Honors In Research: Twenty Years Later

"It is evident that the most significant characteristics of the larger post modern intellectual situation--its pluralism, complexity and ambiguity--are precisely the characteristics necessary for the potential emergence of a fundamentally new form of intellectual vision . [one that is] reflected in the widespread call for, and practice of, open "conversation" between different understandings, different vocabularies, different cultural paradigms. " --Richard Tarnas, The Passion of the Western Mind. Three papers (Estress, 1984; Roemer, 1984; Schuman, 1984) were published twenty years ago on the subject of research in honors. The purpose of this paper is to re-examine those thoughts in today's context and to build forward on them where possible. Honors programs have a tremendous, but as yet unrealized, potential to make a difference in the quality of higher education. Of course, honors programs should make a profound difference in the learning experience of all honors students. As Renzulli (1998) noted, we have "a responsibility to develop gifted behavior, not just find and certify it. " Yet, there are few recognized scholars on honors education at the collegiate level and no recognized area of study on the subject. However, honors education in practice is often a learning laboratory for undergraduate education more generally. Honors programs can test the feasibility and impact of various teaching pedagogies, assessment methods, and outcomes from which wider efforts can be launched. From this broader perspective, research that addresses questions about honors education is not only needed but should be a high priority within individual institutions as well as the general community of higher education. I agree with Roemer (1984) that the Forum for Honors (and Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council) is by default the location for significant thoughts about Honors education. I further agree with him, sadly enough, that the literature on Honors education is still sparse. I recently conducted a review (Achterberg, in press) of the literature on the characteristics of honors students. Certain points were clear. After nearly a century of honors education in America, there is still no standard definition of honors programs or honors students, nor is there a systematic, organized, or comprehensive body of knowledge that describes how or what honors students should be taught. At the same time, nearly two thirds of all sizes of four-year institutions have Honors programs and such programs are nearly universal at large four-year schools (Baker et al, 2000; see Digby, 2002). The questions that Schuman (1984) originally posed about Honors research remain unanswered. What admissions criteria for Honors students really work? What happens to comparable students who do and who do not enter Honors programs? What is the "out-of-class" profile of a "typical" Honors student? Is there a difference between the profile of Honors students at comparable institutions? Shuman (1984) also pointed out the need for historical analysis with questions such as what became of the earliest "Honors Programs," how they have evolved and where they are now. Finally, how has growth of the mega-university influenced them? Austin (1986) posed another important question: "If the ablest students . are to be challenged to the fullest, what opportunities must they have? " These are productive questions that should bear important fruit. There are also new questions to answer. Roemer's (1984) focus on only Western culture is probably misplaced in today's context. To wit: what influence has the U.S. honors movement had abroad? What role has internationalization had on honors programs in the U.S.? The answers to all the above questions should be of interest not only to NCHC members but also to administrators who design and support such programs in their universities and to educators and others interested in the experience and outcomes for gifted children as they mature into adulthood. …