dissertation: educating the best and the brightest
TRANSCRIPT
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
From the SelectedWorks of Frank Shushok Jr.
2002
Dissertation: Educating the best and thebrightest: Collegiate honors programs and theintellectual, social and psychological developmentof students.Frank Shushok, Jr., Virginia Tech
Available at: https://works.bepress.com/frank_shushokjr/9/
INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus. some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face. while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs. print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
ProQuest Information and Learning300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 USA
800-521-Q600
Title of Dissertation:
ABSTRACT
EDCCATI~G THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST:
COLLEGIATE HONORS PROGRAMS AND THE
I~TELLECTL·:\L. SOCIAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL
DE\"ELOP~IENTOF STCDE!'\TS
Frank Shushok. Jr.. Doctor of Philosophy, 2002
Dissertation directed by: Professor Robert BirnbaumDepartment of Education Policy and Leadership
Do honors programs make a difference in student outcomes such as retention.
satisfaction, and academic perfonnance? Despite their popularity and high cost. there
has been link research on the relationship between honors programs and student
outcomes. This study was designed to assess how two groups of similarly credentialed
first-year students at a Carnegie classification "Doctoral/Research Extensive" university
in the Eastern united States \""ere affected by participation in an honors program or the
traditional curriculum.
A quantitative. quasi-experimental design was utilized with qualitative focus
groups conducted after data analysis to further infonn the research. The primary
objective of the study was to discover whether student outcome differences existed
when comparing honors and non-honors students. A secondary benefit was exploring
differences between honors students who self-selected into the program and those
whose participation was solicited by the institution. The research was grounded by
expectancy and student development theory.
This study found that honors and non-honors students engaged in activities at
similar rates. \\"hen measuring perceived gains in critical areas such as the liberal arts,
science. and technology. however. there were statistically significant differences.
~1oreo\'er. when compared to non-honors participants. honors students achieved higher
cumulative grade point averages. as well as maintained greater rates of retention into
the sophomore year. The results also indicate that honors programs may encourage
outcomes for male students in a way that they do not for female students.
Since the experience of honors and non-honors students was essentially the
same. it is important to question why there are statistically significant perceived gains
by honors students in the liberal arts. science. and technology. as well as obvious gains
in grade performance and retention. Is It the "P)'lllalion Effect" driving these
differences if the experiences are the same? There are no data to suggest this notion as
fact. but this study would indicate it as a reasonable hypothesis. Another hypothesis.
however. is that there are other honors college experiences unmeasured in this study
influencing these important student outcomes. The answers to these questions will be
either good or bad news for those supporting honors programs because of their impact
on student learning.
EDUCATING THE BEST AND THE BRlGHTEST: COLLEGL-\TE HONORS
PROGRA~fS AND THE INTELLECTVAL. SOCL-\L AND PSYCHOLOGICAL
DEVELOP~1ENTOF STUDENTS
by
Frank Shushok. Jr.
Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University ofMaryland at College Park in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy2002
Advisory Committee:
Professor Robert Birnbaum. Chair/AdvisorProfessor Robert O. BerdahlProfessor Robert CroningerProfessor Frank SchmidtleinProfessor Miranda Schreurs
UMI Number: 3070562
Copyright 2002 by
Shushok. Francis (Frank) X.• Jr.
All rights reserved.
UMt'UMI Microform 3070562
Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected againstunauthorized copying under Title 17. United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346Ann Arbor. MI 48106-1346
[' Copyright by
Frank Shushok. Jr.2002
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my t\\"o boys John Brayden and Christian FrancisShushok. May they be surrounded by people who "expect" the world of them.
11
ACKNO\\"LEDGivIENTS
It is hard to imagine anyone who has been affected more by education than me,
The completion of the Ph,D, in many ways represents the cumulative contribution of
indi\'iduals who have profoundly shaped my vicw of the world and my role within it.
At times the education process requires the independent exploration of ideas. The many
individual moments and efforts that fuelleaming. however. can almost always be
traced to thoughtful and dedicated educators. A. handful of teachers come to mind
when I rctlect on my formal education: Susan Holman. Patricia Hefner. Gail Pack.
Keith Christian. Robert Sih'erman. Jennifer Presley and Robert Birnbaum. I have been
blessed to leam from these exceptional people.
Since my dissertation is grounded by expectancy theory. I have reached
backward into my past to consider those who have always expected the best from mc.
No one has had a more profound influence on my lit'\: than my lift>partncr and wife
Kelly. Her encouragement and faith ha\'e inspired me. Her kindness. love. and spirit
have transfonned mc. ~fy mom and dad. my brother Jay and my sister Fran invested
countless hours in my Ii fe. and their belief in me is partly responsible for any milestone
I achieve. rvly parents-in-law. Bcn and Best}' \Vhiscnant. have also played an important
role in my development.
I have been fortunate enough to work with many people \\'ho have become
friends and mentors. I am thankful for Eddie Vernon. Kevin \Veiser. Martha Lou Scott.
George Loutherback. Jim Dorman. Eddie \Villiams. Steve Abbe. Rich Payne. Rick
Brandel, John Zacker and Eileen Hulme. I am especially thankful for Deborah Harris.
111
my colleague and friend~ who has provided me with an unending stream of
encouragement and support. Thank you for what you all have done for me.
I would be remiss not to thank the five individuals who agreed to invest in my
learning as dissertation advisors. All doctoral students know the importance of this
group of people in making the experience one oi value and meaning. My chair and
advisor Robert Birnbaum is a true mentor. In my view. and in the view of many others,
he is a master teacher and a superb scholar. lowe much to Frank Schmidtlein and
~hranda Schreurs whose classes facilitated my dissertation topic becoming a reality.
Robert Berdahl is a legend in higher education circles. and I am fortunate to have
learned from him in class. I cannot emphasize enough my appreciation for Robert
Croninger agreeing to serve on my committee. His repeated review and clarification of
statistical outputs \\'ere invaluable. Finally. the honors director at the institution in this
study is responsible for opening the door for my research at this university. He is a
remarkable scholar and has a contagious hope for students and their learning. The
anonYmity of the research site keeps me from revealing his name.
I am grateful to report that I will complete my Ph.D. without incurring much
financial hardship. A graduate assistantship from the University of Maryland, a
fellowship from the Phi Kappa Tau Educational Foundation. a fellowship from the
National Order of Omega~ and a dissertation grant from the National Collegiate Honors
Council allowed me to learn without the pressure ofdebt. When the individuals behind
these organizations allocate resources for scholarships, they make a meaningful
contribution to the world of education. Thank you!
IV
I am overwhelmed by the many blessings God has granted me. I move forward
with the understanding that these blessings require a great responsibility.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. viii
CH.~TER I IIntroduction to the Study IImponance of the Study " . 4Study Site 6The Honors Program 7Conceptual Overview 8Implications for Institutional Policy " 12DetinitionofTenns 13
CHAPTER 2 15Literature Rcview " 15Thc Purpose of Honors Programs 16The History of Honors Programs " 18Relevant Research on Honors Programs and Outcomes 21The Study of Student Outcomes . 25Taxonomies for Studying Student Outcomes in Collcge 27Pascarella and Terenzini's Synthcsis of \V'ithin-Collegc Outcomes 31Theories of Student Development and Change in College 35Cognitive Structural Theories 36Psychosocial Theories 41Typological Theories 44Person-Environment Theories 45Expectancy Theories and the Pygmalion Effect 48Challenges for the Student Outcomes Researcher 52Summary Remarks about the Literature 54
CHAPTER 3 56Design and tvtethodology 56Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Research Questions and Rationales 57Statisticall'vlethodology 62Site Selection 62Study Panicipants 65Assignnlent of Students to Two Study Groups 67Instrumentation 73College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) 73
VI
Quantitative Data Collection 75Quantitative Data Analysis . 76Qualitative lVtethodology 78Focus Group Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Focus Group Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80Focus Group Procedures 80Focus Group Data Analysis 81
CH..l\.PTER'+ 85Analysis of Data 85Quantitative Results (Research Questions 1. .2 and 3) 87Composite 1 General Interaction with Faculty 90Composite.2 Interaction with Faculty Outside the Classroom 91Composite 3 Experience with Art. Music. Theater 94Composite .. Personal Interactions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 95Composite 5 Panicipation in Clubs and Organizations 97Composite 6 Gains in General Education and the Liberal Arts 99Composite 7 Gains in Science and Technology 100Composite 8 Gains in Critical Thinking and Analytical Skills 102Composite 9 Satisfaction with College 104Summary of ANCOVA Results 106Quantitativc Result:; (Research Questions 4 and 5) 108Gradc Point Averages 109Persistence to Sophomore Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 110Qualitative Focus Group Results IIISummary of Focus Group Findings 113Theme 1 The Unanticipated Variable 116Theme .2 Feeling a pan of a "Special Class" of Students 118Theme 3 Fear of Failure 119Theme .. Access to Resources ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121Theme 5 Not Pursuing Honors College Admission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 124Theme 6 Why Invited Student Applied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 125Theme 7 Satisfaction with the University 126Thcme 8 Honors Peer Mentoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 127Theme 9 Differing with Peers 129
CHAPTER 5 131Summary~ Conclusions and Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 131Selection-Bias in the Study 133Summary of Findings 137Implications for Policy and Practice 146The Toughest Questions 154
\'11
The Most Practical Policy Implications 160Study Limitations , 162Topics for Future Research 164
Appendix A - Honors College Application 167
Appendix B - NCHC 16 Characteristics of Fully Developed Honors Program ... , 169
Appendix C - 2000 SAT I Test Perfonnance Percentiles , 172
Appendix D . Invitation to Participate in Study , 173
Appendix E . Invitation to Apply to the Honors Program 174
Appendix F . Study Consent Fonn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 175
Appendix G - Focus Group rvfoderators Guide and Questions. 176
Appendix H - College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) 179
References 187
VIII
LIST OF TABLES
Overview of Study Participants 10
., Classification of Student Outcomes by Type of Outcome 30and Type of Data
3 Examples of I\tteasures Representing Different Times. 30Types of Data. and Outcomes
4 Research Questions. Rationales. and Outcomes Explored 60
5 The Two Study Groups 65
6 T-Test Indicating No Significant Difference between Honors 69and Non-Honors Study Groups After the I\ttatching Process
7 Overall Compassion of Nfatched Honors and Non-Honors Groups 71
8 The Two Study Groups After 85A Percent Return Rate 73
9 T-Test Indicating No Significant Difference between Honors 73and Non-Honors Study Groups After the 8SA %) Return Rate
10 The Four Focus Groups 81
II ANCOVA Results for General Interaction with Faculty 90
12 ANCOVA Results for Interaction \'lith Faculty Outside Cl3Ssroom 92
13 ANCOVA Results for Experience with Art. Music & Theater 94
14 ANCOVA Results for Personal Interactions 96
15 ANCOVA Results for Participation in Clubs and Organizations 97
16 ANCOVA Results for Gains in General Education! Liberal Arts 99
17 ANCOVA Results for Gains in Science and Technology 101
18 ANCOVA Results for Gains in Critical Thinking!Analytical Skills 103
IX
lq ANCQVA Results for Satisfaction with College 10~
20 Summary of ANCQVA Results 106
21 I-Test Results Comparing Grade Point Averages of Study 109Participants After the Completion of First Academic Year
..,.,Rates of Return for Sophomore Year Among Study Participants 110
1" Summary of Qualitative Focus Group Findings 113-.)
24 Selection-Bias in the Study! Gains in Science & Technology 135
.,- Selection-Bias in th~ Study/mteraction with Faculty 136-)
26 Random Sample of 12 Honors and 12 Non-Honors Students 140
x
CHAPTER I
Introduction to tbe Stud~'
Honors programs are becoming increasingly popular and prominent in American
institutions of higher education. They exist in every institutional type from the local
community collegc to the massive research uni versity (Austin. 1986). Reference
sections of bookstores of today not only revcal traditional college guides. but texts on
honors programs that hope to target the savvy and academically credentialed student.
The National Collegiate Honors Council (NCHC), for example, publishes data
describing 350 collegcs and univcrsities that meet its 16 characteristics of "fully
de\'c1opcd honors programs" (Digby. 19(7) and Robert Sullivan ( 199-l) otTers his
cvaluation of "the best honors programs at state unin:rsities:" Even in the community
collcge (where many suggest honors programs are "inappropriate'" and inconsistent with
their mission). the number of honors programs have multiplied since the 1980s (Byrne.
1998).
To take a recent example. the Univcrsity of~lassachusettsplanned to raise its
national profile by spending S10 million for a new academic building housing an honors
college (Healy. 1997a). This Massachusetts honor college expected to enroll 3.200
students. doubling the size of its program (Healy. 1997b). ~1assachusetts is not alone in
its belief in the Importance of honors programs. Sullivan ( 1994) suggests that
universities often spend "10 times the money spent on regular students" and "'consider
the money spent for honors programs a good investment" (pp. xiv-xv).
Supporters claim that honors programs offer numerous benefits to the campus
environment by attracting strong students who foster an intellectual environment and
increase institutional prestige (Sullivan. 1994). At the University of ~laryland.College
Park. the campus administration credits its recent success at attracting "an increasingly
talented pool of high school seniors" to the bJ'fowth and development of its honors
program (Once again. 1999. p. 5). One administrator explains. "talent attracts talent
and as the talent level ofour students continues to soar. everyone benefits" (p. 5).
Enrolling students with high SAT scores and grade point averages also has important
implications for how institutions compete in what Seymour (1996) labels the "resourcc
reputation paradigm." This idea suggests that as the SAT scores of students increase. so
does institutional prestige and perceptions of overall quality (Seymour. 1996).
Others suggest that honors programs do much more than simply increase
institutional prestige. Advocates assert that honors programs intensify the educational
purposes of the institution and help to develop the talents of gifted students (Digby.
1997)....... encourage independent and creative learning" (Digby. 1997 p. 1). and
provide for"... substantial and retlective liberal education" (Mack. 1996. p. 34). For
many larger institutions. honors programs "'make the big store small ... and rescue
research campuses from the weaknesses of their own strengths .. :' (Mack, 1996. p. 39).
2
Despite their popularity and high cost. there is little research on the relationship
between honors programs and student outcomes. This study was designed to assess
how students were atfected by participation in such a program. Two groups of similarly
credentialed tirst-year students at a Carnegie classitication HDoctoraVResearch
Extensive" university in the Eastern United States participated in this study during the
2000-2001 academic school year. The tirst group contained students enrolled in the
honors college: the second group included nonc. A SUb-group of the honors college
sample. those "invitcd" to apply. was also considered in this study. \\'hile the majority
of honors college students "self-selected" and theretore sought out admission to the
honors college. a group of qualified students who did not apply on their own. was later
"invited" to do so atier the initial deadline. These "invited" honors college students.
therefore. conlprise a third group of study participants. Specitically. the following
questions were asked:
Research Question 1
Do students in the three groups engage differentially in a variety of
student activities after one year'? (i.e., interaction \vith faculty,
participation in extracurricular activities. particular learning practices.
etc. )
3
Research Question 2
Do students in the three groups assess their achievements on speci fled
outcome variables differently after one year?
Research Question 3
Does the level of satisfaction with the institution differ among the three
groups of students after one year?
Research Question ..
Do grade point averages of students in the three groups di ITer
signiticantly after one year'.'
Research Question S
Does persistence to the sophomore year differ among the three groups of
students'?
Research Question 6
Do students in the three groups view their college environments
differently after one year'?
Importance of tbe Study
Answering these questions is particularly timely and important for three reasons.
As already noted. an increasing popularity and prominence of programmatic efforts are
geared toward the academically gifted college student. Second. this growth of honors
programs is taking place in a new climate of accountability that demands we learn more
about program outcomcs. Last. there is scarce research on outcomes of honors
programs speci fically.
Recent criticism and claims of declining public support for higher education
(Association of Governing Boards. 1996: Pelikan. 1992: Prewitt. 1993) present
opportunities for colleges and universities to substantiate their belief that programmatic
efforts such as honors education make important contributions to the growth.
development. and experience of students. As aptly put by Peter Ewell ( 1985. p. 1). "As
financial constraints have tightened. legislators and others responsible tor providing
public higher education with resources have bccome anxious to have evidence of thc
return on their investment.··
Howard Bowen ( 1977) asserts that socicty has widely accepted the notion that
higher education produces important benefits for indi\'iduals and the overall society,
However. " ... the public has bccome more skeptical toward higher education ... and
many argue that the huge and costly enterpnse of higher education is overextended. that
the value of its outcomes does not justify the amount of resources employed, and that
public subsidies should be curtailed" (p. i). Extcrnal pressure and criticisms from those
within institutions of higher education havc provided a new rationale tor studying and
understanding the impact of college on students.
Providing empirical evidence tor desired outcomes is becoming increasingly
important (Bo\"cn. 1977: Ewell. 1985: Jacobi. Astin and Ayala.. 1987: Pascarella and
5
Terenzini. 1991: Astin. 1993). \Vith calls for greater accountabi lity in higher education.
attention within individual campuses has increased pressure to understand how specific
experiences. programs, and curriculums influence desired outcomes for students.
Particularly in the allocation of resources. institutions often ask whether certain
practices justify their costs (Jacobi. Astin. and Ayala. 1987).
Given the expense. purpose. and prominence of honors education in colleges and
universities. it is startling that so little research into these programs and their outcomes
has been conductcd (Sell. 1984: Randall and Spiller. 1985: Reilman. Varhus & \Vhiple.
1990: Bulakowski and Townsend. 1995; B~me. 19(8). As Randall and Collier posit.
"cxamples of efforts to evaluate the effect of honors programs on the college career ...
are extremely rare. t\10st of those that exist are fundamentally anecdotal" (cited in
Reihman, Varhus & \Vhipplc. 1995. p. 2). In their National Collegiate Honors Council
monobrraph. Reilhman. Varhus & \\"hipple ( (995) observe that. Uln light of this
increased concern with evaluation. and in particular the evaluation of student outcomes.
the paucity of evaluations of honors programs is surprising" (p. .2).
Stud~' Site
The study site is a Carnegie classification "Doctoral/Research Extensive"
institution located in the Eastern United States. The institution offers bachelors.
masters. and doctoral degrees to its population of approximately 11,000 undergraduate
and graduate students. The undergraduate curriculum consists of 33 majors, 37 minors,
6
2~ areas of concentration. 11 pre-professional and allied health programs and seven
certificate programs. One hundred-twenty to 128 semester credits plus ('wo physical
education courses are required for a bachelors degree. General education requirements
include arts and humanities. mathematics. natural sciences. social sciences. and
languages and culture. The undergraduate student population is ..J8 percent male. 52
percent female. 68 percent white. 15 percent African American. 13 percent Asian
.-\merican. 2 percent Hispanic and 2 percent international (Campus Facts. 2000).
The HODors Program
The honors progranl at the institution was created to " provide an enhanced
liberal arts experience for especially talented and motivated students" (Campus
llollors Brochure. 1999. p. 7). In any given year. there are approximately 500
participating honors students. 125 of those beginning their freshman year. Students are
selected through an application process (Appendix A) which considers their answers to
several essay questions. a composition. their SAT score. high school grade point
average. and upon request. the results of a personal interview with the honors director
ancl/or his designee. Once admitted. honors college students are required to maintain a
3.25 GPA and complete one honors course each semester. Students are awarded a
"certificate of general honors" upon completion of six honors courses, but they are
encouraged to remain in the program during their entire undergraduate tenure (Campus
HOllors Brochure. 1999). In addition to academic classes. the honors college affords
7
students a variety of co-curricular opportunities.
The institution cites several specific benefits of participation in the honors
prohrram which include: 1) extended borro\\ ing privileges at the library, 2) enhanced
opportunities for research \\"ith faculty. 3) use of the honors students' lounge and
resources, 4) selecting among the 30 to 40 honors sections of regular courses (usually
with fewer than 25 students in each class), 5) selecting among the numerous "specially
commissioned" honors seminars that surround particular themes such as "Knowledge
and Responsibility" or "The En\'ironmcnt" and 6) personal "'face to face" advising with
either the honors director or other staff. Numerous opportunities were offered for
students to participate in honors specific acti\'ities such as the "Honors Student
Association:' the "Honors College Review:' and "Honors Orientation:'
ConceptuaIO,'en'ie,,'
This study is grounded in three bodies of literature that theorize how and why
students change. Del'elop",elltaltl,eories (that include cognitive structural theories,
psychosocial theories. and typological theories) generally address the nature, structure.
and process of human development and change. They describe a student's journey from
one developmental stage to the next and offer insight into how colleges and universities
may facilitate or inhibit a student's development. Persoll-ellv;rollmenttl,eories
contend that student behavior is best understood and predicted by the transactions of
individuals and their environment. Finally. expectancy tl'eories (commonly described
8
by the concept of the Pygnlalion Effect) assert that a faculty member's beliefs about a
student create the behaviors and abilities that the educator had anticipated from the
student. These environmental messages (usually sent unintentionally by faculty and
stafO have a powerful impact resultmg in a "self-fulling prophecy:'
Cumulatively. these three bodies of literature suggest that interaction with
people. the curriculum. extracurricular activities. and the general environment ultimately
shape educational experiences for students. It follows. then. that these "experiences"
may ha\ c a profound impact on student outcomes in college. If this is the case. the
experience intluences outcomes that in tum influence new interactions. This cycle
continues to repeat itself whereby outcomes influence interactions. and interactions
influence experiences. and experiences influence outcomes.
The theoretical body of literature introduced above has an important influence
on this study. If participation in a university honors program nlakes a difference in
student outcomes. it would appear that these outcomes can best be explored by
understanding the degree to which they facilitate experiences that promote student
change and development. A valuable comparison. therefore. is honors and non-honors
students. In addition. by controlling as many student characteristics as possible. the
researcher is able to minimize the likelihood that observed differences resulted from
student maturation or motivation. rather than the treatment. This primary objective of
this study allowed for measuring the extent to which honors and non-honors students
9
differed on a variety of outcome variables including their experiences. levels of
satisfaction. and perceptions of academic achievement.
A secondary comparison was included in the study by considering a sUb-group
of the honors students. This sub-group comprised honors students whose participation
was solicited by th~ institution. rather than on their own initiative. By including an
"invited" group of honors students and comparing them with a "self-selected" group of
honors studcnts. thc researcher was bctter able to consider thc extent to which outcomes
were influenced by the treatment rather than the motivation level of students in each
group.
All students in the study were traditional age freshmen beginning their first year
at the institution. All had achieved a high school grade point average of at least 3.5 and
a minimum combined SAT score of 1.250. In addition to SAT scores and high school
grade point avcrages. each group was controlled to achieve a balance in race, gender.
and place of residence (whether they lived on campus or offcampus). Table 1 provides
a visual depiction of the two study groups.
10
Table 1 Study ParticipantsN=172 (86 in each group)
100 ,-----------~---.;~-..
80
60
40
20
Non-Honors Honors~Invited
Sevcral taxonomies (Shuh & Upcraft. 1998~ Astin. 1993) were used to determine
outcomes to be measured and will be discussed in Chaptcr 2. To gathcr data. the
following two methods were utilized and will be discussed further in
Chapter 3:
I ) The College Student Experiences Questionnaire (1998) was administered at
the end ofthc academic year to determine how the "experiences" (including
involvement. satisfaction. self-reported achievement and perceptions of the
environment) of the three ,brroups of students differed.
2) Information on rates of persistence and academic achievement were provided
by the registrar and admission office and analyzed at the end of the academic
year.
II
3) In addition to the collection and analysis of quantitative data. four qualitative
focus groups were used to explore differences that existed between the honors
and non-honors experiences.
Implications for Institutional Polic~'
The signi ticance of this study rests in its implications for educational policy.
Since the study is taking place at a single institution. caution must be exercised in
applying findings to all colleges and universities. Nevertheless. it fills an important gap
in the research concerning outcomes of programs for academically talented students. If
pOSItive outcomes are linked to pro~rrammatic or curricular interventions of the honors
college. and not merely initial student characteristics (self-selection). the environmental
attributes of the honors college should be considered by other campus programs or in
the creation of new ones. including those not speci fically targeting the academically
talented. In addition. the university may be well served by increasing investment in
financial and human resources for honors education.
Conversely. if the honors college is found to have little positive effect on the
outcomes of students. serious consideration and study must be given to the rationale
behind resources applied to this effort. rvloreover, determination must be given to
whether the primary purpose of such efforts is to attract high SAT scoring students to
campus in order to compete in the "resource-reputation paradigm," a term Seymour
12
(1996) coined for the driving force behind institutional policy. Pflaum. Pascarella &
Duby (1985, p. ~ 14) sum it up this way:
This increased interest [in honors programs] indicates that policy makers atinstitutions of higher education expect benefits from the outlay of resources toprovide special programs for motivated. able students. These attempts to enrichthe educational opportunities of the better student, ho\vever. seem to haveexceeded systematic efforts to assess the unique effects of the interventions. As aresult. little is known about the congruence bet\veen the intended and actualimpact on education.
Definition of Terms
1. Honors Program
An honors program is an experience designed by a college or university for
academically talented students. As noted by Digby (1997)......honors programs have
many designs, [but] there are typical components" (p. 2). For the purpose of this study.
the components of an honors program were defined by National Collegiate Honors
Council. They identified 16 characteristics of a "fully developed honors program" (see
Appendix B). Although the institution in this study calls its program an "honors
college:' no distinction bet'~veen the two tenns was made by this researcher. Moreover,
the words are used interchangeably.
2. Student Outcomes
Student outcomes are changes that occur in students as a result of interaction
with their higher education experience. Chickering and Gamson ( 1987) argue that
13
certain educational practices embody behaviors associated with valued student
outcomes. According to Kuh. Pace. and Vesper ( 1997). the effects of these practices are
evidenced by student behavior. The probability that valued outcomes are occurring is
increased by measuring particular behavior. Thus. for the purpose of this study.
outcomes are defined as measured end results. such as persistence and grade point
averages. as well as behaviors associated \vith valued outcomes (i.e.. library usage.
contact with faculty. participation with student organizations. etc.).
3. \\'itbin-College Student Outcomes
This is a study about within-college student outcomes. These concern how
di ffcrent experiences at the same institution influence students (i.e.. student
participation in honors versus non-honors at the same institution). Many outcomes
studies consider bet\veen-college student outcomes which. in contrast. seek to
understand how experiences at different colleges and universities influence outcomes
(i.e.. student participation in honors at one institution versus student participation in
honors at another institution).
14
CHAPTER 2
Literature Reviel\'
This is a study comparing educational outcomes of two groups of students. It is
based on the assumption that outcomes are largely intluenced by a student' s learning
environment such as the one created by an academic program. interactions with faculty
and peers. and the type and variety of experiences afforded students as a whole. One
environment intentionally created on the vast majority of college or university campuses
is the honors program. These programs are almost always established for the purpose of
fostering the skills and talents of students considered the brightest or most talented on
campus (Austin. 1986).
Given the central focus of this study is an honors college. it seems appropriate to
begin with an introduction to honors progranls. their purpose. history. and an overview
of related research on the subject. In the same regard. this is a study of outcomes
produced by student interaction with the honors program environment. For this reason.
attention is given to the exploration of college student outcomes on a broader level.
Particular attention is given to "within-college effects:' that is. the extent to which
students are affected differently at the same institution as a result of their interaction
with a particular experience.
Since student development theories have had a substantial effect on the
educational approaches of honors programs (Austin. 1986~ Gabelnick. 1986) and since
15
they provide the most comprehensive literature body concerning how and why college
students develop. an overview of these theories is provided.
Theories that outcomes are largely intluenced by a student' s learning
environment are also considered. Expectency theories encompass a body of literature
offering a potential alternative explanation for student growth while participating in an
honors program.
Finally. given that there is a secondary component of this study designed to
control for student motivation as a factor for outcomes. a brief discussion of how "self
selection" may affect outcomes is offered.
The Purpose of Honors Pro2rams
Although each institution of higher education describes the purpose or "honors"
on its campus differently. a review of the literature suggests there are a varlety of
consistent themes among most programs. In addition. the way in which honors
programs were described 30 years ago is remarkably similar to descriptions today. In
their study of honors students at the University of Toledo in 1972, Palmer &WohI
( 1972. p. 106) write that the honors program was established to ··...provide a special
learning climate which would foster intellectual development through the provision of
small classes. especially interested instructors, great self-selection of curriculum. and
self-conscious knowledge that the student was part of an elite group." As one recent
college guide puts it. "almost always. they [honors programs] are educational programs
16
that adhere to college-wide requirements but do so with smaller classes of select
students. taught by the best professors and administered by an honors program staff"
(Sullivan. 199-+. p. xiv). Campus students are aware of this reality as well. Non-honors
students at one campus are known for criticizing the honors college since '''honors
students enjoy the best dormitories. smaller classes. and better Internet access than many
others here" (Healy. 2000).
Day ( 1989) argues that there are nine essential elements to any honors program.
These include: I) providing a supponive climate: 2) fostering self-a\\'areness and self
esteem: 3) providing an academically challenging curriculum with thematic and
interdisciplinary seminars: 4) fostering a flexible learning environnlcnt ".ith small
participatory classes and activities: 5) encouraging academic and social interaction
between students and faculty: 0) orienting honors freshman to the campus curriculum.
personnel. and campus resources: 7) developing social and academic skills: 8) offering
academic and career counseling; and 9) fostering creativity and leadership among
students.
As nlore succinctly put by Austin ( 1986). "Honors education consists of the total
means by which a college or university seeks to meet the educational needs of its ablest
and most highly motivated students" (p. 5). How is this done? The '''1973 Repon and
Recommendations of the Ad Hoc Task Force on Honors" (cited in Austin. 1986. p.7)
suggests that the educational objectives of an honors program should be:
17
I) to identify students whose ability and motivation are so high that theiracademic needs would not be met adequately by existing programs;
2) to provide academic opportunities of such caliber that the students thusidentified are challenged to perform at the highest level ofexcellence ofwhich they are capable and through which they may become independentlearners:
3) to establish an environment that will encourage the aspirations of andachievements by these students and that will foster in them dignity. sclfesteem. and a sense of their potential: and
4) to derive from the program benefits for the wider academic community.such as focusing attention on quality cducation and a concept ofcxcellence. giving faculty members the psychic reward that derives fromworking with gifted students. and attracting to the campus scholars andspeakers who would not otherwise be there.
The flisto!1' of Honors Programs
It was not until the early twenticth century that the modern honors movement
took root in the United States (Austin. 1986). Two colleges. Swarthmore and
Columbia. were particularly instrumental in advancing the idea that bright students
would be best served by special curricula.
In 1919. Columbia College offered the first general honors curriculum that
stressed a broad approach and classic literature (Rich, 1991). Eventually becoming
Colloquium on Important Books at Columbia. this honors program used small group
discussions. seminars, independent studies. and teanl teaching to expose students to
interdisciplinary learning (Gabelnick. 1986: Rich. 1991). In 1928. the "Great Books"
were also incorporated into a colloquium for freshman and sophomore students that
18
consisted of two humanities courses with an interdisciplinary focus (Rich. 1991). Efforts
at Columbia served as a catalyst for the creation of general education and honors
courses at numerous institutions of higher education. Honors education (for lower- as
well as upper- division students) owes its roots to Columbia University.
