country;
Eugene J. Alpert, The Washington Center for Internships and Academic
Seminars; Joanna Gonsalves, Salem State University; Barry Falk, James
Madison University; George Mariz, Western Washington University; Mark
Allen Poisel, Pace University; Melissa Ladenheim, University of Maine; and
J. Scott Lee, Saint Mary’s College of California.
REFERENCES
Benammar, K., Schaik, M. van, Sparreboom, I., Vrolijk, S., & Wortman, O.
(2006). Reflectietools. Den Haag: Lemma.
Bulthuis, P. (2010.) Handleiding HBO-niveau. Handleiding voor het onder-
zoeken, realiseren en verantwoorden van het HBO-niveau.
Deventer/Enschede: Saxion: DOS afd. O&K.
Coppoolse, R., Eijl van, P. & Bruijn de, E. (2010). Naar instellingsbrede
excellentiestrategie in het hbo: een onderzoek naar de ontwikkeling van
talent. Den Haag: Uitgeverij Boom/Lemma: Tijdschrift voor Hoger
Onderwijs 2010/4.
H.J. Hartman, H.J. (1990). “Teaching Metacognitively.” Metacognition in
Learning and Instruction. New York: Basic Books .
Hoeksema-van Orden, C. (2010). Wat heeft excellente beroepsbeoefenaars
gemaakt tot wie ze zijn? Hanzehogeschool Groningen.
Korthagen, F. and Vasalos, A. (2005). Levels in reflection: core reflection as
a means to enhance professional growth. Utrecht: IVLOS Institute of
Education, Utrecht University.
Landheer, J.M.F. (2009). Hoe passen veranderingsmanagers reflecteren-op-
actie toe ten behoeve van hun effectiviteit? Heerlen: Doctoraalscriptie
Open Universiteit.
Mooij, T. & Fettelaar, D. (2010). Naar excellente scholen, leraren, leerlingen
en studenten. Nijmegen: Radbout Universiteit ITS.
Onderwijsraad (2011). Excellente leraren als inspirerend voorbeeld. Den
Haag: Onderwijsraad.
Senge, P. M. (1994). The fifth discipline. The art & practice of the learning
organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in
action. New York: Basic Books.
Veltman-van Vugt, F. Hijzen, D (2010). Een goede hbo-er is geen wo-er: het
profiel van de excellente professional. Rotterdam: Hogeschool
Rotterdam.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
251
TRIJNTJE VA N DIJK
Wijnalda, M. (2010). Organizational Learning of Lerende Organisatie: een
vergelijkende literatuurstudie. Tilburg: Doctoraalscriptie Universiteit
van Tilburg.
*******
The author may be contacted at
t.vandijk@saxion.nl.
FALL/WINTER 2012
252
THE REFLECTIVE PROFESSIONAL HONOURS PROGRAMME
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW OF EVA BOONK, SAXION STUDENT
IN SOCIAL PEDAGOGIC CARE (SECOND YEAR),
HONOURS PROGRAMME:
LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCE
1. How did you find out about the HP for the RP and how did the selection
take place?
Initially there were various advertising campaigns, and after that I attend-
ed several introductory lectures and I received a personal invitation letter
from the manager of the programme. Via other students I already had some
idea of what is was. Then I decided to participate in the programme.
2. What is characteristic for the formats in the HP for the RP?
One characteristic is that you are left free and at the same time are given a
clear assignment. The attractive thing is that the assignment can be given
shape and developed in a highly personal way. In addition, as a student you
get the feeling that you are alongside the teacher instead of occupying a
position under the teacher. Also the fact that besides guest teachers there
are only a few teachers following you and specifically monitoring your
development, makes that you do not feel that you have to start from the
bottom again. You build something together. They know you and encour-
age me in my specific development.
3. What is characteristic for the content of the HP for the RP?
First you have a good look at who you are, how you stand in the world,
and then you look at what else there is. My own degree programme also
made me look at myself, but now I look at myself and everything I am
equipped with through a kind of Bildung method. My basic discipline is
social work and I have also become acquainted with various ways of crit-
ical thinking, a way of thinking intellectually, etc. It is focused on domains
of meanings, facts, perception and such. Therefore it more or less exceeds
bounds as far as disciplines are concerned.
4. What is characteristic for the teachers of the HP for the RP
My teachers have a broad outlook and a great deal of knowledge. It is a
broader kind of programme. They have a certain form of enthusiasm, and
there is some degree of equality. There is also room for better feedback,
more and differently than in case of a regular programme. There is specif-
ic attention for one’s own and new ideas, as well my contribution. The
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
253
TRIJNTJE VA N DIJK
intention in artistic and creative thinking was to challenge one another. My
strong point was drama; acting. Language constituted a gap in my skills.
Then I was given the opportunity to write a monologue. I was given a chal-
lenge of my own, from my strong points and in which context different
personalities had to be portrayed; I learnt with steady progress.
5. What is characteristic for the culture or community of the HP for the RP?
It is important that you do not stay put in your comfort zone but that you
set yourself a challenge and get ahead. You spend a lot of time on discus-
sions with other students. They might be from a Social Work, Applied
Psychology, Nursing, Textiles, Mechanical Engineering or ICT back-
ground. This way you learn a lot from other people. For example, some-
one gave a presentation on nuclear energy. I had my opinions about this,
but now my outlook on this subject has been substantially broadened. You
learn that by listening to other disciplines, your outlook on things can be
broadened and change.
6. Which characteristics of the profile of the RP do you recognise and can
you indicate how you receive coaching in this?
Breadth and Depth of Knowledge
• Specialist and/or broad knowledge with respect to subject matter from
own and other disciplines.
• The teachers have a broad outlook and there are many guest teachers.
It’s about philosophy, different ways of thinking.
• There was a lot of reflection involved in my own programme and I did
this because it was required. Now I do it in a meaningful way and take
aspects from it for my own professional personality. Regular coaching
within the Bachelor programme was interesting but the HP brought me
further still. In the coaching process I have learnt a lot about the capac-
ity I still have to further develop my professional personality.
Metacognition
•Initially you find yourself in relatively small groups and you are still
very much focused on your own development. In the second part you
work together more, give one another feedback, learn from each other,
and learn in the form of a think tank. Then the assignments are primar-
ily focused on working together. You examine other people’s work
more intensively and with greater motivation. Regular higher profes-
sional education, as it were, teaches you the basic steps and now you
learn to concentrate on much more specific points in the products of fel-
low students.
FALL/WINTER 2012
254
THE REFLECTIVE PROFESSIONAL HONOURS PROGRAMME
Professional and Social Awareness
• I think that this very much contributes to me adopting a critical attitude
and that I am able to conceive how something could be done different-
ly in my profession. I have learnt to dare say how things can be done
differently. I have learnt how to make process descriptions and to reflect
on these and to direct myself. When you are involved in a description,
you discover new possibilities and new insights. This enables you to
direct other people to do new things which you can in turn use in your
own work situation. For other people in my environment and for my
employer it will be very useful, certainly in the continuously changing
working environment of social work, to have employees who are flex-
ible, who dare look at themselves and dare introduce new insights, and
dare encourage others to develop new insights.
Methodological Attitude
• We have learnt to adopt a critical way of thinking, based on various
methods; in this context we have learnt to go beyond merely slashing
arguments. We learnt how to look further than your own abilities, the
library, and Picarta. Ordinarily you are restricted to the prescribed liter-
ature because this is sufficient.
Professional Detachment
• There is always more involved than simply answering the question. It
is about yourself, it requires a broader perspective. As a result you func-
tion differently in your environment.
Differentiated Profile Development: creates new knowledge to conscious-
ly improve the system (double loop learning) or even change a sector or
market (triple loop).
• I have, as it were, hundreds of methods for tackling things. I have a
broad outlook and more empathy to understand the motives of other
people. I am able to encourage people I know a little better to make the
next step, or to broaden their outlook.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
255
TRIJNTJE VA N DIJK
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW OF SJOERD WERKHOVEN, SAXION STUDENT IN
TECHNICAL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (2ND YEAR),
HONOURS PROGRAMME:
TALENT FOR NATURAL LEADERSHIP
1. How did you find out about the Honours Programme for the Reflective
Professional and how did the selection take place?
I went after it myself. When my studies turned out to be easy I had a talk
with the study career counsellor and was presented with options such as the
HP programme and then I tried to find out as much as possible about it.
First I had to write a letter in which I had to explain why I wanted to par-
ticipate. Then I had to present my passion. I was invited twice for an inter-
view about my motivation and my choice for the specific programme. The
first interview didn’t go too well but during the second interview I had a
better understanding of what I wanted to do.
2. What is characteristic for the formats in the Honours Programme for the
Reflective Professional?
The HP is about project management and personal development.
Innovating, interacting, if you don’t contribute you will not get anything
out of it. The point is what you personally can achieve. There is interac-
tion with students, graduates, and people in the field. For certain assign-
ments you work in groups. The groups are formed at random and all day
you work on broadening and acquiring knowledge. The groups also vary
all the time. The only binding factor is the project management but every-
one has a completely different personality and professional background. I
learned the cradle to cradle approach in a project on construction and felt
this didn’t suit me very much. I also learnt how to manage conflicts, what
my attitude was and my and other people’s mentality. I recognised my pit-
falls and learnt how to actively deal with these. Through methodical analy-
sis of your own personality you also recognise types in others and you
learn to deal with these as well.
3. What is characteristic for the content of the Honours Programme for the
Reflective Professional?
4. What is characteristic for the teachers of the Honours Programme for the
Reflective Professional?
