A Research-Focused Honors Program for High-Ability Teacher-Education Students

How Have Colleges of Education Structured HPs?

Despite the fact that the literature base is small, it reports on programs with diverse designs. In two cases—the University of Connecticut (Norlander-Case, Campbell, Reagan, & Case, 1998) and the University of Idaho (Heide, Kozicki, & Pedras, 1999)—the colleges redesigned their entire teacher education programs to incorporate a typical honors focus on research, inquiry, and reflection. More common, however, were programs for a subset of high-ability students—programs distinguished on the basis of the addition of course work and field experiences on top of an existing course of study (H. C. Evans, 1983). Often, additional course work included seminars (S. Evans, King, & Landers, 1986; Kent State University [KSU], 1989a, 1989b, 1989c; Reed, 1988) and the completion of action research projects in conjunction with a practicum experience (Heide et al., 1999; Norlander-Case et al., 1998).

Not only did programs differ in terms of their centrality to the mission of the college, but they also differed in terms of their focus on acceleration and their linkages with colleges of arts and sciences. In the University of Connecticut’s HP, for instance, students finished 2 years of education in the College of Arts and Sciences and then spent 3 years in the teacher education program, graduating with the bachelor’s and master’s degree in education (Norlander-Case et al., 1998). In the Lyndhurst Program at the University of Knoxville (Boser, Wiley, & Pettibone, 1986), participants completed an accelerated bachelor’s degree in an arts and sciences field—typically involving 3 years of study during which time they enrolled in no education courses whatsoever. Participants then completed a program that “include[d] an intensive ten-week session of coursework . . . followed by a year-long [paid] public school internship” (Boser et al., 1986, p. 4).

What Are the Priorities of HPs in Colleges of Education?

HPs in colleges of education tended to favor one of three priorities: the development of practical competence in the classroom through frequent and intense field work, the development of reflective inquiry, and the recruitment of academically talented undergraduates. Although these aims were in play in all the HPs, each program seemed to value one more highly than the others.

The earliest available research on an honors curriculum within a university’s teacher education program was a case study describing the linked BEd degree with honors at Sunderland Polytechnic in England (Webster, 1978). For this program, the highest priority was “the professional synthesis of theory and practice which reaches its culmination in the final year of each course [of study]” (Webster, 1978, p. 230).

The program focused on the development of teaching skills and engagement with curriculum studies in the hopes of producing more capable and confident new teachers. With this end in view, faculty provided experiences intended to cultivate a broad intellectual perspective and critical awareness of a range of educational ideas, including those related to the social justice. When Webster’s article was published, the BEd with honors had not been in existence for very long, and the author concluded the article by recommending that the program be systematically evaluated over time. This program’s explicit attention to the incorporation of relevant field experiences was similar to the focus of some programs developed in subsequent years at other institutions (e.g., Heide et al., 1999; KSU, 1989a, 1989b, 1989c).

Several studies described programs with the overarching aim of preparing reflective, culturally responsive educators. For example, Felder (1986) reported on a program at the University of Houston that devoted particular attention to a systematic process for engaging students in periodic reflection and “inquiry into the meaning and effect of one’s own and others’ teaching” (p. 4). In their report of the program at the University of Connecticut, Norlander-Case and associates (1998) talked about the program’s efforts to prepare teachers whose practice would be informed by ongoing reflection and critical inquiry. Similarly, the redesign of the College of Education at the University of Idaho resulted in a program whose primary aim was the preparation of teachers who would be highly aware of and responsive to culture and context (Heide et al., 1999). An HP at Northern Kentucky University incorporated an international field experience to expand cultural awareness (Bishop & Sittason, 2007). Across these programs, despite different curricula and field experiences, the emphasis on reflective inquiry manifested as a dominant theme.

In contrast to programs with the explicit aim of developing reflective inquiry, some HPs prioritized the recruitment and retention of academically talented students into teacher preparation. Faculty in these programs tended to express concern about the tendency of the brightest college students to select programs of study that would lead to work in the private sector rather than leading to work in schools. These programs were more likely than others to adopt extrinsic incentives for attracting academically talented students to teacher preparation, in particular accelerated programming and financial support.

