No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Achievement Goal Orientations of Academically Talented College Students: Socioemotional Factors Contributing to Honors Program Participation
Abstract
Over 1000 colleges and universities in the United States have established honors programs to attract and serve high-achieving students. These students must decide whether participation in an honors program is compatible with the goals they have for their college educations, and not all will choose to join. Very little research has investigated the factors influencing this choice. In this mixed-methods study, honors-eligible students from two public research universities completed an online survey with five parts: the Achievement Goal Questionnaire-Revised (AGQ-R), Hewitt and Flett’s (1991) Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS), prior educational and extracurricular experiences, self-reported motivating factors for joining or not joining honors, and demographic information. Multivariate analyses were used to conduct comparisons among the parts of the survey; among students who joined honors as incoming freshmen, those who joined later, and those who did not join; and between honors students at the two universities. Students’ open-ended responses to the question of why they decided to join or not join honors were also analyzed qualitatively. Results of this study indicated that students joined honors based on some combination of expected benefits, anticipated opportunities, and social and emotional needs. Students’ reasons did reflect their achievement goal orientations; citing opportunities for challenge and growth was positively associated with mastery-approach goals. Students who did not join honors anticipated honors classes to be more difficult, require more work, and jeopardize their GPAs. However, this was not reflected in overall differences in achievement goal orientation or perfectionism between those who joined honors and those who did not. There were preliminary indications that students’ prior academic and extracurricular activities were related to achievement goals, perfectionism, and when they joined honors. Finally, honors students at the two universities differed significantly in levels of perfectionism and in the interactions between prior experiences and either achievement goals or perfectionism. They also placed different weights on the relative importance of benefits versus opportunities. These findings highlighted the influence of context when researching college honors programs and the students who qualify to participate in them.
... Department-based honors programs focus on the development of the honors skills in their specific subject-for example, an English department-based honors program would focus on developing English skills and talents for those gifted in English. Overall, most research has been conducted on university-based honors programs rather than department and content-based programs (Chancey, 2013;Cosgrove, 2004;Rinn, 2005). ...
... Part of the benefit of university honors programs may be the academically successful peer context of other high ability students they provide. The honors students themselves report wanting the peer contact in working on assignments with others of the same ability (Kem & Navan, 2006), and one of the reasons honors students report joining the program is to be around similar students (Chancey, 2013). According to Zhao and Kuh (2004), learning communities, of which honors programs are an example, improved student outcomes in two ways. ...
Academically talented college students who participate in honors programs are generally believed to be more involved in educationally purposeful activities and to hold higher educational and career aspirations than their peers who do not participate in honors programs. Having high educational and career aspirations is beneficial for student success after college. However, the effects of students’ involvement in an honors program on students’ aspirations is unknown. This study examined the aspirations and involvement of two groups of college students—honors students and non-honors students—by class standing (lower division compared to upper division) and gender (male and female) at a single large public university. All students at the university were invited to complete a survey that includes an educational aspiration scale, a career aspiration scale, and questions about student involvement. The final sample included 434 honors students and 366 non-honors students. A series of ANOVAs and regressions were performed to investigate the potential differences. The results of this research study supported a positive effect of the honors program on both career and educational aspirations. Aspirations were greater for upper division honors students compared to lower division honors students. Additionally, higher academic involvement was related to higher aspirations and may be a mechanism by which the honors program influences aspiration.
This study aimed to investigate the influence of the Honors College at Abai Kazakh National Pedagogical University on students' personal and professional growth, motivation, and intellectual development. By employing qualitative research methods through semi-structured interviews of 14 students, the researchers assessed how the Honors College fosters holistic development, critical thinking, and cultural identity reinforcement in its students. The study also explored the challenges faced by students, such as time constraints and disinterest in the teaching profession. The findings of this research highlighted the importance of experiential learning through internships and structured programs in shaping future educational leaders. Overall, this study provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of Honors programs within the Kazakhstani educational context.
Confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate 2 multidimensional measures of perfectionism (R. O. Frost, P. Marten, C. Lahart, & R. Rosenblate, 1990; P. L. Hewitt & G. L. Flett, 1991). On a first-order level, support was found for Hewitt and Flett's (1991) original 3-factor conceptualization of perfectionism, although only for an empirically derived 15-item subset. Support was also obtained for 5 of the 6 dimensions proposed by R. O. Frost et al. (1990), but the model only displayed good fit when a refined scale containing 22 of the original 35 items was used. A second- order analysis found evidence for 2 higher-order factors of adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism. Perfectionism dimensions correlated in expected directions with personality domains, symptom distress, and academic achievement. The brief measures of perfectionism also retained the construct-related validity displayed by the full-item versions.
All too often researchers perform a Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) on their data and then fail to fully recognize the true multivariate nature of their effects. The most common error is to follow the MANOVA with univariate analyses of the dependent variables. One reason for the occurrence of such errors is the lack of clear pedagogical materials for identifying and testing the multivariate effects from the analysis. The current paper consequently reviews the fundamental differences between MANOVA and univariate Analysis of Variance and then presents a coherent set of methods for plumbing the multivariate nature of a given data set. A completely worked example using genuine data is given along with estimates of effect sizes and confidence intervals, and an example results section following the technical writing style of the American Psychological Association is presented. A number of issues regarding the current methods are also discussed.