FALL/WINTER 2012
256
THE REFLECTIVE PROFESSIONAL HONOURS PROGRAMME
There are teachers but they are practically equals to the group. There is
much discussion. Within the “teachers” group there are experts who come
up with an idea with which you could do something yourself. It is not real-
ly a teacher who teaches you something. During a workshop about the cre-
ation spiral you were taught which steps you could take to achieve what
you want. You have the step-by-step plan in your head and you have to do
something with it yourself. This was also a workshop and that means that
you have to put it to work yourself. In addition, there are also theory
lessons.
5. What is characteristic for the culture of community of the Honours
Programme for the Reflective Professional?
Close and open. I always feel very much at ease. Everyone is very open,
helpful, and eager to learn.
6. Which characteristics of the profile of the Reflective Professional do you
recognise and can you indicate how you receive coaching in this?
Breadth and Depth of Knowledge
• Specialist and/or broad knowledge with respect to subject matter from
own and other disciplines: technical business administration and in this
case Prince2.
•Ability to creatively use knowledge in complex systems and issues
from the professional practice: we did a practice case at DHL, the trans-
port sector. There was a logistics problem, within business to consumer,
whereby often consumers were not at home and the routes were ineffi-
cient. We went there together, with students, teachers and graduates.
What we did was hold interviews and brainstorm. We heard the stories
from the various levels and functions within the company and from
there we formulated a solution.
• International outlook: this could be for a placement or minor in an inter-
national company.
Metacognition
• Development of networks and purposeful deployment of networks: we
do this constantly. All fields are covered in the people who coach me; a
young professional and a senior professional. I am surrounded by a net-
work of experts who are all helpful to me and who are all project man-
agers from various disciplines.
• Ability to work together and share knowledge in a multidisciplinary
context.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
257
TRIJNTJE VA N DIJK
• Ability to inspire colleagues to innovative developments for the
profession.
Professional and Social Awareness
• Self-managing learning ability. If you lack motivation it will quickly
become apparent that this is unsuitable for you. You want to examine
yourself critically and learn from this.
• Effective and convincing communication: I have grown in this and the
programme ensures that I am good at it. The project requires that I am
able to convince people.
• Environmental awareness: a project took place within DHL in order to
improve efficiency. Once a project has been completed, I am still will-
ing to help fellow students. I am being trained to become a strong social
personality and not a knowledge gatherer.
Methodological Attitude
• Academic attitude.
• Analytical ability and ability for theoretical depth. Prince2, presentation
methods, feedback methods, critical attitude.
• Acquiring and sharing knowledge.
Professional Detachment
• Ability to reflect from an extraordinary perspective.
•Critical detachment with respect to professional issues.
• Development of extraordinary personal learning questions and of extra-
ordinary learning questions of the professional development.
• You are expected to look at yourself and you become a strong and
dynamic personality who opts for a specific direction within project
management as a discipline of his/her own.
Differentiated Profile Development: creates new knowledge to conscious-
ly improve the system (double loop learning) or even change a sector or
market (triple loop).
• Own development trajectory and profile.
•Continuous learning process, focused on personal, professional and
social development.
•By means of the knowledge of project management I can make a high-
ly valuable contribution towards problem solving by means of a project,
FALL/WINTER 2012
258
THE REFLECTIVE PROFESSIONAL HONOURS PROGRAMME
which in principle can benefit any sector. Because you probably do a
project every two years and at the end of a project concentrate on what
you have learnt in this sector through this project, you always learn
something about the sector which you can apply in the next projects.
My discipline is so broad as to enable me to call myself
transdisciplinary.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
259
Looping Up Professional
Reflection in Honours
Programmes
TRIJNTJE VAN DIJK
SAXION UNIVERSITIES OF APPLIED SCIENCES, THE NETHERLANDS
LOOPING UP
W
ithin the Saxion Universities in the Netherlands, a profile of the
“Reflective Professional” comprises a number of competencies that the
honours programmes are designed to develop and support. The process of
developing these competencies involves three loops of learning, character-
ized by three sets of reflective questions so that, as a whole, they loop up pro-
fessional reflection. The goal is to inspire students and their coaches to con-
sider the phases of learning with conscious awareness and focus.
BEFORE THE LOOP
In the first year of the traditional four-year bachelor’s programme, fresh-
man students experience new ways of thinking and learning within the pro-
fessions they have chosen. Along with peers who have similar interests and
goals, students enter into a preprogrammed, industrially organized setting in
which they may feel happy, overwhelmed, or bored. The latter case is the
starting point for the Reflective Professional. During the first year of the
bachelor’s programme, students who are impatient with the regular pro-
gramme and looking for extra challenges will discover the possibility of
choosing from sixteen honours programmes, which begin during the second
year of the traditional four-year bachelor’s programme, continue for three
years, and run alongside but independently from the regular bachelor’s
programmes.
THE FIRST LOOP
The first year of the honours programme is the first loop in the learning
process, triggered by reflective questions like the following:
• Who am I?
• What am I going to be?
FALL/WINTER 2012
260
LOOPING UP PROFESSIONAL REFLECTION IN HONOURS PROGRAMMES
• What am I taught to be?
• What do I want to be?
• How do I think?
• How am I taught to think?
• Do I want to think like that?
• How do I want to think?
In the honours programme, students are drawn from their comfort zone and
learn how to think critically; they explore new disciplines and professions;
they develop their own personal ideas about professional thought and behav-
ior; and they inevitably become curious about the personal and professional
identities of their fellow students as well as themselves.
THE SECOND LOOP
The second year of the honours programme is the second loop, when stu-
dents not just explore but get personally involved in a multidisciplinary pro-
fessional context. Students share knowledge about their chosen professions
and learn about other disciplines to broaden their personal and professional
knowledge. Reflection now focuses on new kinds of questions:
• What is the purpose of my profession in this country?
• What are the new developments and big questions within my profession?
• What is the phase of my professional profile?
•What is the purpose of my professional identity in the present setting?
•How can my professionalism be made valuable to my fellow profession-
als, now my team and later my organization?
• How can I be of professional value to my fellow students from different
disciplines and professions?
• What do I need from my fellow professionals from other disciplines and
what do I have to offer them?
•Where has my critical thinking brought me, and where do I want it to
take me?
In addressing these questions, students build an invigorating network of pro-
fessionals who tend to inspire each other and to transplant new ideas into each
other’s professional gardens; the professional student gardener meets with
mutually reflective professionals and now experiences gardening as a process
that includes management, accounting, learning, literary inspiration, painting,
healing, water conservation, architecture, sustainability, safety, and securi-
ty—incorporating all these new elements into their art of gardening.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
261
TRIJNTJE VA N DIJK
THE THIRD LOOP
The final year of the honours programme is the third loop, when students
focus on developing the ability to reprogram the profession and create a new
enterprise, business formula or profession. Being a reflective professional,
the student develops the ability to take a profession to a new phase. A major
point for concern is how to build consensus for a new phenomenon in a tra-
ditional world. Within the network of creative and inspiring reflective pro-
fessionals, the major questions are the following:
• What are the questions my profession will have to cope with in the com-
ing generation?
• What will potential scenarios lead to?
• How can other disciplines contribute creatively to the challenges my pro-
fession will face?
• If I hear a story from a successful professional in another discipline, how
can I understand the thinking behind it and how I can apply it to my
profession?
•How will my profession be redefined, and how can this definition be com-
municated?
•How can I help build consensus for innovation?
• How can I make new ideas feasible and put them in practice?
• How can a new right solution lead to a new and better profession?
Stick to the simple metaphor of the supposed student gardener, let’s elaborate
upon it and imagine a reflective professional student from the Saxion
Universities of Applied Sciences who is situated within a high-tech environ-
ment that includes nanotechnology, creative technology, and engineering.
Combining the various schools of thinking, the reflective professional gar-
dener might develop a continually-redesign-your-new-garden concept which
incorporates the various disciplines into a product that might be natural, vir-
tual, or three-dimensional.
AFTER THE LOOP
The challenge of the reflection coach is to inspire and guide students with
careful communication and implementation of new concepts. Models from
older schools of thought that focus on the interaction between practitioner
and client and improvements in professional interactions are typically of lim-
ited use; old schools of thought are helpful when positioning disciplines in
their present phase of development but not beyond. What completes the loop
FALL/WINTER 2012
262
LOOPING UP PROFESSIONAL REFLECTION IN HONOURS PROGRAMMES
of learning in the development of both individuals and teams reflective pro-
fessionals is a leap into meta-questions like these:
• What does my team, organization, or profession need?
• What is my professional mission?
• What is new in the school of thought of other disciplines?
• What can be creatively applied or combined into new concepts?
• What new formula for our profession can be co-created with fellow reflec-
tive professionals?
Once a potential idea is born, it needs careful nursing and communication.
The reflective professional still lives in a traditional world in which refine-
ment of old ideas, all within bounds of the predictable, is graded cum laude.
New schools of thought may not fit logically into regular systems and thus
may not be appreciated.
An extraordinary idea from a reflective professional student, even when
supported by her or his reflection coach, may not correspond to traditional
paradigms, so reflective professionals cannot be graded by traditional mea-
sures. The challenge we face in the honours programmes of the Saxion
Universities of Applied Sciences is to design, explain, and implement a new
set of measurements that both allow and encourage students to make the leap
beyond the loop into new paradigms. The series of graduated questions we
ask our students to consider as they progress through their three years in the
honours programme prepare them to make such a leap.
RELATED READINGS
Benammar, K., Schaik, M. van, Sparreboom, I., Vrolijk, S., & Wortman, O.
(2006). Reflectietools. Den Haag: Lemma.
Bulthuis, Petra en Trijntje van Dijk (2012). Buitengewoon, Saxion
Programma Excelleren, deel 3: Verbinden wat er zo nog niet was . . . , 2.