The Honors Scholar Program for preservice teachers in the College of Education and Human Services at Wright State University illustrated this approach. According to S. Evans et al. (1986), the program, launched in 1984, was designed to “recruit, select, and retain potentially talented teachers” (p. 3) by attracting “the best and brightest” (p. 4) college applicants. Financial incentives included up to 15 full-tuition scholarships per year for students who scored within the top 10th percentile on the SAT or American College Test (ACT; S. Evans et al., 1986). This program was one of the few that offered financial support through scholarships to attract and reward talented students. Other universities that provided some financial incentives were Virginia Commonwealth University (Reed, 1988) and the University of Knoxville (Boser et al., 1986).

How Have HPs Affected Colleges of Education?

Reports of only a few programs, namely, those at the University of Knoxville (Boser & Wiley, 1988; Boser et al., 1986), KSU (1989a, 1989b, 1989c), and the University of Connecticut (Norlander-Case et al., 1998) presented data that had been collected over three or more years. The study of the Lyndhurst Program at the University of Knoxville (Boser et al., 1986) involved surveying students every fall and tracking their professional progress postgraduation (Boser & Wiley, 1988). Results indicated that more Lyndhurst students were given contracts to teach soon after graduation than their counterparts who had graduated from Knoxville’s traditional teacher education programs. Furthermore, at three points in time—during their preparation, directly after graduation, and 2 years following graduation—data showed that Lyndhurst graduates perceived themselves and were perceived by others as having a strong motivation to teach and a deep commitment to the teaching profession.

KSU’s HP, noted above as one of the programs with an explicit focus on helping students link theory to practice through significant field experiences, also aimed to recruit and retain high-achieving teacher-education students (KSU, 1989a, 1989b, 1989c). The college recruited 450 potential students for its HP and eventually selected 30. The program’s most notable features were individualized advising, faculty participation in a multistakeholder Advisory Council, and the matching of teacher candidates with appropriate mentor teachers at nearby schools. A self-evaluation of the program (KSU, 1989a, 1989b, 1989c) concluded that although faculty reported tensions surrounding the sharing of extra responsibilities, changes in the program had produced a rewarding experience for teacher candidates and increased their employability. The report also suggested that the program features that had been adopted were necessary to the program’s success and that of its students and graduates. As a result, the evaluators recommended that these features be sustained through ongoing support from the college.

As mentioned above, the University of Connecticut’s redesign of teacher education focused mainly on developing capacities for reflective inquiry and action research among its students. Four evaluators, all of whom were affiliated with the program, collected data during the course of 5 years. Analyzing data from a variety of sources (e.g., interviews, students’ journal entries), the evaluators identified four major themes: (a) the importance of reflection in the daily lives of teachers, (b) the positive effect of the inquiry project on students’ perceptions of self-efficacy, (c) the impact of teacher inquiry and reflection on individual children as well as on classroom and school culture, and (d) the importance of collegial partnerships in developing reflective practice.

In all three of these cases, evaluations supported the conclusion that the extra effort involved in delivering a special program to talented students was worthwhile. The studies also found that the particular features incorporated into each of these HPs and program redesigns had positively affected the colleges of education in which they operated.

What the Research Does and Does Not Show

Although the research on HPs in colleges of education is limited, it points to some rich and varied programs seeking to attract academically talented students to careers in teaching. Although many of the features of these programs are similar—the use of seminars, reflective journals, action research, and intensive field experiences—their specific aims and curricular structures differ considerably.

Because the literature is scarce, dated, and often based on self-reports of faculty participants, however, we see ample room for additional research on such programs. Indeed, others have also noted the limited involvement of College of Education students and faculty in honors efforts as well as the need to create HPs that respond to the particular needs of the preservice teacher candidate (L. S. Noble & Dowling, 2007).

Our contribution is similar in some ways to earlier efforts because our data come from an internal evaluation. Nevertheless, our evaluation used interviewers and data analysts with no prior involvement in program design or delivery. Moreover, our evaluation attempted to surface rich descriptions of participants’ experiences with the program—an approach that enabled us to identify challenges and frustrations as well as valued program features and outcomes.