A positive freshman year experience is critical for student persistence and longterm success in college (Tinto, 1975; Tinto & Goodsell,1993). Recently, institutions have begun to recognize that student factors beyond demographics, academic records, and standardized test scores influence the likelihood of a positive freshman year experience (Levitz & Noel, 1989). “Emotional intelligence” is one such factor which is instrumental in situations that call upon students to adjust successfully from one environment to another (Hettich, 2000). While there is some data on the personality characteristics of college Honors students (Grangaard, 2003), to our knowledge no data have been collected on their emotional intelligence. Therefore, we designed this study to investigate two hypotheses. First, we wondered whether Honors college freshmen differed from their non-Honors peers in emotional intelligence. Second, we were interested in determining whether measures of emotional intelligence were predictive of first-semester college GPAs in addition to traditional predictors such as SAT scores and high-school GPAs.
Do students who participate in an honors program have higher retention and graduation rates in comparison to otherwise similar nonparticipants? This is the question we address, and we do so within the context of the Honors College at the University of Maine. We present our investigation both as a contribution to the limited research in this area and as an illustration of the practical challenges one faces in doing applied work of this sort. Regarding the latter, one must be careful when comparing the retention and graduation rates of honors and nonhonors students because of differences between these two groups at the outset—especially differences in academic ability, for instance, that arguably are related to subsequent retention and graduation rates (e.g., Murtaugh, Burns, & Schuster, 1999). How, then, does one go about making such comparisons? We present our comparisons in several stages, differing in sophistication, thus showing how our results changed and, further, how these changes shaped our understanding of the relationship between honors participation at UMaine and retention and graduation rates.
This research comprised 3 studies (2 prospective and 1 short-term longitudinal) designed to investigate mastery, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goals as predictors of achievement-relevant processes prior to the undergraduate examination experience. Results from across the 3 studies were supportive of the authors' hypotheses and revealed a differential predictive pattern for each of the achievement goals. Mastery goals were linked to numerous positive processes (e.g., challenge appraisals, absorption during preparation), performance-approach goals were linked to a more limited set of positive processes (e.g., challenge appraisals, grade aspirations), and performance-avoidance goals were linked to numerous negative processes (e.g., threat appraisals, anticipatory test anxiety). Implications for the trichotomous achievement goal model and educators are discussed.
The purpose of this study is to examine the academic achievement, academic self-concepts, and aspirations of gifted college students who are enrolled in an honors program and of gifted college students who are not enrolled in an honors program. Participants include 294 gifted college students, 248 of whom were enrolled in an honors program and 46 who were not enrolled in an honors program. A series of analyses of covariance is used to compare the mean grade point averages, academic self-concepts, and educational aspirations of the two groups. Academic self-concept is measured using the Academic subscale of the Self Description Questionnaire III. Results indicate the gifted/honors students have higher academic achievement and higher academic self-concepts than the gifted/ nonhonors students, even when controlling for SAT score. No significant differences are found with regard to aspirations. Implications are discussed.
We document a typology of perfectionism in a sample of academically talented adolescents and directly examine its relationship to indices of psychiatric symptomatology, adjustment, self-esteem, and coping. Adolescents enrolled in a state-funded residential academy for academically gifted high school students (N = 141) responded to the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990), the Hopkins Symptom Checklist, the Mastery Coping and Superior Adjustment scales from the Self-Image Questionnaire for Young Adolescents, the Perception of Personal Security and Academic Competence scales from the Self-Esteem Index, and the Coping Inventory (COPE). A 2-step cluster analysis of perfectionism scores revealed four clusters: Mixed-Adaptive (n = 51), Mixed-Maladaptive (n = 20), Pervasive (n = 30), and Self-Assured Nonperfectionist (n = 39). The Pervasive and Mixed-Maladaptive clusters showed a uniformly poor profile of mental health, adjustment, and coping relative to Mixed-Adaptive and Nonperfectionists. The Mixed-Adaptive cluster reported greater academic competence and superior adjustment than did the Nonperfectionist cluster, although these cluster groups were statistically similar on other dimensions of mental health and adjustment. These results suggest that maladaptive perfectionism takes two forms: pervasive and mixed. Implications for intervention and directions for future research are discussed.
The process of defining underachievement, identifying underachieving gifted students, and explaining the reasons for this underachievement continues to stir controversy among practitioners, researchers, and clinicians. Despite this interest, the underachievement of gifted students remains an enigma. This article reviews and analyzes three decades of research on the underachievement of gifted students in an attempt to clarify the present state of research. The problems inherent in defining and identifing underachieving gifted students are given special attention. The authors also include suggestions for those interested in pursuing potentially promising new lines of research and inquiry in this area.
Through a qualitative research design, this study examined the experiences of seven gifted university students in an undergraduate honors program. The findings indicated the students as adolescents experienced a sense of isolation resulting from the differences between their abilities, interests, life goals, religious value systems, and the communities in which they lived. At the university, the participants discovered within the honors program an intellectual and social network with other gifted individuals like them. Together they recognized their strong desire for self-actualization. In advanced-level courses, they found intellectual stimulation and academic challenge. Through several components of the honors program they developed significant psychosocial growth. Throughout their experiences, the honors program director became a mentor and played an important role in facilitating experiences designed to address the diverse needs of these gifted young adults. Implications of the findings are presented along with suggestions for designing appropriate honors program experiences for gifted university students.