Branding the Reflective Professional, Afstuderen reflective Professional:
Excellent verzwaard afstuderen. Saxion Hogescholen.
Dijk, Trijntje van, (2011). Buitengewoon, Saxion Programma Excelleren,
deel 1: opstartfase, 2.3 Eindprofiel Reflective Professional. Saxion
Hogescholen.
Dijk, Trijntje van, (2011). Buitengewoon, Saxion Programma Excelleren,
deel 2: De Reflective Professional en Ontwerpprincipes voor Honours
Programmes, Verkennend onderzoek inzake student, docent en
leeromgeving, 2. Deel1: De Reflective Professional, 2.1 De Reflective
Professional: Saxion definities. Saxion Hogescholen.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
263
TRIJNTJE VA N DIJK
Dijk, Trijntje van, (2011). Buitengewoon, Saxion Programma Excelleren,
deel 2: De Reflective Professional en Ontwerpprincipes voor Honours
Programmes, Verkennend onderzoek inzake student, docent en
leeromgeving, 2. Deel1: De Reflective Professional, 2.1 Competentieset
Uitstroomniveau Reflective Professional. Saxion Hogescholen.
Dijk, Trijntje van, (2011). Buitengewoon, Saxion Programma Excelleren,
deel 2: De Reflective Professional en Ontwerpprincipes voor Honours
Programmes, Verkennend onderzoek inzake student, docent en
leeromgeving, 2. Deel1: De Reflective Professional, Competentieset
Instroomniveau Reflective Professional. Saxion Hogescholen.
Dijk, Trijntje van, (2012). Buitengewoon, Saxion Programma Excelleren,
deel 3: Verbinden wat er zo nog niet was . . . , 2. Branding the Reflective
Professional, 2.1 Het ontwikkelproces van de Reflective Professional.
Saxion Hogescholen.
H.J. Hartman, H.J. (1990). Teaching Metacognitively, Metacognition in
Learning and Instruction. New York: Basic Books.
Korthagen, F. and Vasalos, A. (2005). Levels in reflection: core reflection as
a means to enhance professional growth. Utrecht: IVLOS Institute of
Education, Utrecht University
Landheer, J.M.F. (2009). Hoe passen veranderingsmanagers reflecteren-op-
actie toe ten behoeve van hun effectiviteit? Heerlen: Doctoraalscriptie
Open Universiteit.
Nonaka, I (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business
Review, November-December, 96–104.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: How
Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the organiza-
tion. Harvard Business Review, May–June, 79–91.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in
action. New York: Basic Books.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflecting practitioner. San-Fransisco:
Jossey-Bass Inc. publishers.
Senge, P. M. (1994). The fifth discipline. The art & practice of the learning
organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.
Susskind, Lawrence, Sarah McKearnan, Jennifer Thomas-Larmer (1999).
The Consensus Building Handbook, Acomprehensive guide to reaching
agreement. Thousand Oaks, California: The Consensus Building
Institute, Sage Publications, Inc,.
FALL/WINTER 2012
264
LOOPING UP PROFESSIONAL REFLECTION IN HONOURS PROGRAMMES
Wijnalda, M. (2010). Organizational Learning of Lerende Organisatie: een
vergelijkende literatuurstudie. Tilburg: Doctoraalscriptie Universiteit
van Tilburg.
*******
The author may be contacted at
t.vandijk@saxion.nl.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
265
Honors in the Master’s:
A New Perspective?
STAN VAN GINKEL
WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY, THE NETHERLANDS
PIERRE VAN EIJL AND ALBERT PILOT
UTRECHT UNIVERSITY, THE NETHERLANDS
JOHN ZUBIZARRETA
COLUMBIA COLLEGE, U.S.
The honors master’s thesis is the first chapter of a future
dissertation.
You learn to work together from an interdisciplinary perspective.
This program increases your chances on the U.S. labor market.
With this master’s, you become a scientific practitioner.
The successful completion of this program increases your opportu-
nities to win a top internship and career coaching.
—These quotations have been selected from the
websites of honors master’s programs.
INTRODUCTION
I
n Europe, there is a growing interest in honors education, not only in the
bachelor’s but also in the master’s degree. The Dutch government, for
instance, is actively promoting excellence in both bachelor’s and master’s
degrees through honors programs (Siriusteam). Most Dutch universities have
honors programs at the bachelor’s level or are developing them. Some uni-
versities have also recently introduced honors into their master’s programs,
stimulated by recent publications (van Eijl, Wolfensberger & Pilot). Because
honors master’s programs are a new phenomenon in higher education and are
still exceptional in the United States of America, we have undertaken a
research project to study them (van Ginkel & van Eijl).
In our study, an Internet search showed thirty-four examples of honors
master’s programs from the U.S., Canada, Australia, Germany, Italy, Ireland
FALL/WINTER 2012
266
HONORS IN THE MASTER’S: A NEW PERSPECTIVE?
and The Netherlands. All of these cases involved special honors programs
within master’s curricula, some in addition to the regular master’s course of
study and others as an integral part of it. Our study focused on forming a bet-
ter understanding of the characteristics of honors programs in the master’s
and specifically on the mission of the programs, the selection of students, the
content, the educational methods, and the program format. These issues are
related to the “Basic Characteristics of a Fully Developed Honors Program,”
according to the National Collegiate Honors Council. The findings may allow
us to view the concepts and key characteristics of honors master’s programs
from an international perspective.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
In the literature, we found no studies of honors activities in the master’s
while a considerable number are available about honors programs at the bach-
elor’s level (cf., van Eijl, Pilot, Wolfensberger, & Schreve-Brinkman). The
starting point for much of the research on honors education at the bachelor’s
level in our European context is often Renzulli’s 1978 work on giftedness,
with talent as a generalized, multi-dimensional concept that is then related to
the development of talent specifically in honors programs (Jenkins-Friedman).
Using such earlier work on talent and its relationship to honors education, we
developed in 2010 an inventory of the characteristics of honors programs,
using a three-windows model (van Eijl, Pilot, & Wolfensberger) that is strong-
ly connected to the Basic Characteristics defined by the NCHC.
Based on our experiences and on the results of our inventories and analy-
ses of the bachelor’s honors programs, we will focus on the main character-
istics of honors master’s programs in The Netherlands, the different profiles
of these programs, and student interest in supplemental activities when study-
ing for their master’s degrees. We will then discuss the results of the inven-
tory from an international perspective.
As a characteristic example of an honors master’s program, we provide
a description in Box 1 of the Excellence Master’s Track (EMT) at the Faculty
of Law, Economics and Governance of Utrecht University in The
Netherlands.
METHOD
For this exploratory project, a mixed method approach was used
(Creswell & Plano-Clark; van Ginkel & van Eijl) in a study that was carried
out at the start of the academic year 2009–2010.
First, an Internet search identified Dutch and non-Dutch honors master’s
programs. The inventory of Dutch programs was intended to be exhaustive,
but the goal of the non-Dutch inventory was to collect a variety of examples
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
267
V
AN GINKEL, V
AN EIJL, PILOT, AND ZUBIZARRETA
FALL/WINTER 2012
The EMT is a program of activities that runs as an add-on to three master’s
programs: “Dutch Law,” “International and European Law,” and “Business
and Law.” The activities are planned in parallel with the regular class meet-
ings and are designed for a select group of students, offering them a stim-
ulating environment in which they can both broaden and deepen their aca-
demic skills and knowledge and prepare themselves for a professional
career. Of the students who apply, only a small portion is admitted. The
important criteria for selection include the results of the student’s bache-
lor’s degree, being open to innovative thoughts, and creativity. After selec-
tion, a student is assigned a professor as his or her supervisor. Over half of
the students come from honors programs in their bachelor’s institutions
(van Gestel et al.). In 2009, thirty students were enrolled in this one-year
program.
In two weekly meetings, the students deepen their understanding of issues
related to their specific master’s courses. They also participate in an
umbrella course that is largely organized by the students of the Excellence
Tracks of all three master’s programs. This course consists of a number of
meetings in which students participate in academic discussions of current
issues and topics that are related to professional practice. Organizations of
lawyers, the courts, and government are involved in the EMT as partners,
contributing to the umbrella course and offering students high-level intern-
ships. In their internships, which last three to six months, students spend
four or five days a week on special assignments. Students can also orga-
nize internships themselves, focusing on their personal learning goals.
Members of the staff at the Law Graduate School help the students to
reflect on their goals and ambitions. Students also have the opportunity to
write a research paper based on their master’s thesis, supported by an expe-
rienced teacher and a renowned practitioner.
For the faculty, teaching these students is a challenge. The students readi-
ly take initiative, focus on their own questions, and participate openly in
discussion. For the final assessment of the EMT, students have to write a
reflection paper about what they learned, and this plays an important role
in the final evaluation. To be eligible for the EMT diploma, students should
have a grade point average (GPA) of at least 3.3 in their regular master’s
program.
Box 1. Excellence Master’s Track in Law, Utrecht University
(The Netherlands)
268
HONORS IN THE MASTER’S: A NEW PERSPECTIVE?
from different countries in the world with a member check for confirmation
and specific details.
Second, a literature review facilitated a comparison between Dutch hon-
ors master’s programs and Dutch honors bachelor’s programs.
Third, staff members provided insights into the honors master’s within
the discipline of law at the University of Utrecht. Interviews with teachers
revealed specific information about a representative example of Dutch hon-
ors master’s courses (Box 1).
Fourth, in line with the interviews, a small quantitative survey yielded an
impression of the interest of students in supplemental activities included in
the master’s stage of their study. Thirty-seven master’s students from differ-
ent disciplines completed the survey.