Focus on Inquiry

Across participant groups, interviewees acknowledged the central role of inquiry in the HP courses. Their perspectives regarding the value of specific inquiry-focused assignments—action research projects, point–counterpoint papers, persuasive essays, survey research, in-class debates, reflective journaling—differed somewhat. In particular, interviewees held conflicting views about the relative salience of projects that required students to conduct empirical research, read research critically, and produce written work. Despite some variability in perspective, students found the courses rigorous intellectually and welcomed the social cohesion that resulted from sharing a challenging experience with peers.

In comments indicating their support for the program’s focus on inquiry, faculty members often drew attention to the connections between inquiry, critical thinking, data-based instructional practice, and systematic research. For some faculty, involving HP students in field-based research projects seemed to be a highly productive way to cultivate their capacity as critical and independent thinkers. For others, critical analysis of contemporary issues in education seemed most productive of these ends.

According to students, focus on inquiry was a distinguishing feature of the HP because it promoted greater engagement with challenging academic work than was typical with other courses in their programs of study.

Instructional Methods Focusing on Inquiry

The literature on gifted education provides numerous discussions of inquiry as an important approach to curriculum for gifted and talented students across the age span (e.g., McGregor, 2001; Subotnik & Coleman, 1996; VanTassel-Baska, 1986). Inquiry curricula vary, ranging from projects in which gifted students conduct empirical investigations to activities in which they engage in problem solving and/or philosophical debate. Students identified two ways in which their classes required engagement with inquiry: (a) assignments requiring varied analyses and critiques of published research, for example, reflective journals, point–counterpoint papers, in-class debates, and persuasive essays, and (b) direct participation as researchers, for example, action research projects and survey research. Many students responded positively to action research projects that involved them in inquiry in ways they believed would prepare them for reflective teaching practice. As one student noted,

I thought that was probably the most beneficial and memorable thing . . . because we actually got to get more field experience; we got to go into the classroom and perform action research instead of just learning the theories behind it. (Student 6)

Faculty members also reported that they structured classes to include high-level reading and writing activities to challenge students.

Although all faculty members required students to think critically and write extensively, their comments revealed differences in instructional focus. Some faculty favored activities that enabled students to function as critical consumers of research, for instance by assigning literature reviews, book critiques, and other activities that focused on critical reading of empirical literature; and others assigned activities that required students to conduct empirical research (e.g., action research, surveys), typically in small groups. A faculty member who used the former approach commented,

I try to teach them more how to become consumers of what’s out there. So can they, can they look at a study and, and think to themselves, um, “Is this something where I think I can trust the evidence here?” (Faculty Member 1)

One who used the latter approach noted,

One of my goals was to get the kids involved in an actual research project, and so we designed a structured interview protocol over the course of much of the [quarter], and . . . toward the end of the quarter, we went out with the purpose of [interviewing] 200 adults. (Faculty Member 2)

In addition to the focus on reading, writing, and research, faculty members also pointed to other characteristics of HP classes that made them intellectually challenging: (a) the expectation that students produce multiple revisions of written products, (b) the use of various discussion formats (e.g., small group discussion, debate, large group discussion), and (c) the individualization that small class sizes made possible.

Rigor and Relevance

The phrase rigor and relevance has become a catchphrase for recent school reform efforts, but concern about the degree to which curricula for gifted students incorporate both meaningful and challenging content has a long legacy (Howley, Howley, & Pendarvis, 1995). Although some programs for high-ability students have emphasized rigor over relevance and others have emphasized relevance over rigor, most such program attempt to be “integrative” to the greatest extent possible. As Vars and Rakow (1993, p. 48) explain, “Integrative curriculum provides appropriate opportunities for gifted students to build on their natural inclinations to make connections among abstract ideas.” This perspective illustrates the intrinsic connection between rigor and relevance. Although faculty and students agreed that the HP courses were rigorous, the two groups differed in their assessment of the relevance of the courses, particularly the relevance of the inquiry projects that made the courses rigorous. For most faculty members, the relevance of the courses was a given. They had, after all, participated in developing the courses and would not have selected content and activities that they judged to be irrelevant. One faculty member was more explicit than others in expressing this sentiment:

If education is going to continue to stay relevant, it’s going to constantly have to change to meet the demands of the young students coming behind it. And that means that you have to be able to make informed decisions . . . informed . . . by data. You best understand data by using data. (Faculty Member 7)

