ChapterPDF Available

Fostering Honours Communities among Commuter Students

1
Fostering Honors Communities among Commuter Students
Stan van Ginkel
Wageningen University, The Netherlands
Pierre van Eijl and Albert Pilot
Utrecht University, The Netherlands
John Zubizarreta
Columbia College, U.S.
Reference:
Ginkel, S. van, Eijl, P.J. van, Pilot, A., Zubizarreta, J. (2014). Fostering honors
communities among commuter students. In: Pursuit of excellence in a networked society.
M.V.C. Wolfensberger, L. Drayer, & Volker, J.J.M. (eds.). Münster/New York, Waxmann,
p. 101-108
Introduction
Research has shown that honors programs often involve networks of students that
contribute to the development of the students’ talents (Van Ginkel, et al., 2012). These
networks are also described as “learning communities” (Wilson, et al., 2004) and “honors
communities” (van Eijl, Pilot & Wolfensberger, 2008). Such communities foster
productive interaction among students, teachers, and other professionals during their
affiliation with the program. As a result of such connections, students discover new
learning opportunities and gain experience in organizational and leadership skills. In
honors programs, in particular, these contacts are an essential component of what
defines honors activities as special enhancements of a student’s overall educational
experience. Our study focuses on strategies for the development of honors communities.
We focus particularly on commuter students because they comprise the majority
of honors students in the Netherlands. 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, 2000). And, as Kuh, Gonyea and Palmer (2001) found in their research,
commuter students are overall less engaged 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 by preference construct knowledge in an active manner
within an authentic context (Brown & Campione, 1994). Socio-constructivist learning
theories further suggest that learning is more effective when it occurs in a social context
(Wenger, 1998) rather than as an individual, isolated activity as frequently occurs in a
classroom. The related learning theory of situated cognition (Greeno, 1998) states that if
learning is embedded in social interactions among people in a specific situation, then it
has a positive effect on personal development.
McMillan & Chavis (1986) describe that a community in general is characterized
by “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
2
their commitment to be together” (p.9). Cross (1998) defines learning communities more
specifically as "groups of people engaged in intellectual interaction for the purpose of
learning" (p.4). Cross combines the concept of learning communities with the design of a
curriculum and cites the structuring of the program and the frequency of contacts
between students as important factors.
Wilson et al. (2004) also stress the connection with the curriculum by introducing
the concept of a “bounded learning community.” According to these researchers, a
learning community is bounded 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 communicating
and working online; the teacher plays a crucial role in facilitating the creation 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, 2004; Shulman & Sherin, 2004); 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., 2004).
Such communities can enhance learning outcomes (Lankveld & Volman, 2011;
Tinto & Russo, 1994), increase the pace of study (Eggens, 2011), raise the level of
reflection (Cross, 1998; Tinto, 1995), improve the attitude of students (Tinto & Russo,
1994), and strengthen emotional support among students (Lankveld & Volman, 2011).
Furthermore, these contact networks can influence the extent to which students interact
outside classrooms (Tinto & Russo, 1994), and create a “sense of community” (McMillan
& Chavis, 1986). This latter aspect is a challenge for many honors directors and teachers
(Koh, Chaffee & Goodman, 2009) because education tailored to high-achieving,
motivated, and talented studentsparticularly those in honors programsshould also
take place in a culture of excellence in order to empower students (van der Valk,
Grunefeld & Pilot, 2010). This culture of excellence is frequently mentioned as an
important characteristic of an honors program (Ford, 2008; Mariz, 2008; Slavin, 2008).
Previous research has shown that communities are essential to many honors
programs (De Boer & van Eijl, 2010), but we know little about the specific factors and
mechanisms for success. This new knowledge we aim for in this study is needed to
establish strategies for community development of commuter students in honors.
