How to make ‘the best’ honors education EAPRIL Porto 2016 Saxion University of Applied Sciences Jolise ‘t Mannetje MSc., Annedien Pullen MSc., Dr. Karin Truijen and Dr. Mark Gellevij

Overview Honors at Saxion Research goal Methods Results Questionnaire 2012 Questionnaire 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 Results Development scientific model

Honors at Saxion 13 honors programs (HP’s) Start 2nd year Duration 3 years (30 ECTS) On top of Bachelor Some disciplary, some interdisciplinary 2011-2012: 9 HP’s 2012-2013: 13 HP’s 2013-2014: 9 HP’s 2014-2015: 7 HP’s + 1 excellence track 2015-2016: 7 HP’s + 6 excellence tracks (1 ET not in results)

Types of programs (1) Honours programs: Changing cities Creativity in finance and management Health care & social work Innovation and business creation Liberal arts & sciences Marketing & international management Natural leadership

Types of programs (2) Excellence tracks: Expert teacher Advances applied technologies Creative technology research Ethics of education Creative entrepreneurship Export expertise

Research goal Honors Programs We aim to: support and evaluate the honors programs by studying their characteristics with the purpose of identifying factors that make them successful Goal of this presentation: present how we measure the effectiveness, Which factors relate significantly with student satisfaction and the level of reflective thinking? Which constructs and scale questions did we use to indentify these factors.

Construction questionnaire

Student satisfaction HP Response 2016 Mark HP 1(low)-10(high) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 HP1 22 8.22 (.44) 7.92 (1.12) 7.60 (.94) 8.12 (.86) 8.02 (.63) HP2 9 8.38 (.74) 7.90 (.74) 7.57 (.76) 7.75 (.71) 7.50 (.97) HP3 16 - 7.67 (.58) 6.83 (.72) 6.91 (1.07) 6.94 (.85) HP4 12 7.70 (.75) 7.73 (.74) 7.44 (.62) 7.22 (.97) 7.71 (.62) HP5 7 8.42 (.52) 8.71 (.49) 8.71 (.76) 7.00 (1.53) 7.43 (1.99) HP6 18 8.43 (.79) 7.88 (.62) 7.38 (1.26) 7.72 (.90) HP7 31 6.86 (.86) 7.42 (.52) 7.55 (1.13) 7.56 (.76) ET1 17 6.20 (1.82) 6.00 (1.16) 6.67 (.90) ET2 5 5.80 (2.17) ET3 3 7.33 (1.16) ET4 7.75 (.84) ET5 4 7.25 (.96) All 156 (50%) 7.52 (1.01) 7.62 (.93) 7.37 (1.05) 7.29 (1.21) 7.44 (1.04)

Model Which independent variabeles relate significantly with the dependent variables?

Level of reflective thinking (Kember, Leung, Jones & Loke, 2000) Scale questions 2. Understanding - My HP requires us to understand the concepts taught by the teachers - In order to follow the HP successfully, we have to understand its content - In order to carry out practical tasks in het HP, I have to understand the teaching material covered by the teachers - In the HP you are forced to reflect on the teaching material you use 3. Reflection - In my HP I call into question the way in which others carry out tasks and come up with better ways - In my HP I evaluate the way in which I carry out tasks and consider alternative methods - In my HP I reflect on my activities to see whether I could have carried them out in a better way - In my HP I evaluate my experiences in order to learn how to improve my performance 4. Critical reflection - By participating in my HP I now see myself in a different light - My HP has made me question several of my firm convictions - By participating in my HP I now do some things differently - In my HP I have discovered several inaccuracies in my own convictions Level 1 overgeslagen, is habitual action: gewoon doen. We gaan er vanuit dat studenten op dit niveau dat allemaal beheersen. Scores van studenten worden over het algemeen lager naarmate het niveau van reflectie hoger wordt. ROB is hier een goed voorbeeld van.