Not all students agreed that the focus on inquiry was relevant to their preparation as teachers. Some, in fact, expressed the view that focus on inquiry in projects such as reflective journals, persuasive essays, and in-class debates overshadowed learning about teaching methods such as classroom management and lesson planning—skills they thought especially helpful for beginning teachers. One student articulated an oft-shared perspective:

I don’t know what the explicit goals of the honors program are, but I believe it, it focuses so heavily on research and the theory behind education that I have to believe it’s there to make us better researchers, and better at inquiring, than it is at being teachers. (Student 6)

Some students, by contrast, expressed the belief that the program’s focus on inquiry and particularly the action research they had conducted provided good preparation for teaching. As one student commented,

It’s broadened my knowledge of what we can actually do as teachers. Like, if there is a problem in your classroom, now we know we can actually, like, do action research and make an action plan ourselves, rather than just running to the principal and saying, “Okay, what should I do?” (Student 1)

Social Cohesion As a Productive Response to Challenging Academic Work

Studies of intensive experiences in which gifted students have occasion to work closely with similarly talented peers and thereby to develop strong social bonds suggest that various types of special programs −summer residential programs, early college programs, honors program, and other similar initiatives −promote academic growth and social development (e.g., K. D. Noble, Childers, & Vaughan, 2008; Rinn, 2006). One by-product of the program’s rigor, as well as its intentional use of a cohort model, was the social cohesion it helped to create among the students. Explaining the sources of their social bonding, one student commented,

I think that it’s the group of students you’re working with . . . that we all have a common set of goals to obviously strive for more, since we are in the honors program, and going above and beyond. (Student 7)

For several students, the best part of the program was the camaraderie and friendships that it encouraged:

I have called many people crying. I’ve called . . . I’ve emailed at three in the morning the day the paper’s due: “What is this section about? Why in the world do we have to write this?” And . . . just having somebody to commiserate with, basically, is the best part of this process. (Student 9)

Although faculty members had less to say than students about social cohesion, some mentioned the supportive nature of the HP: “They’re very supportive; they’ve definitely developed a little learning community [and] that’s good” (Faculty Member 8). Faculty members also made efforts to connect with students in informal ways to provide support and encourage social cohesion. One student from the first HP cohort described an out-of-class bonding experience:

It was kind of nerve wracking being new to . . . town, not really knowing anyone, and then, to get to know each other better, we had a dinner at our professor’s house. So we got to know each other better and then participate in a project together, which made it a lot better, and it was pretty cool. (Student 7)

Leadership Perspectives

One of the major reasons that educators cite for providing special programs for gifted and talented students is to cultivate their leadership capabilities. Despite the prominence of this rationale, however, little agreement exists regarding several pivotal issues: the definition of leadership, the connection between traits of children and adolescents and their eventual leadership capabilities as adults, and the impact of programs designed to improve the leadership skills of gifted and talented students (Matthews, 2004). Matthews’ review of the literature provides an outstanding analysis of the relevant concerns. The second theme concerned leadership, represented by complex and sometimes competing views of the construct and the program’s role in cultivating it. These views implicated the contrast between providers and consumers of leadership preparation, inquiry as preparation for autonomy and intellectual leadership, and distinctions among three stances regarding the aims of leadership preparation.

Differing Stances Toward Leadership

Whereas most faculty members agreed that the HP should foster intellectual leadership, they differed sharply in their views about whether it should cultivate organizational leadership or political leadership. Their views reflected a continuum ranging from more individualistic and meritocratic to more collectivist and democratic. Although students spoke about organizational and political leadership less often than faculty members, their comments also reflected the same range of perspectives.

Those whose comments revealed the more meritocratic view of leadership saw an overlap between intellectual talent and leadership and made statements suggesting that HP students would benefit from leadership preparation because these students were well-positioned to become leaders. Three of eight faculty members and one of nine students provided comments suggesting they subscribed to this view. A quote from a faculty participant illustrates this perspective:

And there’s nothing wrong with thinking about them aspiring to the highest pinnacle of their profession, and that, for me, it’s like the president of the United States, the number one job in America. We’re preparing the “cream of the crop,” the “crème de la crème.” Whether they choose to or not, we ought to be preparing them such that we are giving them the foundation to assume those roles, should they choose it. (Faculty Member 7)