At roughly the same time. Frank Aydelotte initiated the pass/honors approach at
Swarthmore College in response to his belief that academically gifted students were not
maximizing their potential through the regular curriculum. Based on the pass/honors
system of Oxford. Sv,.arthmore·s program emphasized independent study and seminars
during students' junior and senior years. t\loreover. formal course requirements and
grading were replaced with a series of oral and viritten examinations as graduation
approached (Aydelotte. 1944). In 192-l. Aydelotte disseminated his pioneering report.
HHonors Courses in American Colleges and Universities" which served to spread
thinking about honors education at other institutions (Austin. 1986). This document.
along with Sidney Pressey's articles on the psychology of education for superior
students. furthered discussion about honors programs within the higher education
community (Austin. 1986).
Another pivotal time in the history of honors programs was the 1957 launch of
Sputnik. Fear that America was losing ground to the Soviet Union spurred educators to
develop initiatives that fostered talent of young people. especially those with superior
abilities. As a result. 1957 became a significant year for the growth and development of
19
collegiate honors programs (Austin. 1986). During this same time. Joseph '-tV. Cohen
established the Interuniversity Committee on Superior Students (lCSS) and became.
"... the modem Jonny Appleseed sowing interest in honors across the nation" (Austin.
198b, p. 6). The less. sponsored by the Carnegie Corporation. existed until 1966 when
it became the National Collegiate Honors Council (NCHC). The NCHC continues to
ofter a variety of resources and services to individuals working with honors programs
on collegiate campuses (Austin. 1986).
\Vhile the egalitarian mood of thc 1960s and 1970s often brought charges that
honors programs wcre elitist. these criticisms seem to have been muffied with the
response that ", .. both dcmocratic and educational principlcs require not the same
programs bc offered to all but that persons havc the opponunity to devclop their talents
to the fullest" (Austin. 1986. p. 7). The emphasis in the 1980s on improving the quality
of cducation funher quicted critics as institutions again looked to honors to foster the
talents of :uperior students (Cummings. 1986 L
Today, honors programs take many fonns. As Austin ( 1986) writes. uThc
Socratic dialogue. the Oxford tutorial. the Gennan seminar. and the guild apprenticeship
continue to serve as models for contemporary honors programs" (p. 6). Nevenheless.
the common theme of fostering the talents of bright students through interdisciplinary
exposure, close contact with teachers, and intellectually oriented interaction with peers,
seem foundational to most programs. Gabelnick ( 1986) describes the present honors
20
curriculum as a creation from the .., . , idealism of the sixties as well as pragmatisms of
the eighties. the broader Great Books perspectives of the Columbia colloquia. and the
sharply focused independent study developed at Swarthmore" ( p. 75),
Rele\'ant Researcb on Honors Programs and Outcomes
\Vhile this section will provide an overview of research on college and
university honors programs and their outcomes. this body of literature is surprisingly
small. particularly given the proli feration and prominence of honors programs nationally
(Sell. 1984: Randall and Spiller. 1985: Reilman. Varhus & \Vhiple. 1990: Bulakowski &
Townsend. 1995: Byrne. 1998), A search of library data bases including Sociological
Ahstracts. Dissertation Ahslracts. ERIC. and Educatio1l Ahstr£lcts offered only a
handful of research studies addressing honors programs. or more specifically. efforts to
measure outcomes of these umque programmatic efforts, The literature review
undertaken tor the purpose of this study. therefore. confirms earlier assertions that little
scholarly research has been conducted on honors education at colleges and universities,
At the campus level, few institutions have initiated research efforts to understand
the outcomes of honors programs. even as resources given these interventions have
increased significantly. What is kno\\'n, however. is that when assessment efforts are
undertaken by campuses. they are most often based on satisfaction questionnaires or are
fundamentally anecdotal (Reilman. Vargus. & Whiple. 1990). Further research that
examines the developmental effects rendered by particular interventions such as honors
21
programs is both needed and inlportant for making responsible policy decisions
regarding academically talented students (Day. 1985~ Reilman. Vargus. & Whiple.
1990; Johnson. 1995 ).
Astin (1993) provides the most systematic and comprehensive research on
college students participating in honors programs. As part of Astin's analysis of 25.000
students at 217 four-year colleges. it was reported that Henrollment in honors ... has
small positive effects on virtually all areas of satisfaction and other areas of self
reported growth" (1993. p. 379). Honors courses. according to Astin. further appear to
be among the pedagogical practices H... associated with favorable cognitive outcomes .
. ." ( 1993. p. ~23). Smce Astin' s study \vas correlational. statistical controls were used
to adjust tor pre-college differences among students. \Vhile controlling for these
di fferences. Astin found that honors program participants demonstrated substantial
gains in interpersonal and intellectual self esteem. as well as indicating greater
disposition toward artistic interests. Moreover. he found that those who participate in
Hhonors" report a stronger desire to make theoretical contributions to science. are more
likely to Htutor" peers. persist to graduation. interact with faculty and enroll in graduate
school. One major limitation of Astin's study. however. is the correlational nature of
the data. As noted by Pflaum, Pascarella & Duby ( 1985. p. 414). "There are seldom
clearly defined or reasonably equivalent control groups within the same institution to be
used for comparison."
21
In an attempt to measure the effects of honors program participation on
academic performance during the freshman year. Pflaum. Pascarella & Duby (1985)
utilized a quasi-experimental design to compare equally qualified (test scores and high
school GPA) honors and non-honors students at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
For a baseline comparison. a third group was randomly assigned from the freshman
class. Students participating in the honors program had greater levels of academic
achievement after their freshman year than did students in the equivalent comparison
group or randomly assigned group. One major limitation of the study. of course. is that
it examined only one outcome (academic achievement). Nevertheless. Pflaum.
Pascarella & Duby's ( (985) study offers compelling data to suggest that honors
participation has a positive influence on student's academic success and persistence to
their second year of study.
Ory and Braskamp (1988) researched university honors students as part of their
study of individuals in three academic programs: the honors program. the regular
curriculum. and a transition program for academically disadvantaged students. Ory and
Braskamp predicted that academic programs and activities that facilitate involvement
result in greater student satisfaction and perceived gains in intellectual and social
development. Overall. honors students reported more academic and social gains.
although the extent to \vhich pre-college characteristics attributed to these result~ is not
known. However. Ory and Braskamp argue that some of their findings are directly
23
related to the students' program experiences. For example. both the honors and
transition student reponed more interaction with faculty (an emphasis in both
programs). Additionally. other activities aniculated by programs as important resulted
in greater outcome gains in these specific areas. For transition students. this included
spending more time in the library. while for honors students. acquiring a greater
appreciation for the arts. This study lends support to the relationship bet\\"een academic
intervention. regardless of student talent. and the impact on student outcomes.
:\. recent study by Johnson (1995) further strengthens evidence that honors
programs may have important implications for student outcomes. In Johnson's study of
the psychosocial development of academically talented college students. two groups of
individuals at the same university \\'ere studied. None of the students in these groups
was enrolled in a special program such as honors. One group consisted of "average
ability" students, while the students in the second group had been deemed "academically
talented" by their high school ranking and standardized test scores. Although both
groups demonstrated considerable growth during the freshman year, Johnson found no
significant di fferences in the degree or direction of change in psychosocial development
when comparing the average ability students and those considered academically
talented. Johnson concludes that "\'... ith no extraneous activities imposed upon them, the
academically talented students in this study apparently experienced their freshman year
in much the same way as their average ability peers" (p. 286).
24
Some research suggests honors students are more likely to embody a variety of
personality characteristics that may be partially responsible for measured outcome gains.
In particular. other findings (Palmer & \Vohl. 191'2; Mathiasen. 1985) purport honors
students are generally more ambitious and motivated. Mathiasen (1985) writes.....they
[honors students1seem to be more achievement oriented and more academically
motivated than the majority of college students" (p. 172). These results bring to bear
questions about the extent to which outcomes of honors students result from the
intervention itself or students' pre-college characteristics.
\Vhile there was no signiticant empirical evidence demonstrating that honors
programs fail to produce positive outcomes.. there was a host of criticisms of these
programnlatic efforts. \,tost frequently. complaints assert that honors programs are
elitist (\·fcDennott. 1989: Byrne.. 1998). expensive (Sullivan. 1994; Byrne.. 1998) and
simply mechanisms to attract high scoring "'hot commodity" students (Sullivan. 1994;
Johnson. 1995).
The Stud~' of Student Outcomes
The number of studies researching student outcomes in college is overwhelming.
The authors of four scnlinal works. however. have tackled the daunting task of
summarizing thousands of studies concerning student outcomes in higher education.
Bowen (1977). who focuses primarily on the global outcomes of college attendance and
its overall impact on society at large. reviews and synthesizes over 600 studies.
Feldman and Newcomb ( 1969) consider over 1.500 studies conducted between 19.20
and 1970. Pascarella and Terenzini ( 1991 ) enter where Feldman and Newcomb left off
and summarize approximately 2.600 studies completed between 1970 and 1990. The
fourth work. Astin's (1993) U'1zal Jlatters ill College? is the outgrowth of the largest
study of student outcomes in higher education conducted to date. His study is multi
institutional. multi-generational. massive in scope. and provides some of the most
informative data available on student outcomes in collcge. Pascarella and Terenzini's
( 1991 ) synthesis of "within-college" outcomes will be prescnted later in this chaptcr and
provides a useful summary of research findings.
The American llerirage Dictiollary defines an outcome as "a natural result; [orJ
consequencc" ( 1991). The study of student outcomes trom college or university
attendancc. therefore. can be described as an attempt to understand the changes that
occur in students as a result of intcraction \vith their higher education experience.
Jacobi. Astin. and Ayala ( 1987) define student outcomes as '"the wide range of
phenomena that can bc influenced by the educational experiencc" (p. 19).
The importance one places on individual outcomes varies from person to person
and constituency to constituency. It is liule wonder. therefore. that discussions of
outcomes can be complicated, as people have varying expectations for the higher
education experience and the outcomes it produces. Also noted by Schuh and Upcrafi
( 1998). "outcomes assessments depend on our ability to define and measure desired
26
outcomes" (p. -+). Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) aptly capture some of the lofty
expectations (or outcomes) society has for colleges and universities which include:
transmitting the intellectual heritage of Westem civilization; fostering a highlevel of verbal and mathematical skills; developing an in·depth understanding ofsociaL cultural. and political institutions; facilitating one's ability to thinkreflectively. analytically. critically, sjTIthetically. and eventually; developingone's value structures and moral sensibilities; facilitating personal gro\\1h andself-identity: and fostering one's sense of career identity and vocationalcompetence (p. 1).
It is important to note, however. that people di ffer greatly in what outcomes they
value and these differences are generally settled through political interactions (Bowen,
1977: Birnbaum, 1988; Bolman and Deal. 1991). Moreover. achieving particular
desired outcomes frequently requires sacrificing other valued outcomes (Cohen and
ivtarch, 197-+).
Taxonomies for Studying Student Outcomes in College
Jacobi. Astin, and Ayala ( 1987) summarize three useful taxonomies of student
outcomes that h, •• provide a menu from which researchers and practitioners may select
the items of greatest importance to measure and track" (p. 19). These include Lenning
( 1980). Bowen (1977), and Mentkowski and Doherty ( 1983) who establish major
categories of outcomes including: economic outcomes; human characteristic outcomes;
knowledge, technology and art outcomes; resource and service provision outcomes; and
aesthetic and cultural activities outcomes.
Two taxonomies, Astin ( 1993) and Shuh & Upcraft (1998) were particularly
27
helpful in describing how outcomes can be categorized. Drawing on the work of the
National Student Personnel Association (NASPA) and the American College Personnel
Association (ACPA) document. The Student Learning Imperative (1994). Shuh and
Upcraft ( 1998) offer a conceptual guide for organizing student outcomes. Their
presentation encompasses the following eight components:
Complex cogllilil'e skills: reflective thought. critical thinking.
quantitati ve reasoning. and intellectual flexibility
Knowledge acqllisition: subject matter mastery and knowledge
application
IIrte,personal deve/opmellt: autonomy_ values. identity. aesthetics. sclf
esteem. and maturity
Illterpersonal del'elopment: understanding and appreciating human
differences. being able to relate to others. establishing intimate
relationships
Practical competence: career preparation. managing one's personal
affairs. and economic self-sufficiency
Civic responsibility: responsibilities as citizens in a democratic society
and commitment to democratic ideals
Academic acl,ievement: ability to earn satisfactory grades in courses
Persistence: ability to pursue a degree to graduation
28
Similarly. Astin's (1993) taxonomy of outcomes also provides a clear schema
for discussing the "influences" of higher education on student outcomes. It has been
used by many outcomes researchers. including Pascarella and Terenzini ( 1991 ) who
used Astin's taxonomy as an avenue for considering four varying types of outcomes: I)
cognith'e-ps~'chological(subject matter knowledge. critical thinking)~ 2) cognitive
beha\'ioral (level of educational attainment. occupational attainment. income)~ 3)
arrecth'e-ps~'cbological (values. attitudes. personality orientations): and 4) affective
behavioral (leadership. choice of major. choice of career, use of leisure time).
Astin's taxonomy consists of three dimensions: I) type of outcome: 2) type of
data: and 3) time. The first dimension classifies outcomes as being either cognitive or
affective. Cognitive outcomes relate to factors such as acquiring knowledge, reasoning,
and decision making. while affective outcomes concern attitudes. values. self-concepts,
aspirations. and personality traits. The second dimension suggests that data can be
either psychological or behavioraL Psychological data relates to individual traits while
the latter are directly observable activities. The final dimension is the amount of time
that lapses during the assessment of an outcome. Table 2 summarizes the first two
dimensions of Astin's taxonomy. Table 3 summarizes the third dimension.
29
Table 2 Classification of Student Outcomes b~' T~'pe of Outcome and Data
Data Affecti"e Cognitive
Ps~'cbological Self-concept KnowledgeValues Cnttcal thinking abilityAnttudes Basic skillsBelIefs Special aptitudesDnve for achievement Acadenuc achIevementSatisfaction wah college
Beha\'ioral Pl:rsonal habits Career developmentA\'ocatlons Level of educatIOnal attamment\-Iental health \'ocatlonal achievementsCitIzenship Level of responslbllttyInterpersonal relatIons Income
Awards speCial recogmtlon
Adapted/rom ASll1l, Panos, and Crt'ager (1967'J lit ASlin (1993). P If)
Table 3 Examples of ~IeasuresRepresenting Different Times, T~'pes of Data"and Outcomes
T~'pe of Outcome T~'pe of Data Time I Time 2(During College) (After College)
Aft't:ctlve Psychologlc:.l1 Satisfaction with Job sallSfactioncollege
Affective BehaVIOral PamclpatlOn an student Partlc Ipatlon an localgovernment or national pohtlcs
Cogmtl\e Psychologlcal Law School Aptltude Scofe on law boardsTest Score (LSAT)
Coh'11lt1ve BehaVIoral Persistence an college Income
Adapted/rom ASlln. Panos, 'lilt! Creager (1967) In ASlin (1993), p, II
Before proceeding. it should be noted that much outcomes research in higher
education seeks to understand "between-college effects:' that is. the degree to which
different institutions and their individual environments affect students (institutional
type. admissions selectivity, institutional size. financial resources. etc,). The focus of
30
this study. however. concerns "within-college effects" which consider the degree to
which specific experiences within the same institution influence student characteristics
(residence halls. academic major. peer group involvement. extracurricular involvement.
faculty. etc.).
Pascarella and Terenzini's S~'otbesis of \\'itbio·College Outcomes Researcb
Numerous studies have focused on within-college effects. Pascarella and
Terenzini ( 1991 ) provide a clear summary of common themes that pervade this large
body of literature. Although many individual studies of within college etTects begin
with a theoretical foundation. Pascarella and Terenlini assert that ", , , the evidence as a
whole is not founded on a common set of conceptual or theoretical themes" (p. 607).
As a result. they classify the literature into the following categories: 1) residence. 2)
major field of study. 3) the academic experience 4) interpersonal involvement. and 5)
extracurricular involvement. The follo\ving para!,'faphs offer a brief ovcrvic\\' of their
presentation.
Residence
Being a residential student (as opposed to one who commutes) appears to be
linked to a number of important student outcomes, In fact. there is consistent evidence
to suggest that a student's residence at least modestly influences values, gains in self
confidence. intellectual orientation, autonomy, tolerance, retention, as well as a
31
student's overall ability to relate to others. The likely cause of such an impact is the
way in which residential communities facilitate involvement, participation and
interaction with those in the campus community. As put by Pascarella and Terenzini
(199 I), .... .living on campus maximizes opportunities for social. cultural. and
cxtracurricular involvcment and it is this involvement that largely accounts tor
residential living's impact on student change" (p. 611). Howcver, little research exists
to indicate whether the acquisition of knowledge or other cognitive gains are
significantly influenced by campus living arrangements.
r\lajor Field of Stud~'
As expected, a student's major field of study influences his or her lcvel of
knowledge in that given arca of study. A math major, for example, will be better able to
utilize critical thinking and abstract reasoning skills when they are applied to math. Of
coursc. math students also generally know more about math than those in the social
scicnccs. In addition to thesc principlcs. Pascarella and Tercnzini found little consistent
evidence in outcomes research to suggest one's academic major has more than a
"trivial" influence on a student's cumulative intellcctual or cognitive outcomes. The
impacts ofone's major field of study on non-cognitivc outcomes is even less clear.
While there is some evidence to suggest that the departmental environment influences
some non-cognitive outcomes. this is likely a result of the overall climate (interpersonal
interactions. value of homogeneity) and not the discipline itself.
32
The Academic Experience
Pascarella and Terenzini's review of research led them to draw five conclusions
concerning the impact of the academic experience on student outcomes. They suggest
that: 1) as the level of a student's involvement and participation in his or her academic
work increases, so does his or her level of knowledge acquisition and overall cognitive
development. 2) cognitive growth is often facilitated when academic environments
challenge students with the presentation of conflicting values and ideas. J) a curriculum
designed to integrate courses around a central theme. and thereby requiring students to
integrate learning. also appears to elicit greater cognitive growth. '+) there 15 strong
evidencc to indicate that effectivc teachers and teaching arc conclusively rcldted to
student learning, and 5) the pattern and sequence of courses. regardless of a student's
academic ability, likely intluences both student knowledge acquisition and overall
cognitive growth.
loterpcrsooallo\'ol\'cmeot
The influence of interpersonal involvement on student outcomes should not be
underestimated. Evidence strongly suggest that the type and frequency of interaction
students have \vith faculty and their peers has important implications for both cognitive
and non-cognitive outcomes. The influence of faculty seems particularly pronounced
when contact occurs beyond fonnal classroom settings. Pascarella and Terenzini ( 1991 )
assert that infonnal interaction with faculty is positively linked to the following:
33
· .. perceptions of intellectual growth during college~ increases in intellectualorientation, liberalization of social and political values. growth in autonomy andindependence. increases in interpersonal skills. gains in general maturity andpersonal development. educational aspirations and attainment~ orientationtoward scholarly careers, and women's interest in and choice of sex-atypicalcareers.
Student interaction with peers also seems to have a potent affect on outcomes. It
should be noted. however. that research indicates that peer contact has greater influence
in attitudinal and psychological areas (non-cognitive). whereas facuity-student
interaction solicits greater change in student knowledge acquisition or other cognitive
variables. Ncvcrtheless. Astin's ( 1993) comprchensive study that concluded after
Pascarella and Terenzini' s ( 1991 ) book. led him to dcduce that. "the student' speer
group is the single most potcnt source of influence on bJfOwth and development during
the undergraduate years" (p. 398).
Extracurricular lo\'oh'ement
It is di fficult to measure the impact of extracurricular involvement because of its
almost inseparable connection to the previous category. interpersonal involvement.
\Vhile this category appears to havc some impact on student outcomes. this may be
more of a result of faculty and peer contact, for example. than particular involvement
with an activity. Holding leadership positions. however~ does seem to be positively
correlated with enhanced self-confidence. interpersonal skills, leadership skills, and
possibly job success after college.
34
Tbeories of Student De\'elopment and Cbange in College
If a student enters college 'with a particular set of behaviors. values. attitudes.
and skiIls-:md then graduates with a different set of behaviors. values. attitudes. and
skills- \vhat is the reason for such a transfonnation? Astin ( 1993. p. 7) offers a
conceptual model for researching student dcvelopment in collegc. The input
environment-outcome (l-E-O) model assesscs change or gro\\·th in students by
comparing outcome characteristics with input characteristics. Astin writes. "Studying
student development with the I-E-O model provides educators. students. and
policymakers with a bcttcr basis for knov,,'ing how to achieve desired educational
outcomes." The ;"pUIS are the characteristics of students upon entry to the institution;
the el,,';ronme,,' consists of probTfams. policics. faculty. peers. and other cducational
experienccs to which a student is exposed; and outcomes refer to characteristics of
students aftcr interaction with the cnvironment. The purpose of the model is to measure
the .. , .. impact of various cnvironmental experiences by detennining whether students
grow or change differently under varying environmental conditions."
This study considers whether the environmental conditions of an honors
program affect student outcomes. Since student dcvelopment theories have guided
many of the educational policies in the honors curriculum model (Austin. 1986;
Gabelnick. 1986). it is important to includc a discussion of what environmental
conditions these theories encourage in order to maximize a student's growth. As noted
35
by Gabelnick ( 1986. p. 85), student development theories have allowed honors
programs to create and incorporate .....educational approaches that we now recognize as
particularly appropriate for fostering undergraduate intellectual growth:'
Developmental theories generally address the nature. structure and processes of
individual human growth (Pascarella and Teranzini. 1991). The bulk of research in this
arca has been conducted by developmental psychologists (Cross. 1998) and describes
student devclopment as taking place in stages. Developmental theories also provide
cxplanations for how and why individuals move from one stage to the next. A common
theme among these theories is the belief that the indi\'idual and the environment interact
in ways that give rise to new knowledge and experiences (Cross. 1998).
Rodgers (1991) indicatcs that "dcvelopmental theOrIes" can he reduced into four
sub-groups of theory. The lour groups include: cognitive structural theo~''1
ps:)'cbosocial tbeol1''1 t:)'pological tbeol1''1 and person-en\'ironmeot tbeo~·. An
ovcrview of each of these bodies of literature is provided below.
Cogoith'e Structural Theories
Cognitive-structural theories have been particularly influcntial in the
establishment of honors program models (Gabclnick. 1986). As noted by Austin
(1986). HIn an increasing number of honors programs. faculty are applying William G.
Perry's theories of cognitive and ethical development. experimenting with the building
of effective learning environments. responding to differences in learning and teaching
36
styles. and planning courses in accord with what is known about structures of
knowledge. 0 0" (p. 9). CO~'T1iti\"e-structural theories argue that developmental change
emerges from cognitive conflict. \Vhen contronted with confusion and disequilibrium.
cognitive-structural psychologists contend that an individual will either assimilate
(forcing the conflict to tit into their current way of thinking) or accommodate (resolving
the conflict by changing their current \\fay of "making meaning") in order to cope with
the situation (Rodgers. 1991). Accommodation occurs only when a student is Uready"
to receive a challenge and when the environment facilitates challenges consistently and
repeatedly. According to Rodgers ( 1991 ). accommodation is more likely to transpire
under four conditions:
1) if the environmental challenge is about issues that are Imponant to the
individual person;
.2) if the environmental challenge is presented one stage above a person ·s
current way of making meaning;
3) if the challenge is presented in a way conducive to an individual's
personality type; and
-+) if the challenge is processed in an environment of suppon with feedback
immediately following the conflict.
Most cognitive-structural theories of student development can be traced to the
work of Jean Piaget (Pascarella and Teranzini. 1991; Rodgers. 1991). Since Piaget's
37
( 196~) work.. a number of theorists have refined and enhanced the cognitive structural
paradigm. Perry ( 1968), Kohlberg ( 1981), Gilligan (1982), Keagan (1982), Kitchener
and King (1985).. and Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger & Tarule (1986) have all made
significant contributions to the understanding of cognitive growth in human beings. To
those working in higher education. \Villiam Perry (1968) is arguably one of the best
known developmental theorists (Cross. 1998). His work also embodies many of the
characteristics of the cognitive·structural school of thought. and as a result, Perry's
( 1968) theory will be briefly considered in this chapter. Interestingly. Perry's work has
become particularly important to those developing honors programs (Gabelnick. 1986).
Since the majority of Perry's research was conducted on male students. the
research of Belenky. Clinchy. Goldberger & rarule ( 1986). which sought to duplicate
Perry's work on female participants. will also be briefly described.
\\'illiam Per~··s (1968) Scbeme of Cogoith'e De\'elopmeot
Perry ( 1968) found himself confused by students' inconsistent evaluations of his
classes taught at Harvard University. Their responses varied to such a degree as to call
into question the very nature of their perceptions and reasoning. As a result .. he
attempted to explain these discrepancies by studying the ways in which college students
"make meaning" of their world. and ho\\' these may change over time. Perry indicates
that observed differences in apparent reasoning reflected coherent interpreted
frameworks to which students attach meaning to their experiences.
38
The result ofPerry's work is the development of his Scheme a/Cognitive and
Ethical Derelopmel1t. which defines nine developmental positions as static stages
interwoven within a lattice of devclopment. The developmental nature of the model
focuses substantial energy on how students transition from position to position. as well
as the general nature of these positions. Each position. once achieved. includes and
transcends earlier ones. Moreover. these positions arc thought to define structural
phenomena relating to the way in which students perceive. organize and evaluate. but
not the content of their thoughts (\Vidick. Kenelfkamp & Parker. 1975).
Perry's scheme illustrates a student's developmental process 0 f moving from
"dualism" to "relativism." Students in the earlier stages view answers to questions of
knowledge and valuation in dualistic tenns. The basic assumptions of the early stages
are all knowledge IS knowable and there is no uncertainty; there is a right and wrong
answer to all questions of knowledge and valuation; and when there is uncertainty, it
must be as a result of an error. As students proceed to middle stages. although not all
do. they begin to view questions of knowledge and valuation as contextual. Thus,
knowledge is viewed as uncertain or valid only within a given context (Rodgers, 1992).
In the final stages of Perry's scheme. students begin to understand that they must find
"integrity" for themselves by aligning decisions with values that are important to their
own sense of self (Cross, 1998).
39
Coguith'e De\'elopmeut in "'omen (Beleuky et al.• 1986)
Since the majority of Perry's research was conducted on male participants, and
since the modem honors program is not exclusively male, knowing whether Perry's
theories can be generalized to populations with females becomes of greater interest.
Belenky. Clinchy, Golberger. and Tarule ( 1986) set out to duplicate Perry's work and
found no structural di fferences in how men and women "make rneaning. to Several
stylistic variations. however. existed in thc way men and women viewed themselves.
their peers. authority. and cvaluation. The stylistic differences can be distinguished as
being either "separate style" (cmphasizes debate. adversarial and competitive learning
activitics. logical rcasoning. and skcpticism) or "connccted style" (emphasizes narrative
conversation. empathetic Iistcning, and bui Iding relationships) (Rodgers. 1992).
Both Perry and Bclenky ct al. offer a solid introduction to the theoretical
underpinnings of cogniti vc structural theory. Pascarella and Terenzini ( 1991. pp. 27-28)
summariLc several characteristics common to most. if not all. cognitive-structural
theories. They include:
1) cognitive-structural theories suggest there are a series of stages that
people movc through during the developmental process~
2) these stages are hierarchical and advancement to the next requires
successful attainment ofall previous stages;
3) the stages are believed to be universal and transcultural:
40
..J) all focus on how meaning is structured and not on what is known; and
5) that developmental change includes a stimulus and a response.
Applied to the college environment. it seems logical to conclude that
experiences facilitating interactions with the curriculum. faculty. and other activities and
challenging students way or "making meaning" are most likely to yield the greatest
cognitive growth for college students. Additionally. those environments that arc able to
establish a culture of support in the midst of these challenges. while also understanding
the needs of individual students. encourage the likelihood for producing change during
the collegiate experience.
Ps)'cbosocial Theories
Honors programs are not only dedicated to cognitive gro\vth of students. but also
to their psychosocial development (Austin. 1986). Theories of psychosocial
development owe much credit to the work of Erik Erikson (1959) and his ideas
concerning personality development. Through encounters with social institutions.
parents. and a variety of other social situations. Erikson posits that individuals
experience movement through a series of orderly psychosocial phases which ultimately
resolve issues of human identity development. Erikson contends that .... .internal
changes. both biological and psychological, interact with environmental roles and other
cultural expectations to initiate [psychosocial] changes" (Rodgers. 1991. p. 122). The
41
value of Erikson' s contributions to the study outcomes. therefore. may best be
articulated by \Vidick. Parker. and Knefelkamp (1978) who write. "Erikson's theory of
ps)'chsociaI development offers a way of thinking against which we. as educators. can
measure who our students are and how the college environment may inhibit or enhance
their development" (p. 1).
Building on Erikson's concepts. Chickering (1969) offers an often cited model
for student development and the specific influences of the college environment.
According to Chickenng ( 1969). college student development takes place primarily
within seven specific vectors which include developing competence. managing
cmotions. dcveloping autonomy. establishing identity. freeing interpersonal
relationships. dc\cloping purpose. and dcveloping integrity. Five major experiences
prescribed by Chickering that foster growth \vithin these vectors includc: 1) engaging
students in decision making. 2) encouraging interaction \",ith diverse people and ideas.
3) involving students in direct and varied experiences. 4) allowing students to
participate in discussions about complex intellectual and social problems without
requiring conformity. and 5) encouraging students to receive feedback. as well as
participate in self-assessments (Knefelkamp. \Vidick & Parker. 1978).
According to Chickering'5 model. students confront the seven vectors at
different times and because of a variety of circumstances. including the environment. By
offering challenges within each vector. colleges frequently encourage stimulation that
42
brings about developmental gro\vth. Chickering's classic work. Education and Identity.
outlines six components of a college environment that have the potential to affect
student change. They are as follows (cited in Knefelkarnp. Widick and Parker.1978):
1) Clarity and Collsistenc.:r ofObjectives. "Impact increases as institutionalobjectives are clear and taken seriously. and as the diverse elements ofthe college and its program are internally consistent in the service of itsobjectives" (p. 1~7).
2) Si=t? a/Institution. "As redundancy increases. development ofcompetence. identity. integrity and freeing of interpersonal relationshipsdecreases" (p. 1~7).
3) Curriculum. Teaching. and Evaluation. A) "When few electives areoffered. when books and print are the sole objects of study. whenteaching is by lecture. when evaluation is frequent and competitive.ability to menlorize is fostered. Sense of competence. freeing ofinterpersonal relationships and development of idcntity and purpose arenot." B) ..,\\rhen choice and flexibility are offered. when directexperiences are called for. when teaching is by discussion. and whenevaluation involves frequent communication. concerning the substanceof behavior and perfonnancc. the ability to analyze and synthesize isfostered. as are sense of competence. freeing interpersonal relationships,and development of autonomy. identity and purposc" (p. 148).