Method
In this exploratory study, a mixed methods approach was used for data collection and
data analysis (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). Within this approach, qualitative and
quantitative methods are combined because the aim of this study requires a combination
of different types of data. To achieve a set of strategies for community building among
commuter students, we conducted a cross-case analysis in the Netherlands. From four
universities, the following five cases were selected: Utrecht Law College (ULC);
Professional School of Arts (PSAU); 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 to gain insight into (1) key
characteristics and additional qualities of honors communities, (2) their functions, and
(3) development strategies. The results of these interviews and insights were arranged to
present a basic set of strategies to develop honors communities. This framework was
3
used to conduct an interpretative analysis of the five Dutch case studies with a member
check for confirmation and case details.
Seven Strategies for Implementing Communities
From our study, seven strategies can be distinguished for the development and
maintenance of communities within the special population of commuter 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 initiatives themselves. The seven strategies are listed in
Table 1.
Strategies
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
First, the matching of students is important because students need to be informed
beforehand about the content and intentions of the program. The selection procedure
should focus on the extent to which students would like to work actively with other
students or interact with teachers and professionals. For example, at the ULC the
following criterion played an important role: “students need to contribute to the program,
instead of only following 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
passions or disciplines in order to fulfill a particular goal. At PSAU, for example, students
can design games for real clients only by combining their expertise 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 collaboration among students.
Furthermore, the interaction among students and between students and faculty can be
improved by facilitating a physical project space, providing a budget, and supporting the
use of social media and communications platforms. Interdependence in producing an
actual product is another strategy that promotes teamwork among students, as
demonstrated in the Honors Program in Biology where students write together a book,
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
prerequisite for stimulating student interaction, but the study of the interaction patterns
among students of PSAU showed us that not every student is equally active in a
community 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 ownership of an honors
community, as demonstrated in the cases of ULC and Top Class Healthcare. The staff can
4
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 noticeably strengthened after an international
seminar in Brussels.
Fifth, organizing a series of interactive activities with formal and informal
meetings during the program stimulates community building in honors programs. ULC
and PSAU also provide important stimuli to an active community life through fixed groups
in classes and regular meetings within the program during a long period. A site visitor to
an American honors program described this point as follows: “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 expected to give individual attention to the
learning process, provide students with the opportunity to pose questions and challenge
students to find new paths. The teacher must involve students in decisions about the
content of the program, 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 mainly as a catalyst to
promote and coach the community. An American honors student described this
dimension of a faculty member’s role in helping to build community: "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 produces a well-functioning
honors community.
Concluding Remarks and Future Research
Our research and the literature underscore that honors communities enhance learning
and interaction. Furthermore, they fulfil multiple social and emotional functions for
participants, encouraging them to support each other and undertake initiatives while
providing a platform for collaboration on academic and social fronts.. Depending on the
stage of the community’s development, three main factors improve honors education for
a given group of students: the honors program itself, the staff, and the resources. Our
study suggests seven strategies for developing an honors community among commuter
students. Empirical research is needed to determine conclusively if these strategies
provide the intended results.
5
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.
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 talentontwikkeling
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 determinants 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.
Jacoby, B. (2000). Why involve commuter students in learning? In Kramer, M. (Series
Ed.), & Jacoby, B. (Vol. Ed.). New directions for higher education: Number 109.
Involving commuter students in learning (pp. 312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Koh, K., Chaffee, J. & Goodman, E. (2009). Networking an honors community 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
6
educational reform: the role of communities of practice). Tijdschrift voor Hoger
Onderwijs (Journal for Higher Education), 29(1), pp. 41-53.
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.
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 pedagogy of
educational citizenship. American Association of Higher Education Bulletin, 47(7), pp.
11-13.
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.
Van der Valk, A. E., Grunefeld, H. & Pilot, A. (2010). Empowerment en leerresultaten bij
getalenteerde bètaleerlingen in een verrijkte onderwijsleeromgeving. (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
7
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.
Van Ginkel, S., Van Eijl, P., Pilot, A. & Zubizarreta, J. (2012). Building a Vibrant Honors
Community among Commuter Students. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors
Council, 13(2), p. 197-218.