Effects 1 (β’s): Different from bachelor Appreciation .18* Practice-based assignments M= 3.79 (.76) .20* Reflective learning Understanding M= 3.38 (.80) Community M= 3.86 (.84) .24* .15* Reflective learning Reflection M= 4.12 (.63) Autonomy M= 3.93(.75) .23* .17* Reflective learning Critical reflection M= 3.76 (.76) -.18* Complexity of activities M= 3.78 (.67) .25* .20* .33** Quality of feedback M= 4.18 (.73)

Effects 2 (β’s): Methodologic quality and scientific attitude Appreciation M= 7.44 (1.04) Professionally inspiring due to networking and collaboration M= 3.65 (.76) .21* .25* Reflective learning Understanding M= 3.38 (.80) .27** Intrinsic motivated development M= 4.27 (.57) .40** .21* Reflective learning Reflection M= 4.12 (.63) .33** .30** Position on labour market M= 3.98 (.65) Reflective learning Critical reflection M= 3.76 (.76) .21* -.27** .17* Own development route M= 4.07 (.74)

Recommendations Sense of community is important for appreciation Quality of feedback is very important for reflective learning Let students develop themselves intrinsically motivated The more students have their own development route, the less understanding (but more reflective learning)

Future research (1) The Job Demands-Resources model to stimulate wellbeing and achievement of honours students (next round 10.40 , I401). Honours competencies

Future research (2) Overlapping honours competencies Acts innovatively Communicates Has a broad view Is empathic Is self-reflective Possess personal leadership skills Shows critical thinking and acts accordingly What do teachers need to support students in this? Onderzoek bestaat uit twee delen: Deel 1: welke competenties leiden honoursprogramma’s in het hbo in Nederland op? Op basis van programma beschrijvingen zijn overlappende competenties gezocht door middel van kwalitatief onderzoek (Hanze Hogeschool). Uit het onderzoek zijn 7 competenties naar voren gekomen: Overlappende competentieprofiel Acts innovatively Acts proactively Develops creative solutions Strives for innovation within the profession Sees and uses opportunities Thinks out of the box Communicates Adjusts use of language to the targeted group Communicates convincingly Communicates transparently Puts knowledge into practice Shares knowledge Has a broad view Is internationally oriented Shows social engagement Uses knowledge and insights from other professions Works together with other disciplines/ professions Is empathic Adjusts course of action to the targeted audience/ situation Is culturally sensitive Thinks and acts using different perspectives Is self-reflective Is aware of own potential and limitations Is critical of own professional conduct Knows when to deploy knowledge and expertise from others Possesses personal leadership skills Controls own development- and learning process Shows perseverance Strives for continuous self-improvement Shows critical thinking and acts accordingly Can handle complex issues Is inquisitive Seeks and analyses (scientific) information Shows an investigative approach Shows analytical thinking skills   Deel 2: Wat hebben honoursdocenten nodig om studenten te begeleiden/coachen in de ontwikkeling van deze competenties. Karin en ik zijn nu met een literatuurstudie bezig om dat in kaart te brengen. Hierover is nog heel weinig bekend in onderzoek naar honours. Hier ligt dus nog een mooie taak voor vervolgonderzoek. Wat uit de literatuur bij reguliere studenten naar voren komt is dat voor veel van deze competenties (zoals brede blik, persoonlijk leiderschap, empathie, kritisch denken) reflectie een belangrijke eigenschap/voorwaarde is om dit te kunnen ontwikkelen. Dit kan een mooi bruggetje zijn met het evaluatieonderzoek.

Discussion How can we improve our honors programs based on the success factors? What are your experiences with honors education? What focus is relevant for more future honours research?

Contact Our other presentations: Subject Name E-mail Honors didactics Karin Truijen Annedien Pullen k.j.p.truijen@saxion.nl a.g.pullen@saxion.nl Evaluation study Jolise ‘t Mannetje j.e.m.m.tmannetje@saxion.nl Personal resources Coördination Mark Gellevij m.r.m.gellevij@saxion.nl Our other presentations: Improving support to teacher design teams. Wednesday 17.35-18.35 I201 Which personal resources do honours students use to excel? Friday 10.40-12.10 I401