RESULTS: HONORS MASTER’S COURSES
IN THE NETHERLANDS
Based on the inventory of honors master’s courses in The Netherlands,
seventeen honors programs were found at eight research universities and one
collaborative program sponsored by different universities and institutions.
The results of our analysis of the basic characteristics of the courses include
the following: the missions of the programs; method of selecting students;
content; educational methods; and program format.
MISSION OF THE PROGRAMS
Dutch honors master’s programs are research-focused or profession-ori-
ented. In some of the programs, students can choose between the two per-
spectives. Research skills are incorporated into almost all of the honors mas-
ter’s courses. In half of the cases, analytical, academic, and oral-presentation
skills are part of the program, and some programs include conversational
skills, scientific writing, and a variety of practical skills. A few master’s
courses explicitly focus on multidisciplinary learning and thinking, critical
reflection on the subject matter, debating skills, entrepreneurial skills, and
cooperation skills.
SELECTION OF STUDENTS
The range of selection criteria for honors programs is presented in Table
1. In most programs, a letter of motivation and a curriculum vitae are request-
ed. Another selection criterion is the GPAof the student’s bachelor’s degree,
and half of the programs require an interview. In research-oriented programs,
written assignments or research proposals are criteria, and some programs
require a language test, study plan, or test of knowledge.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
269
V
AN GINKEL, V
AN EIJL, PILOT, AND ZUBIZARRETA
Usually, a limited number of students are admitted to the program. This
number varies from ten to fifty students in the identified programs, with an
average of twenty-five.
CONTENT
Honors master’s courses are found in the fields of humanities, sciences,
social sciences, and biomedical sciences. Some are interdisciplinary. Honors
master’s programs in the fields of humanities and biomedicine typically focus
on research, especially in the field of biomedicine.
In order to strengthen honors master’s programs, external partners are
often involved. Depending on whether the focus is on research or profes-
sional practice, these partners may include research institutes, law firms,
accounting firms, government agencies, museums, and banks.
EDUCATIONAL METHODS
In honors master’s programs, classes are small and are usually conduct-
ed as seminars with small groups of students and intensive individual
FALL/WINTER 2012
Table 1. Selection Criteria for 17 Honors Master’s Programs in The
Netherlands
Number of Honors Master’s
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Selection Criteria
C.V. & Experience
Completed Courses
Diplomas
Grades
Language Test
References
Letter of Motivation
Test Knowledge & Skills
Probationary Period
Tuition Fee
Research Proposal
Interview
Study Planning
Conditions European Union
Grant
270
HONORS IN THE MASTER’S: A NEW PERSPECTIVE?
coaching by top researchers, teachers, or other professionals. Usually, the
honors master’s programs are characterized by a curriculum with some
degree of choice within the scope of the research program.
PROGRAM FORMAT
In addition to the regular course of study, the extent of an honors mas-
ter’s program can vary annually from ten European credits (six semester
hours in the U.S.) to ninety ECTS credits (European Credit Transfer System
hours) or roughly fifty-four U.S. semester hours. Some honors programs con-
tinue from the bachelor’s course of study into the master’s program. In order
to write their master’s thesis, honors students often have the choice in lan-
guage between English or Dutch.
THREE PROFILES OF THE HONORS MASTER’S
Based on our inventory of honors master’s programs, three types of
approaches can be distinguished: research-specific, professional, and inter-
disciplinary (van Ginkel, van Eijl & Pilot).
THE RESEARCH-SPECIFIC HONORS MASTER’S
This type of honors master’s has a clear research focus and is designed
for students who aspire to a career in research. In most cases, this type of hon-
ors master’s program occurs in a biomedical discipline such as medicine or
veterinary science. The freedom of choice for a research subject is limited by
the research program of the institution. Not surprisingly, the emphasis of such
a program lies in developing advanced research skills, with the master’s the-
sis seen as the first stage of a PhD project, and is usually monodisciplinary.
Only a few programs extend beyond the (sub)discipline. If collaboration
exists during the development and implementation of the program, an exter-
nal research institute is often involved.
THE PROFESSIONAL HONORS MASTER’S
The aim of a professional honors master’s program is that students pre-
pare themselves for a successful career by completing an internship, which is
an important component of this type of program. Professional honors mas-
ter’s courses of study are often situated within the humanities and social sci-
ences, and they are organized in collaboration with external partners such as
law firms or international banks. Honors students explore the business culture
under the supervision of an external coach and participate in honors seminars
where the focus is on debating and entrepreneurial skills. This type of honors
master’s often extends beyond its (sub)discipline or has an interdisciplinary
character. As an example, the honors master’s program within law at Utrecht
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
271
V
AN GINKEL, V
AN EIJL, PILOT, AND ZUBIZARRETA
University is accessible to students from such different subdisciplines as
Dutch law, international and European law, and business law. This type of
program often has a dual mission, preparing the honors student for a career
as a scientific practitioner.
THE INTERDISCIPLINARY HONORS MASTER’S
The core of the interdisciplinary honors master’s curriculum consists of
a series of meetings with a maximum study load of ten ECTS credits (six U.S.
semester hours). A good deal of preparation is necessary for these meetings,
including active participation and a presentation for the final assignment. The
study background of the participants differs substantially from the other kinds
of honors master’s students. The interdisciplinary seminars are led by out-
standing guest teachers from different disciplines and backgrounds. An exam-
ple of this type of honors master’s is the Hendrik-Muller Seminar from the
University of Amsterdam, which is organized in cooperation with the
National Board of Social Sciences. During the sessions, the students hold
debates about themes related to current issues in society. Input from disci-
plines such as the social sciences, psychiatry, criminology, geography, and
anthropology contributes to the discussions.
In general, interdisciplinary honors master’s classes are organized by
multiple departments and universities; research institutes and other external
organizations also play an important role.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HONORS
MASTER’S AND HONORS BACHELOR’S
Honors master’s programs seem to be a follow-up to honors bachelor’s
programs. Both types of programs are characterized by a select group of stu-
dents who prefer more challenging and complex activities in their studies.
However, there are differences between the two: (1) a focus in the master’s
on career opportunities within a specific research field or profession; (2) a
shorter duration at the master’s level (a maximum of two years); and (3) a
selection process in the master’s with a broader set of criteria. There is nev-
ertheless a strong connection between the honors programs at the bachelor’s
and master’s levels; a substantial number of honors graduates from the bach-
elor’s level go on to a research master’s program.
DUTCH HONORS MASTER’S PROGRAMS:
RESEARCH OR PROFESSIONAL ORIENTATIONS
Disciplinarity, research focus, and professional orientation vary across
the different honors master’s programs (see Table 2).
FALL/WINTER 2012
272
HONORS IN THE MASTER’S: A NEW PERSPECTIVE?
Table 2 shows that about half of the programs have a single disciplinary
focus. The other half of the programs are interdisciplinary or cross-(sub)dis-
ciplinary. More than half of the programs have a focus on professional
practice.
The programs that are research-oriented are mostly monodisciplinary
while the programs focused on professional practice usually have an inter-
disciplinary or cross-(sub)disciplinary character. Only one program is both
strongly research-oriented and interdisciplinary: the Exchange Honours
Program Master’s in Neuroscience. This program has been organized by two
universities and a research institute, focusing on various subspecialties (neu-
roscience, neurophysiology, and neuro-genomics) that fit the central research
theme of neuroscience. While working on their studies, research students
receive personal guidance. The participants in this program also take courses
that are taught by leading international researchers and professors from the
partner institutions. The program requires 66–72 ECTS credits, of which at
least six should be acquired at each participating university. The selection of
students is based on excellent performance in the bachelor’s and master’s
programs, a curriculum vitae, written support from their supervisors, and an
interview. An important objective of the program is to select master’s stu-
dents who have the potential to complete a PhD program.
THE INTERNATIONAL INVENTORY OF HONORS
IN A MASTER’S CURRICULUM
In addition to the Dutch honors master’s programs, a worldwide inven-
tory revealed another seventeen honors master’s programs in the U.S.,
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
Table 2. Disciplinarity, Research Orientation and Professional
Orientation in 17 Honors Master’s Programs
(The Case of The Netherlands)
Interdisciplinary
17
63
Research-Oriented Profession-Oriented
Monodisciplinary
273
V
AN GINKEL, V
AN EIJL, PILOT, AND ZUBIZARRETA
Canada, Australia, Germany, Italy, and Ireland. The inventory was not
exhaustive, but this collection of programs can illustrate the variety found
worldwide in this type of program. Short descriptions of an Italian and an
American honors master’s program are described in Boxes 2 and 3.
FALL/WINTER 2012
The goal of this honors program is to learn specific research skills, taking
into account a future career as a researcher in business or as a student in a
PhD program. This program is carried out in cooperation with Scuola
Superiore Sant’Anna in Pisa. The master’s program consists of a two-year
academic master’s with a co-curriculum. For the successful completion of
the program, the student must obtain at least 132 ECTS credits. The mas-
ter’s is taught entirely in English, and coaching is customized as the
research tasks are carried out. At the start of the honors master’s, the stu-
dent proposes a study plan during his or her consultation with the tutor. Six
months of this program are reserved for an internship in a company.
Box 2. Telecommunications Engineering, University of Trento, Italy
This university in Salt Lake City offers a multidisciplinary honors program
for both undergraduate and graduate students and professionals in the field
during the period from January to May. It is scheduled to parallel the reg-
ular program. In 2009, the program was called “Political Economy:
Shaping the Modern World.” The idea behind the program was that many
professionals lack knowledge about the basic principles of the underlying
current economic structures and patterns in the world. To become a “suc-
cessful leader” in the 21st century, students must understand these princi-
ples by studying eight “masterpieces” written by academic scholars.