~) Residence flail Arrangements. "Residence hall arrangements eitherfoster or inhibit development of competence, purpose, integrity, andfrecing of interpersonal relationships depending upon the diversity ofbackgrounds and attitudes among residents. the opportunities forsignificant interchanges. the existence of shared intellectual interests andthe degree to which the unit becomes a meaningful culture for itsmembers" (pp. 151-152).
5) Faculty and Administration. "When student-faculty interaction isfrequent and friendly and when it occurs in diverse situations calling forvaried roles. development of intellectual competence. sense ofcompetency, autonomy and purpose are fostered" (p. 152).
43
6) Friends. Groups. and Stu.den! eli/lUre. "The student culture eitheramplifies or attenuates the impact of curriculum. teaching. andevaluation. residence hall arrangements and student-facultyrelationships'" (p. 155).
T~·pological Tbeories
\Vhereas pyschosocial and cognitive-structural theories emphasize the nature and
process of student change during college. typological theories highlight the unique but
stable differences which exist among individuals (Pascarella and Terenzini. 1991). As
noted earlier in this chapter. honors programs have sought to account for personality
variances in implementing educational approaches (Gabelnick. 1986). Although
typological theories have no uni fying theoretical background (Rodgers. 1991). the
primary message of typological theories is that different ""types" of students will respond
in varying ways to sources of support and challenge. As a result. the university official
should consider these di fferences in the development of programs and curriculums in
order to maximize the outcomes of students.
In short. educational institutions are well served to create learning communities
that are able to recognize individual student differences and adjust the delivery of
education based on these observations. This. however. may be particularly difficult in
large environments where the massive number of students has the potential to prevent
individual attention.
44
Person-Environment Theories
The foundation of person-environment theories rests in the theoretical
proposition that the behavior of people is best understood and predicted by the
transactions of individuals and their environments (Huebner. 1991). Originally
developed in the psychological and sociological literature. person-environment theories
seek to explain ho\\' individual characteristics and the environment have a significant
shaping effect on students. In many ways. person-environment theories arc simi tar to
the devclopmentalliterature. Howevcr. as describcd by Pascarella and Teranzini
(1991). these theories are not developmental in nature. \Vhilc they do attempt to explain
the process of student growth and providc helpful frameworks tor considcring how
college influences student development. they place greater emphasis on thc
environmental or sociological origins of student change (Pascarella and Teranzini.
1991 ).
There are nunlerous models and theories within the person-environment body of
literature. Two subgroups. however. seem particularly appropriatc to the study of
college outcomes. The "perceptuar' and "campus ecology" models will be briefly
discussed in this chapter.
Pen'in (1967) and Moos (1976) are two of the most frequently cited researchers
of the perceptual nlodcL In perceptual models. the environment is defined in relation to
each student's perception and interpretation of the environment. whether behavioral or
45
psychosocial (Pascarella and Teranzini. 1991). While perceptions are unique to
individual students. u ••• in the aggregate they theoretically become and define the
culture or environment ... [which] is presumed to influence in various ways that
individual's pyschosocial development..:· (Pascarella and Teranzini. 1991, p. ~ 1).
Moos (1976) posits that it is the "social climate" of environments that affects individual
behavior. He developed three categories of social climates (which include a variety of
sub-scales) which consist of: 1) the relationship dimension (interaction of people. their
involvement. and support for each other); 2) personal growth dimension (opportunities
for growth); and 3) the system maintenance dimension (the extent to which the
environment is clear in its expectations and responsive to change) (Huebner. 1991).
Pflaum. Pascarella & Duby ( 1985) assert that 7v1oos' notion of "progressive conformity"
suggests that u ••• students who are members of a formal or informal peer group that
places a high value on the interchange of ideas and academic achievement will also tcnd
to value that behavior" (415). Therefore. if a student assigns value to academic oriented
behaviors before interaction with an academically centered environment. the behavior
will only be reinforced by membership in the group (Pflaum, Pascarella & Duby 1985).
Pervin (1967) indicates that the degree of a person's performance. satisfaction,
and growth is directly related to his or her perception of the environment. A match or fit
between an individual and his or her environment is theorized to increase the potential
for (positive) outcomes, while a poor fit is related to (negative) outcomes such as
46
decreased perfonnance. greater dissatisfaction. and stress (Huebner. 1991). In addition.
Pervin .....hypothesizes that an ideal environment for any given individual is one in
which the congruence of the individual and environment is not exact. but presents
opponunities for change and personal growth·" (Huebner. 199 L p. 170).
Campus ecology models represent an attempt to apply person-environment
perspectives to practical problems (Huebner. 1991). Moreover. these models seek to
promote student growth and development by altering the interaction that occurs between
people and their respective environments. "The approach is proactive rather than
reactive and is focused on designing (and redesigning) campus environments .. :.
(Huebner. 1991. p. 167). It is the environment. not the person. that must be changed in
order to maximize positive outcomes. The hope. therefore. is to create environments
that allow students to achieve their greatest level of functioning in any given
environment (Aulepp and Delwonh. 1978).
As a whole. person environment theories lend insight into the socialization
process of college students. particularly with regard to the socialization of students by
peers and faculty. Person environment theorists such as Moos ( 1976). found that
"... individuals who are members of (or who are attracted to) a particular social
environment tend to change in order to reduce any differences between themselves and
the nonnative attitudes. values. and behaviors of the environment'· (Pflaum. Pascarella
& Duby. 1985. p. 415).
47
[xpectanc~' Theories and tbe P~'gmalioD Effect
Is it possible that use of educational approaches built on well researched theories
of student development may be less influential than the power of expectation? As noted
by Austin. 1986). nAt the heart of counseling honors students is encouragement-the
constant expectation that they explore the limits of their potential" (p. II). Research on
the po\\'er of expectation offers one compelling challenge to the assumption that
educational techniques employed in honors programs are responsible for student
outcomes.
Da'liel Goleman (1995) contends that society's view of human intelligence is
much too limitcd and underestimates the potential of many individuals. In fact.
Goleman asserts that ones "10" is far less important than his or her uEQ." Emotional
intelligence. a term coined by Golenlan. includes a range of human abilities such as
impulse control. persistence. motivation. and social deftness which allow individuals to
maximize their potential and excel. Onc's IQ. according to Golcman. IS innatc. Onc's
uEO.·· he argues. can be nurtured and strcngthened. especially by role models. teachers.
and parents. An important tenet of Goleman's theory is the idea that beliefs and
attitudes drive behavior. and thal these beliefs and attitudes are often fostered by
interactions with people. What people expect of us. the theory posits. often influences
what we become.
Psychologist Albert Bandura notes, "people's beliefs about their abilities have a
48
profound efTect on those abilities. Ability is not a fixed property; there is a huge
variability in how you perform" (cited in Goleman. 1995, p.90). Bandura is alluding to
the frequently cited notion of the "self-fulling prophecy:' that is. the idea that what one
becomes is a result of what they are told (either intentionally or unintentionally or by
what is said or lett unsaid). In reality. these messages become what people believe
about themselves. As described by Glance. "what we expect. all too otten. is exactly
what we get. ~owhere is this more true than in education" <cited in Goleman. 1995).
The phrase "'self-fulfilling prophecy" was first coined by Robert Merton in 1948.
He writes. "The self- fultilling prophecy is. in the beginning, a false definition of the
situation evoking a new behavior which makes the originally false conception come
true. The specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates a reign of error.
For the prophet will cite the actual course of events as proofhe was right from the
beginning" (Merton. 1948. p. 195). In the classroom. this idea can be translated to
suggest that a teacher's false beliefs about a student's abilities will actually create the
behaviors and abilities that the educator anticipated (Woolfolk, 1987).
Rosenthal and Jacobson's (1968) study, Pygmalio1l ill the Classroom. provided
the first empirical evidence that the "self-fulling prophecy" may have real and powerful
consequences for students and those who work in education. In their study. elementary
school students were randomly placed into classrooms. Teachers were provided the
identity of students who would likely "'bloom" and make substantial intellectual gains
49
during the course of the year. in reality. however. these students were selected at
random. A.t the conclusion of the study. those students who were identified as
"bloomers" indeed demonstrated greater than nonnal gains during the year. Although
Rosenthal and Jacobson' s study has been criticized for drawing over dramatic
conclusions and being statistically flawed (Elashoff and Snow. 1970; \Vineburg, 1987),
more than ...00 additional experiments have been conducted to investigate how
interpersonal expectations affect behavior and abilities. and more than 100 of these
considered the effect of teacher expectations (Pious. 1993). The majority of these
studies found that teacher expectations significantly affect the performance of students
(Brophy. 1983; Rosenthal and Babad. 1985: \Voolfolk. 1987; Pious. 1993). Fi2ure I.
which was adapted trom the work of Braun (1976) provides a visual description of how
the pygmalion effect may influence college student outcomes.
Teacher expectations of students are not the only powerful expectancy effect.
Later studies also discovered that student expectations of their teachers can have a
substantial impact on a teacher's perfonnance. as well as on their own perfonnance
(Feldman and Prohaska, 1979; Jamieson, 1984). One study (Jamieson, 1994) found that
as student expectations of teacher competence rose. so did student performance
outcomes. Moreover, as student expectations of their teacher increased, so did the
teacher's confidence. These findings support the assertion that students can influence
both the teaching process and their own academic performance.
50
Figure 1 (Adapted from C. BrauD, t976)
Sources of Information
-------./---- Differentactivities
Type offeedback
Interactionquality
-I~~ \--------
Grouping Questionasking
Teacher Expectations----1----Teacher behavior
ISources for students academic
self·evaluation
Student self·evaluation
I
Student behaviors
The Pygmalion effect and its impact may best be summed up by Johann W. von
Goethe. "Treat people as if they were what they ought to be and you help them to
become what they are capable ofbcingH (cited in PIous. 1993. p. 234). In the case of
students in higher education. "'what they are toldH may have much to do with their
51
outcomes. for good or for bad, One can not help but question the extent to which
students are affected by simply being labeled "'honors.··
Cballenges for tbe Student Outcomes Researcher
In the lorward (0 Bowen's 1997 edition of hn'estmellt ill Learning, Michael
rvlcPherson and ~lorton Schapiro note that "it is true now. as it \\'as when this volume
was [originally] written [1977]. that social scientists' ability to measure the effects of
college is limited and imprecise," There are many complicating factors for
understanding the specific influences of the overall college experience or particular and
different experiences within the same institution, Alexander Astin. arguably the
foremost authority on student outcomes in colleges. acknowledges. that ", .. since much
research [on college impact] is either limited in scope. inadequate in design. or outdated.
there is surprisingly iittle one can say with confidence about the impact of college on
contemporary students" (p. 2). One of the most obvious problems concerns the ability
of a researcher to distinguish between the influence of college itself or college
Involvements and the "confounding effects of individual subject differences" (Pascarella
and Terenzini. 1991. p. 663).
This may be best described in Astin's ( 1993) "input-environment-outcome (I-E
O) model which has provided a conceptual framework for his study of college
outcomes, The basic tenet of the framework suggests that students enter college with a
set of individual characteristics (inputs)~ are then exposed to numerous influences such
52
as university policies. facuity. peers. and other experiences (environment); which in tum
yield the characteristics of students (outputs). The difficulty described by Pascarella and
Terenzini ( 1991 ) is understanding the degree to \vhich an output can be attributed to the
input. environment. or some combination of both factors. As so aptly articulated by
Bowen (1977):
A major problem is that higher education is only one of myriad influences uponthe development of human beings. Each individual is shaped in part by his orher genetic endowment. socioeconomic background. elementary and secondaryschooling. religious backblfound. contact with the mass media. the nonnalprocess of maturation. and a multitude of life experiences (p. 25).
Second. another related concern in understanding the impact of college. or a
specitic college experience. is understanding the role of "seif-selectionH (Pascarella and
Terenzini. 1991). Two students. for example. may appear to be identical in a variety of
characteristics. except that one attended college and another did not. They may be of
the same gender. race. religious background. age. socioeconomic status. and may even
graduate from the same high school and have similar academic credentials. Astin
(1993) asserts that the more input variables the researcher is able to control, the greater
the possibility one is able to discern the impact of a particular environment. However,
subtle differences such as motivation. ambition. and attitude. for example, are
particularly evasive and difficult to measure.
The fact that a student "self-selected" (chose to attend college, participate in
extracurricular activities. etc.) may have an important influence on the outcome being
53
measured. Since most student outcomes studies attempt to compare similar students
involved in different experiences. they may fail to account for differences that occur
simply because of Hself-selection." Researchers advise scholars to draw conclusions
carefully when reviewing within-college effects (Feldman and Newcomb. 1969; Pace,
1979; Pascarella and Terenzini. 1991; Astin. 1993), as "certain experiences tend to
attract students with certain traits or dispositions and. in turn.. tend to accentuate the
traits or dispositions that drew those students to the experiences in the tirst place"
(Pascarella and Terenzini. 1991, p. 610).
However. even if individual student involvement (sel f-selection) is the most
critical factor in the determination of outcomes. institutional policies and programs do
not become unimportant. Pascarella and Terenzini (1991, p.61 1) write. "If individual
effort or involvement is the critical determinant of college impact. then the key question
focuses on the ways in which a campus can shape ii.s intellectual and interpersonal
environments to invite increased student involvement.··
Summary Remarks
This review of the literature suggests that honors programs historically have
sought to incorporate the findings of developmental theorists in the implementation of
educational strategies for students. Honors educators on college and university
campuses appear to operate on the assumption that outcomes are substantially affected
by a student's learning environment. particularly when concerning academically talented
54
students. Honors programs. therefore. seek to provide educational opportunities that
will foster the talent of this special student population. In particular. these programs are
designed to provide increased exposure to faculty, academically oriented interactions
with peers. as well as an orientation to a diversity of disciplines.
Research on students panicipating in differing activities at the same institution
suggests that outcomes vary depending on environmental experiences. What is not clear
in the literature, however. is the extent to which the honors experience affects students.
panicularly when com:,ared to students of like ability. Given that student development
theories indicate that outcomes such as persistence. cognitive and psychosocial growth.
and behavior are influenced by environmental experiences~ and that honors education
intentionally implements instructional strategies informed by student development
theory, it appears that exploring outcomes produced by the honors experience fills an
important gap in the current literature.
55
CHAPTER 3
Design and l\lethodolog~'
This is a study based on a multi-method approach (Creswell. 1998). A
quantitative. quasi-experimental design was utilized to test the relationship between an
"honors'· program and student ··outcomes" at a Carnegie classification "Doctoral!
Research Extensive" institution located in the Eastern United States. This design
included qualitative focus groups (Krueger. 1994) conducted after data analysis to
further inform the research. The primary objective of this study was to discover whether
student outcome differences exist when comparing honors and non-honors students. A
secondary benefit was exploring differences between honors students who self-selected
into the program and those whose participation was solicited by the institution (i.e..
students who would not have entered the honors program without affirmative steps by
the university).
The following pages \viIl provide a detailed description of who. how, and why
the participants were selected for this study. In addition. procedures employed and
measures utilized will be discussed in sufficient detail to allo\\" future researchers to
replicate or adapt this study at other institutions. The quantitative and qualitative phases
of the study will be presented and discussed separately.
56
Research Design
Researcb Questions and Rationales
As noted in Chapter 1. the central question of this study was: Is participation in a
university honors program or college related to student outcomes? Six derivative
questions were designed to consider specific outcomes that the literature review
suggested could be influenced by participation in an honors college. Although the
theoretical foundation of these questions is offered in Chapter 2. a brief rationale will be
included below. The variables considered as part of these seven questions are
graphically displayed in Table -I.
I) Do studellts in tl'e two groups differentiall}' engage in a ,"ariet)' of
activities after one }'ear? (i.e.• illteract;on with facull)', participation ill
extracurricular activities, particular learlling practices, etc.)
]) Do studellts in the tK'o groups assess their acllievement on specified
outcome variables differentl), after one )'ear?
3) Does tl'e level ofsatisfaction with the institution differ belK'een the two
groups ofstudents after one year?
Studies suggest that involvement. satisfaction and perceptions of achievement
are closely related. Earlier research indicates that as student involvement increases.
levels of satisfaction and perceived achievement follow. Moreover. anyone of these
variables can influence the other (i.e.. lo\ver satisfaction causes less involvement. which
57
causes less achievement. etc. (Astin. 1977. 1993). Uninvolved students are more likely
to drop out and withdraw (Terenzini & Pascarella. 1978 ) while involved students.
particularly those involved in the form of faculty-student interaction. are more satisfied
with their college experiences (Astin. 1977. 1993). Perceived gains in social and
intellectual development are also closely related to contact with faculty (Pace. 1987).
Moreover. expectancy theories suggest that high expectations tor students influences
what they believe about themselves. which intluences what they then do and achieve.
Since anyone of these variables can have important implications for a variety of
outcomes. measuring the extent to which honors programs facilitate involvement.
satisfaction and perct..~ptions of achicvemcnt has important implications for university
policy.
4) Do grade point averages ofstudents in the two groups differ
sig"ijicantly after one year?
Earlier research indicates that participation in an honors program increases the
likelihood that students will graduate with a higher grade point average than non-honors
students (Astin.. 1993). If simi larly credentialed students at the same insti tution earn
significantly different grade point averages. honors program practices may be
responsible.
5) Does persistence to tire sopl,omore }'ear differ between the two groups
ofstudents?
58
Retention of matriculated undergraduate students has become a central desired
outcome for colleges and universities (Tinlo. 1993). Moreover. the freshman year
marks the time period when undergraduate students are most vulnerdble to attrition
(Brooks and DuBois. 1995). After committing substantial resources to attract students.
especially those with superior academic credentials. institutions seek to protect their
successful recruitment efforts from attrition. For obvious reasons. student persistence
serves as the most critical outcome for colleges and universities (Tinto. 1993). Simply
put. without the student. there are no student outcomes. If participation in an honors
pro!,'tfam increases the likelihood of persistence. these programs fulfill an important
university priority. Furthermore. ifhonors programs are consistently linked to
persistence. and thus better retention rates. then imitating such a design for other
campus areas may prove beneficial for increasing overall campus retention rates.
6) Do studellts in the two groups view their college f!n~'ironment
differently after olle year?
As described extensively in Chapter 2. person-environment and developmental
theories suggest the environment has a significant shaping effect on student outcomes.
~100s's (1976) notion of "progressive conformity" argues that if a student assigns value
to a behavior prior to interaction with an environment. the behavior will be reinforced
by membership in the group. This question seeks to understand the extent to which
interaction with the honors program impacts student outcomes.
59
Table .a Researcb Questions.. Rationales.. and Outcomes Explored
Rationale for Researcb Variables tlData SourcelQuestion Question eTime Frame
"Research suggests I) Do students in the Frequency & r\pe of .ICSEQ "Collegethat mcreased student two groups mteractlon With: ActIVIties" SectIOnInvolvement IS differentially engage (QuestIOns 1-114 &POSttlvely correlated in a varie~" of "the library I usage I 124-126)with other desned student acth"ities "computers (usage I
outcomes. after one ~'ear? "acadenuc actIvIties \~CSEQ adnumstered"wntmg mApnl"faculty"art. musIc & theater"campus faCIlitIes"campusorgamzat1ons &student actl\'ltlcs"personal grO\\1hactiVIties"peers of differentbackgrounds"math or sCIence"conversations of\'ar}"1ng content
"Research suggests 2) Do students in the Self-Reponed .ICSEQ "Estimate ofthat mcreased m'o groups assess Achlc\'ement Related Gams" Sectlonperceived achievement their achievement on to: (Questions 127-151)IS positlvely correlated specified outcomeWIth other deSired '"ariables differently "generalacadenuc ·ZCSEQ adnumsteredoutcomes, after one )"ear? knowledge m Apnl
"career & vocatlonalskills"personal gro\\1h"workmg With people.. wntmg. speakmg &"analytical skills
60
"Research suggests J) Does the le\-el or "Student OpIniOnS ,/CSEQ "OpmlOnsthat mcreased student satisfaction with the about their satIsfaction about your Callege"
satisfaCtion IS institution differ with the mstltutlon Section (QuestionsposItively correlated be""een the ""0 115-116)with other desired groups of studentsstudent outcomes. after one ~'ear? '8CSEQ adrrumslered
in April
"Research suggests ..) Do grade point "CumulatIve grade ,/Reglstrarhonors program a\'eragn of students pomt average afterstudents achieve higher in the two groups freshman year ·2nata collected atgrade pomt averages differ significantl~' conclUSIon ofthan non-honors after one ~'ear? acadenuc year (May)students.
"Persistence IS of 5) Does penistence to "Enrollment for ,/ RegIstrar/Surveypar.lmount concern for the sophomore ~'ear second year at Questionnairemstltutlons of hIgher differ between the mstltutIon
education. two groups? ·2;Data collected al"Self-reponed mtent conclUSion ofto return to mstltutlon academiC year (May)
"PerceptIOns of the 6) Do students in the Student beliefs ,/CSEQ "Collegeennronment have J h\'0 groups \'ie'" their regardmg the degree of Ennronment" SectionSignIficant shapmg college en\'ironment emphaSIS placed on (Questions 117-123)effect on outcomes. differentl~' after one developmg the
~'ear? followmg at the 'XS EQ adnumsteredmslltutlon: 10 Apnl
"acadenuc. scholarly& mtellecrual qualities..cnucal. e\"aluauve,& analytical qualities"understandmg &appreCiation of humandiversity..mforrnation literacyskills"vocatIOnal &occupatIOnalcompetence"personal relevance& practical value ofcourses.
61
Statistical Methodolog~'
This study utilized a quantitative. quasi-experimental design using a survey
questionnaire. Babbie (1990) suggests that survey methods allow the researcher to
generalize from sample populations in order to make inferences about particular
characteristics. attitudes. or behaviors of populations (Babbie. 1990: Oppenheim. 1992).
The primary desired ends were to offer an accurate description of each group. and
provide the incidence and distribution of the characteristics and beliefs of three
populations. Survey designs provide numerous advantages including relatively quick
turnaround time in data collection. the ability to identify characteristics of a larger
population from a smaller subset of individuals. and offenng an economical research
design (Creswell. 1994: Babbie. 1990).
Since random samples provide the most rigorous measures to enable the
researcher to generalize results to the entire population (Creswell. 1994J. this study
employed such a strategy. However. since it \\'as not possible to assign students
randomly in honors and non-honors options. the design was quasi-experimental.
Site Selection
A number of factors were critical to selecting a study site and included the
following three requirements:
1) The institution must have a well established honors program in place (a
minimum often years in existence and evidence that the institution
62
finnly supports the honors concept)~
2) the institution must have a selection process which allo\\'cd the
researcher to consider any differences between students who ··self
selectedH
and those who were invited to participate in honors; and
3) the institution must provide its full support for conducting the study.
"Support" included providing access to student infonnation necessary for
selecting students for each of the three groups; altering the "selection
process" and thus. allowing the study to consider the potential "self
selected" and ··selected" differences. as well as a willingness to assist in
the numerous logistical matters required for the completion of the study.
How the selected institution met these prc-detennined criteria is discussed
below. Of particular importance was the fact that the institution was a member of the
National Collegiate Honors Council (NCHC) and met its 16 "characteristics of a fully
developed honors program" (see Appendix B). ~10reover. this honors program has been
in place since 1981 and was transformed into an "honors college" in 1987. Although the
difference between an honors program and an honors college seems unsubstantial to
many. those with honors colleges '.... are likely to be more visible on their campus than
honors programs" (Digby. 1997. p. I I). l\foreover. Digby (1997, p. 11) notes that "on
average. honors colleges probably have more of the characteristics of a fully developed
honors program'" In considering a study site. the university also demonstrated a
63
commitment to the "honors" concept. as evidenced by its lengthy program tenure.
staffing patterns and ability to clearly meet the stipulations of being labeled "'fully
developed" by the NCHC.
As was noted in Chapter 1. much of the criticism concerning student outcomes
research stems from its frequent failure to control for whether or not students "self
selected" (Pascarella & Terenzini. 1991). No system was in place at the institution
studied for automatically revic\\"ing the general admission files of students who meet
predetennined SAT and GPA stipulations. Thus. to participate in honors. students must
have sought out admission on their own by applYing to the program. The institution' s
selection process allowed for altering the admission process by "inviting" a second
group of qualified students who did not submit applications during the initial screening.
Of course. students admitted in both processes met the same rigorous standards of the
honors college. This revised selection procedure provided the additional benefit of
allowing the researcher to also take a comparative look between those who "self
selected'" and those who were "invited."
Last. the institution's honors director was approached about this study and
responded positively. His commitment. as well as the subsequent support of the honors
associate director. the university provost. and the campus human subjects review board.
allowed the study to proceed.
64
Stud~' Participants
For the purpose of this study. two groups of similarly credentialed students from
the institution were selected and studied during the 1000-2001 academic school year
(August-May). All students were freshmen and beginning their first experiences with
postsecondary education (defined as having no more than nine semester hours of college
level work). Further. all were ofUtraditional" age (defined as 17-22 years of age) and
had achieved a high school grade point average of at least 3.5 and a minimum combined
SAT score of 1250. In addition to SAT scores and high school grade point averages.
each group was controlled to achieve a balance in race. gender. and place of residence
(on campus or off campus). The two groups included: 1) students enrolled in the honors
college who self-selected. and 2) students not enrolled in the honors college but who
were qualified.
A sub-group of the honors college students \\'as also considered in this study.
\\'hilc the majority of honors college students "self-selected" and therefore sought out
admission to the honors college. a group of qualified students who failed to apply was
later "invited" to do so after the initial deadline. Invited honors college students.
therefore. comprised part of the honors population. Table 5 displays the groups which
were studied.
65
Table 5 The T,,·o Stud,- Groups
GROl'P I (N=86) GROep II (N=86)
• Honors Program • Non-Honors
• Self·Selected (N =63) • Self·selected
• Invited (~=23,
IAll controlled for SAT. high school GPA. race. gender. and place of residence
Group I (Honors Students)
The groups consisted of 86 students. 63 of whom applied on their own (self-
selected) and 23 of whom responded to an invitation to apply to the honors college after
the initial deadline had passed (invited). The 63 self-selected students were randomly
chosen from the individuals who sought out and were accepted into the honors program.
These students received a letter from the researcher requesting their participation. A
copy of the letter is provided in Appendix D.
The 23 '"invited" students were derived from a pool of all admitted students who
had not applied to the honors college but who were qualified for honors participation.
Students selected had a minimum SAT score of 1250 as well as a minimum high school
GPA of 3.5. The honors director sent these students an honors college application and a
letter in which he noted their "strong credentials." He also encouraged these students to
submit an application for consideration by the honors college (see Appendix E).
66
Of those 26 students who submitted an application. 26 were accepted into the
program. Three of these students. however, \\'ere eliminated from consideration during
the matching process. The mean SAT score and grade point average of this group of
students were 1346 and 3.96 respectively.
Group 2 (Non-Honors Students)
This group of students \'ias derived from the same pool as "invited" honors
students, All were admitted students who had not previously applied to the honors
college. even though they were qualified for honors participation. The difference,
however. between "non-honors" students and "invited" honors students is that these
individuals did not apply to the honors college. A letter from the researcher inviting
these students to participate is provided in Appendix F. Students in this group had a
minimum SAT score of 1250. as well as a minimum high school GPA of 3.5. In total.
164 students met these parameters; 86 of these 164 were selected for participation in the
study through the matching process that will be discussed laler. On average. the group
had a SAT score and GPA of 1339 and 3.95. respectively.
Assignment of Students to Two Stud~' Groups
Step I
From the pool of 89 ne\vly admitted 2000-200 I honors college students who
"self-selected" and were of traditional age ( 17-22 years old). 63 individuals were
67
randomly chosen. \Vhen students did not matriculate or declined to participate in the
study. another individual was randomly selected from this pool. The 23 "invited"
honors students were then added to the group to establish a "honors" group of 86
participants.
Step 2
From infonnation provided by the campus registrar. a pool of all admitted
students who had not applied to the honors college. but were qualified for honors
participation (minimum SAT of 3.5 and high school GPA of 1250). \\'as established. In
total. 16.. students met these criteria.
Step 3
Using caliper matching (Anderson ct al.. 1980) the researcher matched each of
the 86 students in the honors study group with a non-honors student. As described in
Anderson et al. ( 1980). "Caliper matching is a pair matching technique that attempts to
achieve comparability of the treatment and comparison groups by defining two subjects
to be a match if they differ on the value of the numerical confounding variable by no
more than a small tolerance" (p. 79).
At the conclusion of the matching process. a perfect match was achieved
between honors and non-honors students in the categories of race. gender. and campus
housing status (whether or not a student lived off campus or in a campus residence hall).
Since finding an identical match in grade point average and SAT score was unlikely,
68
differences within .15 of a standard deviation were considered acceptable. In the event
that a student did not matriculate or declined to participate. another student was selected
from the pool of students. In addition. when a match for an honors student could not be
found. the honors participant was dropped from the study and another student was
selected.
To verify that the matching process had been successful. the SAT and GPA
means were calculated for both groups and an Independent Samples T-Test was utilized.
The results are provided below in Table 6.
Table 6 T -Test Indicating No Significant Difference between Honors andNon-Honors Stud~' Groups After the Matcbing Process
StandardGroup N l\lean De\'iation Significance
SAT
Honors 86 1346.16 62.36 .784
Non-Honors 86 1339.18 62.14
GPA
Honors 86 3.96 .27 .944
Non-Honors 86 3.94 .27
·p>.05
69
After the matching procedure. the mean SAT score for the honors group was
1346. while the mean SAT score for the non-honors group was 1339. The lndependent
Samples T-Test using an alpha level of .05 indicated no statistical difference in SAT
scores between the two groups. ~toreo\'er. the two groups varied by only 11 percent of
one standard deviation.
The mean GPA for the honors group was 3.96. while the mean GPA tor the non
honors group was 3.95. The Independent Samples T-Test using an alpha level of .05
reported no statistical di fference in GPA between the groups. Additionally. the
variation consisted of only three percent of one standard deviation. Table 7 provides an
overall comparison of the two study groups. and shows how these students compare to
the 1327 new students at the institution who enrolled during the fall 2000 semester.
70
Table 7 O"erall Compassion of l\latcbed Honors and NOD-Honors Groups
All Ne'"Honors Non-Honors StudentsGroup Group
l\lean 1346 1339 1186SAT
l\leaD 3,96 3.95 3.45GPA
Female 51.1~o 51.1 ~o 49~o
l\lale 48,9~o 48.9~o 51~0
00- 83,8~0 83,8~'o 67~o
CampusLh'ing
Off- 16,2~o 16.2~o 33°uCampusLiving
\\"bite 81.4~0 81.4~,0 66~0
Black 4.7°0 4.70,0 15~'o
Asian 11.6°'0 11,6~'o 16~o
Hispanic 2.3~·o 2.3~·o 3~'o
As evidenced by the Independent Samples T-Test and the above table. the
honors and non-honors study groups are almost identical. Both of these groups,
however. varied significantly from the overall 2000 freshman class. Whether or not a
student is in the honors or non-honors study group. he or she comprises a select group of
academically credentialed students, In fact. using national data of students taking the
71
.2000 SAT. students earning a 1250 on the SAT. the approximate mean of the two
groups in this study. were in the 94lh percentile of all test takers (College Board. 2000).