As universities actively compete for the best and brightest students, educators may wonder about the nature of these gifted students and what awaits them in college. Yet, research on the programs and opportunities provided for talented undergraduates at institutions of higher education is limited, leaving researchers to question what universities are doing for bright students. The purpose of this review is to examine recent research on academically talented undergraduates, both on the nature of the undergraduates themselves and the programs provided for them at public institutions of higher education. Areas in need of additional research are discussed.
The purpose of this study was to design a psychometrically sound instrument to measure adolescents' attitudes toward school, attitudes toward teachers, goal-valuation, motivation, and general academic self-perceptions that could be used to explore the underachievement of academically able secondary school students. The final School Attitude Assessment Survey-Revised (SAAS-R) instrument consisted of 35 questions, each of which being an indicator of one of the five factors. The final model exhibited reasonable fit, X2(550) = 1,581.7, Comparative Fit Index = .91, Tucker Lewis Index = .92, root mean square error of approximation = .059, standardized root mean squared residual = .057. The scores in this study showed internal consistency reliability coefficient of at least .85 on each of the five factors. In addition, four of the five factors of the SAAS-R appear to differentiate gifted achievers from gifted underachievers. It is the authors' hope that the SAAS-R will allow researchers to more fully understand the relationship between these five factors and underachievement in gifted and nongifted populations.
The objective of this study was to investigate how different components of achievement goal theory were related to each other and to students' motivation, cognitive engagement, and achievement in mathematics. Junior high school students (N = 525) completed a self-report survey that assessed their perceived classroom goal structures; personal goal orientations; and a collection of outcomes that included persistence, procrastination, choice, their use of cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies, and mathematics grade. Results indicate that mastery structure and mastery orientation were related to adaptive outcomes in all areas. The patterns of relations for performance-approach goal structure, and for performance-approach and performance-avoidance goal orientations were less uniform across outcomes. Implications for achievement goal theory and future research are discussed.
The psychometric properties of the Achievement Goal Questionnaire (AGQ), when modified for a general academic context, were examined. Previous research has found evidence of a four-factor structure of achievement goal orientation when this measure was used in a course-specific context. This study is an important addition to goal orientation research for the following two reasons: (a) It provides additional support for four distinct factors of goal orientation, and (b) it answers the call for examining achievement goal orientation measures at different levels of specificity. The authors found that the four-factor structure of goal orientation replicated when used in a general academic context.
This study sought to determine whether honors college students differed with regards to academic achievement, academic self-concept, general self-concept, educational aspirations, and career aspirations as a function of their class standing. Participants included 298 honors college students from a large, Midwestern university. A demographic questionnaire, the general academic subscale and the general-self subscale of the Self-Description Questionnaire III (Marsh & O'Neill, 1984), and the Leadership and Achievement Aspirations subscale of the Career Aspirations Scale (O'Brien, 1992) were used. Results indicate significant differences between juniors and seniors with regards to academic self-concept, educational aspirations, and career aspirations. Implications for honors faculty and administrators are discussed. (Contains 2 tables and 3 endnotes.)
C. Midgley et al. (2001) raised important questions about the effects of performance-approach goals. The present authors disagree with their characterization of the research findings and implications for theory. They discuss 3 reasons to revise goal theory: (a) the importance of separating approach from avoidance strivings, (b) the positive potential of performance-approach goals, and (c) identification of the ways performance-approach goals can combine with mastery goal to promote optimal motivation. The authors review theory and research to substantiate their claim that goal theory is in need of revision, and they endorse a multiple goal perspective. The revision of goal theory is underway and offers a more complex, but necessary, perspective on important issues of motivation, learning, and achievement. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Age differences in intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and the relationships of each to academic outcomes were examined in an ethnically diverse sample of 797 3rd-grade through 8th-grade children. Using independent measures, the authors found intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to be only moderately correlated, suggesting that they may be largely orthogonal dimensions of motivation in school. Consistent with previous research, intrinsic motivation showed a significant linear decrease from 3rd grade through 8th grade and proved positively correlated with children's grades and standardized test scores at all grade levels. Extrinsic motivation showed few differences across grade levels and proved negatively correlated with academic outcomes. Surprisingly few differences based on children's sex or ethnicity were found. Causes and consequences of the disturbingly low levels of motivation for older, relative to younger, children are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Cyberbullying takes place through the information technology that students access every day: cell phones, text messages, email, Internet messaging, social networks, pictures, and video clips. With the world paying more attention to this new form of bullying, scholars have been researching the topic in an attempt to learn more about this phenomenon. However, there are few research studies directly examining the relationship between academic achievement and cyberbullying; this dissertation examined that relationship. Data collected from a questionnaire provided to 847 middle school students in a Northeastern city revealed that higher-achieving students were no more likely to understand the risks involved with using the Internet than students who earned lower grades. Students who had self-reported participation in a gifted program and students who did not were equally likely to have involvement in cyberbullying as either a target, bully, or both. The most statistically significant factor in predicting a relationship to involvement with cyberbullying was a history of involvement with traditional bullying. Either as a target or a bully, having a history of this form of bullying meant a student was more likely to be both a cyberbully and a cyberbullying target.