During the meetings, participants in the program read about and discuss
central themes. In addition, each student or professional receives personal
counseling which is offered to help him or her in achieving personal goals.
Within the personal study project, specific literature is selected in accor-
dance with personal interests. Different skills are developed during the
program to help the participants achieve personal goals such as “learning
a language” or “public speaking.” The selection for the program is based
on answering questions on the registration form.
Box 3. Graduate Honors Program, George Wythe University, U.S.
274
HONORS IN THE MASTER’S: A NEW PERSPECTIVE?
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HONORS MASTER’S
PROGRAMS WORLDWIDE AND THE
NETHERLANDS
Some notable differences between Dutch and non-Dutch honors pro-
grams are the following:
• Non-Dutch honors master’s programs often have a strong international
focus. The policies of the universities are often aimed at attracting talent-
ed students from other countries.
• The Dutch honors master’s programs are usually taught in English but are
less active in terms of recruiting international students;
• Non-Dutch honors master’s programs often use a wider range of selection
criteria, probably to provide clarity for international students wishing to
apply to such a program;
• Some non-Dutch honors master’s programs are not programmed in paral-
lel with the regular master’s but continue beyond it.
Besides these differences, many similarities exist between Dutch and
non-Dutch programs:
•The design and programming of activities are diverse.
• Honors master’s students often work with partners from the government,
industry, or external research institutes.
• In a number of honors master’s courses of study, the value of the honors
certificate in terms of a job in research or in industry is explicitly stated.
• The development of advanced academic skills is important.
•Honors master’s programs are present in humanities, social sciences, hard
sciences, and biomedical sciences.
•Monodisciplinary and subdisciplinary as well as multidisciplinary pro-
grams exist, and these programs are research- or practice-oriented or both.
However, no internationally organized honors master’s programs were
found. One can imagine that such a program, organized by universities in dif-
ferent countries, would be able to create unique opportunities.
WHATSTUDENTS WANT
A small survey at Utrecht University gave an impression of the students’
interest in the supplemental activities in their master’s course work. Data
were collected with a questionnaire, which was administered to thirty-seven
master’s students from different disciplines. One of the most important
findings was that all of the respondents expressed the wish to learn more than
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
275
V
AN GINKEL, V
AN EIJL, PILOT, AND ZUBIZARRETA
the information provided in their own master’s programs. The students wel-
comed opportunities to enhance the variety and level of their academic and
professional skills.
A second outcome referred to the desire for a “deeper exploration of rel-
evant developments within the discipline” (van Ginkel, van Eijl, & Pilot, 59).
The students also asked for more focus on the relation between the current
master’s programs and their future career opportunities. Finally, when the stu-
dents were asked about how the extra activities or courses should be pro-
grammed within the curriculum, they preferred the integration of the extras
into the regular master’s program. Almost seventy percent of the students
would have chosen an honors program if it was available at the start of their
master’s.
The students also opted for small-scale lectures/meetings, intensive indi-
vidual coaching, and teamwork. In addition, seventy percent of the respon-
dents considered “motivation” to be the most important selection criterion for
access to an honors master’s program. According to the students, the honors
program should consist of 7.5 to 15 ECTS credits (4 to 8 semester hours).
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
This study had four limitations:
•
The information about honors master’s courses on universities’ websites is
limited. In the data collection and the analysis process, this study focused
on five basic characteristics: the program’s mission, student selection pro-
cess, content, educational methods, and format. Data about the numbers of
students or the teachers or evaluations were not included in the inventory.
• In our Internet search, the following keywords were used: “honors,” “hon-
ours,” “honors program,” “master,” “master class,” “excellence,” and
“honors track.” Some honors master’s programs may be missing in our
research because of our selected terms.
• Only English and Dutch terms were used for the Internet search.
•The study was carried out at the start of the academic year 2009–2010, and
the development of honors master’s programs has now gained momentum.
Many universities in different countries may have launched new honors
master’s programs in the meantime. Therefore, this inventory can be
considered as an overview of only the programs that existed at the time of
the study.
DISCUSSION
The development of honors master’s programs is relatively new (van
Eijl, Pilot & Wolfensberger). However, from the initial experiences and
FALL/WINTER 2012
276
HONORS IN THE MASTER’S: A NEW PERSPECTIVE?
discussions in this study, some key questions have been formulated that can
be relevant if an honors master’s program is introduced at a university.
HONORS MASTER’SPROGRAM OR HONORS DESIGNATION?
The Internet search revealed that a substantial number of universities
have a special honors program in addition to or after the regular program,
requiring students to complete specified curricular or co-curricular outcomes
beyond standard components of the master’s degree. Some have an integrat-
ed full-time honors master’s program. On the basis of information from the
Internet, we omitted master’s courses of study which are awarded “with hon-
ors” only as recognition of particular merit on the diploma rather than desig-
nating completion of an organized, programmatic “honors” enhancements to
teaching and learning. A more elaborate approach with questionnaires and
interviews may reveal more detailed features and differences between the
ways the term “honors” is used in master’s programs.
WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXISTING
HONORS MASTER’SPROGRAMS ACROSS THE WORLD?
Honors master’s programs in different countries have some common
characteristics. They are programs that exist in addition to the regular mas-
ter’s program, and the expectation is that international exchange and cooper-
ation with external partners will be a valuable component.
DISCIPLINARY OR INTERDISCIPLINARY?
Many honors master’s programs are discipline-oriented. Scientific break-
throughs, however, often happen at the interface between different branches
of science or between the sciences and other fields of knowledge. An inter-
disciplinary honors master’s program is a better way to educate future inno-
vative professionals and scientists. An emphasis on multidisciplinarity
instead of a focus on one specific discipline can add value to these programs.
SELECTION BY ZEAL OR CREATIVITY?
Ahigh GPA and motivation seem to be important criteria for selecting stu-
dents for an honors master’s program. Factors such as creativity and initiative,
which are important for productive and creative professionals/scientists
(Renzulli; Jenkins-Friedman; Friedman & Jenkins-Friedman), are only occa-
sionally and indirectly addressed. For instance, a demand for extracurricular
activities, community service, and publications was not found in the descrip-
tion of criteria. However, many good students are intrinsically motivated and
more interested in learning content than in simply achieving high grades.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
277
V
AN GINKEL, V
AN EIJL, PILOT, AND ZUBIZARRETA
DOPROGRAMS WITH STRONG RELATIONSHIPS WITH
EXTERNAL PARTNERS INTERFERE WITH INDEPENDENT
RESEARCH IN ACADEMIA?
Many honors master’s programs cooperate with external partners such as
banks, insurance companies, and research institutes. This cooperation may be
a “window to the world,” but to what extent does it lead to researchers’ being
dependent on their external partners? To what extent can the institution guar-
antee the supervision of learning activities, the quality of results, and the
assessment of students?
WHAT TYPE OF COMMUNITY-BUILDING?
Community-building was identified as an important characteristic of the
honors bachelor’s programs (van Eijl, Pilot, & Wolfensberger). Both students
and teachers mentioned frequently the importance of community for the main
aims of programs, and observations showed productive interactions within
communities of students, teachers, and external experts. Will honors master’s
students form their own honors community, or will they merge with an acad-
emic or professional community? What are the main characteristics of a com-
munity within the honors master’s course? Guidelines and criteria for the suc-
cessful development of an honors community are important because, in many
honors programs, students represent different disciplines and often work with
external partners in an international context.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Our search revealed the existence of different kinds of honors master’s
programs not only in The Netherlands (our primary focus) but also in the
U.S., Canada, Australia, Germany, Italy, and Ireland. These honors master’s
programs are found in the humanities, social sciences, hard sciences, and pro-
fessional schools. The programs are diverse with respect to content, focus,
and scheduling, and they are, as far as we could trace, very new. Several
points of discussion are still open and can be used as springboards for further
research. The emergence of honors master’s programs shows a new focus on
promoting excellence in university teaching and learning not only among
undergraduates but now also at the master’s level.
REFERENCES
Creswell, J.W. & Plano-Clark, V
.L. (2007). Mixed Methods Research.
California: Sage Publications Inc.
FALL/WINTER 2012
278
HONORS IN THE MASTER’S: A NEW PERSPECTIVE?
Friedman, P.G. & Jenkins-Friedman, R.C. (1986). Implications for Fostering
Excellence. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 25, 109–114.
Jenkins-Friedman, R.C. (1986). Identifying Honors Students. New Directions
for Teaching and Learning, 25, 99–108.
NCHC Executive Committee (2010). Basic Characteristics of a Fully
Developed Honors Program. Accessed 15 February 2010: <http://www.
nchchonors.org/>.
Renzulli, J.S. (1978). What Makes Giftedness? Reexamining a Definition.
Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 3, 180–184.
Siriusteam (2009). Advies Sirius Programma. Over de tweede ronde aanvra-
gen gericht op excellentiebevordering in de bachelorfase van het
Nederlands hoger onderwijs. (Sirius Advice Program. On the second
round of applications aimed at promoting excellence in bachelor’s pro-
grams of Dutch higher education) Den Haag: OCW.
van Eijl, P.J., Pilot, A., & Wolfensberger, M.V.C. (2010). Talent voor morgen.
(Talent for tomorrow) Groningen: Noordhoff Uitgevers.
van Eijl, P.J. Pilot, A., Wolfensberger, M.V.C. & Schreve-Brinkman, E.J.