The complete listing of .2000 SAT nonns are provided in Appendix C.
The two study groups also varied from the general freshman class in other ways.
\Vhile the gender demographic of the honors and non-honors groups are similar to that
of the entire freshman class. a much larger percentage of study participants lived on
campus in residence halls. In the freshman class. 67 percent of students lived on
campus compared to 84 percent ofstudy participants. Another notable difference is the
percentage of ethnic minorities comprising the two study groups. The freshman ciass
comprised 34 percent ethnic minorities. while the study groups consisted of a 19
percent. These data serve as a reminder that the outcomes being considered in this study
surround the experience of a unique sub-population of the freshman class.
Step .,
From the sample of 172 students (86 honors and 86 non-honors). 85.4 percent
(147 out of 172) returned usable data. Of the 25 students who did not participate. four
left the university for health or family-related reasons (t\\'O were honors. two were non
honors). The 85.4 percent consisted of 56 randomly selected honors students. 17 invited
honors students. and 74 non-honors students.
72
Table 8 The T,,·o Stud~' Groups after 85.4 Percent Return Rate
GRO[!P I (N=73) GROl'P II (N=74)
• Honors Program • ~on·Honors
• Self·Selected (N=-56) • Self-selected
• Innted (Nz: (7)
To detenninc how the non-responses affected the matching process. the SAT
and GPA means were calculated for both groups and an Independent Samples T-Test
was again perronned. The results are provided below in Table 9.
Table 9 T-Test Indicating No Significant Difference between Honorsand Non-Honors Stud~' Groups After the 85.4 % Return Rate
StandardGroup N I\lean De\'iation Sign ificance
SAT
Honors 74 1347.02 64.84 .576
Non-Honon 73 1336.98 61.04
GPA
Honors 74 3.97 .27 .851
Non-Honors 73 3.96 .28*p<.05
73
Instrumentation
College Siudent Elperien(es Questionnaire (CSEQ)
The most substantial portion of data for this study was collected using the
College Student Experiences Questionnaire (see Appendix H) developed by Pace and
Kuh (1998). The CSEQ is an eight page (191 item) questionnaire that IS generally
completed within 30 to 45 minutes. The questionnaire is specific. allowing institutions
to detennine where modifications and changes might stimulate student effort and
produce greater educational progress (CSEQ InformaIIon for Prospective Users. 1998).
The CSEQ has been noted as a useful instrument for assessing student development
outcomes. The ""estimate of gains" section allows students to approximate progress
toward educational goals. while the "quality of effort" scale measures the process by
which students attain certain outcomes (SA.RTA. (999).
Since 1979. the CSEQ has been used by more than 600 colleges and universities
to measure outcomes of the undergraduate student experience. Since outcomes indicate
what students have learned. but not necessarily the behaviors and institutional practices
that lead to their outcomes. Kuh. Pace. and Vester. (1997) argue for the use of the
CSEQ to measure a variety of college student behaviors. From their research. they
conclude positive outcomes are likely to occur if good practices are discovered. ··If
institutions are using these good practices. their effects should be evident in student
behavior. That is. how students use their time can be a barometer of the extent to which
74
an institution uses good practices in higher education" (p. 436).
The CSEQ asks students about their experiences in three primary categories: 1)
Estimate of Gains rvleasures (23 estimate of gains scales), 2) Quality of Effort ~teasures
( 14 activities scales). and 3) College Environment rvteasures (8 environment scales).
The CSEQ is reliable. as the items for each scale correlate significantly both with each
other and with the total score for its scale. "The mtercorrelation of the 14 estimate of
gains scales ranged from .06 to .60. The intercorrelation of the collei!e environment- - -items ranged from .02 to .59. The quality of effort scales correlated with each other
from .06 to .60. The alpha reliability ranged from. 79 to .90 for all scales"(SARTA.
1999. p. 2). In a samplc of respondents to the CSEQ from sevcral institutions. Kuh.
Pace. and Vesper ( 1997) indicate that the 13 items addressing faculty-student contacts
have a reliability (alpha) of .89: the 13 items addressing coopcration among students
have a reliability of .85: and the 25 items addressing active learning have a reliability of
.88. In addition. the responses of 30.000 diverse students collected between 1993-1994
show correlations between good practice indicators and reported gains beh\'een +.30 and
-r-A-l. The validity of the CSEQ is summarized (SARTA. 1999) as follows:
Face validity of the CSEQ is based upon the logical relationships among itemson the sante scale. A factor analysis indicated a dominant factor in every scaleand resulted in three general factors. A factor analysis of the quality of effortscales resulted in three factors (personal relationships. group facilities, andacademic-intellectual activities). Two factors emerged as a result of the factoranalysis of the college environment items (supportive relationships andintellectual. cultural. and aesthetic emphasis), and four factors emerged for theestimate of gains items (personal and interpersonal understanding. general
75
education. intellectual competencies. and understanding science). Constructvalidity is shown through the correlations among the activity scales.
Data Collection
Participants were infonned that this was a doctoral dissertation study examining
outcomes of students during their first year of college. If students agreed to participate~
55.00 cash \vas provided for a completed survey. Participants were also advised that
any information provided would be held in confidence and would never become part of
their institutional records. Students were intormed that their role in the study was
simply to be honest. candid. and timely in returning responses. The CSEQ was
distributed during one of three meetings in a campus classroom during the month of
April. If students did not attend one of the first two meetings. a follow-up phone call
was nlade to encourage their attendance during the third session. All participants were
required to sign a consent fonn (provided In Appendix F).
Institutional data from the registrar and admissions Offices were analyzed at the
conclusion of the academic year to measure rates of persistence and student grade point
averages.
Data Anal)'sis
CSEQ
To analyze the data collected from the CSEQ. Analysis of Covariance
(ANCOVA) was utilized. ANCOVA involves a multiple regression model that treats
76
study factors as nominal variables. The controlled variables (covariates). therefore are
able to be measurements on a variety of scales (Trochim. 2000. p. I). As explained by
Trochim (2000):
Nominal variables are incorporated into regression models by means ofdummyvariables. Thus the general ANCOVA model usually contains a mixture ofdummy variables and other types of variables. and the dependent variable isconsidered continuous ... ANCOVA adjust for disparities in covariatesdistributions over groups by artificially assuming that all groups have the sameset of mean covariate values (p. I).
In this study. gender and race of study participants were considered covariates.
Therefore. the ANCOVA adjustment process treated both honors and non-honors
students as if they had the same gender and race distribution. Trochim (2000) remarks.
"The ANCOVA adjustnlent procedure is equivalent to artificially assuming a common
covariate distribution based on the combined sample over all groups. That is. not only
are the means assumed to be equal. but the entire distribution of the covariates in the
combined sample is assumed to be the same as the distribution of the covariates in each
group"(p. I). Instead of testing the hypothesis that means are different between levels
of a particular factor. ANCOVA allows the researcher to explore differences in the
intercepts of regression models.
This model of ANCOVA also examined the interactions between the
independent variables. The first model informed the researcher whether there were
average differences in the curricular program (honors); the second model indicated
77
whether there were average differences associated with populations. regardless of the
curricular program. and the third model concluded whether or not there were differential
effects (curricular program. demographic controls. and interactions for program by
demographic characteristic).
Given that this is an exploratory study. the alpha was set at .10 to detennine
statistical significance. It is important to reiterate that the purpose of this study is not to
explain some particular phenomenon. but to explore whether or not there are
meaningful differences between the control groups (non-honors and invited honors) and
honors students.
Qualitath'e ~Iethodologl
In this study. a two-phase dCS1b'11 approach (Creswell. 1994) \vas employed
encompassing both the quantitative and qualitativc methodologies. The strengths of
quantitative methodology wcre prcviously discussed and included the ability to
generalize from sample populations in order to make inferences (Babbie, 1990;
Oppenheim. 1992), relatively quick turnaround time in data collection, and providing an
economical research design (Babbie. 1990; Oppenheim. 1992; and Creswell. 1994).
The strengths of adding a qualitative component to the study are best understood
when considering the different contributions of these research traditions. Several
research scholars have articulated these differences. including Merriam (1998), who
notes that quantitative research takes apart a phenomenon and examines its component
78
parts (variables). while qualitative research can reveal ho'w all parts integrate to form a
whole. Ragin ( 1987) stresses that quanti~ativeand qualitative approaches are best
contrasted by the level of analysis used. In quantitative inquiry, researchers work with
fewer variables and a large number of cases. while qualitative researchers utilize a
relatively few number of cases. yet consider numerous variables. Ragin (1987) further
concludes that. n:\ hallmark of qualitative approaches is their attention to complexity-
the heterogeneity and particularity of individual cases" (p. xii).
In phase one of the study. the assumptions and anticipated ends were markedly
different and focused on statistical procedures that analyze survey results and make
generalizations. In the qualitative component. a holistic picture of the differences that
existed between the honors and non-honors experiences was explored. In addition. it
was believed that phase two would provide insight into potential explanations for the
statistical results of phase onc.
Focus Group Te£bniques
Focus group techniques (Krueger. 1994) were used to collect data for the
qualitative phase of the study. Focus groups are discussions facilitated by a researcher
in order to identify variables and patterns in perceptions. As described by Krueger
(1994):
The focus group is a special type of group in terms of purpose, size,composition, and procedures. A focus group is typically composed of 7 to 10participants who are selected because they have cenain characteristic in common
79
that relate to the topic of the focus group. Furthermore. the focus group isrepeated several times with different people.... The researcher creates apermissive environment in the focus group that nurtures different perceptionsand points of view. without pressuring participants to vote plan. or reachconsensus (p. 6).
There are several advantages to emplo)ing focus group methodology. While
one-to-one interviews are a valuable qualitative approach. the focus group is better able
to capture the d)namic nature of group interaction. tvtoreover. inhibitions are often
reduced in group situations which prompts increased candor by participants (Krueger.
1994). Other benetits of focus groups include a format that allows the moderator to
probe. flexibility to explore unexpected issues. discussions with high face validity.
relatively low cost. and quick results (Krueger. 1994).
Focus Group Participants
Four focus groups were conducted with ten students in each. Focus groups One
and Two were comprised of randomly selected non-honors students (previously
established). Focus group Three contained randomly selected honors students from
those invited into the program. Focus group Four consisted of randomly selected honors
students who had self-selected into the program. Table 10 offers an overview of the four
focus groups.
80
Table 10 The Four Focus Groups
Group One Group T,,'o Group Three Group Four
lONon-Honors lONon-Honors 10 Invited Honors 10 HonorsStudents Students Students Students
Focus Group Procedures
Focus groups were conducted in a library classroom on-campus and lasted
approximately 90 minutes. Students were seated in chairs arranged in a circle fonnat.
After introductions of participants. the purpose of the meeting and the expectations of
the group were discussed prior to proceeding with questions. The complete moderator's
guide is provided in Appendix G. It should be noted that the focus bJfOUP interview was
pilot tested with both honors and non-honors students at another campus prior the actual
study.
Focus Group Data Anal)'sis
According to Yin ( 1984), "data analysis consist of examining, categorizing.
tabulating, or otherwise recombining the evidence, to address the initial propositions of
a study" (p. 99), Krueger (1994) describes data analysis as practical, systematic. and
verifiable. The "practical, systematic and practical process" selected to analyze focus
group data for this study is that which is commonly called the "constant comparative
method" (Glaser and Strauss. 1967). Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss (1967)
emphasize an approach that continually seeks to expand and develop its process of
81
inquiry. allowing each stage to infonn the next. Theory emerges from. and is grounded
in. the data. There are fOUf stages of the constant comparative method as outlined by
Glaser and Strauss (1967) and are summarized below:
1) Comparing incidents applicable to eacb category. The researcher
begins by intuitively designing categories of meaning in the dat~ and
coding incidents as examples. As each additional incident is coded. the
researcher compares it to the incidents with which it is already
associated.
2) Integrating categories and their properties. As data collection. data
analysis and sampling continue. the researcher looks for developing
categories.
3) Delimiting the tbeo!1'. As categories become more clearly defined. the
research is able to begin making sense of the data. thus placing categories
within a broader theoretical context.
4) \\rriting tbeo!1'. The researcher presents the theory in a way that clearly
delineates its meaning. nuances. and implications.
The Glaser and Strauss (1967) method of data analysis is designed "to enable
prediction and explanation of behavior (p. 3). The approach. therefore. lends itself well
to contextual meaning making and the exploration of social interaction. The qualitative
aspect of this study seeks to understand the experience of honors and non-honors
82
students better. as well as provide insight into the findings of the quantitative portion of
this study. The philosophical and procedural assumptions. therefore. fit nicely with the
objectives of the study.
\Vhile Glaser and Strauss provide the theoretical assumptions for data analysis,
Krueger ( (994) offers a practical step-by-step procedure to be implemented when using
transcript-based analysis. He writes. "Transcript-based analysis is the most rigorous and
tinle-intensive of the choices. Tapes are transcribed and the analyst uses the transcript
coupled with field notes and the discussion from debriefing of the moderator team"
(Krueger. 1994. p. 143). This procedure as described by Krueger (1994. p. 157) is as
follows:
I) Make backup copies of tapes.
2) Give the original tapes to transcriptionist for entry onto computer.
3) When transcription returns. moderator or assistant moderator listens to
tapes. adds names of speakers. and completes missing data if possible.
4) File tapes, transcripts. field notes, and the like for future analysis.
5) \Vhen you are ready to complete analysis. gather transcripts and field
notes by categories of focus groups.
6) Read transcripts and field notes one category at a time.
7) Look for emerging themes (by question and then overall).
8) Develop coding categories and code the data.
83
9) Sort the data into coded categories.
10) Construct topologies or diagram the analysis.
II ) See what data are left out and consider revision.
12) Prepare the draft report- begin with most important questions.
With the theoretical grounding of Glaser and Strauss (1967) and the procedures
outlined by Krueger (199.+). data analysis can be conducted in a systematic and
verifiable manner. rvloreover. to ensure trustworthiness. the researcher met with four
focus group participants to describe the findings and receive feedback. Afterwards.
interpretations were slightly adjusted.
84
CHAPTER.,
...\oal~·sis of Data
This chapter presents an analysis of data collected for this study. The first
section offers a statistical analysis of data from the College Student Experiences
Questionnaire (Research Questions 1. 1, and 3), as well as data collected from the
registrar's office (Research Questions'; and 5) detailing the academic performance and
retention of students participating in the study during their first year at the institution.
The second section of this chapter provides data collected through qualitative focus
groups (Research Question 6). A discussion concerning thc relationship between
quantitative and qualitati\'c portions of the study is also provided.
The primary question being explored was whether student outcomes are affected
by participation in a honors program. A secondary comparison was included in the
study and considers a sub-group of honors students whose participation \vas solicited by
thc institution. rather than on their own initiativc. This comparison should be viewed as
exploratory and as an initial effort to understand the extent to which outcomes are
influenced by the treatment rather than the motivational level of students.
As discussed in Chapter 1. the bulk of student outcomes research attempts to
compare similar students in different experiences and often fails to account for
di fferences that result from sel f-selection (Pascarella and Terenzini. 1991). The
inclusion of an invited group is an effort to control for this limitation. Therefore. if the
85
effects for the honors and invited groups are the same. then the effects cannot result
from self selection on the part of honors students. If. on the other hand. the effects are
different, the cause may result from something other than students' experience in the
honors program. The conclusions drawn from this data. however. need to be
approached with caution. As noted in Chapter 3. only 17 Hinvited" students participated
in the study. Nevertheless. the inclusion of this secondary comparison begins to inform
future research pertaining to the influence of selection bias and student outcomes
research.
As described in Chapter 3. a random sample of86 students from the 112 newly
admitted honors participants were selected for this study. The registrar's oftice then
provided a list of all newly enrolled freshmen. excluding honors students. who entered
with a 3.5 high school grade point average or above and a SAT score of 1250 or higher.
There were 164 students within these parameters. For each of the 86 honors students,
the best possible match in qualifications (GPA and SAT score) and demographics (race.
gender, and campus housing status) was sought from the pool of qualified non-honors
students. At this point, 86 honors students matched with 86 non-honors students.
An Independent Samples T-Test was performed to confinn that the caliper
matching (Anderson et al.. 1980) was successful. Using an alpha level of .05, the T
Test reported no statistical difference bet\\'een the two groups. Finally. after and 85.4
percent return rate. 73 honors students and 74 non-honors students remained in the
86
study. Once again. an Independent Samples T-Test was performed to ensure no
significant difference between the two groups existed. Using an alpha level of .05. no
statistical di fference was noted.
Quantitath'e Results (Researcb Questions 1.. 2 and 3_
Using specific questions from the CSEQ. differences in honors and non-honors
student outcomes were explored through the use of composites. For example. to
investigate levels of "satisfaction" study participants had with the institution. questions
that elicited this information were grouped together in the form of a composite. Factor
analysis was used to confirm and refine constructs measured by the survey. Through a
process of revision, nine composites were constructed. Reliability (inter item
consistency) of items included for each composite was tested. and a Crombach's Alpha
of.7 was established as an acceptable minimum coefficient. An alpha of. 7 or higher is
considered to have reasonable reliability in social science research (Nunnaly. 1978).
Running statistical regression on the data was considered important. since it
allows the researcher to specify one variable as a dependent variable (honors or non
honors). and then choose several independent variables (composites) to determine how
strongly they correlate to the dependent variable. As described in more detail in Chapter
3•.A.nalysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was utilized. ANCOVA involves a regression
analysis of the effects of a treatment variable (in this case. whether students participated
in the honors program or not) controlling for other variables associated with both the
87
treatment variable and the outcome. Race and gender were included in the model to
determine if the treatment effect might vary for minority versus non-minority and male
vcrsus female students. Technically. "gender" and "minority" did not need to be
included in the model as covariates. since the groups were matched on these
characteristics. Nevertheless. they were included to test for interaction effects.
\Vhen reporting results of regression. the teml "\"ariance" (R-square) is provided.
The variance refers to how well a certain outcome can be explained as a result of the
statistical test. R-squarc is an especially important statistic when seeking to predict
some phenomenon. To some extent. R-square details how well the researcher has
modeled thc variance in the outcome and how accurately an outcome can be predicted.
It is important to note. however. that this study is not about modeling a speci tic
outcome~ rather it is about detcnnining whether meaningful differences exist between
control groups (non-honors and invited honors) and honors students. For this reason. a
low R-square was of less concern to the researcher than the signi ticance level of the
regression coefficients.
When viewing results of each ANCOVA. the variable is followed by three
columns in each table. The first column (~1odel I) indicates whether there are average
differences between the groups (honors versus non-honors and invited versus non
honors). The second column (Model 2) indicates whether there are average differences
associated with populations. regardless of the program. Finally. the third column
88
(Model 3) indicates whether there are differential effects or interactions of program
participation for minority versus non~minority students and female versus male students.
Each composite is tied to a research question.
ANCOVA Results
Do students in tbe tbree groups engage differentiall~'in a \'arie~' of student
acth'ities after one ~'ear?
Gsing specific items from the CSEQ. 5 composites were developed around this
question to explore whether or not differences existed between the honors and non
honors groups. The first.:! of these 5 composites concern student mteraction with
faculty. \Vhile the first faculty composite explores fonnal interaction (about class
assignments, academic programs or course content). the second faculty composite is
interested in student experiences with faculty "outside of the classroom:' including
whether or not students engaged in more in-depth discussions with faculty about topics
beyond the scope of a particular course. The third composite provides infonnation
about students' experiences with art. music, and theater; while the fourth composite
addresses personal interactions with other students on campus. The final composite
concerns student involvement with campus clubs and organizations. A brief analysis of
the findings follows output for each composite.
89
Composite I General Interaction with Facul~'
CSEQ Asks: III your experience at this instillitioll durmg the current school year. abouthow often have you done each ofthe following? Indicate your response byfilling ill onea/the o\'ols to Ihe right a/each state,,,ent (ren' Often. Often. Occasional/v, Never).
l.
,
3.
4.5.
6.
Talked with your instructor about infonnation related to a course youwere taking (grades. make-up work. assignment. etc.)Discussed your academic program or course selection with a facultymember.Discussed ideas for a tcnn paper or other class projcct \vith a facultymember.Worked harder as a result of feedback from an instructor.Asked your instructor for comments and criticisms about your academicperformance.\Vorked harder than you thought you could to meet an instructor' sexpectations and standards.
RehabJln)' (Cronbach alpha) :;: .7950
Table II General Facult}' loteraction
~Iodell l\lodel2 I\lodel J
-.119.013
HonorsInvited Honors~1inority
GenderInteraction (Minority/Honors)Interaction (l\1inority/lnvited)Interaction (Gender/Honors)Interaction (Gender/Invited)
InterceptR-Squarc
• = p < .10.·· P < .05. ••• P < .0 I
.238 (.177)
.168 (.175).258 (.178).270 (.277).329 (.191)*.162 (.168)
-.302··.043
.435 (.268)
.232 (.337)
.181 (.247)
.367 (.232)
.116 (.406)1.64 (.801 )**-.417 (.354)-.603 (.627)
-.351**.080
Modell in Table 11 suggests that on average students' academic engagement
with faculty is about the same. regardless of their participation in the honors program.
90
Although traditional honors and invited honors students report higher levels of
engagement than non-honors students. the ditTerences are not statistically significant.
Interestingly. ~1odel 2 indicates that minority students. regardless of their academic
program. report higher Icvels of engagement than non-minority students (approximately
one third of a standard deviation. a moderately large difference).
~todel 3. however. suggests that this difference is the function of the academic
engagement of invited minority students only. Thesc students report an engagement
level 1.6 standard deviation (a large cffect) above non-minority. non-honors students.
\\'hile these data do not pennit strong causal attributions. being invited to participate in
an honors program may ha\'c encouraged minority student engagement with faculty.
though it had no apparent effect on the engagement of invited non-minority students,
Composite 2 Interaction ,,'jIb Facult~' Outside tbe Classroom
CSEQ Asks: In your £'xperU!llce at this illstilltlioll during the current school year, ahoutho\\' ojiell hal'c you dOlle euch a/the /ollowl1lg? Indicate your response byjil/illg 1Il olleoflhe ovals (0 the nght ofeueh s{u{ellze1U (Verr Olien. Often. Occusiollallr. ,Vel/er).
1...,
3.
Discussed your carcer plans and ambitions with a faculty member.Socialized with a faculty member outside of class (had a snack or softdrink. etc.).Participated with other students in a discussion with one or more facultymembers outside ofclass.
RehabJliry (Cronbach alpha) .7128
91
Table 12 Interaction "'itb Facul~' Outside of Classroom
HonorsInvited HonorsMinorityGenderInteraction (~Iinority/Honors)
Interaction (Minority/Invited)Interaction (Gender 'Honors)Interaction (Gender,'Invited)
~Iodell
.185 (.178)
.008 (.277)
l\lodel 2 l\lodel J.257 (.178) .692 (.267)·".073 (.277) -.007 (.335).486 (.191 )*** .464 (.247)·-.158 (.169) .126 (.232)
-.116 (.404).695 (.796)
-.774 (.353 )••.199 (.623)
-.077.008
InterceptR-Square
• ::-: p < 10.·· P < .05. ••• P < .01
-.164.054
-.289·.102
i\lodel I in Table 12 shows that students' academic engagement with faculty
outside of the classroonl is about the same. regardless of their participation in the honors
program. Although traditional honors and invited honors students report higher levels
of engagement than non-honors students. the differences are not signiticant statistically.
As was the case with "general faculty interaction." Model 2 indicates that minority
students report higher levels ofengagement than non-minority students. regardless of
\vhethcr or not they are engaged in the honors program. At roughly half of a standard
deviation. this is a moderately large difference. In contrast to "general faculty
interaction." engagement with faculty outside of the classroom is not isolated to
"invited" minority students but all minority students. Thus. minority students in
general. regardless of honors participation. report higher levels of engagement in this
composite.
92
The most interesting finding is presented in ~fodel 3 and finds that male and
female honors students reported substantially different engagement with faculty. While
male honors students presented significantly higher levels of engagement than
traditional students (.692). female honors students reported essentially the same levels
of engagement (-.082). If participation in honors has a positive effect on student
engagement with faculty. it is only for male honors students.
Although an absence of a comparable interaction for invited students exists. the
sign and magnitude of the Interaction are about the same. even though it is not
significant. Non-significance is most likely a result of the small sample size for invited
students. No indication of selection bias affecting the reports of traditional honors
students is noted.
93
Composite 3 Experience witb Art4 !\Iusic and Theater
CSEQ Asks: In your experience at this l/Istitution during the current school year. abollthow often hal'e you done each ofthe fo/lo"\'illg? b,dicate your response byjil/ing in oneorthe 0\'£115 to the right ofeach statement (ren' Often. Often. Occasiona/l\'. iVever).
1.
.,
3.
4.
5.6.
7.
Talked about art (painting. sculpture. artists. etc.) or the theater (plays.musicals. dance. etc.) with other students. friends. or family members.\Vent to an art exhibit/gallery or play. dance. or other theaterperformance. on or off the campus.Participated in some art activity (painting. pottery. weaving. drawing.etc.) or theater event. or worked on some theatrical production (acted.danced. worked on scenery. etc.). on or offcampus.Talked about nlusic or musicians (classical. popular. etc.) with otherstudents. friends. or family members.Attended a concert or other musical event. on or off campus.Participated in some musical activity (orchestra. chorus. dance. etc.) onor offcampus.Read or discussed the opinions of art. music. or drama critics.
ReliabIlity (Cronbach alpha) co .841JO
Table 13 Experience ,,·itb Art4 i\1 usic and Theater
HonorsInvited Honorsl\1inorityGenderInteraction (M inority/Honors)Interaction (f\.1inority/Invited)Interaction (Gender/Honors)Interaction (Gender/Invited)
~lodell
.077 (.179)
.016 (.278)
!\lodel2.026 (.180).044 (.281)-.193 (. 194),298 (. 171 )*
~1odel3
.054 (.275)-. 134 (.346)-.257 (.254).289 (.238).229 (.417)-.355 (.822)
-.145 (.363).832 (.643)
InterceptR-Square
-.031.001
-.109.026
-.084.044
• p<.IO.··=p<.05.··· p<.OI
94
Model I in Table 13 reports that students' experience with art~ music. and, theater
is about the same. regardless of participation in an honors program. Although traditional
honors and invited honors students repon higher levels of involvement than non-honors
students. the differences are not statistically significant. Model 2 points out that male
and female students. regardless of their curricular program. differ in their level of
engagement with these type of activities. with female students reponing roughly one
third of a standard deviation more involvement in activities related to an. music and
theater. This pattern foHows stereotypical notions about male versus female interest in
particular activities. such as art. music, and theater.
Since ~todel 3 found no significant interactions in this composite. the effects of
traditional honors and invited honors are the same tor different populations (minority
versus non-minority and male versus female students).
Composite ... PersooalloteractioDS
CSEQ Asks: b, your experience at tlzis institution during {he current school year. aboUlhow oJtell ha\'e yOli done each ofthe fol/o'wing? Indicate your response byfilling in oneofthe ovals to the right ofeach statement (Ver\' Often. Often. Occasional/v. Never).
1. Told a friend or family member why you reacted to another person theway you did.
2. Discussed with another student. friend. or family member why somepeople get along smoothly, and others do not.
3. Asked a friend for help with a personal problem.4. Asked a friend to tell you what he or she really thought about you.
ReliabilIty (Cronbach alpha) .8330
95
Table t... Personal Interactions
l\lodel I l\lodel 2 ~lodel JHonorsInvited HonorsMinorityGenderInteraction (Minority/Honors)Interaction (Minority/[nvited)Interaction (Gender/Honors)Interaction (Gender' Invited)
.125 (.179)-.021 (.278)
.077 (.165) .267 (.247)
.211 (.258) .323 (.310)
.275 (.177) .232 (.228)
.796 (.157)···1.00 (.214)···-.167 (.374)1.59 (.738 )••-.315 (.326)-.1.10 (.577)*
InterceptR-Square
• p<.IO.··=p<.05.··· p<.OI
-.047.004
-.513"·.184
-.595···.229
~1odel 1 in Table 1... indicates that students' personal interactions with peers are
about the same. regardless of their participation in an honors program. As one might
predict. ~(odel 2 reports that male and female students interact di fferently with peers.
regardless of whether or not they participate in the honors program. Females report
roughly .8 a standard deviation more engagement in personal interactions than do male
students (a moderately large di fference).
rvlodel 3. however. indicates that invited minority students reported substantially
greater personal engagement than non-honors students (roughly 1.6 standard deviation~ a
large effect). Therefore. minority students who were "invited" to participate in honors.
interact di fferently with their peers than do minority non-honors students.
96
Composite 5 Participation in Clubs and Organizations
CSEQ Asks: III your experience at this institution during the current school :rear, abouthow often have yOll done each ofthe following? Indicate your response byji//ing in oneo(rhe ovals to the right ofeach statement (Fen' Often. Often. Occasional/v, .!VeverJ.
1.
.,
.....J.
4.
Attended a meeting of a campus club, organization. or studentgovernment group.Worked on a campus committee. student organization. or project(publications. student government. special event, etc.).~tet with a faculty member or staff advisor to discuss the activities of agroup or organization.~Ianaged or provided leadership for a club or organization. on or off thecampus.
Reliability (Cronbach alpha) .7871
Table 15 Participation in Clubs and Organizations
HonorsInvited HonorsMinorityGenderInteraction (Minority/Honors)Interaction (Minority/Invited)Interaction (Gender/Honors)Interaction (Gender/Invited)
~lodell
.218 (.178)
.283 (.277)
l\lodel2.197(.180).349 (.281).038 (.193).261 (.171)
!\lodelJ.161 (.275).192 (.345)-.098 (.253).273 (.237).173 (.416)
1.22 (.821)-.030 (.362)-078 (.642)
-.113.014
p < .01
-.249.03 I
-.210.047
Model I in Table 15 indicates that student participation in clubs and
organizations is about the same, regardless ofwhether or not they participate in the
program. Although traditional honors and invited honors students report higher levels of
97
engagement than non-honors students. the differences are not statistically significant.
~10del 2. found that there is no indication that minority and non-minority. nor
male and female students. regardless of their academic program. engage in these
activities differently. Since ~1odel 3 reported no significant interactions in this
composite. the effects of traditional honors and invited honors are the same for different
populations (minority versus non-minority and male versus female students).
Do students in tbe tbree groups assess tbeir acbie"ement on specified
outcome variables differently after one ~'ear'?
Using specific Items from the CSEQ. 3 composites were developed around this
question to explore whether or not there were differences between the honors and non
honors groups. In each of these composites. students were asked to think about their
perceived progress in particular areas over their first year at the institution. The first
composite (Table 16) inquires about students' perceived gains in. and exposure to. a
general education and the liberal arts. This is especially interesting since gains in this
area are often cited benefits to participating in an honors program. The second
composite (Table 17) explores perceived gains in science and technology. while the third
composite (Table 18) considers students perceived progress in critical thinking and
analytical skills.