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
Article
So far, few articles about innovations in Dutch or American honors programs appear to link their findings to an existing body of research about innovations in higher education in general. Although scholars are starting to make this connection more and more (see Kallenberg; NRO, “Excellentie” and “EXChange”; NWO, “Excellentie” and “EXChange”; Jong), both parties could profit from greater contact. Scholars who study innovations in honors programs could benefit from a comparison of their findings to those in more mature fields, i.e., research about innovation in higher education. At the same time, a full model of innovation in higher education should take into account the findings about honors programs, which are natural innovation labs and thus relevant to research about higher education. Here we focus on factors that promote or block the diffusion of innovations from Dutch honors programs to other components of the Dutch higher education system. We examine three factors that emerged most frequently in a recent meeting of experts in Dutch honors programs on ‘honours education as a laboratory for educational innovation.’ This meeting was held in Leiden on 2 November 2016; jointly organized by Universiteit Leiden and Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, it attracted thirty-six stakeholders who worked in, or on, honors programs in the Netherlands as teachers, organizers, policy makers, or researchers. In discussions about factors that might promote or block the diffusion of innovations from Dutch honors programs to other places in the Dutch higher education system, these three factors were named most frequently: • the need for a safe environment in the classroom, • the need to establish communities of teachers, and • the need for institutional support. Various experts in the meeting believed that in order to be able to experiment, honors teachers need classrooms that provide safe environments in order to encourage experimentation and allow innovations to emerge. To stimulate the diffusion of resulting innovations, stakeholders believed that teacher communities and institutional support are crucial. While the meeting was held in the Netherlands and focused on Dutch honors programs, and while the setup and character of honors differ between the U.S. and Europe (see Wolfensberger, Talent Development and Wolfensberger, Eijl, et al., “Laboratories”), the issues raised at the meeting are relevant to honors education anywhere. Our discussions of the research literature about each of the three factors look beyond the current literature about honors programs as innovation labs and offer clear pathways to ideas from other fields. We also hope to stimulate reflection on the topic among researchers, teachers, organizers, and managers working in the field of honors education by offering questions they can pursue.
Article
Full-text available
Research 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 communities” (van Eijl, Pilot & Wolfensberger). Such communities foster productive 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 organizational and leadership skills. In honors programs, in particular, these contacts are an essential component of what defines and separates honors activities 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.
Article
Full-text available
Voor het slagen van grootschalige onderwijsvernieuwingen die van bovenaf worden ingevoerd, is het cruciaal dat docenten zich de nieuwe rollen die zij krijgen eigen maken. Het is daarom goed dat zij daarin voldoende worden ondersteund. In de literatuur worden communities of practice genoemd als een veelbelovende vorm om dit leren van docenten te ondersteunen. In een explo-ratieve studie is onderzocht welke opbrengsten de deelnemers van communities of practice ervaren. Daarvoor werden tien tutoren geïnterviewd die deel-namen aan twee verschillende communities die werden ingesteld na de invoe-ring van een grootschalige onderwijsvernieuwing in het universitair medisch onderwijs. De resultaten van deze studie laten zien dat er niet alleen leerresul-taten bereikt werden op individueel niveau, maar ook op organisatieniveau. Ook bleken de resultaten niet alleen cognitief te zijn, maar ook emotioneel; de docenten ervaren in de communities emotionele steun en voelen zich deel uit-maken van de gemeenschap van tutoren. We concluderen dat communities zin-vol kunnen zijn om het leren van docenten bij onderwijsvernieuwing te onder-steunen. Meer onderzoek is echter nodig om generaliserende uitspraken te kunnen doen. Probleemstelling en achtergrond Het leren van docenten in de context van onderwijsvernieuwing Onderwijsvernieuwingen gaan voor docenten soms gepaard met ingrijpende ver‐ anderingen in hun rol, bijvoorbeeld wanneer ze in plaats van expert de rol van procesbegeleider krijgen. Wanneer docenten te maken krijgen met een dergelijke nieuwe en andere rol, moeten ze hun vaardigheden