1. 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

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

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

4. 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

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

6. 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.

7. Construction questionnaire

8. 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)

9. Model
Which independent variabeles relate significantly with the dependent variables?

10. 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.

11. 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= (.73)

12. 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)

13. 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)

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

15. 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.

16. 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?

17. Contact Our other presentations:
Subject
Name
Honors didactics
Karin Truijen
Annedien Pullen
Evaluation study
Jolise ‘t Mannetje
Personal resources
Coördination
Mark Gellevij
Our other presentations:
Improving support to teacher design teams. Wednesday I201
Which personal resources do honours students use to excel? Friday I401