98
Composite 6 Gains in General Education and the Liberal Arts
CSEQ Asks: 111 thinking about YOllr college or 111li\'ersity experience up 10 llOW, to whatextent do yOll/eel you Jza\"e gained or made progress in the /o/Jowillg areas? Indicateyour rt'sponse byfilling ilZ one ofthe o\'als to the right 0/each statement rVery !tluch,Qilite a Bit, Some, f cry Little).
1.
3.4.5.6.
7.
Acquiring knowledge and skills applicable to a specific job or type ofwork (vocational preparation).Gaining a broad general education about different fields of knowledge.Gaining a range of information that may be relevant to a career.Developing an understanding and enjoyment of art~ music. and drama.Broadening your acquaintance with and enjoyment of literature.Seeing the importance of history for understanding the present as well asthe past.Learning to adapt to change (new technologies. di fferent Jobs. or personalcircumstances. etc.).
Rchablhty (Cronbach alpha) '" 7025
Table 16 Gains in General Education and tbe Liberal Arts
-.166.043
HonorsInvited HonorsMinorityGenderInteraction (M inority/Honors)Interaction (Minorityllnvited)Interaction (Gender/Honors)Interaction (Gender/Invited)
InterceptR-Square
• :::: p < .10. •• = P < .05. ••• P < .01
~Iodel I ~lodel2
.424 (.175)" .416(.177)**-.130 (.272) .414 (.277)
.083 (.191 )
.170 (.168)
-.273".052
99
1\lodelJ.624 (.272)**-.262 (.341).077 (.250).287 (.234).221 (.411)-.180(.810)-,394 (.358).459 (.634)
-.326*.068
Model I in Table 16 indicates that students perceived gains or progress in the
areas of general education and the liberal arts is different for honors students than it is for
non-honors students. In this case. honors students believe they have made greater
progress in this area than students not participating in the honors program (roughly 1/3 of
a standard deviation. a moderately large effect). Model 2 did not find that there are
gender or minority population differences. Since Model 3 found no significant
interactions in this composite. the effects of traditional honors and invited honors are the
same for different populations (minority versus non-minority and male versus female).
Composite 7 Estimatio2 Gains in Science and Technolog~'
CSEQ Asks: III thinking ahout your college or unil'ersi~\' experience up to now. to whatextent do yOlljeel you hal'e gained or made progress in the jollowing areas? Indicateyour response hyjilling ill one ojthe ovals to the right ojeach statement (Very Alueh.QUite a Bit. Some, Ven'Little).
1.
3.
Understanding the nature of science and experimentation.Understanding new developments in science and technology.Becoming aware of the consequences (benefits. hazards. dangers) of newapplications of science and technology.
Rehability (Cronbach alpha) .8688
100
Table 17 Estimating Gains in Science and Tecbnolog,'
HonorsInvited HonorsMinorityGenderInteraction (Minority/Honors)Interaction (rv1inority/lnvited)Interaction (Gender/Honors)Interaction (Gender/lnvited)
l\lodell.312(.175).452 (.280)-
l\lodel 2 l\lodel 3.387 (.174)-- .413 (.264).497 (.278)· .876 (.343 )•••.478 (.187)··· .629 (.243)-··-.221 (.165) -.180(.228)
-.241 (.399)-1.02 (.790).066 (.348)-.771 (.621)
-.177.031
p < .01
-.227.081
-.296·.109
rvlodel I in Table 17 indicates that students pcrcei ved gains or progress in the
areas of science and technology is different for honors students than it is for non-honors
students. Those participating in the honors program report roughly one third of a
standard deviation greater gains (a moderately large effect) than non-honors students in
this area.
There also appear to be several differences associated with populations.
regardless of their program affiliation. Model 2 found that minority and invited honors
participants report their progress differently on this measure. Invited students report
greater gains than non-honors students (roughly one half of a standard deviation, a
moderately large effect) and minority students report greater gains than non-minority
(also roughly one half of a standard deviation). Since there were no significant
interactions in this composite (Model 3)~ it suggests that the effects of traditional honors
101
and invited honors are the same tor different populations (minority versus non-minority
and male versus female students).
Again. whenever a significant difference occurs between honors and non-honors
participants. it is important to detennine whether invited and traditional honors students
report the same difference. \Vhen they do. selection bias can be ruled out. In this case.
there is a difference between traditional honors and invited honors (.110 of a standard
deviation). The difference. however. is small and favors invited students. From the data.
it appears the di fference results from the small sample size of invited students rather than
selection bias. There is no indication. therefore. of selection bias affecting the reports of
the traditional honors students.
Composite 8 Estimating Gains in Critical Tbinking and Analytical Skills
CSEQ Asks: I" thinking aboul your college or ulli\'ersi~\'experience up 10 flOW. 10 'whateXlent do you feel you have gained or made progress ill the following areas? Indicateyour response hyfilli1lg ill olle ofthe o\'als [0 the right ofeaeh statement (Very Alue".Quite a Bit. SO",e. ren'Little).
1..,
3.
4.
Thinking analytically and logically.Analyzing quantitative problems (understanding probabilities•proportions, etc.)Putting ideas together, seeing relationships. similarities. and di fferencesbetween ideas.Learning on your own. pursuing ideas. and finding infonnation you need.
ReliabilIty (Cronbach alpha) = .7729
102
Table 18 Estimating Gains in Critical Thinking and Analytical Skills
-.625.016
HonorsInvited HonorsMinorityGenderInteraction (~linority/Honors)Interaction (l\Jlinority/lnvited)Interaction (Gender/Honors)Interaction (Gender,Invited)
InterceptR-SquJIe
.. p < .10..... = p < ,05. .... P < .01
!\Iodel I.197 (.179)
-. I 84 (.277)
l\lodel2.182 (.183)-.159 (.282).071 (.196)
.120 (.17~)
-.119.019
l\lodel3.222 (.278)
-.286 (.344)-.076 (.258).233 (.242).~35 (AI8)-.120 (.819)-.2.72 (.367).106 (.65~)
-.1 ~3
.050
Model I in Table 18 indicates that students' perceived gains or progress m the
areas of critical thinking and analytical skills is about the same. regardless of
participation in an honors program. ~1oreover. Model 2 reports that there is no
indication that minority and non-minority nor male and female students. regardless of
their academic program. estimate gains in critical thinking and analytical skills
differently.
Since rvtodel 3 found no significant interactions in this composite. the effects of
traditional honors and invited honors are the same for different populations (minority
versus non-minority and male versus female students). Moreover. there is no indication
that minority and non-minority nor male and female students perceive their progress
differently.
103
Does tbe le\'el of satisfaction witb tbe institution differ among tbe tbree
groups of students after one ~'ear?
Using specific items from the CSEQ. one composite was developed around this
question to explore whether or not there were ditTerences between honors and non-
honors groups. In each of these composites. students were asked to think. about their
satisfaction with the institution after their tirst year at the institution.
Composite 9
1.1
Satisfaction with College
How we!! do you like college?If you could start over again. would you go to the same institution you arenow attending?
Reliability (Cronbach alphal ,7340
Table 19 Satisfaction with College
!\Iodel 1 ~Iodel 2 l\lodel3HonorsInvited HonorsMinorityGenderInteraction (Minority/Honors)Interaction (i\1inority/lnvited)Interaction (Gender/Honors)Interaction (Genderilnvited)
.1 ~6 (.178)
.151 (.278).122 (.181).160 (.283)-.097 (.195).127 (.172)
A88 (.275)*.187 (.345)-.147 (.253)Al7 (.237)·-.753 (.415)-l.03 (.820)-.671 (.362)·-.400 (.641)
-.760.005
p < .01
104
-.105.010
-.226.047
i\10del 1 in Table 19 suggests that on average students' satisfaction with college
is about the same regardless of their participation in the honors program. Although
traditional honors and invited honors students report higher levels of satisfaction than
non-honors students. the differences are not statistically significant. When considering
gender and minority status in Model 2. there also appear to be no significant differences.
~todel 3, however. indicates that participating in the honors program has a large
effect on the dependent variable for male students. and no real effect for female students.
iv1ale honors students report substantially higher levels of satisfaction (.488). while
female students report substantially lower levels of satisfaction (-.18). Satisfaction
reported by honors females is -.18 standard deviation below that reported by non-honors
females.
Since the effect tor traditional honors and invited honors is not the same, one
must consider the possibility that the effect is not a result of the program but a unique
effect of traditional male and female students. Quite possibly, however. being invited to
participate in honors may have protected or buffered female students from the factors
contributing to the dissatisfaction of traditional honors female students.
105
Table 20 Summa'1' or ANCO\"A Results
Composite !\Iodel I !\lodel2 Model 3
Question Answered: Question QuestionDifferences in Answered: Are Answered: :\reCurricular Program? there differences there differential
associated "'ith effects?populations.regardless of theprogram?
General Faculty :\0 sl~mticantdiffen:m:e ~Imonty students Invited mmontyInteraction reported higher students reponed
levels of substantially hIgherengagement than engagement WIthnon nunonty faculty than non-students. honors students.
Interaction with :\0 slgmficant dJtle:rence ~lmonty students \\'hlle male honorsFaculty Outside of reponed higher students reponedthe Classroom levels of sl~pllficantlyhigher
engagement than levels of engagementnon nunonty than traditionalstudents. students. female honor
students reponedessentially the samelevels of engagement
Expenence With An. ~o sigmticant dIfference Female students Effects of tradJttonal
~lu';lc and Theater reponed higher honors and mvltedlevels of honors are the samemvolvcment than for differentmale studems. populations (nunonry
vcrsus. non-nunonryand male versusfemale),
Personal ~o Significant difference Female students [nvlted minonty[meractions reponed higher students reponed
levels of substantially higherengagement than engagement than non-male students nunonty. non-honors
students.
106
PartIcIpatIon In ~o slgmticant dIfference ~o 51glllticant Effects of traditionalClubs and dIfference honors and mVltedOrgalllzatrons honors were the same
for differentpopulatIOns (mmontyversus non-nunorityand male versusfemale).
Gams m General Honor~ students reported So slgmficant Effects of traditionalEducation and the greater progress m this difference honors and mVltedLIberal Arts area than students not honors were the same
particIpating m the for differenthonors program. populations ~ nunonty
versus non-nunont)'and male versusfemale).
Estlmatmg Gains m Honors students reported ~1monty students Effects of traditionalSCience and greater progress m this reported greater honors and mVltedTechnology area than students not gams than non- honors were the same
particIpating tn the mmonty students. for differenthonors program. In\'lted students also populatIOns (rrunonty
reported ~'Tcater versus non-nunontygains than non- and male versushonors students. female),
Esumatmg Gams In ~o slgmficant dIfference :"'0 slgmficant Effects of tradItIonalCntlcal llunkmg difference honors and InVItedand Analytical Skills honors were the same
for dIfferentpopulatIons (nunontyversus non-nunontyand male versusfemale).
Satisfaction wuh ~o slgmficant difference So slglllticant Male honors studentsCollege difference reported substantially
hIgher levels ofsatisfaction.
107
Quantitath'e Results (Research Questions 4 and 5)
Do grade point a\'erages of students in the three groups differ significantly
after one ~'ear?
Using data supplied by the institution's registrar. the grade point averages were
calculated for each of the three groups after the completion of their freshman year. In
contrast to the 8SA percent who completed the questionnaire. this portion of the data
consists of 100 percent of the originally selected group of 86 honors students (which
included :!3 invited honors students) and 86 non-honors students.
Earlier research indicates that participation in an honors program increases the
likelihood that students will graduate with a higher grade point average than non-honors
students (Astin. 1993). Prior to discussing the results. however. it is important to note
that no effort was made to control for the types of courses completed by students in the
study. The limitation. therefore. is that these students were not necessarily experiencing
the same classes. The results of the GPA companson and an Independent Samples T
Test are provided in Table 21.
108
Table 21 T-Test Results Comparing Grade Point A\'erages orStud~'
Participants Arter tbe Completion or First Academic Year
StandardGroup N l\lean Deviation Significance
GPA
Honors (all) 86 3.41 .59 .07
Non-Honors 86 3.18 .75
GPA
Honors 63 3.38 .58 .10(without in\'ited)
Non-Honors 86 3.18 .75
GPA
Honors 63 3.38 .58 .87(,,·ithout in\'ited)
In\'ited 23 3.48 .63
*p<.05
Table 21 indicates that honors students outperfonned non-honors students as
measured by cumulative grade point averages at the conclusion of their freshmen year.
\\'hile the 86 honors students earned a mean cumulative grade point average of 3.41.
similarly credentialed non-honors students earned a 3.18. This difference would be
statistically significant at .07. suggesting that this is a substantial difference. When the 23
invited honors students are removed from consideration, the mean cumulative honors
!,'Tade point average drops to 3.38, and would be statistically significant at .10 when
109
compared to non-honors students and their 3.18 grade point average. The invited honors
students~ however. outperfonned both non-honors~as well as traditional honors students
by earning a mean cumulative grade point average of 3.48. Evidence~ therefore, would
indicate participation in the honors program. especially if you are invited. has a positive
effect on students' academic perfonnance as measured by cumulative grade point
average.
Does persistence to the sopbomore ~'ear differ among tbe tbree groups of
students?
Using data supplied by the institution's registrar. it was determined which
individuals returned to campus as a registered student for their sophomore year. In
contrast to the 85,.. percent who completed the questionnaire. this portion of the data
consists of 100 percent of the originally selected group of 86 honors students (which
included 23 invited honors students) and 86 non-honors students.
Table 22 Rates of Return for Sophomore Year among Study Participants
Program Number not Retentionreturning for Ratesophomore year
HODors 00f63 100%
HODors Invited 30f23 870/0
All Honors 30f86 970/0
Non-Honors 90f86 900/0
Institution all freshman 84%
110
Table 22 reports that all of the traditional honors students returned for their
sophomore year at the institution. Of the 23 invited honors students. 3 failed to persist.
In total. 97 percent (or J of 86) honors students returned for their sophomore year. In
contrast. only 90 percent (or 9 of 86) non-honors students persisted to their second year
on campus.
Qualitath'e Focus Groups Results
This section will present findings from the four qualitative focus groups
conducted as part of this study. The findings were generated through the application of
the Constant Comparative ~tethod (Glaser and Strauss, (967) to interview tapes and an
abridged transcript of the focus groups. Krueger's (1994) "Systematic Steps in Data
Gathering" and "member checks" were also utilized to minimize human error in the
reporting of data \'lith the goal of maintaining the trustworthiness of the study's findings.
Consistent with the characteristics of qualitative research and focus groups in particular.
the research has provided numerous direct quotations from participants that are
representative of the findings. Names of participants, however. have been excluded to
protect their identities. It should also be noted that the researcher did not edit quotations
of study participants. as "the researcher has an obligation to fairly and accurately present
the views of participants" (Krueger, 1994, p. 154).
\Vhereas the quantitative analysis asked specific questions concerning the
relationship between university honors participation and student outcomes. the
II 1
qualitative data emerged within the contines of a guided conversation. The principal
areas of interest. however. were questions surrounding students' perceived experiences
and overall satisfaction with the university. The complete Focus Group Moderators
Guide is provided in Appendix G.
While the conversation varied from focus group to focus group. the data analysis
procedures uncovered several clearly articulated themes. Some topics in the Moderator's
Guide are not addressed in the findings. This does not indicate an omission in the
presentation, but rather suggests the analysis of some data yielded no consistent theme
worthy of attention. Instead, the researcher looked for "big ideas [that] emerge from an
accumulation of evidcnce-\vords used. body language. intensity of comments·- rather
than from isolated comments" (Krueger. 1994. p. 151). As a caution. it is important to
remember that qualitative results cannot necessarily be generalized to the study
populations. Nevertheless. the quasi-experimental process employed in selecting the two
study groups created theoretically representative samples. The focus group participants
were selected directly from these populations.
The richness of the data collected from the focus groups cannot be overstated.
The challenge for this researcher was to reduce the six hours of audio tape and abridged
transcript into themes helpful for understanding how these students perceive their
experience at the university. As Krueger warns. "A critical aspect in surviving the deluge
of materials is to focus the analysis.... The challenge for the researcher is to place
112
primary attention on questions that are at the foundation of the study" (Krueger, 1994. p.
(30). As discussed in Chapter 3, "a.xial coding" was employed so that data could be
fractured and reassembled. From this process. nine themes were derived and are
presented in Table 23. Each of these themes will be explored separately below.
Table 23 Summal1' of Focus Group Findings
Researcher's Findings (Themes)
THEl\IE 1. Upon entering the study. the researcherproceeded under the assumption that non-honorsstudy participants would experience the university inmuch the same manner as other non-honors studentsat the institution, The focus groups revealed theunanticipated variable that most non-honors studyparticipants (in the focus groups). because of theirhigh academic credentials. received full scholarshipsto the institution. As a result. these students haveaccess to resources not afforded to all students at theinstitution and perceive themselves as "special" or"unique." 1\lost of the "honors" focus groupparticipants also fell into this category, and thus. wereafforded even greater access to resources.
113
Impact
"Many non-honorsstudents understandthemselves as"unique" or hspeciar'and are providedaccess to resources notnecessarily afforded toall students at theuniversity.
-tl\1any honorsstudents receive a"double dose" ofsupport as a result ofparticipating in thehonors program andreceiving a fullscholarship at theinstitution.
THEl\'IE 2. As was stated in Theme I, students inboth the honors and non-honors groups perceivedthemselves as "special" or "unique" students at theuniversity. Both groups also believed thisunderstanding is reinforced through interactions withfaculty and staff.
THE!\IE 3. Students in both the honors and nonhonors groups maintain high expectations for theirperformance in college and described having frequentfeelings ofHfear of failure" during the initial monthsof their first year at the institution. While almost allof the focus group participants (in both groups)articulated this perception. approximately half foundtheir "fear" unwarranted and performed academicallyat levels equivalent to their high school experience.The other half (in both groups) found that they didnot perform at the level of success they experiencedin high school and have therefore adjusted theirexpectations.
THE!\IE 4. While both groups describe "important"interaction with staff at the institution. honorsstudents articulated more experiences with facultythan non-honors students.
114
"'Students in honorsand non-honors groupscan clearly articulatetheir understanding ofbeing "special"students at theuniversity. Students inboth groups sense their"unique" status isfostered or at leastsupported by thefaculty and staff.
"'Students in bothgroups describe facultyand staff as"instrumental" indealing with theirfeelings of fear. aswell as processing the"meaning" of theirearned grades.
"Students in bothgroups believe theyreceive betteracademic advisingthan "other students"at the university.
"The structure of thehonors college andhonors classesfacilitates greaterinteraction withfaculty.
THEl\'IE S. Almost all non-honors students were ..The decisive factoraware of the honors program and considered for non-honorssubmitting an application. The consistent reason students not pursuingdescribed by non-honors students for not pursuing admission to theadmission to the honors college was their honors college "'as theunwillingness to complete essay questions required application process.by the application.
THEl\tE 6. ""Invited" honors students submitted an "Receiving a letterapplication for admission to the honors college for from the honorsone of two reasons: 1) they were not previously director requestingaware of the honors college. or 2) they had initially their applicationdismissed completing the application but found the served as anletter from the honors director the encouragement introduction to theneeded to follow through on the admission process. possibility of honors
college admission orprovided necessaryencouragement tocomplete theapplication.
THEI\IE 7. Both honors and non-honors students "Financial incentivesdescribed the decisive factor for attending the were critical to theinstitution as financial (receiving a scholarship). 1\1ost decision to attend thefocus group participants (in both groups) expected university. notless satisfaction with the institution than they actually admission to theexperienced. By the conclusion of their freshman honors college.year, most focus group participants said they"'couldn'( imagine being at another institution." "Students in both
groups articulatedbeing very satisfiedwith their collegechoice and in manycases were "'surprised"by their level ofsatisfaction.
115
THEl\IE 8. The honors college peer mentoringprogram was perceived by honors students asespecially influential in their success at college.
THEl\IE 9 Both honors and non-honors studentsbelieved they value "school" and "academics" morethan many of their peers.
..An intentional peermentoring programimplemented by thehonors college IS
articulated as "one ofthe best things aboutbeing in honors."
"Students in bothgroups at times feelout of place with peerswho they perceive donot value academicsuccess in the sameway they do.
"'Honors students findparticipation in thehonors collegeprovides a respite fromfriends who do notvalue the academicexperience in the sameway they do.
Theme I The Unanlicipated Variable
This study was designed to control for as many confounding variables as
possible. Therefore "caliper matching" (Anderson et a1.. 1980) was utilized in an attempt
to achieve comparability of the treatment and comparison group. Students in the honors
group were matched one for one with students in the non-honors group based on their
race. gender. campus housing status. SAT score and grade point average. As a result, all
participants in the study. whether in the honors or non-honors group. eamed at least a 3.5
116
high school grade point average and a mmimum of a 1250 cumulative SAT score.
Upon entering the study. the researcher proceeded under the assumption that non
honors study participants would experience the university in much the same manner as
other non-honors students at the institution. The focus groups revealed the unanticipated
variable that most non-honors study participants (in the focus groups). because of their
high academic credentials. received full scholarships to the institution. As a result. these
students have access to resources not afforded to all students at the institution. Most of
the "honors" focus group participants also fell into this category. and thus. were afforded
even greater access to resources.
During focus group discussions with non-honors students. it became obvious that
students participating perceived themselves to be in a "special" class; those who received
a full scholarship to attend the university. Many of the students referred to themselves
as "scholars" or "humanities scholars" and described being proud of their special
designation. These non-honors students referred frequently to the "scholarship office" as
a place where they receive special attention. interact with staff employed specifically to
assist them. and gain academic advising on the basis of their scholarship status.
Discussions concerning how students perceive being a "scholarship student" influences
their college experience will be included with comments concerning Theme 2.
The second unanticipated variable was the discovery that many honors students
also receive full scholarships to the institution and are therefore afforded access to certain
I 17
resources. In their view. the scholarship students get "special attention" but an honors
student. as one focus group participant put it, gets a "double dose of attention:' Another
honors student noted, "I feel sorry for the regular student who has to deal with the
school's administrative bureaucracies all the time:'
Tbeme 2 Feeling A part of a ....Special" Class of Students
Among honors students. there was general consensus that being in "honors"
carries with it "a little prestige." especialJy as one student remarked "in the way you're
treated by taculty." Another honors focus group participant recalled being told by a
faculty member prior to selecting the institution that being in honors "carries clout "'ith
the faculty:' Students know that being in honors comes with privileges and access to
resources. and for some this was a primary motivation for affiliation.
\Vhile some honors group participants viewed being in honors as a means for
gaining access to resources and prestige. others spoke openly about how membership
with the honors college boosted their self esteem or academic performance. One
individual. tor example. asserted that being labeled "honors" spurs on better work. She
coined the phrase "honors effect" and articulated it this way:
The main thing honors has done for me is make me feel bettcr about being at theschool. They [the university] make me feel like they want me here. I feel likethey want and expect me to do well. and I don't want to let them down. Vie aretreated so much better than everyone else.
By far. however. the strongest feelings about being "special" came from those
118
who were on scholarship, some of whom were in honors and others who were not. In
fact. one non·honors focus group participant did not want to depart the subject. and the
entire group engaged the one student expressing the view that he "wasn't treated
differently as a scholarship student:' Two students countered his assertion with their
expenences:
Professors find out that you're on full scholarship~ and they treat you differently.I think they even give you difTerent grades. How can you deny this? It's soobvious.
Once I had a time conflict with class for a humanities scholars event, and when Itold my professor and she learned I was a humanities scholar, she said "don'tworry about it." I could tell she was impressed. Another faculty member told meshe was surprised I was in her section since I was a humanities scholar. Theythink we're awcsomc.
Theme J Fear of Failure
One consistent theme with both groups 0 f students (honors and non-honors) was
their frequent mcntion of being "scared," "worried," or "concerned" about doing as well
in college as they did in high school. \Vhether or not students were enrolled in the
honors program, they articulated having high expectations for succeeding academically
and having at least some concerns about doing \vell. "I was a good w:-:t:; in high
schooL" one non-honors student asserted, "but I worried that college would be much
harder. I didn't know how I was going to do." Another non-honors student said, '''1 was
always great in science. and I failed my first chemistry test. I was so defeated that I
skipped class for a week." Two honors students expressed their uncertainty this way:
119
Last semester I took a 300 level English class. I was totally intimidated. I didn'tknow anything about what I was supposed to do to write a college paper. I knewit was totally different from high school. When the first essay was assigned. Iwent to ask the teacher for some help regarding the assignment and whatdirection to take since I was a freshman. I was scared to death ofgetting a badgrade.
\Vith the transition to college and moving to a new state, I still managed to dovery well. I stayed in the honors college and stayed off academic probation.which was a big fear of mine.
By the conclusion of their first year on campus. most focus group participants
believed that their fears were unwarranted and that their ability to earn high grades
continued into college. A small subset had to face the reality that earning all As was not
possible. and appeared equally present among both groups. Two remarks from an honors
and a non-honors student respectively are provided below, and capture the sentiment of
others in this sub-set:
Last semester. for the first time ever in my life, I didn't get a steady A average. Infact. I ended up getting a 2.5. There was a lot of drama and stuff that happened,but that was a real eye opener for me. I've always thought that people that dido'tmake As were lazy or they didn't work hard enough. I now know this isn'talways the case.
I was always used to doing well. It's not like I didn'l have to try, but I justthought it came more naturally for me. I didn't do well in the class and that isreally hard for me to take. I got a C; and I was, I am, devastated .... rm tryingto redefine my definition of success.
Students in both groups recalled conversations with faculty and staff as they
confronted their "fears." One honors student. who was facing the reality that he would
not be a top perfonner in college as he had been in high school. recounted discussions
120
with a faculty member as being "instrumental''' in his development. "She [the faculty
member] helped me see that grades don't measure intelligence, and shouldn'l be the only
detenniner of success." Fear of not getting through an English course, and the faculty
members' coaching, was a marker for one non-honors student. "She [the faculty
member] went over some of the stutT 1was missing [in papers], and I got it all together."
This student was happy to report that "I ended up nai ling the tinal draft" .. that gave me
so much confidence. and I nailed the whole class."
Theme" Access to Resources
One of the articulated benefits frequently cited by honors programs is that
participants havc additional access to rcsources. The institution in this study indicates
that stud",nts have extended borrowing privileges at the library, are afforded greater
opportunities to conduct research with faculty, have access to smaller and selective
courses. and recei\'c specialized academic advising with members of the honors college
faculty. As expected, many of the focus group students involved \vith the honors college
support these claims. As already noted, those students in the non-honors focus groups
revealed that they too receive assistance not necessarily afforded to other students on
campus. One specific resource that students in both honors and non-honors groups cite
as being especially influential is their access to specialized academic advising.
Honors students frequently expressed a sense of relief for having an honors
college advisor and compared their advising to that \,"hich they say non-honors peers
121
receIve. The following four statements are indicative of the many comments made by
honors students on the subject of academic advising.
Someho\\' I was placed in a remedial English class, and I couldn't get anyone tolisten to me. I spoke to the professor, went to the English department, and stillwasn't reassigned. [tried working with these people for a month, and still wasn'table to get into another class. I told them I took AP English in high school, andthat I considered English my best subject. Finally. I went to my honors advisorwho helped me resolve the problem in a day. I had been working with theEnglish department for a month. Thank goodness I had somewhere to go and gethelp. I wish I had gone to my advisor first.
I consider myself someone who needs to take lots ofclasses to maximize mypotential. They [the university] have rules that prevented me from taking morehours. The only reason I got to take as many courses as I did was because myhonors advisor signed off on it and advocated for me. That was the only reason,or I would have been stuck.
I have an honors college advisor, a psychology advisor. and a pre-mcd advisor.~Iy pre-med advisor was the least helpful. She didn't !ike the tact that I was apsychology pre-med major and kept making this very clear. She must havereiterated this 15 times. Frequently my psychology advisor and my pre-medadvisor contradicted each other. I'm so thankful for my honors advisor becauseshe helped me navigate what the other advisors were telling me. My roommatewasn't in honors, and she could never figure things out.
[Another student adds]: Honors advisors are a lot more personal. lOa. I got introuble with my GPA and Maureen [his honors advisor] actually made me feellike an honors student again. The other advisors could care less.
[A third student adds]: They [honors advisorsJ know you; they know what youwant to do with your life; they know who you need to talk to and help it happen.
[A fourth student addsJ: They also want you to be well rounded. They try tochallenge you to experience a variety of things. They have your best interests atheart. and the other campus advisors don't have a clue who you are or about whatthey're doing.
The focus groups with non-honors students, however, followed a remarkably
122
similar pattern as those with honors students. Non-honors participants felt equally
thankful for the academic advising assistance provided to them. Some of the remarks of
these students are included below:
I always have the humanities office on my side. Our advisors are really good.My roommate didn't have a scholarship and got regular advising. They (herroommate's advisors] like get really mad at you if you want something. Theyreally screwed her over.
[Another student adds]: Yeah~ my roommate~ too. Last semester he couldn't getany help and ended up taking the wrong class. Then the advisor says he nevertold him to take that class. There~s just a certain amount of respect thatscholarship students get that other students don't.
I go to the scholarship center a lot. The tirst person I met there has helped me allyear long. Whenever [ have a question, she is available. It doesn't even matter ifit's related to my scholarship or not.
The researcher also found that while both brrouPS describe "important" interaction
with staff at the institution. honors students articulated many more experiences with
faculty than non-honors students. Non-honors students were asked the question "who
has been particularly helpful to you this year?" Their responses revolved solely around
staff rather than faculty. While non-honors students "liked" the faculty, none of the
students in the non-honors focus groups believed they had significant interaction with
anyone faculty member. Instead. they cited relationships with their residence hall
director, student organization advisor, or a staff member in the scholarship center as
being influential. When asked who could provide a letter of recommendation on their
behalf. non-honors student responses were simi lar to the one below:
123
My community director [residence hall director] has helped me get connected andinvolved with other groups that I would not have pursued without her help. Shehelped me get involved enough that I'm going to be an RA next year under her.She has guided Ole along a lot. \Vhen I had a problem. I'd always go talk to her.One day I slept through a test. and she helped me devise a strategy for talking tothe professor. She could write a letter of reference for me easily.
On the contrary. honors students were readily able to cite a faculty member with
whom they have had the opportunity to establish a relationship. With the exception of
two students. each honors student felt as though they knew at least one faculty member
well enough to request a letter of recommendation. Two participants responded:
One thing I like about honors classes is that they are small. I know two of myprofessors very well. and I know they'd be happy to help me [with a letter ofrecommendation J.
Most of my professors know me. I've been lucky and had small and interestingclasses. That makes a big difference. They [faculty] seem to really care:'
One non-honors student mentioned frequently finding honors courses in the
schedule of classes that appear interesting. HI wish I could take some of those cool
classes. If you are not in honors though. it's a real hassle to get into one of those
sections." Non-honors students also described more instances of having bad teachers
than honors students.
THEl\IE 5 \Vhy Non Honors Students Did Not Pursue Honors CollegeAdmission
In the first focus group with non-honors students. an individual commented on
the "honors program." After pursuing whether on not participants were familiar with the
124
honors college. the researcher probed for the reason that this qualified group of students
forwent appl)ing for admission. Seven out of eight participants indicated that the
primary reason for not pursuing the honors program was their unwillingness to complete
what was. in their view. a lengthy essay application. One student put it this way:
I took one look at the application and said no way ...there are like five essays,and Ijust didn't want to do one more essay after completing so many collegeapplications.