(2010). Talentontwikkeling met honoursprogramma’s. (Development of
talent in honors programs) Tijdschrift voor Hoger Onderwijs (Journal of
Higher Education), 28(4), 182–198.
van Eijl, P.J., Wolfensberger, M.V.C., van Tilborgh, P. & Pilot, A. (2005).
Honoursprogramma’s in Nederland. Resultaten van een landelijke inven-
tarisatie in 2004. (Honors programs in The Netherlands. Results of a
national inventory) IVLOS, Universiteit Utrecht, Mededeling 77, 1–26.
van Gestel, M., Rijpkema, P., Ten Berge, J., van Eijl, P.J. & Scager, K. (2008).
Het Utrecht Law College, na drie ontwikkeljaren. (The Utrecht Law
College, after three years of development) IVLOS, Utrecht University,
The Netherlands.
van Ginkel, S.O. & van Eijl, P.J. (2010). Honours in de master. Inventarisatie
van honoursprogramma’s in de masterfase. (Honors in the master.
Inventory of honors programs in the master) IVLOS, Universiteit
Utrecht, Mededeling 94, 1–61.
van Ginkel, S.O., van Eijl, P.J. & Pilot, A. (2010). Honoursmaster: nieuw per-
spectief voor excellentiebevordering? (Honors master’s programs: a new
perspective for promoting excellence) Thema, 5, 54–60.
*******
The authors may be contacted at
stan.vanginkel@wur.nl.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
279
Honors Education and
Global Citizenship
Marca V. C. Wolfensberger
UTRECHT UNIVERSITY, THE NETHERLANDS
INTRODUCTION
A
n issue of JNCHC devoted to “Honors Around the Globe” is an impor-
tant opportunity to consider the role of honors in creating international
awareness and understanding. Honors faculty and administrators have
become increasingly active in global cross-communication through, for
instance, international involvement in the NCHC and the recent conference
on “Evoking Excellence in Higher Education and Beyond” in the Netherlands
that attracted participants from numerous countries. As we become more
familiar with honors in all its manifestation across the globe, now is a good
time to consider the value we provide in preparing students to contribute to
our changing world.
As honors administrators and faculty, we know that we must educate our
students so that they can discover answers to as yet unknown questions and
challenges. We must enable them to find solutions using techniques we can
now only dream about. Such techniques will allow the frontiers of human
possibility to extend dramatically. Change itself has become systemic. The
challenge is to educate in order to shape a sustainable future for all. We have
created conflicts and problems that we now need to solve. We need to edu-
cate in a way that inspires creative citizenship among people who are humble
enough to recognize the powerful potential of collaboration, confident
enough to confront tomorrow’s problems, proud enough to sparkle with com-
passion, and ardent enough to make a better world.
Honors programs, which function as laboratories for innovation in regu-
lar education, offer educational opportunities for talented, motivated stu-
dents; we thus have a special responsibility to inspire these students to respect
other disciplines, cultures, and nationalities through genuine conversations,
interactive learning, and international exchange. Our aim must be to enhance,
not compromise, human difference and dignity.
FALL/WINTER 2012
280
HONORS EDUCATION AND GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
COLLECTIVE CONVERSATION
We should invest in educating critical and creative young people who
want to make a difference in society and science. We need graduates with an
open view of society, who know intrinsically that we need each other because
everyone brings something special to the table. So, in our courses, one of the
important questions should be: what makes a life well-lived? The answers
have everything to do with moral principles and values that give continuity
and dignity to life, linking happiness to education.
The key is to learn, experience, and understand that there are multitudes
of different answers and that the differences make life worthwhile and beau-
tiful. The crux of global citizenship is to respect and even enhance these dif-
ferences, a process that cannot happen without conversation. Genuine con-
versation is a form of respect for values even though, and perhaps especially
when, values differ among the participants. Conversation is the heartbeat of
democracy; it is a disciplined act of communicating, making personal views
intelligible to someone who does not share them and also listening to the
inner world of someone whose views are different. Through conversation, we
can create a collective future.
INTERACTIVE LEARNING
In the future, honors students will distinguish themselves from their
peers and competitors not by the information they know but by how well they
convert that knowledge to wisdom, slowly and deeply internalizing it, and by
their acts and behavior. We should coach students in this learning process. We
should provide conditions such that students, as described by Vygotsky, can
be assisted in pushing the boundaries of their development. Teachers and stu-
dents need time to interact. The personal working relationships between stu-
dents and teachers are pivotal. Teachers and students working together on
independent studies create an effective learning environment.
Personal involvement is one of the most important elements of honors
pedagogy. Such involvement includes participation in, for instance, NCHC-
designed experiential programs such as City as Text™; seminars in which
students reflect on international exchanges; the service-learning programs
that have become a standard part of curricula in U.S. honors education; and
programs like the Shriver Center of the University of Maryland Baltimore
County, where faculty connect their research and teaching to relevant social
needs and students link academic study to professional practice as well as ser-
vice to the community. Through interactive projects, students learn to trans-
form the world.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
281
MARCA V. C. WOLFENSBERGER
CROSS-CULTURAL SETTINGS
Combining analytical and critical thinking with an interdisciplinary and
reflective attitude requires a major effort, but this effort is crucial if we aspire
to peace because it lets us escape from our prison of self-righteousness. This
effort can lead us toward engaging in debate without hoping that the other
side loses; it can lead us toward embracing rather than simply tolerating dif-
ference. Differences enlarge the sphere of human possibilities, and learning
experiences such as studying abroad expand students’ ability to compare and
reflect on different ideas, values, and points of view.
The rise of social media such as Facebook and Twitter has led to a gen-
eration whose world-view is boundaried and, one might say, “narrow-cast.”
We can use such websites to target those who agree with us and thus screen
out the voices of the dissident, which is all the more reason that we should
teach students to seek out perspectives unlike their own and to collaborate in
cross-cultural, interdisciplinary settings—whether within or between nation-
al boundaries. If we want to educate global citizens who can make a differ-
ence in science and society, we have to invest in new, forward-thinking learn-
ing environments and teaching strategies. Living and learning abroad is one
such strategy.
Just as the natural environment depends on biodiversity, so the human
environment depends on cultural diversity. No single civilization encompass-
es all the spiritual, ethical, and artistic expressions of mankind. Each culture
has something to contribute to the totality of human wisdom. A Jewish sage
said, “Who is wise? One who learns from all men.” An African proverb says,
“Are you in a hurry? Travel alone. Do you want to reach far? Travel togeth-
er.” Study abroad enables students to experience an interconnected world and
to embrace difference rather than being threatened by it; it shows them the
collective heritage of mankind. Higher education benefits enormously from
international exchanges, international honors classes, and study abroad
(Paige et al.). As careers increasingly require employees to travel, students
need to be preparing for cross-cultural interactions for their professional as
well as educational, social, and moral development.
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIPAND HONORS PROGRAMS
Investment in education is the most important way society offers the
world a future, yet this investment is still far too unevenly distributed. In
2000, Unesco reported that, out of the current population of the world’s chil-
dren, 113 million did not go to school, and in 2009 it reported that fewer than
40% of countries provide girls and boys equal access to education (UNESCO
Institute; UNESCO). Relatively rich countries, such as the United States or
FALL/WINTER 2012
282
HONORS EDUCATION AND GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
those in Europe like the Netherlands, should recognize the severity of this
deficit in education and the harm it is doing to them as well as to other coun-
tries and to the world. Time is of the essence; without major intervention from
governments and institutions, large numbers of people will continue to be left
behind.
Honors education has an important role to play within this landscape. It
needs to generate an environment that allows unfettered thinking and inspires
excitement in new possibilities. Honors faculty should teach students that
imagining the unimaginable matters as a plan of action as well as education.
While transferring knowledge is one of the core responsibilities of universi-
ties, society is beyond the point where students can be seen as consumers.
Students are participants in, and co-responsible for, their education.
To the extent that colleges and universities are committed to the well-
being of society, they must become increasingly proactive in helping more
young people attend college, and the same is true for honors programs. We
need to recognize the elephant in the room: how do we ensure that the col-
lege admissions process is not a revolving door that spins out people of color
or people from impoverished backgrounds?
The key question is what resources are required to ensure that interven-
tion programs are effective, given the academic needs and strengths of indi-
vidual students. In recognizing individual differences, we are contributing to
democracy. One of the purposes of democracy is to provide individuals with
the opportunities that are best for them. In recognizing individual differences
we are paying the truest homage to the worth of all individuals, and part of
this homage is recognizing the need for specially designed education for stu-
dents willing and able to do more than a regular program can offer them. We
need to provide education that rewards these students with all the resources
and attention they need to succeed.
At the same time, we need to understand that students who participate in
special opportunities like honors programs have a special obligation to recog-
nize and appreciate others who are different from them, particularly those
who have fewer opportunities. If we provide an education rich in conversa-
tion, interactive and reflective learning, and cross-cultural exchanges, then
we both enable and encourage these students to honor people who are differ-
ent from them, to enhance the dignity of all human beings, and to become
responsible citizens of the world.
REFERENCES
Paige, R.M., Fry, G., Stallman, E.M., Josic, J., Jon, J.E. (2009). Study abroad
for global engagement: The long-term impact of mobility experiences.
Intercultural Education 20 (1), 29-44.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
283
MARCA V. C. WOLFENSBERGER
UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2009). Global education digest 2009:
Comparing education statistics across the world. Montreal: UIS.
UNESCO (2000). Final report of the World Education Forum (Dakar,
Senegal, 26-28 April 2000).
BACKGROUND RESOURCES
Hrabowski, F. Maton, K.I., and Greif, G.L. (1998). Beating the odds: Raising
academically successful African American males. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
M. Nussbaum. (1997). Cultivating humanity: A classical defense of reform in
liberal education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Olson, G.A. and Presley, J.W. (2009). The future of higher education:
Perspectives from America’s academic leaders. London: Paradigm
Publishers.