At the other end of the continuum, participants with a more democratic view of leadership expressed skepticism toward the sort of leadership in which more talented individuals assumed control over organizations or political jurisdictions. For these participants, the HP ought not only to steer clear of a conventional approach to leadership preparation but should also explicitly challenge assumptions about leadership. As one of the faculty members noted,

I think leadership is an honorific. I think this country is a democratic nation, and instead of preparing very talented people for leadership positions, we need to prepare all people for leadership positions. That is an example of something that could be taught to all people. (Faculty Member 2)

A student’s comment elaborated on this position:

Leadership is caught in this social mechanism to keep people who are from higher social economic statuses to maintain their position. If . . . you take those students who are the “best and the brightest” and you send them off to special seminars or you create honors track programs for them to prime them thinking they are leaders . . . It’s stupid because you’re taking people who are already secure and calling them and telling them they can do anything in the entire world. (Student 5)

Between the two conflicting perspectives was an intermediate position that construed the HP as a testing ground for leadership (especially, intellectual leadership) preparation that might be extended through a somewhat less demanding program to all students in the college. Two faculty members made comments reflecting this point of view. According to one,

If I could describe a strategy [for] . . . how this whole thing might move forward . . . it wouldn’t so much be expanding the honors program and bringing so many kids in the honors program. It would be take what’s working and what’s exciting, and . . . what’s happening within the honors program . . . [and] expand that throughout the [teacher preparation] program. But keep . . . an honors program for really, really highly motivated and really high performing group of kids and push them even harder. (Faculty Member 8)

Logistical Difficulties

Both faculty and students reported that administrative roadblocks interfered with the college’s ability to offer a rigorous HP to students who were pursuing licensure as teachers. These roadblocks appeared to be most troubling for the first HP cohort—all of whom were required to add HP courses to their programs of study along with all required courses in their licensure programs.

At that time, administrators had not yet figured out a way to exempt HP students from any of the licensure requirements, and the HP included eight courses. In the 2nd year of the program, the coordinator worked to develop a plan for allowing some HP courses to substitute for some licensure courses, and the faculty reduced the number of HP courses from eight to six. Despite these changes, several faculty members and students still had concerns about course substitutions:

I think a lot of students are afraid that they’re going to have to take extra classes or do a lot of extra work, or take classes and then have other classes that don’t count for things, and, and even though [now, in contrast to last year] I think that there’s a pretty good plan, but getting the students to believe it is kind of tough. (Faculty Member 4)

Another faculty member expressed that, despite efforts to advise HP students, the changes that had been made still were not clear to all of them:

It’s my hope that by the next academic year, we will have a template where we can tell the students off the bat what courses are eligible to substitute for which in their content areas . . . . We have a better understanding of it now, but that certainly has been a challenge. (Faculty Member 7)

Several students also expressed concern about what they saw as disorganization regarding scheduling and related advising issues. These students indicated that having a schedule that showed them when to enroll in HP and other required courses would help them better navigate the program. A related issue—scheduling HP classes in time slots that did not conflict with other required courses—also concerned participants.

Despite some faculty members’ awareness of these logistical difficulties, not all of them were attentive to the needs of the HP students. Perhaps because several of the HP faculty members rarely taught regular undergraduate classes, they were out of touch with undergraduates’ experiences, expectations, and concerns. According to one faculty member, “It seems to me that a lot of faculty that typically only teach graduate courses are teaching undergraduate [HP] courses, so that might be the challenge for making this more workable” (Faculty Member 8). By contrast, some faculty members were less sympathetic to the plight of the HP students, feeling, in fact, that the program coordinator and some faculty members were actually providing too much “hand-holding.”

Another concern expressed by some of the students—but notably absent from the comments offered by faculty members—related to the information HP students believed they were missing because they took HP courses rather than non-HP courses. Specifically, the HP students spoke about missing early field observation courses—courses that not only gave students direct involvement with schools but that also provided logistical information about how to arrange and negotiate field placements.

Summary

Data analysis revealed three themes suggesting that the HP was providing students with an academic experience that, because of its focus on inquiry, was intellectually challenging and productive of social cohesion, but sometimes frustrating. Logistical difficulties and lack of clarity about how a focus on research fits with practical preparation for teaching contributed to the frustration students reported. The feature of the program that was most controversial was its purported emphasis on leadership development.