In the second non-honors focus group, this question was again pursued. While
this group was not as passionate about the subject. they agreed that after revie\\'ing the
application they dismissed it on the basiS of the work required. One student even noted
he would have preferred to be involved with honors and said:
I would have rather been in the honors program so I could take some of thoseinteresting classes. If you're not in the program. it's a real hassle to take those[honors seminars]. I just didn't have the energy to get the application done intime. Sometimes I wish I had done it.
THEl\IE 6 \\'h~' "Invited'" Honors Students Submitted an Application to tbeHonors College
"Invited" honors students (as opposed to those who completed the application on
their own and with no additional incentive) submitted an application for admission to the
honors college for one of two reasons: 1) they were not previously aware of the honors
college or 2) they had initially dismissed completing the application, but found the letter
from the honors director the encouragement needed to follow through on the admission
process.
125
In a focus group of seven invited honors students. the researcher inquired
whether these students remembered receiving a letter from the honors college director
encouraging their application for admission. Of the seven. one student did not recall the
letter. Three students indicated they \\'ere generally unaware of the honors college prior
to receiving the leuer. although they may have heard it mentioned while visiting the
university. The remaining three students had considered applying and had obtained an
application but never completed it. For them. thc invitation lettcr provided incentive for
complcting the application. Intcrestingly. none of these students found receiving the
letter an honor nor percei ved it as an indication that they were being acti vcly recruited.
One studcnt noted. "I guess I didn't think much about it [the letter]. In fact. if you hadn't
mentioned it. I would havc forgotten it:'
THEl\IE 7 Satisfaction Greater tban Anticipated for Honors and Non-Honors
Overall. the focus groups did not reveal discrepancics in satisfaction among
honors and non-honors studcnts. For these students. however. college choice was largely
driven by financial considerations more than any other factor. In fact. most students
would have attended another institution had they not received a scholarship. l\10reover.
participants in both groups (honors and non-honors) said they were fully prepared to be
dissatisfied with their college choicc. With the exception of three students. all
participants would choose the institution again if they had the opportunity to re-make
their decision. The three dissenters indicated they were satisfied with the institution but
126
would have attended another campus had money not been an obstacle. One non·honors
participant stated his opinion this way:
If it wasn't about the money. no. I wouldn'l choose this school. I would not behere unless for a scholarship. That's the whole reason I'm here. rye had funhere. but I could have had fun somewhere better known.... I \\fill say I like it[the universityJ a lot more than I thought I would.
The consistent message from the other participants ",as one of"surprise" at the
extent to which they are satisfied with the institution. "I like the teachers; I like my
triends: I like cvery1hing.... I can't imagine being at another school:' noted one non·
honors student. Another participant (honors) noted:
I've changed from only coming here because of a scholarship to loving the place.Now I "...ork as an overnight host for the scholarship program, and I just \\',\nt toshow students how great this place is.
These students were not without complaints. The food and lack of weekend
activities ranked among the top complaints. Nevertheless. students in both honors and
non-honors groups appear to be satisfied with the institution.
THEI\IE 8 Honors Peer l\lentoriog Is an Innuential Part of the Experience
Overall. the focus group participants were exceptionally involved students and
there did not appear to be any pattern that differentiated the types of activities of honors
and non-honors students. Honors students mentioned participation in the Honors
College Association, but both groups participate equally in activities and organizations
such as fraternities, intramural sports, residence hall councils. orientation, and
1.., ..-,
community service. One interesting and pervasive difference, however, was the extent to
which honors students \'alued participation in a peer mentoring program where older and
younger honors students are paired together. Focus group discussions revealed that peer
mentors provided assistance with orientation to the university, advising concerning
classes to take, and as one student noted. "just plain friend stuff:' In pursuing a response
to "who has been the most important person to you this year." one honors student quickly
responded this way:
The person most important to me this year wasn't a professor. The honors groupis brokcn up into smaller groups of 10-12 students and each group has twoleaders who are upper-level students who have already been through honorsforum. They [leaders] help us through discussion and grade our journals. Myhonors teant leader has been instrumental to me this year. She was really like amentor to me.
Another student in the group responded similarly but indicated that it was his
friend's tcarn leader (peer mentor) who was most influential. Even \\'hen a student's
assigned peer mentor did not offer a connection for a student, there seemed to be
knowledge about other peer mentors. This practice of intentionally connecting older
students with younger students seems to reach beyond those to whom students have been
assigned by the honors college. One student attributed his ability to stay off academic
probation to a peer mentor. He noted:
rvte. too. I didn't bond with my team leader. but my friend's group leader was ofgreat help to me. She's the reason I'm not on probation now. She really helpedme make it through the semester.
128
THE1\IE 9 Differing \fith Peers about tbe Value of A~ademics
One theme that emerged from discussions with both honors and non-honors
groups was the extent to which these students feel pressure from peers because of their
inclination toward academic endeavors. They understand that they value "school" and
"academics" in a way that is different from many of their peers. One non-honors student
presented it in this way:
The weekend otten starts on Thursday, and I can't keep up with my school \'iorkif I live like my friends. . .. I create excuses so that they [my friends] don't thinkI'm too anal [about my school work].
For honors students. however, being associated \\'lth the honors college provided
a respite from their feelings of hbeing di fferenC' because of their pursuit of academic
activities. A series of statements in one focus group v;ith honors students captured this
sentiment.
Being in the honors program immediately connects you with people who are likeyou. I always valued academics and my friends thought that was weird. In highschool. we were dorks because we valued education so much. Honors surroundsus with people who have the same passion for succeeding.
[Another student adds]: I have my dumb friends and smart friends, and I don't tryto mix them. They just don't understand each other. My dumb friends try to holdme hostage sometimes because I won't skip class with them. Honors providesrelief from my dumb friends. I love thenl [dumb friends]. but we just think ofschool differently.
[Another student addsJ: SO many people think \\'e are strange for pushingourselves so hard. The dorms can feel isolating, especially if you're notconnected to honors.... I never study in my donn because no one studies there.It's just not a priority for a lot of students.
129
\Vhile non-honors students indicated a similar sentiment. they described seeking
out places to explore relationships with others \\"ho value academics. One student
expressed her tiresome journey of attempting to discuss philosophy and religion with her
peers on the crew team.
I got involved with the Philosophy Club because my friends hate it when I bringthose subjects up. They'd much rather talk about parties, boys, and music. Weare currently considering whether or not God actually exists. My athlete friendscould care less about stuff like this.
130
CH.-\PTER 5
Summary. Conclusions.. and Recommendations
This study began with a discussion of the importance of understanding how
educational policy influences student outcomes. Advocates for honors programs otTer a
familiar voice about the extraordinary benefits to students of such programmatic efforts
(Digby. 1997; ~lack. 1996). Peterson's Honors Programs. a college directory for
students preparing for higher education. describes honors education as such: "In every
casc. catering to thc [honors] student as an individual plays a central role in honors
course desibTfl. 1\fost honors classes are small (under 20 students) and discussion
oriented-giving students a chance to present their own interpretations of ideas.... The
classes help students mature intellectually and prepare them to engagc in their own
explorations and research" (Digby. 1999).
If honors programs produce the type of outcomes that advocates suggest. campus
administrators have a strong argument for the expenditure of resources to that end.
rvloreover. the environments created by honors programs could be mirrored or modified
to produce better outcomes for all students. As one scholar suggests. n ••• [universities
should] turn regular undergraduate education into one large honors progranl" (Sperber.
2000).
As frequently as proponents articulate the educational outcomes produced by
honors programs. there are other campus officials who focus primarily on attracting
131
highly credentialed students and therefore. aid the institution in what Seymour ( 1996)
labels the "resource-reputation paradigm'" The logic of Seymour's concept is that as
student SAT scores increase. so does institutional prestige and perceptions of overall
quality. One critic puts it this way. "Administrators are interested in efficiency; they
would like their institution to have an image of quality. but they don't want to pay the
price of actually providing it. so they promote their tiny honors programs and ihYflore the
other students" (Roilier. 2000. p. B4). Others such as Sullivan (1994), assert that honors
programs at colleges and universities spend as much as ten times more money on honors
students than those engaged in the traditional curriculum. Although Sullivan's claim
appears overstated and an unlikely disparity at most institutions. colleges and universities
have been criticized (Roilier, 2000~ Sperber. 2000) for the expenditure of additional
resources to this end.
Baylor University. a private institution in Texas. recently announced its '''ten-year
\"ision" for becoming a "top finy and tier one" university (Baylor University Ten- Year
Vision. 2002). It is not surprising that Baylor" like many other institutions. hopes to
sharpen the credentials of entering students and establish an "honors college" as part of
this initiative. Some colleges and universities attribute rises in National Merit Scholars
to an increased emphasis on honors programs (Hoover. 2002).
James Hefner. President of Tennessee State University. was recently reprimanded
by the institution's board of regents for using the honors program to recruit too many
132
students from outside the state. and then issuing in-state vouchers. The president
responded by noting his strategy was necessary ..... to attract excellent black and white
students to a university with a national reputation of being a historically black
institution" (\Veisscrt. 1999. p. A44)..-\re honors programs a priority because they
increase institutional prcstige~ Are honors programs a priority because of the outcomes
in student learning they produce?
Despite their popularity. their cost. and their controversy. there is little research
on the relationship between honors programs and student outcomes (Sell. 1984; Randall
and Spiller. 1985: Reilman. Varhus and Whiple. 1990; Bulakowski and Townsend. 1995;
Byrne. 1998). This study was designed to assess how students \I~"ere affected by
participation in such a program at a single institution in the Eastern United States.
\Vhat follows in this chapter is a summary of research findings and conclusions
that can be drawn from the analysis of the results. This chapter will also include a
discussion of the implications for practice and theory. the limitations of the study. and
needs for future research.
Selection Bias in tbe Stud~'
Prior to discussing the results~ however~ one must consider whether or not
selection bias appears to be an issue in this study. As already discussed. student
outcomes research attempts to compare similar students in different experiences and
often fails to account for differences that result from self selection (Pascarella and
133
Terenzini. 1991).
Even before analyzing the data.. it is acknowledged that there are group
differences between the invited honors and traditional honors groups. For example. the
traditional honors sample is ~9 percent male compared to 78 percent in the invited group.
In addition. the invited population had a mean SAT score of 1386 compared to 1346 in
the traditional honors sample. At an alpha of .05. these are statistically significant
differences. [n other ways. however. these groups are more similar. Both the invited
honors and traditional honors have similar minority populations (17 percent and 19
percent respectively). as well grade point averages (3.91 and 3.95 respectively). These
are not statistically significant differences. The use of ANCOVA and gender as a
covariate helps address the male-female differences. and the SAT mean was influenced
by several exceptionally high scores in a small sample of invited students. Nevertheless.
this suggests that it is di fficult to completely control for selection bias. which is a
potential limitation of this study.
As already noted, the inclusion of an invited group is an effort to control for self
selection. If the effects for the honors and invited groups are the same. then the
researcher is able more confidently to rule out selection bias. On the other hand. if the
effects are different. the cause may result from something other than students' experience
in the honors program. and the results should be interpreted with an understanding of this
possibility. Overall. the ANCOVA data for this study indicates that selection bias was
134
reduced by procedures employed through the research design. In some instances, it
appears that the effects for the honors and invited groups are about the same. This
suggests that little. if any. selection bias was influencing results.
In Table 24, for example. \\'hich reports the results for estimating gains in
science and technology. Model 2 reports only a small difference (.110 of a standard
deviation) between traditional honors and invited honors (and in this case it favors
invited students). This suggests that selection bias is not affecting the reports of
traditional honors students. This is the primary pattern presented by the results.
Table 24 Section Bias in the Study Gains in Science and Tecbnolog)"
HonorsInvited HonorsMinorityGenderInteraction (Minority/Honors)Interaction (Minority!lnvited)Interaction (Gender/Honors)Interaction (Gender/Invited)
l\lodel 1.312(.175)·.452 (.280)·
l\lodel2 ~odel3
.387 (.174)·· .413 (.264)
.497 (.278)· .876 (.343 )...
.478 (.187)··· .629 (.243)···-.221 (.165) -.180 (.228)
-.241 (.399)-1.02 (.790).066 (.348)-.771 (.621)
-. 177.031
-.227.081
-.296.109
Table 25. which reports the results from "interaction with faculty outside the
classroom:' follows a different pattern than the case cited above. In this situation, a
positive effect on student engagement with faculty for honors students does not produce
135
the same significant result for invited students. However. a closer look indicates the sign
and magnitude of the interaction is about the same. even though it is not significant.
Table 25 Selection Bias in Interaction "'ith Facult~' Outside of Classroom
HonorsInvited HonorsMinorityGenderInteraction (rvlinority/Honors)Interaction (!\1inorityllnvited)Interaction (Gender/Honors)Interaction (Gender; Invited)
!\Iodel I.185 (.178).008 (.:'77)
!\1odel 2 l\1odel 3.257 (.178) .692 (.267)···.073 (.277) -.007 (.335),486 (.191 )*** ,464 (.247)·-.158 (.169) .126 (.232)
-. 116 (.404).695 (.796)
-.774 (.353)··.199 (.623)
InterceptR-Square
• .::: p < .10.·· P <05...• p < .01
-.077.008
-.164.054
[n the instances of faculty interaction inside the classroom (Table 11) and liberal
arts (Table 16). a similar pattern appears. Arguably. non-significance most likely results
from a small sample size of invited students.
Overall. these results provide some assurance that higher levels of engagement
reported by honors students are not the result of unmeasured selection bias. By no means
can selection bias be completely ruled out. but there is evidence to suggest that this
frequent flaw of student outcomes research was minimized by the study's design.
136
Summary of Primary Findings
I. Tbis stud~- found tbat bonors and non-bonors students engaged in CSEQ
measured acth-ities at similar rates (excluding statistical interactions).
\\'ben measuring perceh-ed gains in critical areas sucb as tbe liberal arts"
science, and tecbnolo~-,ho,,'e"er, there were significant differences
statisticall~'.
In six of the seven composites where non-significance was reported (between
honors and non-honors students). the focus was on whether or not these two populations
engaged differently in a variety of activities measured by the CSEQ. In general. excluding
statistical interactions. honors and non-honors students participated similarly in the
measured activities. Although there is an indication that some populations within the
honors sample were affected differently (and which will be discussed later). there were no
significant differences found when comparing honors and non-honors students on
"activities" outcome variables. Faculty interaction. both inside and outside the classroom.
was found to be consistent across the 1\\'0 populations. Similarly. experience with art,
music, and theater; participation in clubs and organizations; and personal interactions with
peers all reported non-significant results when comparing similarly credentialed honors
and non-honors students.
In two of the three composites that measured gains in areas where institutions
often desire growth in students (general education, liberal arts, science and technology),
137
there were statistically significant differences. These items are discussed below.
2. Honors students estimate the~' ba\'e made greater gains in general
education and liberal arts.
Providing a liberal education is an often cited aim of honors programs (Mack.
1996). In fact. the honors program application of the institution in this study espouses
that participants will "obtain a rich liberal arts experience:' The results of this study
report that participants in the honors program estimate they have made greater gains in
this area than Similarly credentialed students not participating in the program. The effect
size is moderately large. approximately one-third of a standard deviation.
3. Honors students estimate the~' ba"e made greater gains in science and
technolog~·.
The results of this study report that panicipants in the honors program estimate
they have made greater gains in science and technology than simi larty credentialed
students not participating in the program, The effect size is moderately large,
approximately one-third of a standard deviation.
4. \\'ben compared to non-bonors participants, honors students achie\'ed
higher cumulath'e grade point a"erages, as well as maintained greater
rates of retention into tbe sophomore ~'ear.
138
Two additional areas of exploration. grade point averages and retention. revealed
another possible indication that honors students completed the year with greater success in
measured outcomes. Honors study participants finished their freshman year with a mean
3A I grade point average in contrast to non-honors students who earned a 3.10. This
difference is significant at .07. suggesting a noteworthy difference between the two
populations. Moreover. since the study further revealed the special status and support
provided to the non-honors students as scholarship recipients. these gains are impressive.
Additionally. the mean average of invited honors students was 3AB and therefore. lends to
the hypothesis that honors participation may increase perfonnance.
An alternative explanation for grade point average differences might be
differences in instructor grading because of expectancy bias. Focus group findings
suggest a belief among some honors students that they are graded more favorably because
of faculty perceptions of honors students' abilities. Focus groups. however. also suggest
that non-honors students were part of an elite group (scholarship participants) \-\'ho
consider themselves "special" and particularly valued by the institution. This indicates
that expectancy theory may not be the best explanation for the apparent discrepancy in
grades.
A third hypothesis might be that honors students have higher grades because they
take more honors courses. and that grades received in honors courses are higher than
grades in non-honors courses. To assess this possibility. the transcripts of 12 randomly
139
selected honors students and 12 randomly selected non-honors students were reviewed.
Grade point averages for honors and non-honors courses \vere tabulated for both groups
and are reported in Table 26.
Table 26 Random Sample of 12 Honors and 12 Non-Honon Students
Group Honors Section Non-Honors Section TotalHours/GPA Hours/GPA Hours/GPA
Honors 103/ 3.46 272,' 3.44 375/ 3.45Students
Table 26 indicates that when comparing 24 randomly selected honors and non-
honors students. the achievement of honors students in honors courses during the first
year is not responsible for the difference in grade achievement among honors and non-
honors participants. Among the 12 honors students' transcripts revie\\'ed. 103 semester
hours were completed in honors sections with a cumulative grade point average of 3.46,
and 272 semester hours were completed in non-honors sections with a cumulative grade
point average of 3.44.
Finally. honors students returned to their sophomore year at a rate of 97 percent in
comparison to non-honors students who returned at a rate of90 percent. It was not
possible to obtain the reasons for non-returning students' departure. Using an alpha of
.05. an Independent Samples T-test reported that the difference in retention between
honors and non-honors students is statistically significant. Other comparisons (i.e. honors
140
versus invited honors) were not signi ticant.
S. Honors pr02rams rna)' encourage outcomes for male students in a way tbat
they do not for female students.
This study found that honors students have greater interaction with faculty outside
of the classroom when compared to similarly credentialed non-honors students. In
looking at interaction effects. however. male and female honors students reported
substantially different engagement with faculty. \Vhile male honors students reported
significantly higher Icvcls of engagcment than traditional students (.692). female honors
students reported esscntially the same cngagement with faculty (-.082). If participation in
honors has a positive effect on student engagement with faculty. it is only for male honors
students.
Satisfaction with college follows a similar pattern and suggests that participating
in the honors program has a large effect on the dependent variable for male students. and
no real effect for female students, ~1ale honors students report substantially higher levels
of satisfaction (.~88), while female students report substantially lower levels of
satisfaction (,183). Satisfaction reported by honors females is more than one-halfof a
standard deviation below that reported by non-honors females.
6. In some cases.. tbose ..lIin\·ited"" to participate in the bonors program,
especiall)' minority students" reported enhanced outcomes.
In some instances, those '''invited'' to participate in the honors program reported
141
increased progress on student outcomes. In considering student interaction with faculty.
for example. invited minority students reported an engagement level close to 1.6 standard
deviation above non-minority. non-honors students. This is a large effect. Being invited"
therefore. may have encouraged minority student engagement with faculty. Non-minority
invited students did not appear to be influenced in the same way. as there was no apparent
efTect on the engagement of invited non-minority students.
In considering faculty interaction outside of the classroom. however. increased
engagement with faculty among minority students is not simply related to being invited.
In this instance, minority students in generaL regardless of honors participation. reported
higher levels of engagement.
Invited minority students also reported substantially higher engagement (roughly
1.6 standard deviation) than non-minority. non-honors students in the "personal
interactions" composite. Thus. minority students who were invited appear to interact
differently with their peers than do minority non-honors students.
These findings suggest a significant increase in engagenlent for minority students
when compared to other student populations (inc luding other honors students). Being
invited. therefore. was experienced differently for minority students than for non-minority
invited honors students.
142
7. Honors program students percei,'e tbemseh'es as ....special.... and
particularl~' ,'alued b~' the institution. Non-bonors students ~'bo receive a
scbolarship to tbe institution perceh'e themselves similarly. There is an
understanding b~' these ..special.... classes of students tbat tbe~' are expected to
perform "'ell at the institution.
Focus groups with students revealed the common perception among honors
students that their participation in the program brings prestige and assumptions from
faculty concerning their abilities and skills. Simply being labeled "honors" does not
appear to be the only source of encouragement. as in many cases faculty members are
ovcrt in their opmions about honors students when compared to non-honors students, As
noted in Chapter 4. one honors participant recalled a faculty member stating that honors
membership "carries clout with the faculty'" Upon reflection. some honors students
explained that bcing in "honors" boosted their self-esteem and in their opinion. even their
academic performance,
As noted earlier. one student said being labeled honors encourages better work.
This student c\"en labeled this phenomenon "the honors effect." Interestingly. the
expectations of being of "honors caliber" may have influenced students in other ways
besides producing better work and boosting self-esteem. \Vhen honors students did not
perform well. they articulated having feelings of failure. After a poor performing
semester. one student commented that his honors advisor helped restore his feeling of
143
being worthy of the "honors" label. Both consciously and unconsciously. honors students
conveyed an understanding that they are spccial and are expected to perfonn di fferently
than other students.
This study revealed that honors students \\'ere not the only special class of student
being considered in the research at this university. Chapter .+ indicated that this research
proceeded under the assumption that non-honors participants would experience the
university In much the same way as non· honors students at the institution. In contrast,
many honors and non-honors study participants were also "university scholars:' meaning
they received a full-scholarship to the university. By far. the strongest feelings of being
perceivcd "spccial" werc articulated by scholarship students. some of whom were in
honors and others who were not. These students articulated a discovcred understanding
that being a "scholar" at this campus came \vith an expectation of being cxceptionally
bright and perfonning well academically. Ofcourse. many students received a double
dose of this expectation since they werc both classi fications.
8. Honors program students and non-bonors scholarship students are
afforded access to resources tbat otber students are Dot. Students wbo are
botb honors participants and recipients of a scbolarsbip receive a ··double
dose~ of assistance from tbe institution.
One of the stated benefits of honors programs is that participants have additional
access to resources. The institution in this study indicates that students have extended
144
borrowing privileges at the library. are afforded greater opportunities to conduct research
with faculty. have access to smaller and selective courses, and receive specialized
academic advising with members of the honors college faculty. As expected. many of the
focus group students involved with the honors college support these claims. As noted.
those students in the non~honors focus groups revealed that they 100 receive assistance not
necessarily afforded to other students on campus. One specific resource that students in
both honors and non-honors groups cite as influential is access to specialized academic
advising.
9. Institutional practices.. such as the process for being admitted to the honors
program.. inhibit well qualified students from pursuing admission.
Focus groups with non~honors participants revealed students who described
themselves as "exhausted" by the pursuit of admission to college. In particular. most
focus group participants articulated their senior year of high school as one which
consisted of visiting campuses. completing numerous essay intensive applications for
admission. and being overwhelmed by financial aid forms. requests for information, and
standardized test procedures. By the time they received information about the Honors
College. many participants said they "just could not write one more essay question:'
especially if the text could not be borrowed from an earlier application. In one focus group
of non-honors students. seven of eight indicated the primary reason for not seeking
admission into the program was their unwillingness to complete what was, in their view,
145
one more lengthy essay application. These students. most of whom had received a full
scholarship to the institution. desired to participate in honors.
For invited non~honors focus group participants. the response was varied. Some
were not aware of the honors program. which may suggest the institution should research
what categories of students may be less likely to learn about such opportunities through
traditional avenues. Regardless of whether or not a student was aware of the honors
prograrn. students who received an invitation letter from the honors director suggested
this effort was instrunlental in their application being submitted.
Implications for Polic}' and Practice
~1any of this study's participants would agree with Psychologist Albert Bandura
when he asserts that "people's belief about their abilities have a profound effect on those
abilities" (cited in Goleman. 1995. p.90). As discussed in Chapter 2, Bandura is alluding
to the frequently cited notion of the "self~fulling prophecy:' that is. the idea that what one
becomes is a result of the intentional or unintentional nlessages being conveyed by people
to people. As described by Glance. "what we expect, all too often, is exactly what we get.
Nowhere is this more true than education" (cited in Goleman, 1995, p. 90).
A large body of research asserts that in education. the beliefs held by faculty and
staff about a student's ability often create behaviors and abilities that the educator
anticipated (Merton, 1948~ Rosenthal and Jacobson, 1968; Brophy, 1983~ Rosenthal and
Babad. 1985; Wolfolk, 1987~ PIous, 1993), Does participation in an honors program
146
result in a "Pygmalion Effect?" Lipon first revie'w. one might look at the quantitative
results of this study and answer "no:' at least not in this situation. This is a problematic
conclusion. however. because non-honors students in this study were also part of an elite
group of scholarship students at the institution. Interestingly. one of the t\VO areas where
honors students demonstrated greater gains than non-honors students was in the area of
liberal and general education. One might argue. however. that this is exactly what honors
students are told they will experience differently than other students. even student
"scholars." The honors application itself says. "honors students obtain a rich liberal arts
experience." There is no evidence that non-honors. or even scholarship students. are
offered a similar experience expectation. or at least not in such a deliberate manner.
Additionally. since this study found that the experiences and activities of honors and non
honors students (as measured by the CSEQ) are remarkably similar. one is compelled to
search for an alternati\e hypothesis for the perceived gains in general and liberal
education. ~1ight the difference in perceived gains be a product of expectation?
The finding that invited minority students experience differential outcomes on
some measures may also be an indication of a Pygmalion effect as well. Those following
trends on how race impacts education (Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 1997; Bowen & Bok.
1998; Emerson & Smith. 2000) might argue that these students corne from a population
where expectations have been lower than for the majority, and thus. be particularly
influenced by an invitation to apply to the honors program. One is compelled to question
147
why nlinority students who are invited to participate in the honors program. in contrast to
minority students who applied on their own. would indicate statistically significant
differences in their level of engagement with faculty and with their peers. Here.
additional research appears important. Might the increased engagement of invited
minority honors students be explained by expectancy theory?
Whether or not expectancy theory applies to this study. ho\vever. was answered
clearly through the qualitative focus groups. Students. both honors and those labeled
"scholars:' were keenly aware of their expectation to succeed. as well as their importance
to the university. As one focus group participant said. HI feci like they want and expect
me to do welt and I don't \\"ant to let them down." These students also understand they
are accommodated with resources that other students are not provided. and as one student
commented. HI think they even give you different [better] grades:' The powerful potential
of the "Pygmalion Effect" was emphasized when students articulated their understanding
that the university enVironment. and especially faculty and staff. encouraged greater effort
from them. If there is a conscious awareness that honors students may be rewarded with
higher grades as a result of faculty perceptions of their abilities, one is challenged to
consider the impact of unconscious understandings. Of course. the qualitative focus
groups conducted as part of this study suggest that non honors students also receive
messages that many other students may not concerning their value to the institution.
The challenge for institutions of higher education, therefore, should be to remain
148
aware of how structures. progranls. and policies send both overt and subtle messages to
students about their value. their potential. and what the institution expects them to
achieve. Should structures. programs and policies that encourage students to succeed be
eliminated when they are not provided for all students? Few educators likely would
advocate such a policy. The greater question. therefore. may be whether or not
institutions can create more opportunities to encourage students to succeed in the way that
being in an honors program or receiving a scholarship does for students.
One interesting policy implication is highlighted by the unanticipated variable of
many non-honors students being part of another unique class of students. Opponents of
honors education often cite the disparity in how resources are distributed to students
participating in these programs (Sperber. 2000). In the case of this institution. resources
appear to be even more skewed toward a small group of students. In fact. many of the
students in this study. both honors and non-honors. were afforded designated staff to
assist in navigating problems (i.e.. the Honors College. the Scholarship Office).
rvtoreover. while most students on campus receive advising through a much larger
bureaucratic system. many students in this study were provided an honors advisor. as well
as a scholarship office advisor. Focus group participants offered a consistent perspective
that they are fortunate to receive this assistance. and that those who do not are often
affected negatively because of their lack of this resource.
As already noted.. some claim colleges and universities spend as much as ten times
149
more money on honors students than on those in the general student body (Sullivan,
1994). The Honors College at this institution estimates it spends approximately S1,000
more on honors students than it does on other undergraduates. This estimate excludes the
expenditures of honors education such as the basic costs associated with honors
instruction (the cost of the many honors student course sections and the faculty who teach
them). This suggests that the actual cost per honors student exceeds S1.000. The
expenses included in the defined S1.000 represent administrative overhead and salaries of
staff focused on these roughly 500 students. Providing direct and deliberate service to
honors students are: the Honors College Director and Associate Director (both
distinguished faculty members); two administrators (Coordinator of Student and
Academic Programs and Program Management Specialist); an a uHonors College Faculty
tvtember:' who holds the rank of full professor; and an administrative assistant. The
Honors College plans to add an additional "Honors College Faculty Member" in the near
future.
Even with the resources indicated here. however. it \vould be difficult to concur
with Sullivan's ( 1994) estimate that institutions often spend 10 times more on honors
students than on others. This researcher was unable to verify any cost data that would
suggest Sullivan's figure is spent at any institution. Nevertheless. Sullivan's
overstatement paints a picture of one perception that many students and higher education
professionals hold- that is; honors programs are costly and may be disproportionately
150
dispersed (Roilier. 2000~ Sperber. 2000). This argument is not unique to honors. The
cost ofcollegiate athletics. for example. solicits similar criticism. The power of
perception. however. cannot be under emphasized. and wise college and university leaders
understand the role perception plays as politicians. regents and other leaders make
important policy decisions. Those who value the honors experience. therefore. will be
well served to address claims that honors programs are expensive. and will thus respond
with realistic cost data and evidence of the advantages of such an experience for a small
group of students.
Race and gender was included in this study to determine if honors participation
might vary for minority vcrsus non-minority and malc versus female students.
Technically. "gender" and Hminority" did not need to be included as covariates since the
groups were matched on these characteristics. Nevertheless. they were addcd to test for
interactions. Including this procedure revealed scvcral interesting results. espccially
concerning whether honors programs produced different results for males and females. It
was interesting to find that male students had greater levels of interaction with faculty
outside of the classroom. as well as reported greater levels of satisfaction than their
female counterparts. The reason for this is unclear. and deserves further attention.
One possible conclusion is that honors education may produce positive outcomes
for male populations in a way that it does not for females. If this is the case. the
expenditure of resources to this end may reach even fewer students than critics suggest, as
151
roughly half of all honors participants are female. One can only speculate about why
males and females \,"ere affected differently by the honors experience at this institution.
One possible hypothesis is that honors education is more frequently facilitated by male
faculty and staff. a statistic that this researcher was unable to obtain. Some scholars argue
that role modeling serves as a catalyst for motivating those of the same gender. In the
sciences. tor example. \\/oolston (2001) argues that women scientists are able to navigate
future women scientists through the" ... many intersections. signals and pot holes [in
ways that men are notr' (p. B.+). The implication is that without same gender role
modeling. motivation for success is decreased.