Pausch, R. and Zawlov, J. (2008). The last lecture. New York: Hyperion.
Pink, D.H. (2005). A whole new mind: Why right-brainers will rule the future.
New York: Penguin Group.
Sacks, J. (2007). The dignity of differences: How to avoid the clash of civi-
lizations. London: Continuum.
Wijffels, H. and Wolfensberger, M.V.C. (2004). Wat vraagt de Samenleving
van Talent? Hoe Universiteiten daar op in kunnen spleen. Thema 11
(1), 51-54.
*******
The author may be contacted at
M.V
.C.Wolfensberger@uu.nl.
FALL/WINTER 2012
284 JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
285
About the Authors
Eunice Soriano de Alencar, PhD, is Professor Emerita of Psychology at the
University of Brasília, Brazil. For the last forty years, she has published
numerous books and articles, especially on giftedness and creativity. She
is on the editorial board of several journals in Brazil and abroad and is an
honorary member of the Brazilian Council for Giftedness.
Deirdre Barron, PhD, is Associate Professor and Associate Dean (Research)
in the Faculty of Design, Swinburne University of Technology, Victoria,
Australia.
Vladimir Bartelds, MSc, is a lecturer at the Hanze University of Applied
Sciences in Groningen, the Netherlands, where he founded the honors
program of the Institute of Communication and Media. His research was
conducted in the research group Talent Development in Higher
Education and Society.
Johannes Boonstra, PhD, is a professor of cell biology at Utrecht University
and head of the science department of University College Utrecht. In
2012 he was also appointed as director of education of the biology
department of Utrecht University.
Frederick J. Conway is an assistant professor and director of undergraduate
studies in the Department of Anthropology at San Diego State University
in California. He is also a faculty member in the Sustainability major and
the Center for Latin American Studies. He mentors students for their
senior thesis in the University Honors Program.
Aderson Luiz Costa Jr., PhD, is an associate professor at the University of
Brasília and a current tutor of the Tutorial Education Program in Brazil.
His research interests are related to pediatric psychology, in the psycho-
oncology and surgery contexts, and behavioral dentistry.
Lyndsay Drayer, PhD, is a lecturer in biochemistry and a member of the
research center Talent Development in Higher Education and Society at
the Hanze University of Applied Sciences, Groningen, the Netherlands.
She is involved in teaching the interdisciplinary honors course “Catchy
Claims,” and her research interests include the policies, content, and
organization of honors programs in higher education.
FALL/WINTER 2012
286
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Nelleke de Jong, MSc, studied in the Department of Human Geography &
Planning at Utrecht University and participated in the Honours College
Geosciences from 2008 until 2010. She is currently working as a teacher
at Utrecht University and is involved in research on honors programs.
Denise de Souza Fleith, PhD, is an associate professor at the University of
Brasília and a former tutor of the Tutorial Education Program in Brazil.
She was a visiting professor at the Neag Center for Gifted Education and
Talent Development at the University of Connecticut. Her research inter-
ests are related to talent and creativity development in the educational
context.
Mohammad Ayub Khan is Associate Professor and Director of the
University Honors Program at Tecnológico de Monterrey, Campus
Monterrey. He has remained Chair of the International Business
Department and National Coordinator of the International Business
Academy at the same university. He holds a PhD in Business
Administration and participates in national and international conferences
on business management and management education. He has co-
authored a student handbook titled The Basics of International Business
Negotiations.
Ikuo Kitagaki is currently Emeritus Professor of Hiroshima University,
Guest Professor of Tokyo City University, and CEO of Media-mirai Inc.
He earned his PhD in the Tokyo Institute of Technology and has been
involved in higher education research, educational technology, and
so forth.
Margaret Lamb is Senior Associate Director of the University of
Connecticut Honors Program. Prior to returning home to Connecticut in
2004, she was Associate Professor at Warwick Business School, the
University of Warwick. She completed her PhD in economics at the
University of Reading.
Donglin Li is an associate professor of the Normal College, Shenzhen
University. He earned his PhD in education from Hiroshima University.
His research interests are in the sociology of education and higher
education.
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
287
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Ruben Morales-Menendez is Academic Vice-Provost at Tecnológico de
Monterrey, Campus Monterrey. He was a full professor and consultant
specializing in the analysis and design of automatic control systems for
more than twenty-five years. He developed educational technology for
active learning techniques. Currently, he is a member of the National
Researchers System of Mexico (level I).
G. Johan Offringa, MSc, is a senior lecturer at the Hanze University of
Applied Sciences Groningen, the Netherlands. He developed and coordi-
nates the honors program of the School of Facility Management and is a
member of the research group Talent Development in Higher Education
and Society.
Anton Peeters, PhD, is an assistant professor in the biology department,
Faculty of Science, Utrecht University. Since 2012 he has been Program
Director of Undergraduate Biology. From 2009 onwards, he has been
involved in honors teaching at the department, faculty and university
levels.
Albert Pilot is Emeritus Professor of Curriculum Development and
Chemistry Education at Utrecht University. His research focuses on cur-
riculum development, design of learning and instruction, talent develop-
ment, honors programs, professional development of teachers, and con-
text-based science education.
Carlos Alberto Cioce Sampaio is a professor in the Tourism Department and
an Environment and Development postgraduate of Paranjá Federal
University and Regional Development postgraduate of Blumenau
Regional University. He is a senior researcher of the Brazilian Research
Council and a member of the Environmental Sciences Area of
Coordination of Higher Level Personnel Improvement. He has coordi-
nated the Brazilian honors program on ecosocioeconomics issues.
Karin Scager, an educational consultant and teacher trainer at the Centre of
Teaching and Learning at Utrecht University, is currently working on her
PhD, which is focused on creating challenging learning environments for
honors students.
Juan Carlos Skewes is professor and chair in the Department of
Anthropology at Universidad Alberto Hurtado. He is also affiliated with
the Center for Environmental Studies of the Universidad Austral de Chile
FALL/WINTER 2012
288
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
and with the Honors Program. He is a member of the Council of Political
and Social Sciences of the National Accreditation Council (CNA).
Michaela Ruppert Smith teaches Academic Writing at LRG University of
Applied Sciences, Switzerland, and Text and Visual Arts as well as
English courses at Glion Institute of Higher Education, Switzerland. She
is a former IB teacher at Collège du Léman in Geneva. Before moving to
Switzerland, she directed the Midwestern State University Honors
Program. She earned her PhD in intellectual history from Claremont
Graduate University and her BA from Bryn Mawr College.
Trijntje van Dijk, who holds an MA, MLD, and MSc, works at the Saxion
Universities of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands. She developed the
Saxion profile for the Saxion Honours Programmes for the Reflective
Professional, monitors the sixteen programmes, and organizes their vali-
dation. Her expertise is the development of new university programmes.
Pierre van Eijl is an honorary researcher at Utrecht University in the
Netherlands and an independent senior educational consultant. He is
involved in a number of research projects about talent development and
excellence in higher education. With a group of authors, he wrote a book
about talent development (Talent for Tomorrow).
Stan van Ginkel is a PhD student and started his research project,
“Academic Skills Training,” in 2012 at the Chair Group Education and
Competence Studies of the Wageningen University in the Netherlands.
From 2005 until 2012, he worked at the Utrecht University as a teacher
of human geography, provided academic skills courses, and was active as
a consultant on projects about curriculum development, with special
interest in honors programs, within the field of higher education.
Bouke van Gorp, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Human
Geography & Planning of Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University.
From 2005 onwards, she has been involved in honors teaching at the
department.
Ron Weerheijm has an MA in architecture and was a practicing architect for
twenty years while also teaching students in architecture and engineer-
ing. Recently he moved from the vocational program in the department
of civil engineering to working in honors program administration for the
Rotterdam UAS as a whole. In this function, he is an organizer and par-
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
289
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
ticipant in national meetings on the profile of “excellent professionals”
within UAS.
Jeske Weerheijm is a bachelor’s student in educational sciences and history
at Utrecht University. For the educational sciences department, she has
investigated the image of the discipline among high school teachers and
career counselors. In history, her special preference is writing biography.
Fred Wiegant, PhD, is an associate professor at the Institute of Education,
Department of Biology, with a special interest in honors education. He is
Coordinator of the Honors Program at the Faculty of Science and Fellow
of Life Sciences at the University College Utrecht, the honors college of
Utrecht University.
Marca V. C. Wolfensberger heads the research center Talent Development
in Higher Education and Society at the Hanze University of Applied
Sciences in Groningen and is Honors Director of the Department of
Geography and Planning of Utrecht University. Her research interests
include honors faculty and honors pedagogies; honors communities and
global citizenship; and how to evoke excellence.
Byrad Yyelland, EdD, is Director of the Liberal Arts & Sciences Program at
Virginia Commonwealth University Qatar and Coordinator of the
VCUQatar Honors Program. He has focused most of his career on teach-
ing but has recently become active in research about education, culture,
identity, and emotion in the workplace.
Margaret Zeegers, PhD, is Associate Professor in the School of Education
and Arts, University of Ballarat, Victoria, Australia.
John Zubizarreta, a Carnegie Foundation/CASE U.S. Professor of the Year
for Baccalaureate Colleges, is Director of Honors and Faculty
Development at Columbia College, South Carolina. He is a past presi-
dent of NCHC and SRHC, and his books include first and second edi-
tions of The Learning Portfolio: Reflective Practice for Improving
Student Learning (Anker, 2004; Jossey-Bass, 2009) and a co-authored
volume with Larry Clark on Inspiring Exemplary Teaching and
Learning: Perspectives on Teaching Academically Talented College
Students (NCHC, 2008).