As we learn from Scott Carnicom’s informative and thoughtful essay “Honors Education: Innovation or Conservation,” the lead essay for this Forum, honors education, the brain child of Frank Aydelotte, was designed to “create a more individualized educational experience for gifted students that focused on the creation of knowledge more than its mere reproduction.” From the beginning, honors programs and later colleges have drawn and continue to draw students we often identify as “the best and the brightest,” and traditional measures bear out such a designation (for a general overview of honors students across and within colleges and universities, see Achterberg and Kaczvinsky; cf. Freyman for a prescriptive view of honors students). While we may agree that honors colleges and programs bring in gifted students, do these students alone deserve an education focused on the creation of knowledge rather than its reproduction? Shouldn’t we aspire to this goal for all university and college students? If so, what role might honors colleges and programs have in furthering this lofty aim? Bell argues in general terms for the intervention of honors in undergraduate education, especially at large research institutions (cf. Braid [2009], who takes this idea further and offers suggestions about how honors education could be employed in K–12). In this essay, I would like to point out ways that honors already benefits all students and how it might expand its outreach to the rest of campus.
HONORS STUDENTS
Even when an honors curriculum fulfills all the general education requirements of an institution, as it does at the University of Oregon, honors students still take most of their courses outside of honors. One of the “Basic Characteristics of a Fully Developed Honors Program” is that “program requirements themselves should include a substantial portion of the participants’ undergraduate work, usually in the vicinity of 20% to 25% of their total course work and certainly no less than 15%” (Spurrier 193), implying that honors students typically take at least 75% of their coursework outside of honors. The influence of honors education beyond the perimeters of a particular program is thus substantial as these bright students interact with their peers and teachers outside of honors.
One of the defining features of honors education resides not so much in the stellar array of designer courses we offer as in the students themselves and the kinds of questions they pose. Smart, incisive, quirky, challenging questions coming from students with interests and expertise from across campus do not reproduce knowledge. Rather, they often critique and expose gaps in the basis of that knowledge and have the potential to lead us to new insights and directions of inquiry (for a useful study of the differences between honors and non-honors students, particularly in the area of “deep processing,” see Carnicom and Clump). These talented young men and women bring their engaged and sometimes aggressive curiosity to non-honors classes within and outside of their departments, raising the intellectual stakes for all students; they ask questions that transform lectures and discussions into moments of uncertainty, ambiguity or wonder; and they have the potential to inspire or provoke other students to search for answers on their own. Honors students also meet with faculty to discuss social and political issues outside of class with greater frequency than non-honors students, as noted by Shushok, and thus model greater intellectual engagement as well as acumen.
In the recent JNCHC volume devoted to “Outcomes Assessment, Accountability, and Honors” (Spring/Summer 2006), we can find a marked division within the honors community between those for and against the current climate of program assessment, with the “againsts” carrying the day by a two to one margin (six negative essays vs. three positive). In her editorial comments, Ada Long declares: Honors educators do indeed need to be in the forefront of the national conversation about outcomes assessment, but first we will each need to decide whether we should join or resist the movement. (p. 15) I wonder if honors educators have emerged as even a tiny voice in the forefront of this national conversation; I am even more unconvinced that honors educators have the choice to join or resist the “assessment movement.”
Educators concerned with the development and maintenance of collegiate honors programs throughout the United States face considerable hurdles in these times of decreased funding, concerns about charges of elitism, and calls for accountability (Campbell 95). In 1990, the National Collegiate Honors Council (NCHC) published a monograph that identified a minimum of five concerns that should be periodically and systematically evaluated within a program: causes of attrition, liberal education goals of the curriculum, participation in cultural and community activities, administrative structure and budget, and advising responsibilities (Reihman, Varhus, & Whipple). Although the NCHC, as well as accrediting bodies, strongly supports the assessment of honors programs, Greg Lanier reports little consistency in the process or the findings of such assessments (84).
In spite of a growing body of literature supporting the benefits of honors programs (Achterberg; Cosgrove; Hartleroad; Park & Maisto; Ross & Roman; Seifert, Pascarella, Colangelo, & Assouline; Shushok), some members of the national community of honors educators remain resistant to the concept of assessing their programs. Lanier cites the spring/summer 2006 volume of the Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council (JNCHC) that included nine essays in its “Forum on Outcomes Assessment, Accountability, and Honors”; he writes that two thirds of them focused on the problem and dangers in program assessment. A common theme in several of the essays opposing assessment was that the unique and qualitative nature of the stated outcomes of honors programs makes assessment difficult or unhelpful (Digby; Freyman; Strong).