One could also speculate that the expectation for men and women continues to
differ on college campuses and therefore. in honors programs as well. It is important to
note. however. that female honors students were not affected negati vely by the honors
experience~ they simply did not demonstrate the same gains when compared to similarly
credentialed non-honors students. Regardless. this finding provides a compelling
question for other researchers to investigate.
What does honors education do for minority students? As already discussed.
invited minority students reported greater levels of engagement with faculty. In addition,
they indicated substantially higher levels of engagement with peers. The reason for this
finding is unclear and also deserves additional research. Could this be related to the
Pygmalion effect'? Does honors education bring minority students into an academic
152
culture or peer group that influences behavior in a way that promotes positive outcomes?
These questions remain unans\\'ered. but could potentially have important policy and
practice implications.
A renewed emphasis on being "Iiberally educatedU
and the benefits of this fonn of
education (Durden, 2001) may encourage some colleges and universities to explore the
best educational techniques for providing a liberal education. In the case of this
institution. for example. if providing students with a liberal education IS a priority
emphasis. then looking to the honors program for a model may prove beneficial. Clearly.
this study reports that honors students believe they have made greater progress in this area
than students not participating in the honors program. Of course. honors students are told
their progranl increases gains in this area. and the extent to which this influences the
outcome is unknown. Nevertheless. this study found a moderately large difference
(effect) bet\\'een honors and non-honors students when considering gains in this important
area.
Finally. other than "Gains in General Education and the Liberal Arts:' only the
composite "Gains in Science and Technology" reported a significant difference when
comparing honors and non-honors students. Honors students appear to believe they have
made greater progress in the areas of science and technology when compared to similarly
credentialed non-honors students. While one might point to the finding of significant
results in only 2 of9 composites as a disappointing result for honors advocates. one would
153
also be remiss not to point out that gains in general education. liberal arts. science and
technology are the areas where academicians and politicians alike would be most
interested in seeing evidence of growth. In this regard. especially considering the results
might be minimized by a comparison group receiving special support as ··scholars.··
honors education at this institution provides an important service to the institution. its
students and its mission. The impressive nature of these findings are further elevated by
the fact that honors students in this study earned significantly better grade point averages
during their first year at school. as well as presented higher retention rates v.hen compared
to similarly credential non-honors students. \Vhat politician. regent. or policymaker
would not like to hear that a program increases academic pertonnance. aids in retention.
and provides for perceived gains in science. technology and the liberal arts?
Tbe Tougbest Questions
Givcn the findings of this particular study. what might be the greatest benefit to an
institution when it nlaintains a honors progranl or college? More importantly. are the
benefits worth the cost'? \Vhcn askcd about thc value of honors programs. institutional
representatives frequently promote the unique experiences that honors education provides
the most gifted students. This study. however. suggests that the honors program at this
institution is influencing some important outcomes. This being the case. why \\'ould
institutions hesitate to expand these practices to reach a broader proportion of the student
population? As one critic suggests. "And as unpopular as it may sound. get rid of
154
ridiculous meritocratic honors programs. and direct resources toward all students who
want to pursue more-rigorous workloads" (Lam. 2000, p. 84). ~furraySperber (2000)
asserts that entire college campuses should be honors programs as opposed to being
resenred to a small an elite group of students.
The motivation behind honors programs is questioned by some. Many honors
program directors believe that the unique opportunity provided to their participants is
\'aluable to education and the overall campus climate (Mack. 1996: Digby. 1997).
Nevertheless. when listening carefully to campus leaders' comments about the prestige of
honors programs and their impact on enrollment management. one must question wether
or nol it is the resource-reputation paradigm (Se}mour. 1996) that is ultimately driving
institutional policy and resource allocation to honors education. The recent success of the
University of ~Iaryland.College Park. for example. at attracting high caliber students to
its campus has largely been attributed to its honors program and the subsequent creation
of other exclUSIve academic programs. As described by Umbach (1998. p. 7)....... people
on campus began to recognize that they were losing students that had applied to UM but
were slightly below the requirements for acceptance to the prestigious Honors Program.
Loss of these quality students to other institutions was extremely harmful to the profile of
the incoming freshman classes:' The University of Maryland responded to this problem
with the establishment of another special academic program called "College Park
Scholars."' \Vhat is missing from College Park's stated motivation, however. are even
155
cursory remarks about the value of the honors experience on student outcomes.
Those directly responsible for honors programs such as the director in this study
are no doubt more pure in their motivations and value for honors education. They too.
however. ask tough questions. As Roufagalas ( 1994. p. 13) writes:
Do honors programs make a di fference in the education of their students and theUniversity overall? Questions like these make many Honors directorsuncomfortable. They can point out some of their most successful students andthey may present letters from other students as to how the honors experience hashelped them in their academic careers and lives. but there is very little hardevidence that taking honors classes has any strong~ systematic effect on theperformance of students.
Absent strong evidence. therefore. how responsible is it for a university such as the
one in this study to allocate an additional S500.000 or more to a small select group of
students'! The answer may uncomfortably rest on the motivation behind the institution's
decision. From a resource-reputation perspective. there is clear evidence to suggest that
special academic programs such as an honors college do make a profound difference in an
institution's ability to attract more credentialed students (Umbach. 1998). For many
however. basing institutional decisions primarily on prestige attacks institutional values
foundational to higher education such as equity (Lam. 2000; Sperber. 2000). Honors
programs. from this perspective. perpetuate inequitable social systems that cater to the
privileged elite.
Those who value honors education for its contribution to student learning (Mack.
1996; Digby. 1997). however. will indeed find evidence in this study to support their
156
claim. It is important to question why there are statistically signi ficant gains by honors
students in perceived gains in being liberally educated~ science and technology, as well as
obvious gains in grade performance and retention. Is it the "Pymalion Effect" driving
these differences if the experiences are the same'~ This might be an easy hypothesis
except that the control group in the study was also found to perceive themselves as
"special." Although the CSEQ found that honors and non-honors students experience the
university in many similar ways. the focus groups revealed some obvious qualitative
differences such as peer mentoring. as well as exposure to the best teachers and the best
classes. An important question is what arc the honors college experiences unmeasured in
this study and likely influencing these critical student outcomes Is it simply peer
mentoring that causes these outcomes? Is it mainly having classes taught by the most
dedicated teachers that makes the honors cxperience great? The answers to these
questions \\'ill be either good or bad ncws for those supporting honors programs because
of their impact on student learning. !\;evcrtheless. those \vho value thc honors experience
must be more vigilant in their advocacy of the importance of honors and seek a research
agenda that supports their assertions. Otherwise~ their meek voices risk being drowned
out by critics and their perceptions of clitist programs that spend as much as 10 times
more money on a small group of students at the expense of many others.
Those comfortable with the resource-reputation paradigm as the philosophical
motivation for the honors experience should continue to support the allocation of
157
additional resources to this end. There is evidence that these programs do draw highly
credentialed students [0 their campuses who may have othcf"\vise attended programs
elsewhere. For those educators unwilling to embrace this perspective.. the data presented
in this study provides some evidence to support their argument. In response. however.
one could also suggest that honors programs. even when done for the purpose of prestige.
indirectly help all other students.
In many ways. good honors programs make their respective universities look
better. which in turn increases the value of all degrees at those institutions. For large
public universities. there IS evidence that highly credentialed students are foregoing
admission to elite private institutions because of the reputation and resources provided to
honors programs (Once again. 1999. p. 5). ~,t ight having the best and the brightest at an
institution create an environment of learning for everyone which would not exist without
their attendance? One would be remiss to ih'Tlore the possibility that honors education.
and its emphasis on quality teaching. improves instruction for everyone.
This study also found that minorities invited to participate were particularly
influenced by the honors experience. \Vhen higher education affects all populations
(especially those from under represented groups). then it is better positioned to
transfonned society as a \\'hole'?
When a campus has limited funds. however. is it wise to disperse funds
disproportionately in favor of high ability students? Would it be more advisable to
158
allocate funding equally across the entire institution or instead to the students who need it
most? The.;e are difficult questions to answer. but policymakers must grapple with the
fact that there are only so many credentialed students available. and as the competition for
these students becomes more fierce. so does the competition for the programs designed to
attract them. \\-'here will the resource allocation in favor of elite students end? \Vhat is
the potential impact of such a trend on the education of the average or more needy
student? The answers to these questions cannot be the same for every institution of higher
learning. Leaders must carefully analyze the motivations behind their desire to see an
institution rise in prestige. and account for the cost of such a pursuit. The biggest cost
may not honors colleges. but in what is not invested in the lives of non-honors students.
In looking at the data provided for this study. however. this institution seems to be
getting a large return on a relatively small investment. Even if the institution spent $2.500
more on honors students than on the average student. these students present some
important gains in valued outcomes such as retention and performance. One troubling
fact. ho\\"ever. is that many of these students are receiving a double dose of special
services as a result of their scholarship status. The institution may be well served to
evaluate how these funds might be better distributed to reach a broader sample of the
institution' s student population. However. this study would suggest that honors programs
do make a positive contribution to lives of select students. and one can easily argue that
their success benefits everyone.
159
The ~Iost Practical Polic)' Implications
\Vhether or not an institution has an honors program. it appears imponant for
colleges and universities to create places of refuge for students highly motivated by
academic rigor and intellectual life at colleges and universities. Both honors and non
honors students in this study found comfort in being connected with a peer group that
values the academic experience more than the student population as a whole. Focus
group data indicated that these highly credentialed students. regardless of an affiliation
with the honors program. felt out of place with peers they perceivc not to value academic
success in the same way they do. \Vhile non-honors students found that having a
scholarship connected them with like-minded peers. honors students specifically credited
the honors collegc with providing a respite from friends and environments that detract
from their academic priorities. Traditional residence halls. classes and activities appear to
foster interaction with an overall c1imatc that is less academically oriented in the view of
these students. Study participants suggest that this interaction is appropriate and desired
as long as a refuge is created for those ..... who have the same passion for succeeding
[academically]." At an institutional level. keeping these students stimulated by
interaction with like-minded peers, who in tum interact with the general student body,
may contribute substantially to the overall intellectual climate of the institution.
This study also suggests that institutions with honors programs should carefully
consider the procedures by which they select students. In the case of this institution, many
160
bright students forewent what they perceived as a lengthy and unnecessary essay
application. An alternative might be using essay questions required through the general
admission process and minimally reviewing the files of students meeting preferred
standardized test scores and high school grade point averages.
\\llile one couid argue that non-honors students are less moti\'ated~ their academic
records and previous achievements \a.'ouid suggest that many of these students would
benefit from the honors experience~ and in turn~ contribute to the campus climate of
learning. In retrospect. numerous non-honors focus group participants expressed regret
concerning their non-participation in honors.
The focus groups also indicated that there are some students who are less familiar
with the concept of specialized academic programs such as the honors college. Moreovcr~
if students are aware of these programs~ they may understand little about their value to the
academic experience. The personal invitation from the honors director appeared to be
influential for some students. The quantitative data further suggested that being "invited"
was particularly influential for minority students.
Finally. focus group findings in this study support research that suggest that the
most imponant influence on student learning is fostered by peer interaction (Astin. 1993).
One interesting and pervasive difference expressed by honors students was the value
placed on the structured peer mentoring program which matches together an older and
younger honors student. Focus group discussion revealed that peer mentors provided
161
assistance with orientation to the university. advising. and other relationship oriented
activities. Incorporating peer mentoring into student life. even outside of the honors
experience. may have prove to be an exceptional tool for any university official looking to
enhance student outcomes.
Stud~' Limitations
As one considers the application of findings. four limitations should be addressed.
First. as already noted. this study was built on the assumption that non-honors study
participants \\!ould experience the university in much the same manner as other non
honors students at the institution. The qualitative focus groups found that this assumption
was incorrect since many non-honors participants. because of their strong academic
credentials. received full scholarships and were part of an institution that created special
suppon systems for these students. including a label that is given prestige. It is unknown
whether or not other institutions follow a similar pattern. If so. this presents challenges
for the researcher \vhcn attempting to control for variables such as SAT scores and grade
point averages. Had the researcher not carefully matched honors students with equally
credential non-honors students. this issue would not have presented itself. Nevertheless.
such procedures are a critical component to measuring how programs influence student
outcomes. An imponant question. therefore. concerns the extent to which the support and
prestige given scholarship students affected the outcomes of these students.
Second. this study was conducted at a single institution. and its appiicability to
162
other institutions in not known. Nevertheless. it fills an important gap in the research
concerning the outcomes of programs for academically talented students. Of particular
importance is this study's attempt to control for selection bias by including an "invited"
group of students. Efforts to minimize the impact of motivation and other selection bias
concerns are critical to better understanding the influence of programmatic efforts on
student outcomes.
This research begins to answer questions about the role of selection bias.
especially when measuring the impact of honors programs. It is unfortunate that the
invited sample is small. which could also be reason for caution. A larger sample size will
help provide clarity to this issue.
It is also important to remember that this study is not about modeling a specific
outcome: rather it is about detennining whether there are meaningful differences between
control groups (non-honors and invited honors) and honors students. Therefore. this study
is not designed to predict an outcomc. For this reason. a low R-square was of less
concern to the researcher than the significance level of the regression coefficients.
Finally. this study is limited in that it sought to measure only the freshman year. A
longitudinal study following students for the entire college career could potentially offer
the greatest understanding concerning the impact of honors education on student
outcomcs.
163
Topics for Future Researcb
This study points out a need to conduct additional research addressing the impact
of honors programs on student outcomes. Repeating this study on multiple campuses~ and
over longer periods of time. will begin answering the many questions brought to bear
through this study. Studies that follow students for two to four years would be valuable.
A study that tracks students live or more years atter graduation would be more helpful in
understanding the long term and social consequences of honors programs.
Do honors programs affect minority students differently than non-minority
students? Do male students experience greater gains in outcomes from participation in an
honors program? This study suggests that these programs may have a disparate impact.
and further research should be conducted to answer these questions. One potential study
might focus its attention on how the honors experience differs for women and minorities
when compared to white men. A qualitative case study that seeks a "thick description" of
the honors experiences for women and minorities likely has the greatest potential for
understanding whether or not there is a disparate impact as this study indicates.
Following a small group of men and women through the first years of the honors
experience using case study methodology could be profitable.
The role of expectancy theory is also worth exploring further. There is evidence
in this study that expectations may effect student performance. The unique situation
caused by the matching process and a special class of scholarship student inhibits a clear
164
understanding of the extent of Pygmalion effect on honors outcomes. Moreover. what is
the cause for increased perfonnance in areas such as grade point average or perceived
gains in science and technology? Could being told one will learn more and. therefore.
expected to learn more. be responsible for these gains? It is important to remember that
this study did not specifically test for the Pygmalion effect. The results. however, indicate
that future research designs should be more deliberate in testing for the role of this
phenomenon in the honors experience.
A researcher who is able to encourage an honors program to admit a selected
"unqualified" group of students into an honors program may have the best opportunity to
explore the extent to which expectancy theory is driving student perfonnance. This study
should also match these "unquali fied" students with an equally credentialed group of
students not admitted into the honors program.
The process utilized in this research of controlling variables through a matching
process. the inclusion of invited students, and using covariates to test for interactions are
all strengths of this study that could be repeated to better explore questions left
unanswered. This would be especially helpful if the sample sizes were much larger than
those of this study. In several instances, differences appeared large, but not statistically
significant given the small smnple sizes. Strong qualitative findings of this study also
hinted that small sample sizes may have reduced statistical power and masked potentially
significant differences. Clearly, the growth of honors programs and the expenditure of
165
resources to that end continues to expand without a thorough understanding of their
influence on student outcomes. ~Iany answers and much research awaits.
166
Appendix A- Honors C'ollege Application (text only)
Honors College ApplieatioD
The {insert university name ~ Honors College is a special option for students seeking acommunity of like-minded people for whom the quest for knowledge is its own reward.Admission to the Honors College is reserved for students of exceptional ability andabiding curiosity.
{insert unh'ersity name: Honors College
The Honors College is tor students who seek exceptional intellectual stimulation andchallenge. be they interested in the sciences, social sciences. humanities. or fine arts.Through honors sections of regular courses. special honors seminars. internships. studyabroad. and other extracurricular opportunities. honors students obtain a rich liberal artsexperience in the context ofan honors university. One of the hallmarks of the program ispersonalized attention. Honors students receive special advising from Honors Collegestaff. and have the option of living on the academic emphasis floor in the residence halls.
E\'aluation Standards
Because admission to the Honors College is selective (about 150 students are admitted tothe College each year). an outstanding high school record and test scores are the mostimportant factors In freshman admission, However. the College evaluates each studentindividually. weIghing intellectual promise. seriousness of purpose. evidence ofindependent thought. mature judgement. curiosity. and self-direction. Transfer students\\'ith strong academic records may also apply for admission. Particular attention is paid tothe essays submitted with the Honors College application.
How to Appl~'
To apply for admission to the Honors College. complete the application form on the backof this sheet and submit it to {insert university name} by February 1. Students applyingafter February 1 deadline will be considered as space permits. but will not be eligible forthe highly competitive Honors College scholarships. Only students who have beenadmitted to {insert university name} (through a separate application process) can beselected for membership in the Honors College.
167
Invitation to Visit
Choosing a program of study is an important and difficult process. By visiting ~ insertuniversity name~ and meeting Honors College members and staff as well as faculty whoteach honors courses, students can bring themselves closer to a sense of how their collegeeducation might begin-and why the ~ insert college name ~ Honors College might be theplace to make that beginning. To set up a personal interview or simply to receive moreinfomtation, please caU or write: {insert university contact infomtation}.
Writing Sample
Please write an essay oft\\'o (2) or more t)pewritten. double-spaced pages on one of thefollowing topics:
a. Which technological innovation has the potential to change humanity itself?b. In an age of electronic media. what role is there for the traditional printedword? What role will it play in the future?c. Is the study of history important to the education of a scientist? Or the study ofscience important to the education of an historian?d. One of the Manhattan Project scientists has said that he felt "as littleresponsibility for the [atomic] bomb as a maker of cans should feel when a can isthrown through a window:' \Vhat do you think he meant by this statement'? Canyou ever imagine yourself taking such a position?
Background Information
On a separate piece of paper please briefly answer the questions below:a. \Vhat are your principal areas of academic interest? \Vhat are your careergoals?b. What are your extracurricular activities in school? What are your hobbies andinterests outside of school?c. What service and leadership experience have you gained through school orcommunity actions?d. Discuss ho\\-' you plan to manage your time in college.
Letter of Recommendation
Please submit with this application one letter of recommendation from a teacher who willaddress specifically your qualifications for admission to the Honors College. The lettershould be submitted in a sealed envelope with signature across the seal.
168
Appendix B- NCUC 16 Characteristics
The National Collegiate Honors Council's 16 Basic Characteristics of aFull~' Developed Honors Program
Appro\.'ed hy the ~VCHC Executive COl1lmlltee 011 ~\larch 4. 1994
1. A fully-developed honors program should be carefully set up to accommodatethe special needs and abilities of the undergraduate students it is designed to serve.This entails identifying the targeted student population by some clearly articulatedset of criteria (e.g.. GPA. SAT score. a written essay). A program with openadmission needs to spell out expectations for retention in the program and forsatisfactory completion of pro,brram requirements.
2. The program should have a clear mandate from the institutional administrationideally in the fonn of a mission statement clearly stating the objectives andresponsibilities of the program and defining its place in both the administrativeand academic structure of the institution. This mandate or mission statementshould be such as to assure the permanence and stability of the program byguaranteeing an adequate budget and by avoiding any tendency to force theprogram to depend on temporary or spasmodic dedication of particular facultymembers or administrators. In other words. the program should be fullyinstitutionalized so as to build thereby a genuine tradition of excellence.
3. The honors director should report to the chief academic officer of theinstitution.
4. There should be an honors curriculum featuring special courses, seminars,colloquia and independent study established in harmony with the missionstatement and in response to the needs of the program.
5. The program requirements themselves should include a substantial portion ofthe participants' undergraduate work. usually in the vicinity of 20% or 25% oftheir total course work and certainly no less than 15~·o. Students who successfullycomplete Honors Programs requirements should receive suitable institutionalrecognition. This can be accomplished by such measures as an appropriatenotation on the student's academic transcript.. separate listing of Honors Graduatesin commencement programs, and the granting of an Honors degree.
169
6. The program should be so formulated that it relates effectively both to all thecollege \\'ork for the degree (e.g.• by satisfying general education requirements)and to the area of concentration. depanmental specialization. pre-professional orprofessional training.
7. The program should be both visible and highly reputed throughout theinstitution so that it is perceived as providing standards and models of excellencefor students and faculty across the campus.
8. Faculty panicipating in the program should be fully identified with the aims ofthe program. They should be carefully selected on the basis of exceptionalteaching skills and the ability to provide intellectual leadership to able students.
9. The program should occupy suitable quaners constituting an honors center withsuch faci lities as an honors library. lounge. reading rooms. personal computers andother appropriate decor,
10. The director or other adlninistrative officer charged with administering theprogram should work in close collaboration with a committee or council of facultymembers representing the colleges and/or departments served by the program.
11. The program should have in place a committee of honors students to serve asliaison ""ith the honors faculty committee or council who must keep the studentgroup fully informed on the program and elicit their cooperation in evaluation anddevelopment. This student group should enjoy as much autonomy as possibleconducting the business of the committee in representing the needs and concernsof all honors students to the administration. and it should also be included ingovernance. serving on the advisory/policy committee as well as constituting thegroup that governs the student association.
12. There should be provisions for special academic counseling of honors studentsby uniquely qualified faculty and/or staff personnel.
13. The honors program. in distinguishing itself from the rest of the institution.serves as a kind of laboratory within which faculty can try things they have alwayswanted to try but for which they could find no suitable outlet. When such effortsare demonstrated to be successful. they may well become institutionalized, therebyraising the general level of education within the college or university for allstudents. In this connection, the honors curriculum should serve as a prototype foreducational practices that can work campus-wide in the future.
170
14. The fully-developed honors program must be open to continuous and criticalreview and be prepared to change in order to maintain its distinctive position ofoffering distinguished education to the best students in the institution.
15. A fully-developed probTfam will emphasize the participatory nature of thehonors educational process by adopting such measures as offering opportunitiesfor students to participate in regional and national conferences. honors semesters.international programs. community service. and other forms of experientialeducation.
16. Fully-developed two-year and four-year honors programs will have articulationagreements by which honors graduates from two-year colleges are accepted intofour-year honors programs when they meet previously agreed-upon requirements.
171
Appendix C- 2000 SAT I Test Performance Percentiles
Verbal Percentile ~Iatb Percentile
800790780770760i507~0
7307207107006906806706606506~0
630620610600590580570560550540530520510500490480470460450
99 9999 9999 9999 9999 9898 9898 9798 9797 9696 9595 9495 9393 9292 9091 8989 8788 8586 838~ 8081 7879 7676 7373 7071 6767 6~
65 6161 5857 5554 5151 4847 4544 4140 3836 3433 3130 28
172
Appendix D - Letter to Participate in Stud}'
Dear 2-:
My name is Frank Shushok and I am a Ph.D. student in the Department of EducationPolicy and Leadership at the University of Maryland. College Park. I am conductingresearch exploring ho\\' {insert university /lame} students are affected by their collegeexperience. You are one of approximately 185 students being invited to participate. Ireally need your help!
In exchange for completing a 30 minute multiple-choice questionnaire at the {insertuniversity name} library during the week of April 2.2001. you will be compensated withS5.00 in ,"as/•. In addition. your input would be invaluable to {insert ltlli\'ersi~\' name}and my dissertation.
At this point. I'd like to know if you are willing to participate. Ifso. please use theenclosed "response letter" and stamped envelope to indicate the date and time you wouldlike to complete the survey. If you prefer. you can email meatfshushok{jlyahoo.com.Your response by rvtarch 1. 2001. would be appreciated. I will send you an email orpostcard reminder as the date nears.
On the response leuer. you will see several times from which to select. Each slot willinclude approximately 20 other students. A brief introduction to the survey will beprovided when you arrive. In addition. you will be provided a consent form. Throughoutthe study, your name and responses will be kept completely confidential.
If you would like to discuss your participation further before committing. I would behappy to call you. Thank you tor your consideration. I hope you will be willing toparticipate. If you would like to call me, I can be reached at 301.260.9731.
Sincerely.
Frank Shushok. Jr.Ph.D. Candidate
Enclosure
173
Appeodix E - "«oro\'ired" Letter from HODor Director
Dear 2-:
Congratulations on your admission to (insert unil'ersity /lame}! You are among a selectnumber of highly talented individuals admitted to one of the most vibrant institutions ofhigher learning in the United States. ~tore particularly. your academic credentials qualifyyou for consideration for admission to a community of learning within (insert university/lame} -The Honors College.
The Unsert uIln'ersi(r name} Honors College was established to provide students ofdemonstrated intellectual talent with a special opportunity to broaden their liberal artsexperience weU beyond the minimum required for a bachelors degree. The hallmarks ofHonors education are small classes. increased opportunity for dialog in the learningprocess. personal interaction both with peers and with teachers. and preparation forleadership typically assumed by the liberally educated individual. The characteristics ofthe Honors student are an abiding curiosity. the will to assuage that curiosity. the beliefthat intellectual exercise for its own sake is one of the most human activities in whichanyone can engage. and a commitment to Ii fclong learning.
Because of the special academic quali fications your record rcveals. I am pleased to extendto you this personal invitation to apply for admission to the Honors College and am takingthe liberty of enclosing an application for you. Should you be accepted. you will have theopportunity to choosc among fifty or more Honor~ courses offered each semester and toparticipate in such co-curricular activities as excursions to New York for museum andtheater visits and study/travel programs abroad. The application should be completed andsubmitted with the accornpanying materials no later than April 1 so that we can give you adecision before the deadline for making your final college selection.
Again. let me congratulate you on your admission to (insert university name~. I shall behappy to speak with you should you have any questions about the ~ insert universityname ~ Honors College in particular or should you feel I could be of assistance in makinga decision on any facet of your college career. Please accept my very best wishes as youembark on the exciting intellectual journey that the next few years hold in store.
-Signed by Honors Director
174
Appendix F- Consent Form
A Dissertation Research Study of Student Outcomes
I acknowledge that I am 18 years of age or older, and wish to participate in this researchstudy being conducted by Frank Shushok, Jr. as part of his doctoral dissertation at theGraduate School. University of l\'laryland, College Park~ Department of Education Policyand Leadership. Please read the following carefully.
"'hat will m~' participation require of me?
During the month of April, you will be asked to complete a 191 item questionnaireabout experiences at {insert university ntlme}. The questionnaire will require about anhour of your time. Also during April, a few of you may also be asked to participate in ahour long focus group discussion with 8 to 10 other {insert university name} students.The total time required to participate in the study will be 60 minutes for most students.120 minutes for those few asked to participate in a focus group. You may also withdrawfrom the study at any time without penalty. There is. however. minimal risk involved.
\\'hat "'ill I gain froCl participating?
Often people find it personally enlightening to reflect on their experiences. Inaddition, you will have the satisfaction of knowing that information gathered during thestudy may help create better college experiences for students just like you. At theconclusion of the study. I will also provide 55.00 in cash for completing the survey.Those participating in a focus group will receive an additional 55.00 in cash.
Will m~' responses be confidential?
Yes! Information you provide \vill never be attached to you by name. To furtherinsure your anonymity, surveys will be coded to prevent name recognition. Only theresearcher will have access to the information you provide. Audiotapes will be kept withthe researcher and will be destroyed at the conclusion of the research project (not toexceed one year). If you have questions or concerns, you may contact Frank Shushok at16803 Centerfield Way, Olney, MD 20832. 301.260.9731. Additionally, you may contactFrank's faculty advisor, Robert Birnbaum, at 301.405.3584.
Signature
175
Date
Appendix G - Focus Group l\loderator"s Guide
I. Introduction/Opening Discussion (..\pprolimatel~· 15 minutes)
Hello. my name is Frank Shushok and I will be leading today's discussion. This sessionwill last about an hour and a half and we'll be discussing your opinions about yourexperiences at {insert university name f this year.
Just so you know. I am a Ph.D. student at the University of Maryland. College Park. andam studj;ng how students are affected by their college experience.
I believe it is important for you to understand that nothing that you say today will beshared with anyone. At the conclusion of my study. I will make some general observationsabout perceptions shared during the tour focus !,l'fOUpS I conduct. but you individually willncver be associated with any comment. Therefore. I want you to feel free to make bothpositivc and negative comments about any ofthc things we will be discussing today.
Before wc bcgin. I'd likc to discuss somc ground rules for our discussion and offcr someothcr points of information.
1) This discussion is being tapc recorded so that I can review ourconvcrsation at homc. Again. this is a complctely confidential discussionand nothing said will be attributed to you personally.
2) Please talk one at a time and in a voice that is at least as loud as mine.Occasionally. I may have to interrupt you to keep the session moving.Please do not be offended.
3) I'd like to hear from everyone during the course of the conversation. butdon't feel as if you have to answer every question I pose.
-+) You do not need to address all of your comments to me. You can respondto what someone else says. but please avoid side conversations with yourneighbors.
5) Please know that there are no right or wrong answers to the questions I willbe asking, just different opinions. I am looking for different points of view.Please feel free to voice an opposing attitude or opinion, even if you are theonly one in the group who feels that way.
176
Let us begin our conversation by going around the room and introducingourselves.
Please tell us your first name, hometown. major. and tell us why you chose to attend{insert university name ~.
II. Academic Experience ( Approximatel~' 2S min utes)
\Vhat would you say has been the academic highlight of your first year at {insertuniversity name~?
Who. if anyone. has been particularly helpful to you at {insert university name J
this year?
\Vhat would you say has been the academic low point of your first year at {insertuniversi ty name} ?
\tVhat did you learn from this experience?
What have you thought about the courses you have taken this year?
Explore further comments about interactions with faculty and curriculum.
Explore further reasons behind good and bad experiences.
Do you think you have met your academic potential this year?
For yes and no responses. explore perceptions of ""why:'
III. Extracurricular/Social Experiences (Approximatel~'2S minutes)
Other than academic related activities. what has occupied your time this year?
Explore further comments about friends and work.
Have any of you become involved in student organizations or clubs?
How did you get involved in these clubs and organizations?
177
How has your involvement influenced your experience this year?
I\'. O"erall Satisfaction witb (insert uoh'ersil)' name} (25 minutes)
Overall. what has been the best thing about your first year at ~ insert university name}?
Explore why.
What has been the worst thing about your first year at ~ insert university name) ?
Explore why.
If you could change one thing about ~ insert university name}. what would it be?
Explore why.
If you could go back and make your "college choice" decision again. would you choose~ insert universi ty name ~ ?
Why or why not'?
How many of you plan to return to {insert university name} ncxt year?
If no. explore why,
In general. what is your ovcrall opinion of {insert university namc} ? On a scale of 1 to 10.\vith 1 signifying that you don't think highly of the institution. and 10 signifying that youthink ~ insert university name ~ is absolutely incredible. how would your rank it?
V. Closing
Before closing. is there anything else you \\'ant to share about your first year at ~ insertuniversity name ~ ?