The Value of Research and Inquiry for Teaching Talented Students

One important finding concerned the HP’s focus on inquiry. Not only did inquiry projects and discussions requiring critical thinking challenge the students, but they also connected deeply to the program’s aim of giving undergraduates opportunities to experience research firsthand.

Universally, students reported that these experiences were memorable and highly instructive, and attributed improved writing and critical thinking skills to these experiences. The spirit of inquiry as well as attentiveness to multiple perspectives also pervaded faculty discussions about the program and how it might improve.

This finding fits with earlier literature reporting on the benefits of HPs for education students—especially programs that sought to promote reflective inquiry and critical thinking (Felder, 1986; Heide et al., 1999; Norlander-Case et al., 1998). It also corresponds to findings about the value of HPs in secondary schools and 2- and 4-year colleges (Berger, 2007; Hébert & McBee, 2007; McDonald, 2010; McKeague, 1984) as well as intellectually challenging programs of other sorts for gifted and talented students (e.g., A. Howley, Howley, & Pendarvis, 1986).

The Benefit of Relationships With Talented Peers

The study also showed that the HP supported the development of social networks and friendships that extended beyond the structured experiences of the program. Whereas team research projects helped students challenge and support one another in the process of producing research studies, they also contributed to stress. Students reported relying on one another for emotional support as they encountered the intellectual challenges the program presented. Other studies of HPs and honors academies have provided similar reports of the value of social networks among participants (e.g., Glennen & Martin, 1999; Hébert & McBee, 2007).

Demanding Intellectual Growth, Providing Support, and Encountering Challenges

Although program faculty sought to provide support to students while requiring high levels of engagement and intellectual performance, the program was beset by logistical problems. These problems contributed to students’ concerns about the relative value of the HP in comparison with the traditional course of study in teacher education.

The logistical problems resulted from the program developers’ initial decision to add the HP courses and field experiences to an already full and tightly regulated program of study. This decision was akin to the choice in K-12 education to require gifted students to complete all the work from their general education classes along with all the work from their gifted education classes (A. Howley et al., 1986). In K-12, such requirements burden gifted students and run counter to the aim of providing high-level instruction to students capable of handling it (A. Howley et al., 1986). Similar dynamics seemed also to pose challenges for the HP. Providing opportunities to accelerate through (or test out of) less challenging required courses seems to work reasonably well in K-12 schools and might be an approach that the HP faculty would want to consider.

The Problematic Character of Leadership Development

Leadership development was an intended feature of the HP, but it was not something that all faculty members agreed was important—especially when leadership was construed conventionally as political or organizational leadership. In fact, the focus on leadership sometimes caused confusion even though sometimes it also stimulated generative dialog. Faculty, in particular, had widely differing views about leadership development and its relevance to course work and field experiences in an HP. Students, by and large, expressed the view that the program did not actually focus on leadership or, when it did, treated leadership in an extremely broad way—as autonomy and independent thinking.

Perhaps the most contested idea relating to the program’s purported need to cultivate leadership was the notion that students in the program were the “best and brightest” and therefore better suited than others to preparation for roles as leaders. Similar claims have also been made about gifted students in general (e.g., Hughes, 1987; C. W. Taylor, 1986). Nevertheless, as Margolin (1996), among others (e.g., C. B. Howley, Howley, & Pendarvis, 1995), has argued, students with academic talent have no greater likelihood than others to possess leadership potential. Treating them as if their academic talents predispose them to leadership positions is potentially damaging to the students as well as to the institutions that require leaders. Talented students’ academic capabilities do benefit from high-level academic instruction, such as the inquiry and research projects that were part of the HP.

This study showed how evidence-based approaches for engaging talented students offer benefits to academically talented undergraduates who are preparing to become teachers. These approaches include (a) fostering learning communities as a way to build social cohesion, (b) assigning inquiry projects to cultivate critical thinking, (c) giving students opportunities to participate in real-world research projects under the mentorship of practicing researchers, and (d) providing support as students encounter intellectual challenges. The value of incorporating explicit leadership experiences into HPs of this type is, as yet, unclear. These findings regarding the HP in the College of Education at Ohio University offer encouraging prospects to other teacher education programs considering similar models for educating talented teacher candidates.