Since this edition of the JNCHC is dedicated to honors administration, it seems appropriate to offer a few introductory remarks about the usefulness of this study. College and university administrators participating in the accreditation process are well aware that assessing student learning is not the passing fad that some had suspected it might be. In the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, for example, administrators are familiar with Core Requirement 2.1—the institution engages in ongoing, integrated, and institution- wide planning and evaluation processes that incorporate systematic review of programs and services (Handbook for reaffirmation of accreditation, 2004). All accreditation bodies in higher education now require systematic assessment of student learning. Honors programs have been generally slow to adopt ongoing assessment strategies, and calls for intentional evaluation of honors education are not new. In a National Collegiate Honors Council monograph published in 1995, for example, Reilhman, Varhus and Whipple noted that “. . . the paucity of evaluations of honors programs is surprising” (p.2). A decade earlier, Randall and Collier (1985) observed, “examples of efforts to evaluate the effect of honors programs on the college career . . . are extremely rare”(p. 2). A search of relevant literature today suggests that only marginal progress has been made toward providing substantive and scientifically gathered data about how student learning is enhanced as a result of participation in an honors program.
A study found college honors (n=231) and nonhonors (n=709) first-year students were similar in extracurricular interests, educational objectives, and some study habits; they reported differences in most other areas. Findings have implications for advising both groups, such as placement of emphasis on format of academic courses, orientation to campus life, and retention strategies. (Author/MSE)
This study sought to provide empirical support for the notion that adaptive and maladaptive perfectionists fundamentally differ in their reported achievement goals and that their differential profiles manifest in varying academically-related outcomes. College students (N = 180) enrolled in a military institution responded to the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale, achievement goal measures from the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales, and two subscales measuring academic functioning. As expected, adaptive perfectionists endorsed a preference for mastery goals along with an advantageous profile of academic functioning. Although maladaptive perfectionists endorsed comparable mastery goals to the adaptive group, they also reported heightened performance goals and a poorer profile of academic functioning. These results suggest that any positive effects that could otherwise be associated with a mastery orientation are negated when the perfectionist concurrently espouses a performance orientation and harbors concerns related to the self. The implications for these findings are discussed.
A number of challenges exist in providing the honors experience. Programs must compete for resources, coordinate departments, design dynamic curricula, and work toward changing goals. Among the many challenges, one of the hardest begins before students even enter the program. Honors admissions must select the students who will likely succeed in the program. After admissions, programs must then ensure that the program design encourages academic achievement and persistence in honors. To accomplish the goals and overcome the challenges of honors, a better understanding of the predictors of success is necessary. Using a logit regression model, my study will add evidence to previous research on the effectiveness of traditional admissions criteria such as high school grades and standardized test scores, contributing to a better understanding of honors students and their likelihood of success. The results of the study also reveal areas for future research, including the relevance of gender and ethnicity to graduation rates in honors.
Community colleges have historically addressed the needs of a diverse population (Walker, 2001). A key goal for community colleges is to be a resource for all segments of the community (Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 2000). Walker (2001) reinforced this directive by stating that the community college purpose was “to bring higher education in its various forms into the community” (p. 9). Community colleges have concentrated much of their attention on several subpopulations within the community, such as students in vocational training or certificate programs and academically under-prepared students (Outcalt, 1999). As the numbers of students increase, community colleges are becoming aware of other subpopulations and their needs. A sub-population found at community colleges that is gaining more attention is academically well-prepared students (Skau, 1989). One way that community colleges have addressed the special requirements of this subpopulation is by offering honors classes or an honors program to challenge these students and prepare them for transition to four-year institutions (Outcalt, 1999). Outcalt (1999) maintains that a major function of community colleges is to prepare their students for transfer to four-year institutions. Even as community colleges prepare their students for transfer to four-year institutions, however, 79% of the students experience a phenomenon termed “transfer shock” (Diaz, 1992). This phenomenon was first described by Hills (1965) and was defined as an appreciable drop in grade point average (GPA) upon transfer to a four-year university.
In an impressive article published in the 2005 summer issue of JNCHC, Cheryl Achterberg laments the lack of empirical data available to provide a workable definition for honors students. While she duly notes that there is an “ideology” that honors students are “superior” to other students in an institution or of “high ability” or “the best and brightest,” she laments that “[t]here are few characteristics of honors students that can be standardized, measured, or uniformly compared across institutions” (Achterberg 75). She concludes her article with these considerations: honors students are “not a homogeneous group with a set of absolute or fixed characteristics”; they “have much in common with other non-honors students of their own age group”; they “are (or should be) academically superior to their non-honors counterparts within any given institution”; and they “are probably little different today than the honors students of yesteryear.” Achterberg calls for more research to understand “how honors students develop academically, intellectually, socially, emotionally, and as leaders relative to their non-honors peers” (79).