Those are all the questions I have for you, Thank you for your time. I am very thankfulfor your help.
178
Appendix H .. College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ)
College Student Experiences
Questionnaire
This questionnaire asks about how you spend your time at college-with facultyand friends and in classes. social and cultural activities, extracurricular activities.employment. and use of campus facilities such as the library and student center.The usefulness of this or any other survey depends on the thoughtful responsesof those who are asked to complete it. Your participation is very important andgreatly appreciated.
The information obtained from you and other students at many different collegesand universities will help administrators, faculty members. student leaders. andothers to improve the conditions that contribute to your learning anddevelopment and to the quality of the experience of those who will come afteryou.
At first glance. you may think It will take a long time to complete thisquestionnaire, but it can be answered in about 30 minutes or less. And you willlearn some valuable things about yourself, as your answers provide a kind ofself-portrait of what you have been doing and how you are benefitting from yourcollege experience.
You do noC have to write your name on the questionnaire. But as you will see onthe next page we would like to know some things about you so that we can learnhow college experiences vary. depending on students' age, sex, year in·college.major field, where they live. whether they have a job. and so forth. To knowwhere the reports come from. a number on the back page identifies yourinstitution.
Your questionnaire will be read by an electronic scanning device, so be carefulin marking your responses. Please use only a #2 black lead pencIl. Do notwrite or make any marks on the questionnaire outside the spaces provided foryour answers. Erase cleanly any responses you want to change.
Thank you for your cooperation and participation!
This questionnaire is available from the Indiana University Center forPostsecondary Research and Planning. School of Education, 201 NQrth RoseAvenue, Bloomington. IN 4740S.1006.lt is for use by individuals and institutionsinterested in documenting, understanding. and improving the student experience.
179
I , BACKGROUND INFORMA T ION
• I ,-,r .,
Which of ...... hid. best descnbe1l your maior.or yOUt ilnliclpated fmIIjor? You m.y indicatemore than one if appllc.able.
..;,,;, ~ll.~
- :J,:"',,LI!- ;..: .lo.lk .~; •
; ~'"_,,,,; __H. ~,":'....:r'r r,.~ ~.. ,.... s,t'(.:::) ;tj~"HrH ;tr t f ,,:. l
What is your marital status?'"', ,0"
•. t"
i! .' -, ~,: ",'; ".'" 'j
I" .; ... , , ,I
What is your classification in college?
Did you begin college here or did youtransfer here from another institution?
I"
,t,,'·· :t"l . ;", "I,;,'
I.,'· ..; ,., ", j. '; ••
..... ... ~.~ I .~. [
.-:\.-~ \ .. 1,' .fl .:....1 .. ·I.it ,11.[; ... lo'.
l~. "I.' t' ~r, .~
\'., ~.~ ,'>\ .Al:· , , ·,f .' ! .•.. , ' f t ",' '~,~rtC"rL,t 1'·"'I.(,,:f·_
'" l·r ' (" "I'
jllf 'I;~ f
'.~_If~t~'l n~, ...r If"~· ... ~ r .. ,-! r , ... t ~ t' .••••
Where do you now live during the school year?~ f""'{... (. ~3 . ',....~.. :> "01
·'."":llt"~(';f:~~ ~til~"-t:: .iC .. t ... !·n .... '"t .....\L11l-H~ 1 ·,,,"',,,,r"'t.:..-,. /' ;r,· ·r ".r t • ~ •
It ,~rl":t'" '~~) .J$f' H.~ .,r:n·-'~· t .t,
With whom do you live dUrlng the school year?(Fill in all that apply)
, : 1~, ,'. _If I: ~~, ..... , 'f -.
,;..:' ,f:·l'.l.'r,tf." ,.. '--: ...... ,•• r '.t ..\'
"'~..-"!' t - .. " ...~_ .... ' f ,.t
')f ·1 'u •.~n.:f'-.'. it"'?'"":' ~I ,1(_,- ,". .. j '. to , ... 1
", t ..... ,~:.; '" t 04.11)11 ....
.-
f' :'~.;:l 1 I, ,"" tl,
t· .. _-to ~ :- ~ ": •
t I ~c. ,J ... " r .... ~t"'· ",'
"". :"'j-1 " 1"1 ;, .. *
Did either of your p.1l,.nts gradu.1lte from college?
.. ~, "', tf·> ~.
.: ~', ',.
t 't, .Jff~"'c."";
q'f ,. _t." ~-,lt: ...... ,.
Do you expeet to enroU for an advanced degreewhen, or if, you complete 'lout UncMrgr.lldu.1ltltdegree?
Do you have access to a computer whereyou live or wo", Ot ne.1lmy that you can usefor your school work?
How many credit houns are yoU taking this term?")
What have most of your grades been up tonow at this institution?
During the time school is in session, about howmany hours a week do you usually spend outsideof class on activities relaled to your .ca~R.!29!i!lL such as studying. wrillng. reading. labwo", rehearsing, etc.?
}', ,r. I,
t· .~, . ~ r, . f
, ..
180
During the time school is in session. about howmany hours a week do you usuatly spend workingon iI job for pay? Fill In 2M Oyal in .ach column.
) 1 .. .so !'1,,'\.r )
If you have a job, how does It affect yourschool work?
How do you meet your college • ...,.ns••? Fill in theresponse that best i1Pproximilte. the amount of supportfrom each of the various sources.
AU Of' -.ty All
Mont Than Half
Abo.... H ..1f
1..••• T...... HMf
"tWY Lim.
What 15 your racial or ethnic Identification? (Fill inall thilt apply.
I'
i "
;,.- ..
,j C' '.
'.'_' 1 ( ......,·f ....
, ._ H
,.,'
II COLLEGE ACTIVITIES
[)l~·-n, rt()N~ 1'1 your e ... ~)Pt'l..,.n.·n <:H rhl~ In"{ltu~jO" au""':) 0'*' 1",.'lf,-nl -.( "')<)1 ft- .... ,1 .. "11 ,..... ,r',·"",,,,yo- you don.- .....Crl or tfl(- rOl/ow,ny) Inall:'1l.8 yOUt fH..pun"L' by ,.II"H) ." 1""- ,., t', .. 1'.1.1'''' t· " ..f .qt, ( lJf U.nf h ... tat "'f,.,.~nt
Ubrary
N.....'Oce.._.lly
0"'"\tery~
....~oc.:.......ty
OftenVeryo~'
Computer and Information Technology
,If'
(~ I.
".
"1.
"I; f "
181
•••• f,'
t' tl
P'h't" I T'ON ~ Ie, you' C!JI(~_\enc... Ht thl ... ,.."t'tLJtln~ ,lur 'ltJ ""'" up""t ',f """I y"'" tl,,,,, , 11',,- ".
")",'\lP ..,.rltl l'(")("~"=- ~~'( h n' tn(~ futlu\1\! ~-l-J ','«:]1' ,Tt"'* yC)U' fe, ..... ')"".,..... tJ) tiff \\...j f' (.(1.' '1' t ... .... ,I.' . f
r '~hl , , ,.<"t, ,.,. ,.tot 01 ppnt
Course Learning E1pericnces with Faculty
"'--'ck:c~
on..; -VfW'J Of'IlIn"
.; I·
," ~. ~'.. :
I.... ··f
," '1', ~I' • ~ I .. ~.. .. l:
'" I 1 '" ~-~Jt 'i ·...-·t •.J .. ~·-j ,
, u" .j: " ...
\ '.
" ', .. -, ......
, - I. .,'., "~;', •. '
.' 11 .. ~' .iI I ·'t ,,,,' •ro., j •
1.<:,., • t ,,}I.i· r :" -Jr':1"-
, I'
',', !4i:·"H.'· ' r" 'f~ ~",
"·C',',"
.-, .... ,
.,,-,
,'." ,'"
\ I ~ .
I. '. :.. ,.•'. ...••'. I, ,.
" '/ ~ '""" : I • ,t ~ t ~,
'--' .. ';' ~f·· ~, .. :-,", , "
.,.," ". ; f ,,- to· 1 ~ ...... . '., .t.", t
Writing ExperiencesJ'" . ,r .... I ,'..
AIt, Mus.c. Theater:r .. p • ,"'~, j' ~~ .. ; 11
I ~,j I'. 't •• k I
·.. f" r· ,P' t I
.. "_ :t~!
1... (~ ,.
, .•.• i
" j t I
,.1.,
, , ,~. "" ' t· ,"" ,t ....,.. I:· .. u .' ~,. 4(
.,; .. ·t- '1", •. "
.' t, .,:. ~
:I',,'1 I
":' -, r... ·'. 1~"~
I f' " r~, Ii:! .. tl
:... j :..- ..\"
182
: :."'1:' ~lr,.·~! ~'~'~'.': II
., ',.. -:* • '. 'I'.
l't! '-I
',. ;"'r. t,) 'il' f'!-
~, r •
(lIRfC lIONS In \;OUr 911f)artenr "" <It ("""5 11<>tlturtOn C'url"q tn•• (U",H,' ,. h._'1 y"'" tn, 'I' -'''''''' •• t· .... ·
l'1.tve you <JOr'le t>.tCr'l 'J' tr>Q fOIlOWlnq) InOt,.,tle 'jI""-lf 'P"'~>Qtls.) l'Y , II <'(I '" .,11. ", I'''' ." ,', I ' . ,.-r qnt l" 1'," h ,>tdt..,me-nt
New.,oc:c.• .--.....y
Oft_v...., Oft_
Campus FaciliUe.
• ~. '# •
tt •
~ 'I" ,....... ~ • ~. I '-. . . ~
.. - N;;;f.'Oc:c.~·,
- Oft.t,
v..-yem.mStudent Acquaintance.. - I ..... T' : ' t.. ~ r..... ,~--r!~,~ ....
: ",... :,r• .. ' t i" ,f .;
,r l'[ .'
Clubs and Organizations
, .. I r,',,' r" ! .....
• F; .'.... '.
.. I
,I..
", 1'. 'f" - .: ~ ..... r -• • •1 I,' ... ,. ,{ • .. ,f., ',j' .. 1'1 ••
..i f .:,·'t·· .. · r' <
. , ".,f , '1'1 __ t.,· f ,·,
.·.•n h.'~·"~~ .\;r, .: ~ ,'~:
I • .\ t ~l·~"·'" .,'" f·
• ; .• r .... ,1:,.. i:'''' ~r"
11.,.-
fJ_ ,Oi,'· l :~i .n'f j- ...:",';:.'
." ..1...... t, ~; -. '~,,,. .. t +
,.,,".
Pe~naIE.pen.nces
I" > '1 -C'
t·<
" ., ,I' T ~
SCientific and Quantitative e.xperience.
,-
j,r.
,;,1 'I- t 'j- :':1'; .. , 1",~r ,! ...... ., • i.. ••
I . ~ . it
" '.i 1,
'. t; : .1--, ..
I
,,1, I .. ·
'1
j,,":,' f l :,
.~ " t., ,n l'~ 'r. p
>~ :
1
I
'.1 'I'
:' I. !
" "
:'
,n.,10J
! I j" .1
,t' "I ,.
j CONVERSA T IONS
Olll£.CT10HS: In conven..dOft'J wllh others (stude"ls, famUy memben, co wo,lLen, etc ) outs.d. thedassroom ""ri... rids scJtool .....r. ,OOlit how often fLa"e you todked about e.ch of the following l
Toptcs of Conversation
" ,
f'f
j':
Na_Oc".alliona"y
Ofh>nVfHYOft<Itn
Intonn.1ltion in Conversations
~occ~...oNfty
Ofteft -
..,." Often
'.
, ~,~" l
I
... 1 .j·f ... • - ... i
k ";'.
.~ .... ."-/: .. '
'.- j'
READING/WRITING_ Mor. th.n 20
Satw_ tg And 20
SalWeen !Ii ...d toFa.... thAn,
,",one
. i~·.! •
More ttl..- zo~-'-0 aft'd'io .
8~S"''''10F__ thanS
Nona
Durmq thiS currt"nt ye.:n,about how many books have youread? Fill In one response for eachItem listed below,
, J ':-, >,( ... " ,'.," ~'- •• '
DUring thl';> current school 'jedr,about how m.ny ••ams, papers, orreports have you written? fill in oneresponse for each item listed below.
• ~t 1 I; r
OPINIONS ABOUT YOUR COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY IHow well do you like college1
II '.
It you could start oy.r again, would you go to thesame institution you are now attending?
" I
'j
184
I THE:. COLLE:.GE ENVIRONMlNT I......~
Colleges .nd unlversnies dIffer from one <iU1othe" In the eaten' to whIch Ih.y emph"slze or loonon ".dous .spects of students' devlle'opment. Thln.'ng 0' your ellpef'llienCe .. I thIS Institution. towh.1 eUent do ~ou f~' lh.t each 0' tbe following is emph• .sized1 The responses .re numberedfrom 7 to I, with the hIghest and lowest ~nls illustrated. FUI In the 0".' with the number Itl.tbest rt':presents your Impres5hu, on Nch of the follo.,lng se"en·po'nt radng sules.
Emphasis on developing ilCademic. scholarly. and in.....dual quail....
Emph..sis on deveioping ..esthetic. uptessiv•• and creative qualities
'J """tJtl"t-, ">
Emph.1sis on d.veloplng critical, ttYallsativ•• and analytical qualiti••
Emphuis on developing an understanding and appreciation 0' human diversity
w ..... Lmpll.t;",>
Emphasis on d.vetoping information literacy slutls (using compu"". other in'ormation resources)
Emphasis on developing vocaltonal and occupational competence-,, f We.... l: mph..... '"
Emphasis on the personal relevance ."d practical vatu. of your courses
"j t r 'I' t'J f ,,; l ",~.:-..t "\
T.... n.... th.... radngs ref.r to re'atlott.. with peopM: oIt this cot'ege. Ag••n. thinki". of )'our ownexperience, pt-.se rolte the qu.Uty Of 'ltese rel.tions"aps on uch 01 lhe 'o'lowlng sev.n point,..tJng sL.&'es.
Relationships with other studentsCon,jlellfl"'" l.!nmvol"..-:. :i~IJS'" of.1'1~ '1~t:.0!
Relationships with administrative personnel and offices
~'~... i:"~_l' • 'tt"it· ...f.,trq':1 ,;'" ~.·t ",!Jlllf,- '.
~r\.·'.tl( .lit;., tl."!
Relationships with faculty members
185
I ESTIMATE. OF GAINS
DIRECTIONS: In thinking itbout "our coilege or unl~t!nuy t!Ipe,.tt!n~e up to now. to what e.tent doyou feel you have gained or made pl"09resi In Ihe following .-re.-57 lndiutt! \four response btfilling in one of the OYilI'S to the riCjlhl ot e ..c:h st.lltemenl.
v., L.ItIMs-
gud;;-'; ianv-y lIud'l
~LmI.
SonMt
~"."tv-vlluc...·
.'1>'" '. .' :1,.' ~:' , ,.' '
,I :
. ' ..~ r' f •• ". .\:. ~ 1 t t
; ,'"" " 1 rt·· ,'".,.,"~"I ,', ,
.•.•. ,.,. ("P: I •. ,.
1 ..~t. 1.-1, 'I ~'!·l.,q· ,n ,:,,".";-.-I I;
':-,.{ ,j,1 .. ·~ /' ; I'; ,r 1'':1;.'.j; f • ~ t' f I I to'. • ... ' .. , I:,
• ,I' ii
• ' l' ~~, 1·' f, .. , " : .
, I : I' '. .f ~ ~.. " .. t . II
,,-1.',( ',' 'I I ,-
'. ,t": •• t .. '
•' : r ,"'" ~: ,,,... , 'f!. ...!.... $ .. , ". ,:,!. ;·:1 , )-"~: ..:,( ,t':vJi;: ..;t.l'Il,tt rit.- ....f' ' .. 'f ~ .... -: i' :,t1..... )'~l r·'; -t .... l'~-: ..." I~". : >
:."; I ~t •• l ",t.' . ,{.,(~ ,...
" I" r,. 'j
'iff
, ,~, ~ ~p'
J •• L',
" .1" ; ! t· t ~ .... ! ...~ \" I tt,
OntER 10..If Req.......t.dI ADDITIONAL QUESTIONSJ I
1. 'j. ;~- - 8, ~,~- ..., :;JJ J. 15. t' (:, .. t
2. ::' J, 9. \1 ...j;~. f· 16. f' e'3, .. ~ 10. " .. ~I 1. ";i, r 11. 'r., .i;, C 11. ,. r 18, t'
5, f- r 12. :' ~ 19. E' .6. ~ , 1" 13. 20.1. '<.. 14.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION' d-
186
Referen£es
American College Personnel Association. (1994). The student learningimperative: Implications for student aJJairs. Washington.. DC: American CollegePersonnel Association.
Anderson. Sharon & et at (1980). Statistical nletlzods for comparative stu.dies:techniques for bias reductioll. New York: Wiley and Sons Publishers.
Association of Governing Boards. ( 1996). Renewing the academic presidency:stronger leadership for lougher times. \Vashington.. DC: Association of GoverningBoards.
Astin. A.Vi. (1977). Four crillcal years: Effects ofcollege 011 heliefs, altitudes,alld knowledge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Astin. A. \V. (1993). JJ7wt matters ill college: Four critical years revisited. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Aulepp. L.. and Delworth. U. (1978). A team approach to environmentalassessment. In J.H. Banning (cd.). Campus ecology: A perspective for student aJfcllrs.Portland: National Association of Student Personnel A.dministrators.
Austin. G. C. (1986). Orientation to honors education. In P.G. Friedman & R.C.Jenkins-Friedman (Eds.). Fostering academic excellence through /zonors programs. 5-16.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Aydelotte. F. (1944). Breaking the academic lock step. New York: Harper andBrothers.
Babbie. E. (1990). Sun'e.\' research methods. Belmont Wadsworth Publishers.
Baylor University Ten-Year Vision: 2002-20012 (2001 ). Available:http://pr.baylor.edulvision/html (Acessed 3 February. 2002).
Belenky. M.• Clinchy. B. and Goldberger. N.• & Tarule. J. (1986). JVomen 's ~1/ays
of/...'1loU'ing. New York: Basic Books.
187
Birnbaum. R. (1988). How colleges work: n,e cybernetics ofacademicorgani=ation and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Bolman. L.G. and DeaL T.E. (1991). Reframillg organi=atiolls: Artistry, choice,alld leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Bowen. H. R. (1977). Investnlent in learning: The individual and social value ofAmerican higher edllcallofl. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bo\ven. \V. G. & Bok. D. (1998). The shape ofthe r;"er: Long term consequencesofconsidering race ill college and ulliversi(r admissions. Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress.
Braun. C. (1976). Teacher expectations: Sociopsychological d}11amics. Review ofEducational Research. ..J6. 185-213.
Brooks. J. and DuBois. D. (1995). Individual and environmental predictors ofadjustment during the tirst year of college. Journal ofCollege Student Development, 36,347-358.
Brophy. J. ( 1883). Research on the self-fulfilling prophecy and teacherexpectations. Jou.rnal ofEducational Psychology. 75, 631-661.
Bulakowski. C. and To·wnsend. B. (1995. November/December). Evaluation of acommunity college honors program: Problems and possibilities. Comnzuni~l' CollegeJournal ofResearch and Practice. 19.485-99.
Byrne. J. P. (1998). HOllors programs III community colleges: A revie'wafrecentissues and literature. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service Report No. ED 417 785).
Chickering. A. (1969). Edu.cation and idellti~\·. San Francisco: Jossey-BassPublishers.
Chickering. A.. & Gamson. Z. ( 1987). Seven principles for good practices inundergraduate education. AA.HE Bulletill. 39. pp. 3-7.
Cohen. M.D. and March. J.G. (1974). Leadership and ambiguity: the Americancollege president. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
lRR
Creswell. J. 'Vv'. ( 1994). Research design: Qu.alitative and quantitative approaches.Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Creswell. J.\V. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing amongfil'e traditions. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Cross. K. P. (1998. July/August). \Vhy learning communities? Why now? AboutCampus. 4-11.
Cummings. RJ. ( 1986). Exploring values. issues. and controversies. In P.G.Friedman & R.C. Jenkins-Friedman (eds.). Fostering academic excellence through honorsprograms. 17-28. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Day. A. L. (1989). Honors students. In r\1. L. Upcrafi. 1. N. Gardner. & Associates(eds.). The freshman year experience. 352-362. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Digby. J. (1997). 110110rs programs: the ollfl' who. what. why. and where ofone ofthe most fill€l1l ciaIf\' and I1ltellectllalfr rewarding college experiences you can hal/e.Princeton: Peterson's.
Elashoft: J.D. and Snow. R.E. (1971). Pygmalion reconsidered. \Vorthington:Jones Press.
Erikson. E. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. Psychological issues monograph, I.New York: International Universities Press.
Ewell. P. T. ( 1985). AsseSSing educational outcomes. San Francisco: Jossey-BassPublishers.
Feldman. K. and Newcomb, T. (1969). The impact ofcollege on students. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Feldman, R. S., and Prohaska, T. (1979). The student as pygmalion: Effect ofstudent expectation on the teacher. Journal o/Educational PS.l:chology, 71. 485-493.
Gabelnick. F. (1986). Curriculum design: the medium is the message. In P.G.Friedman & R.C. Jenkins-Friedman (eds.), Fostering academic excellence through honorsprograms, 75-86. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Gilligan, C. (1982). //1 a different voice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Glaser. B. and Strauss. A. (1967). The study ofgrounded theory. Chicago: AldinePress.
Goleman. D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: In,.\' it can malter more than IQ.New York: Bantam Books.
Healy, P. (2000. September 24). Charges of elitism greet new school on umasscampus. The Boston Globe, p. A30.
Healy, P. (1997a~ April 11). Massachusetts decides to create an elite publiccollege. The Chronicle ofHigher Education, p. A28.
Healy, P. (1997b, July 11). Massachusetts board picks Amherst as site for honorscollege. The Chronicle ofHigher Edu.cation. p. A24.
Hoover. Eric (2002. ~farch 8). Who's up and who's do\\'n in national meritscholar competition. Chronicle ofHigher Educatlon, p. A 36.
Hov.'cll, D.C, (199.2). Statisllcal methods for psychology. Belmont: Duxbury Press.
Huebner, L. A. (1991). Interaction of student and campus. In U. Delworth. G.R.Hanson (Eds.), Student sen'ices: A handbookfor the profession (2nd ed.). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Jacobi. ;vI., Astin, A. & Ayala. F., Jr. (1987). College student outcomesassessment: A talellt de\'elopment perspective. \Vashington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse onHigher Education.
Jamieson. D. W. ( 1984). PYmalion revisited: new evidence for student expectancyeffects in the classroom. (ERIC No. ED269671). Paper presented at the AnllualConvention o/the Anlerican Psychological Association. Toronto, Ontario.
Johnson, L. S. (1995). The psychosocial development of academically talentedcollege students: An exploratory investigation. College Student Journal, 29, 278-289.
Kegan. R. (1982). The evolving self: Problems and process in humandevelopment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
190
Kitchener. K. and King. P. (1985,. The reflective judgement model:Characteristics. evidence. and measurement. In R. Mines and K. Kitchener (eds.). Socia/cognitive developmellt ill .'·oung adults. New York: Praeger.
Knefelkamp. L. \Vidick. C.. and Parker. C. (1978). App(rillg lieu' developmentalfindings. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Kohlberg. L ( 1981 ). Essays Oil moral development: The philosophy ofmoraldevelopment. New York: Harper and Row.
Krueger. Richard A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical gUide for appliedresearch. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Kuh, G. D. Pace. R.. & Vesper (1997). The development of process indicators toestimate student gains associated with good practices in undergraduate education.Research in Higher Education. 38. 435-454.
Lam. Barry (2000. December I). Letters to the editor: honors colleges and themediocrity of education at Public Universities. Chronicle ofHigher Education, p. 84.
Lenning. a.T. (1980). Needs as a basis for academic program planning. In RichardB. Heydinger (Ed.). Academic Planningfor the /980's. San Francisco: Jossey-BassPublishers.
Levine. A. & Cureton. J. S. ( (998). JJ7,ell hope andfear collide: A portrait oftoday's college student. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
!\-fathiasen. R. E. (1985). Characteristics of the college honors student. Journal ofCo/iege Student Personnel, 26. 171-173
Mack. M., Jr. (1996, Spring). These things called honors programs. LiberalEducation, 34-39.
McCabe, D. L & Drinan. P. (1999, October 15). Toward a culture of academicintegrity. Chronicle ofHigher Education, p. 87.
McDermott, D. (1989. February 22). College honors programs foster elitism andthreaten morale. Chronicle ofHigher Education, p. 82.
IY1
~1entkowskj. rvl. and Doherty, A. ( 1983). Careering after college: Etablishing the\.'alidi~\' ofabilities learned ill college for later careering and professional performance.Final Report to NIE. ED 252 144. 228pp.
Merriam. S.B. (1998). Qualitatil'e research and case study applications ineducation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Merton. R.K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. Antioch Review. 8. 193-210.
Moos. R. H. (1976). The hllman context: environmental determinants ofbehal'ior.New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Nunnaly. J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGra\'i-Hill.
Once again. Maryland's freshmen are the brightest ever. (1999. August 31).Outlook: The Uni\'ersity ofAlary'land Faculty and Staff JVeekly Newspaper. p. 1.
Oppenheim, A. (1992). Questionnaire design, inten'iel'.'ing alld attitudemeasureme1lt. Ne\\' York: St. Martins Press.
Ory. J. C .. & Braskamp. L. A. (1988). Involvement and growth of students in threeacademic programs. Research ill Higher Education. 28. 116-129.
Pace. C. R. ( 1987). Good lhl1lgs go together. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for theStudy of Evaluation.
Palmer. A. B. and Wohl (1972). Some personality characteristics of honorsstudents. College Student Journal. 6. 106-111
Pascarella. E. & Terenzini. P. (1991). HaUl college affects sllulents. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Pascarella, E., Edison. M.• Nora, A.. Hagedorn. L. & Terenzini. P. (1996).Influence on students' openness to diversity and challenge in the first year of college.Jou.rnal ofHigher Educatioll. 67. 174-195.
Pelikan. J. (1992). The idea o/lhe ulliversit.v: A reexamination. Ne\v Haven: YaleUniversity Press.
1'J2
Peny. W. G. (1968). Forms ofiluellectllal and ethical de\'elopment in the collegeyears. New York: Holt. Rinehart. and Winston.
Peny. 'tV. G. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A.Chickering (Ed.). The A/at/ern American College: Responding to the new realities ofdi\'erse students alld a changing SOcilY. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Pervin. L. A. (1967). A twenty-college study of student x college interaction usingTAPE: rationale. reliability. and validity. Journal a/Educational Psychology. 58. 290302.
Pflaum. S.. Pascarella. E.. & Duby. P. (1985). The effects of honors collegeparticipation on academic perfonnance during the freshman year. Journal ofCollegeStudent Personnel. 26. 414-419.
Piaget. J. (1964). Judgement and reasoning illlhe child. Totowa: Littlefield.Adams.
PIous. S. ( 1993). The psychology oJjll.dgmenl and decision making. Philadelphia:Temple University Press.
Prewitt. K. (1993). America's research universities under public scrutiny. In S.Cole, E. Barber. & S Graubard (eds.). The research ltIllversi(\' ill a time o/discontent. pp.203-217. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ragin. C.C. (1987). The comparative met/rod: mo\'ing be.vond quail/alive andquantitative strategies. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.
Randall. C.J .. & Spiller. N.C. (1985). A composite profile of the honors programin higher education. Fon"m ill Honors, 3. 20-30.
Reihman. J., Varhus, S. & Whipple. \iV. (1995). Evaluating honors programs: Anoutcomes approach. Alollograph ofthe National Collegiale HOllars Council.
Rich. B.B. (1991). Factor analysis ifillcomillgjirst-year hOllors students'thoughts and perceptions. Unpublished master's thesis. University of Maryland. CollegePark.
i93
Rodgers. R. F. (1991). Student Development. In U. Delworth. G.R. Hanson (Eds.).Student sen'ices: A handbookfor the profession (2n
i.1 ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-BassPublishers.
Roilier, B. (2000. December 1). Honors Colleges and the Mediocrity of Educationat Public Universities. Chronicle ofHigher Educt1tion. p. B4.
Rosenthal. R. and Jacobson. L. (1968). Pygmalion In the classroom: Teacherexpeclatio1ls and pupils' Inlellectual development. New York: Holt. Rinehart andWinston.
Rosenthal. R. and Babad. E. ( 1985). PYbrrnalion in the gymnasium. EducationalLeadership. 43. 36-39.
Roufagalas. John ( 1994). Honors classes and student performance: a quantitativeanalysis. Foru.m ill HOllors. FalUWinter.
Schuh. J.• & Upcraft. L. (1999). Facts and myths about assessment in studentaffairs. Ahout Campus. 3. pp. 2-8.
Sell. D. K. (198..J). The honors movement in the United States. Journal ofthe,Vatlonal Co//egiate HOllors Council. 3. 1-15.
Seymour. D. ( 1996). Iligh performuzg colleges: the A/alcolm Baldrige NallonalQuality Award as a framework for impro\'lllg higher education. Maryvi lie: PrescottPublishing.
Sperber. rvturray (2000. October 20). End the Mediocrity of Our PublicUniversities. Chronicle ofHigher Education, p. B24.
Sullivan. R. R. (1994). Ivy league programs at slate school prices: the best hOllorsprograms at state universuies nationwide. New York: Prentice Hall.
Terenzini. P. & Pascarella. E. (1978). The relation of students' precollegecharacteristics and freshman year experiences to voluntary attrition. Research in HigherEducation, 9. 347-366.
Thernstrom. Stephan & Themstrom, Abigail ( 1997). America in black and white:One natioll. indivisible. New York: Simon and Schuster.
194
Tinlo. V. \ 1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures ofstudentattritioll. New York: McGraw Hill Publishers.
Trochim. W. (2000). The research methods J..710w/edge hase. Cincinnati: AtomicDog Publishing.
Umbach. Paul ( 1998). U"derstallliing strategy and enrollment management: acase stud,Y ofthe University ofAlary/and. College Park. Unpublished paper. University ofMaryland. College Park.
\Veissert. Will (1999. Saptember 2'+). Board Admonishes Tennessee State U.President. Chronicle ofHigher Education. p. A44.
\Vidick. C. Kenelfkamp. L. & Parker. C. (1975). The counselor as developmentalinstructor. Counselor Education and Supen'ision. l·t 286-296.
Wilson. R. (1999. October 15). Colleges urged to better define academic integrityand to stress its importance. Chronicle ofHigher Education. p. A I8.
Wineburg. S.S. (1987). The self-fulfillment of the self-fulfilling prophecy.Educational Researcher. December. pp. 28-40.
Woolfolk. A. E. (1987). Educational psychology (3 rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs:Prentice-Hall.
Woolston. Chris (2001. October 22). The gender gap in science. The Chronicle ofHigher Education. p. B4.
Wright. D. J. (1987). Responding to the /leeds oftoda.\.'·s "Hllority students. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Yin. R. K. (1984). Case study research design and methods. Newbury Park:SagePublications.
195