uitbreiden en bestaande routines loslaten. Het is dan belangrijk docenten daarin goed te ondersteunen. Immers, de docenten hebben een sleutelrol in het uiteindelijke slagen van onderwijsvernieuwingen (Fullan, 2007; Vernooy, 2001). Hoewel het belang van ondersteuning van docenten door velen wordt erkend, vindt professionalisering van docenten bij onderwijsinnovaties in het hoger onderwijs weinig plaats (Schui‐ ling, 2007). In de praktijk maken de meeste docenten zich de nieuwe rol(len) vaak zelfstandig eigen, zonder dat de instelling hen daarbij ondersteunt. De docenten leren deze nieuwe vaardigheden en inzichten dan ook vaak al doende; bij het * Drs. T.A.M. van Lankveld (t.vanlankveld@ond.vu.nl) is werkzaam bij het Onderwijscentrum VU, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Prof. dr. M. Volman is werkzaam bij de afdeling Pedagogiek, Onderwijskunde en Lerarenopleiding, Universiteit van Amsterdam
Article
The situative perspective shifts the focus of analysis from individual behavior and cognition to larger systems that include behaving cognitive agents interacting with each other and with other subsystems in the environment. The first section presents a version of the situative perspective that draws on studies of social interaction, philosophical situation theory, and ecological psychology. Framing assumptions and concepts are proposed for a synthesis of the situative and cognitive theoretical perspectives, and a further situative synthesis is suggested that would draw on dynamic-systems theory. The second section discusses relations between the situative, cognitive, and behaviorist theoretical perspectives and principles of educational practice. The third section discusses an approach to research and social practice called interactive research and design, which fits with the situative perspective and provides a productive, albeit syncretic, combination of theory-oriented and instrumental functions of research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Article
The situative perspective shifts the focus of analysis from individual behavior and cognition to larger systems that include behaving cognitive agents interacting with each other and with other subsystems in the environment. The first section presents a version of the situative perspective that draws on studies of social interaction, philosophical situation theory, and ecological psychology. Framing assumptions and concepts are proposed for a synthesis of the situative and cognitive theoretical perspectives, and a further situative synthesis is suggested that would draw on dynamic-systems theory. The second section discusses relations between the situative, cognitive, and behaviorist theoretical perspectives and principles of educational practice. The third section discusses an approach to research and social practice called interactive research and design, which fits with the situative perspective and provides a productive, albeit syncretic, combination of theory-oriented and instrumental functions of research.
Article
What is it that we talk or write about when we talk or write about the culture of honors? Almost always we begin with the second term in the phrase, i.e., honors, the enterprise embodied in programs and colleges in which virtually all of the readers of this journal are engaged. If we think at all about the first term, culture, it is almost certainly for no more than a few minutes, if at all, and then move forward to the really important work. As I write this piece, I am at the moment creating a syllabus for a class in the history of culture, to be taught as an honors seminar in the upcoming spring term, and I have been at some pains to define the word “culture” in terms of content and the methods appropriate to its study. I am confident that the task of definition plays an important role in how we think about and discuss the culture of honors, and so this essay begins with some preliminary considerations of the concept of culture.
Article
Charlie Slavin’s excellent essay on “Defining Honors Culture” raises a host of compelling questions. As the director of an honors program just taking its first steps, I found myself returning again and again to the limits of my own role in shaping a nascent honors culture. Can honors administrators create an “honors culture”? Probably not, even in the case of a newly created honors program. The larger institutional culture and the particular characteristics of the first honors students make the creation ex nihilo of an honors culture difficult, if not impossible. But the stated goals of a particular honors program and the attitudes of honors administrators certainly play a crucial role in the development of the honors culture. When those goals and attitudes are enshrined in the admissions process, curricular requirements, and co-curricular activities of an honors program, honors administrators may enjoy a decisive role in the evolution of an institution’s particular honors culture.