What defines an “honors” student and what key differences, if any, exist between honors and non-honors students? One obvious difference exists in measures of academic achievement; college honors students, by virtue of typical admission criteria, have higher GPA’s and standardized test scores (Long & Lange, 2002). Consistent with these higher academic credentials, honors students have often been described as more autonomous, more responsible, and more motivated (Grangaard, 2003; Orban & Chalifoux, 2002; Palmer & Wohl, 1972). Additionally, honors students tend to demonstrate to a greater degree many behaviors that positively correlate with academic performance, such as skipping class less often, preparing longer for class, asking more questions per class, spending more time rewriting papers, spending more time meeting with faculty outside class hours, watching less television, drinking less alcohol, and focusing on course grades (Clark, 2000; Harte, 1994; Long & Lange, 2002; Schuman, 1995). While these comparisons suggest that the high academic credentials of honors students might be partially explained via their study habits, few studies have examined potential cognitive differences between honors and non-honors students. Clark (2000) found that academically talented college students possessed a greater preference for abstract, conceptual, and integrative reflection and tended to score at the intuitive end of the Myers-Briggs personality inventory (indicating more creativity and ability to engage in abstract thought), whereas less talented students tended to be more concrete. Similarly, Shaughnessy and Moore (1994) partially attributed the higher IQ scores of honors students to higher order thinking abilities. This work hints at what honors programs have intuitively asserted for years: honors students think and learn differently, and honors pedagogy should be tailored to meet these students’ unique abilities. However, further empirical research is needed to uncover, identify, describe, and define these differences in thinking and learning. The current study will attempt to further elucidate the difference between honors and non-honors students by using the Inventory of Learning Processes (ILP; Schmeck, 1982; Schmeck, Ribich, & Ramanaiah, 1977).
Many honors programs advertise that honors education is what all undergraduate education would be in a world without resource constraints, so it is not surprising that honors programs have more interested prospects than available spaces. The question of how to select first-year honors students is therefore of interest both practically (in terms of finding the optimal student body) and philosophically (conformity to an ideal of justice, for instance). This article provides a general overview of current honors selection processes for incoming first-year students and discusses the ingredients of an optimal process. The two “ideal types” of honors selection processes, in the sense that many actual processes borrow elements from each type, may be characterized as “skimming” versus “free-standing.” In the skimming selection model, usually called “by invitation” or something similar, the overall flow of applications to the institution is scrutinized according to some numerical threshold—generally some combination of SAT/ACT and GPA/rank. Intake may be limited by fixed program capacity (starting downward from the “top student” until offer capacity is reached) or by fixed entry criteria (all applicants with the specified criteria are offered honors admission). In the free-standing model, only those applicants who complete a separate honors application, supplemental to the institution’s general application, are considered. Because the general application almost certainly has SAT/GPA data, the presumption is that a free-standing honors application contains elements (essays, letters, activity listings, etc.) that go beyond “the numbers.”
This study examines the academic performance, retention, and degree-completion rates of two groups of honors students, those who completed all their honors program requirements (honors completers; n = 30) versus those students who started off in honors programs but did not complete these program requirements (partial honors students; n = 82). These two sets of honors students are then compared to a third group of similar students, those who had comparable pre-college academic credentials as the honors students, but who did not participate in an honors program (called high-ability students; n = 108). These three student groups entered three Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education universities as first-time, full-time freshmen in fall 1997. The study encompasses a five-year period, from fall semester 1997 through spring semester 2002. The study design is ex post facto and longitudinal, using secondary data primarily obtained from the institutional research offices at the respective study sites. The results show that three out of every four students who begin honors programs fail to complete them. Honors program completers have the highest academic performance and graduation rates, and shortest time to degree completion, compared to other high ability students, including partial honors students. The analysis strongly suggests that partial exposure to the honors program does not significantly enhance academic performance, graduation rates, time to degree, nor length of enrollment beyond what is achieved by other high-ability students who were never part of these programs. These findings control for the effects of student, institutional, and honors program characteristics at the three universities cooperating in the study.
The purpose of this study was to compare the academic achievement of first-year female engineering students based on participation, or lack thereof, in the honors program. A single research question was developed for this study: “Is there a significant difference in academic achievement of first-year female engineering Honors Program students and non-honors program students?” The problem for this study was that many students in the Freshman Engineering program at Purdue University believed that participation in an honors program damaged students’ grade point averages with its challenging curriculum. This was especially true for beginning female students entering a traditionally male-dominated career field. Data regarding first- and second-semester (thus also annual) cumulative grade point averages were collected for the 268 subjects. A t-test for independent samples was used to determine if a significant difference existed in grade point averages; the results indicated a significant difference in the academic achievement of the first-year honors and non-honors female engineering students. First-year female engineering students participating in the honors program earned significantly higher grades than first-year female engineering students who did not participate in the honors program for both semesters of enrollment. Results of this study concluded that enrolling in a more challenging curriculum did not negatively impact the academic achievement outcomes of high-achieving, first-year female engineering students at Purdue University.
This study sought to investigate the level of performance exhibited by university honors freshmen and to explore the knowledge and skill demands of advanced higher education programs in order to construct an empirical base for the development of standards for gifted learners in grades K-12. A sample of 145 faculty members from 28 honors programs at flagship universities across the United States participated in the telephone survey conducted during the summer of 1994. The survey asked respondents to assess their students' process skills of critical thinking, creative thinking, problem solving, research, written and oral communication, and leadership. Also, respondents assessed their students' knowledge deficiencies and identified qualities that distinguish exceptional students. Respondents reported moderate satisfaction with student performance of the process skills. Subjects appeared to concur with Renzulli's (1986) construct of task commitment when they identified motivation, attitude, intellectual curiosity, and discipline as important distinguishing factors of outstanding honors students.