FALL/WINTER 2012
290
NOTES
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
291
NOTES
FALL/WINTER 2012
292
NOTES
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
293
NOTES
FALL/WINTER 2012
294
NOTES
JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
295
FALL/WINTER 2012
NCHC PUBLICATION ORDER FORM
Purchases may be made by calling (402) 472-9150, emailing nchc@unlserve.unl.edu, visiting
our website <http://www.nchchonors.org>, or mailing a check or money order payable to:
NCHC • University of Nebraska–Lincoln • 1100 Neihardt Residence Center • 540 N. 16th
Street • Lincoln, NE 68588-0627. FEIN 52–1188042
Non- No. of Amount
Member Member Copies This Item
Monographs:
Assessing and Evaluating Honors Programs and $25.00 $45.00
Honors Colleges: A Practical Handbook
Beginning in Honors: A Handbook (4th Ed.) $25.00 $45.00
Fundrai$ing for Honor$: A Handbook $25.00 $45.00
A Handbook for Honors Administrators $25.00 $45.00
A Handbook for Honors Programs at $25.00 $45.00
Two-Year Colleges
The Honors College Phenomenon $25.00 $45.00
Honors Composition: Historical Perspectives $25.00 $45.00
and Contemporary Practices
Honors Programs at Smaller Colleges (3rd Ed.) $25.00 $45.00
Inspiring Exemplary Teaching and Learning: $25.00 $45.00
Perspectives on Teaching Academically Talented
College Students
The Other Culture: Science and Mathematics $25.00 $45.00
Education in Honors
Partners in the Parks: Field Guide to an $25.00 $45.00
Experiential Program in the National Parks
Place as Text: Approaches to Active $25.00 $45.00
Learning (2nd Ed.)
Setting the Table for Diversity $25.00 $45.00
Shatter the Glassy Stare: Implementing $25.00 $45.00
Experiential Learning in Higher Education
Teaching and Learning in Honors $25.00 $45.00
Journals:
Journal of the National Collegiate Honors $25.00 $45.00
Council (JNCHC) Specify Vol/Issue ____/____
Honors in Practice (HIP) Specify Vol ____ $25.00 $45.00
Total Copies Ordered and Total Amount Paid: $
Name __________________________________________________________________
Institution ______________________________________________________________
Address ________________________________________________________________
City, State, Zip __________________________________________________________
Phone ______________________Fax ________________Email __________________
Print-on-Demand publications will be delivered in 4-6 weeks.
Apply a 20% discount if 10+ copies are purchased.
296 JOURNAL OF THE NA
TIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL
NCHC MONOGRAPHS & JOURNALS
Assessing and Evaluating Honors Programs and Honors Colleges: A Practical Handbook by Rosalie Otero and Robert Spurrier (2005, 98pp). This mono-
graph includes an overview of assessment and evaluation practices and strategies. It explores the process for conducting self-studies and discusses the
differences between using consultants and external reviewers. It provides a guide to conducting external reviews along with information about how
to become an NCHC-Recommended Site Visitor. A dozen appendices provide examples of "best practices."
Beginning in Honors: A Handbook by Samuel Schuman (Fourth Edition, 2006, 80pp). Advice on starting a new honors program. Covers budgets, recruit-
ing students and faculty, physical plant, administrative concerns, curriculum design, and descriptions of some model programs.
Fundrai$ing for Honor$: A Handbook by Larry R. Andrews (2009, 160pp). Offers information and advice on raising money for honors, beginning with
easy first steps and progressing to more sophisticated and ambitious fundraising activities.
A Handbook for Honors Administrators by Ada Long (1995, 117pp). Everything an honors administrator needs to know, including a description of some
models of honors administration.
A Handbook for Honors Programs at Two-Year Colleges by Theresa James (2006, 136pp). A useful handbook for two-year schools contemplating begin-
ning or redesigning their honors program and for four-year schools doing likewise or wanting to increase awareness about two-year programs and
articulation agreements. Contains extensive appendices about honors contracts and a comprehensive bibliography on honors education.
The Honors College Phenomenon edited by Peter C. Sederberg (2008, 172pp). This monograph examines the growth of honors colleges since 1990: his-
torical and descriptive characterizations of the trend, alternative models that include determining whether becoming a college is appropriate, and
stories of creation and recreation. Leaders whose institutions are contemplating or taking this step as well as those directing established colleges
should find these essays valuable.
Honors Composition: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Practices by Annmarie Guzy (2003, 182pp). Parallel historical developments in honors and
composition studies; contemporary honors writing projects ranging from admission essays to theses as reported by over 300 NCHC members.
Honors Programs at Smaller Colleges by Samuel Schuman (Third Edition, 2011, 80pp). Practical and comprehensive advice on creating and managing
honors programs with particular emphasis on colleges with fewer than 4000 students.
Inspiring Exemplary Teaching and Learning: Perspectives on Teaching Academically Talented College Students edited by Larry Clark and John Zubizarreta
(2008, 216pp). This rich collection of essays offers valuable insights into innovative teaching and significant learning in the context of academically
challenging classrooms and programs. The volume provides theoretical, descriptive, and practical resources, including models of effective instruc-
tional practices, examples of successful courses designed for enhanced learning, and a list of online links to teaching and learning centers and edu-
cational databases worldwide.
The Other Culture: Science and Mathematics Education in Honors edited by Ellen B. Buckner and Keith Garbutt (2012, 296pp). A collection of essays about
teaching science and math in an honors context: topics include science in society, strategies for science and non-science majors, the threat of pseu-
doscience, chemistry, interdisciplinary science, scientific literacy, philosophy of science, thesis development, calculus, and statistics.
Partners in the Parks: Field Guide to an Experiential Program in the National Parks by Joan Digby with reflective essays on theory and practice by student
and faculty participants and National Park Service personnel (2010, 272pp). This monograph explores an experiential-learning program that fosters
immersion in and stewardship of the national parks. The topics include program designs, group dynamics, philosophical and political issues, pho-
tography, wilderness exploration, and assessment.
Place as Text: Approaches to Active Learning edited by Bernice Braid and Ada Long (Second Edition, 2010, 128pp). Updated theory, information, and
advice on experiential pedagogies developed within NCHC during the past 35 years, including Honors Semesters and City as TextTM, along with sug-
gested adaptations to multiple educational contexts.
Setting the Table for Diversity edited by Lisa L. Coleman and Jonathan D. Kotinek (2010, 288pp). This collection of essays provides definitions of diver-
sity in honors, explores the challenges and opportunities diversity brings to honors education, and depicts the transformative nature of diversity when
coupled with equity and inclusion. These essays discuss African American, Latina/o, international, and first-generation students as well as students
with disabilities. Other issues include experiential and service learning, the politics of diversity, and the psychological resistance to it. Appendices
relating to NCHC member institutions contain diversity statements and a structural diversity survey.
Shatter the Glassy Stare: Implementing Experiential Learning in Higher Education edited by Peter A. Machonis (2008, 160pp). A companion piece to Place
as Text, focusing on recent, innovative applications of City as TextTM teaching strategies. Chapters on campus as text, local neighborhoods, study
abroad, science courses, writing exercises, and philosophical considerations, with practical materials for instituting this pedagogy.
Teaching and Learning in Honors edited by Cheryl L. Fuiks and Larry Clark (2000, 128pp). Presents a variety of perspectives on teaching and learning
useful to anyone developing new or renovating established honors curricula.
Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council (JNCHC) is a semi-annual periodical featuring scholarly articles on honors education. Articles may
include analyses of trends in teaching methodology, articles on interdisciplinary efforts, discussions of problems common to honors programs, items
on the national higher education agenda, and presentations of emergent issues relevant to honors education.
Honors in Practice (HIP)is an annual journal that accommodates the need and desire for articles about nuts-and-bolts practices by featuring practical
and descriptive essays on topics such as successful honors courses, suggestions for out-of-class experiences, administrative issues, and other topics of
interest to honors administrators, faculty, and students.
National Collegiate Honors Council
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
1100 Neihardt Residence Center
540 N. 16th St.
Lincoln, NE 68588-0627
NON-PROFIT
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
PERMIT NO. 3246
BIRMINGHAM, AL
ISBN
978-09835457-4-3
J
OURNAL OF THE
N
ATIONAL
C
OLLEGIATE
H
ONORS
C
OUNCIL
V
OLUME
13, N
O
. 2
Fall/Winter 2012 Volume 13, Number 2
in this issue
Honors Around
the Globe
Countries and Contributors
Australia—
Deirdre Barron and
Margaret Zeegers
Brazil—
Eunice M. L. Soriano de Alencar,
Aderson Luiz Costa Jr., and
Denise de Souza Fleith
Chile—
Frederick J. Conway, Carlos
Alberto Cioce Sampaio, and
Juan Carlos Skewes
China—
Ikuo Kitagaki and Donglin Li
Mexico—
Mohammad Ayub Khan and
Ruben Morales-Menendez
Netherlands—
Vladimir Bartelds, Johannes
Boonstra, Trijntje van Dijk,
Lyndsay Drayer, Pierre Van Eijl,
Stan van Ginkel, Bouke van
Gorp, Nelleke de Jong, G.
Johan Offringa, Anton Peeters,
Albert Pilot, Karin Scager,
Ron Weerheijm, Jeske
Weerheijm, Fred Wiegant,
Marca V. C. Wolfensberger, and
John Zubizarreta
Qatar—
Byrad Yyelland
Switzerland—
Michaela Ruppert Smith
United Kingdom—
Margaret Lamb