In this monograph, the authors advanced a set of interrelated arguments: The abilities of individuals do matter, particularly their abilities in specific talent domains; different talent domains have different developmental trajectories that vary as to when they start, peak, and end; and opportunities provided by society are crucial at every point in the talent development process. The authors argue that society must strive to promote these opportunities, but that individuals with talent also have some responsibility for their own growth and development. Furthermore, the research knowledge base indicates that psychosocial variables are determining influences in the successful development of talent. Finally, preparing young people for outstanding achievement or eminence ought to be the chief goal of gifted education.
The present investigation examined whether academically gifted children, relative to their nongifted peers (a) were subject to greater self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism, (b) endorsed higher levels of Ellis' (1962) irrational beliefs, and (c) were prone to more negative reactions to an experimentally induced failure. Relative to their nongifted and academically achieving peers, the academically gifted students demonstrated more negative affective and physiological stress reactions to the experimentally induced failure, as well as higher levels of self-oriented perfectionism and irrational beliefs. The present findings highlight the need for research within the relatively new and unexplored field of gifted students' reactions to scholastic failure.
The purpose of the present study was to create and test a model that (a) illustrated variables influencing the development of perfectionism, and (b) demonstrated how different types of perfectionism may influence the achievement goals of high-ability students. Using a multiple-groups path analysis, the researchers found that parenting style was related to attachment, with authoritative and permissive parenting associated with secure attachment and authoritarian and uninvolved parenting associated with insecure attachment. Attachment, in turn, was related to perfectionism, with insecure attachment associated with either self-oriented or socially prescribed perfectionism. In addition, the model then illustrated that perfectionism would influence achievement goals, with self-oriented perfectionists more likely to set mastery or performance-approach goals, and socially prescribed perfectionists more likely to set performance-approach or performance-avoidance goals. The findings of this study are interpreted in the context of the existing literature, and implications for working with high-ability perfectionistic students are discussed.
This study is a slice of an overarching research investigation of perfectionism in gifted college students. Utilizing a qualitative interview design, this study examined how gifted college students scoring high on 1 of 2 different dimensions of perfectionism (socially prescribed or self-oriented) perceived their achievement motivation. Findings indicated that, for the socially prescribed perfectionists, an underlying motive to avoid failure influenced their achievement goals and behaviors. Based on this motive, they set both performance-avoidance and performance-approach goals and tended toward procrastination in their work. In contrast, an underlying motive to achieve influenced the achievement goals and behaviors of the self-oriented perfectionists. These participants set both mastery and performance approach goals. They developed a strong work ethic, and they were motivated to seek out challenges. Implications of these findings are suggested, and recommendations for parents and educators working with gifted perfectionistic students are discussed.
The overwhelming weight of the literature on "gifted learners" deals with the K-12 years; little attention is given to postsecondary efforts. Among the many approaches to meeting the needs of gifted students at the college level are admission without high school graduation; credit for previous advanced work; identification during and after admission; advising by specifically designated personnel; career planning; and special programs such as honors programs, admission to graduate courses, mentorships, and research opportunities. Professors can encourage gifted learners by adapting their teaching methods and by personal contact. Scholarships and academic recognition also support high aspirations. Many issues at the college level echo those encountered in the K-12 system. Attention to the gifted learner at the college level represents uncharted territory and a new frontier.
The researchers designed this study to investigate levels of multidimensional perfectionism in identified gifted middle school students and a group of their peers from the general cohort. Gifted students (N = 83) were compared with the general cohort (N = 112) from a Southeastern rural middle school (grades 6 through 8). One‐way analyses of variance were used to determine whether gifted and general cohort students differed on measures of adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism. Results revealed that gifted students had significantly higher standards scores, a measure of adaptive perfectionism, and significantly lower discrepancy scores, a measure of maladaptive perfectionism. These results suggest that gifted students are more perfectionistic (i.e., hold higher personal standards) than general cohort students. However, the results do not support the contention that gifted students experience distress or maladjustment from their higher levels of perfectionism (e.g., Maxwell, 1995).
This study examined the mediating role of achievement goals in the differential association of self-oriented perfectionism (SOP) and socially prescribed perfectionism (SPP) with academic achievement and satisfaction of university students. Results showed that the positive association of SOP with academic achievement was partially mediated by performance-approach goal, whereas mastery-approach goal acted as full mediator in the positive relation between SOP and academic satisfaction. Furthermore, the negative link between SPP and academic achievement was partially mediated by performance-approach goal, whereas mastery-approach goal acted as a partial mediator in the negative relation between SPP and academic satisfaction.
This study is part of a larger research investigation of perfectionism in gifted college students. Employing a qualitative interview design, this study examined factors contributing to the development of two dimensions of perfectionism, socially prescribed and self-oriented, in gifted college students. Findings indicated that exposure to parental perfectionism and an authoritarian parenting style led to the perception of stringent expectations, self-worth tied to achievement, and a fear of disappointing others, which collectively influenced the development of socially prescribed perfectionism. Factors contributing to the development of self-oriented perfection included mastery of early academic experiences without effort, no previous experience with academic failure, and modeling of parental perfectionism. Implications for future research and recommendations for parents and educators of gifted children are suggested.
Using the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale, (Frost et al., 1990) perfectionism scores were compared between a group of 600 students identified as academically talented and a group of 418 peers from the general cohort. In this nationally gathered sample, all students were sixth graders and of similar socioeconomic status. Findings indicated little difference between the mean scores of the two groups. Comparisons were also made between the gifted students and the general cohort using an empirical typology of perfectionism. This analysis did not indicate a statistically significant difference in the frequency of perfectionistic types between gifted students and the general cohort. These findings suggest that the frequent anecdotal reports of greater perfectionism among the gifted may be a product of differential labeling patterns of similar behaviors when demonstrated by gifted students and the general cohort. A greater distinction between perfectionistic strivings which stimulate excellence and those perfectionistic strivings which frustrate and inhibit achievement needs to be made.
The purpose of this article is to provide an illustrative review of recent research on achievement motivation and gifted students from a social cognitive perspective. The review discusses several constructs that have been a focus of motivation research: perceived competence and self-efficacy, attributions, goal orientations, and intrinsic motivation. For each construct, motivational research from the general motivation literature and from the field of gifted and talented studies are critiqued and compared. The review suggests that a general social cognitive perspective is a useful theoretical framework for research on motivational processes involved in the intellectual and personal development of gifted and talented students and that a process-oriented model is superior to a static model for research on both giftedness and achievement motivation. Implications of the review for future research on motivation and talent development are discussed.
This article is concerned with measures of fit of a model. Two types of error involved in fitting a model are considered. The first is error of approximation which involves the fit of the model, with optimally chosen but unknown parameter values, to the population covariance matrix. The second is overall error which involves the fit of the model, with parameter values estimated from the sample, to the population covariance matrix. Measures of the two types of error are proposed and point and interval estimates of the measures are suggested. These measures take the number of parameters in the model into account in order to avoid penalizing parsimonious models. Practical difficulties associated with the usual tests of exact fit or a model are discussed and a test of “close fit” of a model is suggested.
College honors programs provide an especially promising context in which to promote reflective judgment by challenging and expanding students' intellectual horizons. However, faculty must carefully assess the different levels of cognitive development among their students, cultivate the skills of reflective judgment accordingly, and understand that some students will experience frustration. (MSE)
This paper describes an honors program developed by the University of South Carolina at Aiken to increase educational opportunities for the academically well-qualified and highly motivated student. The paper focuses on participation in the program by the speech communication faculty. Students who qualify for the program contract with individual professors to complete special projects in regular academic courses. Students are encouraged to pursue contracts in courses both in and out of their major areas of study. Student/professor contracts are reviewed and must be approved by an Honors Steering Committee. Four of the honors contracts completed in speech communication concerned interpersonal communication, public communication, interviewing, and advanced public communication. The projects and methodologies are described in the paper. Students in the honors program benefited from working closely with professors of their choosing; non-honors students were stimulated and challenged by the presence of the honors students in the regular classroom; and all professors had the opportunity to work closely with academically gifted students. (MAH)
Using the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Frost, Martin, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990) measures of perfectionism in a group of 90 Honors College students and 95 more typical peers were compared. Honors College students received significantly higher scores with a moderate effect size on the subscales of Concern Over Mistakes, Personal Standards, Parental Expectations, and the total score of overall perfectionism. This result is in contrast to recent findings of no difference in perfectionism scores between gifted and typical younger students. It is unclear if the finding of elevated perfectionism among Honors College students is indicative of predisposition to maladjustment or is a healthy component of the pursuit of academic excellence among the highly able.
The present research examined the relations between individual differences in perfectionism and procrastinatory behavior in college students. A sample of 131 students (56 males, 75 females) completed measures of self-oriented, other-oriented, and socially prescribed perfectionism, as well as measures of academic procrastination and general procrastination. Subjects also completed ratings of factors related to procrastination (i.e., fear of failure, task aversiveness). Correlational analyses revealed it was the socially prescribed perfectionism dimension that was most closely correlated with both generalized procrastination and academic procrastination, especially among males. There were few significant correlations involving self-oriented and other-oriented perfectionism. However, the fear of failure component of procrastination was associated broadly with all the perfectionism dimensions. Overall, the results suggest that procrastination stems, in part, from the anticipation of social disapproval from individuals with perfectionistic standards for others.
58 college freshmen participating in an honors college program had higher levels of academic achievement (as determined by freshman-year and secondary school grade point average (GPA) and American College Testing Program composite scores) after 1 yr than did an equivalent group of 35 students who had been invited to apply to the honors college but who had chosen not to attend and 65 randomly selected freshmen. The relation between academic achievement and student persistence and withdrawal behavior is noted. (26 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Compared scores on the Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes (SSHA), the EPPS, Rotter's Internal–External Locus of Control Scale, and the Academic Motivations Inventory (AMI [R. E. Moen and K. O. Doyle; see PA, Vol 59:8899]) of 17 students in a college honors program with college norms. No locus of control differences were found, but the honors Ss had (a) significantly higher scores on the AMI's measures of persisting motives, achieving motives, facilitating anxiety, grades orientation, demandingness, influencing motives, competing motives, and approving motives; (b) higher scores on the Work Habits and Study Habits scales of the SSHA; and (c) higher need for achievement and lower deference scores on the EPPS. (9 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)