|
Abstract
The
developmental needs of honors students appear to be intrinsically
different than those of non-honors students.
However, little research has been done on these differences.
This effectively makes it difficult to precisely address the
needs of honors students through intentional programming
initiatives. This study
examines the psychosocial developmental levels of freshman honors
students in comparison to a normative population of freshman
students as measured by the SDTLA.
In addition, attention is given to gender differences between
male and female honors students’ measures of psychosocial
development. Several
statistical tests will be used to help pinpoint exact differences
between these groups of students.
Implications for practice as a result of the research
findings are also included.
Honors
Student Development
The psychosocial
development of college students has been a major concern of student
affairs professionals for decades.
As research in this area has progressed, more and more has
been added to the literature helping to describe how students move
through developmental tasks while attending college.
A more applicable understanding of developmental processes
can occur when students are studied in the groups they associate
with in college. For
example, research has shown that gender differences occur in student
development. There is a
body of research regarding the impact that campus involvement may
have on a student’s developmental outcomes (Pascarella &
Terenzini, 1991). Research
can educate us about the developmental needs and growth patterns of
student athletes, students involved in Greek social fraternities or
sororities, and even students involved in intramurals.
Yet little is known about the effect that participation in an
honors program has on student’s psychosocial development.
We know who the honors students are on campus, but student
affairs staff members have little research-based evidence about what
programs, services, and delivery structures need to be in place to
educate the whole honors student.
The gifted
education literature offers important insight about the psychosocial
development of gifted students.
Gifted students are generally acknowledged to have
intellectual abilities above that of the average student.
Dabrowski’s theory of Positive Disintegration (1964) states
that gifted students possess overexciteabilites, or super
sensitivities, which have the potential to become the building
blocks of extremely high moral development.
While many articles have been written that address the
psychosocial developmental needs of gifted students in elementary
and secondary schools, few articles exist discussing the needs of
these students at the collegiate level.
Often gifted students are supported with special programs in
the K-12 environment only to have this support diminished when they
enter college.
The support
mechanism for gifted students is generally the honors program.
Honors programs generally bear the responsibility of meeting
the needs of gifted students. Historically
honors programs began to appear on campuses after World War II.
While today there are many colleges and universities that
offer an honors curriculum for gifted students, a true honors
program should also contain additional features such as special
facilities, educational programs, extracurricular activities, and
social programs designed to meet the out of class needs of honors
students. As Byrne (1997) notes, “The
true honors program, then, is a composite of curricular options and
extracurricular opportunities designed to support the development of
a motivated and challenged core of bright students.”
Statement
of the Problem
There is an underlying assumption that students involved in
Honors Programs on college campuses display higher levels of
cognitive complexity and intellectual development than non-honors
students. Given that
most honors programs have higher SAT requirements or GPA
requirements than most admissions policies, this assumption does not
seem to be incongruous. However,
when other aspects of development are considered, the above
assumptions may not be quite as obvious.
One way to understand and educate this population of students
is to examine the ways in which they progress through certain
developmental processes. Being
better informed about what this developmental progression looks like
in honors students can assist student affairs professionals, faculty
members, and honors program administrators in truly meeting the
needs of honors students. In
achieving this end, it is valuable to know whether or not there are
differences between the psychosocial development of honors students
and the psychosocial development of non-honors students.
Investigating as to whether or not there are gender
differences between the psychosocial development of male and female
honors students may also be helpful in better understanding this
population.
It
is the goal of this research project to determine whether or not
there are psychosocial developmental needs specific to gifted
students and different from the general college student population.
This project attempts to bridge the gap between research on
gifted students and research on the general college student
population as a means of better serving honors students.
This will enable student affairs practitioners, as well as
honors program staff members, to make better-informed decisions
about the programmatic needs of honors students.
The purpose of this study is to provide much needed research
on the psychosocial development of honors students in order to
better inform the programs, services, and delivery structures used
with these students. Hopefully
this new information will be used as a platform for student affairs
professionals and honors program staff members and faculty members
to work together to educate honors students with a developmental
perspective.
In
considering the research on this topic, a review of the literature
on student development theory is appropriate.
In addition, attention to the psychosocial development of
gifted adolescents offers vital background information.
Discussion of gender and its impacted on gifted males and
females is also noteworthy. Finally,
the literature discussing honors programs and their applications
will also be reviewed.
Theoretical
Context
The
Developmental Process in College
It
is generally agreed that changes occur in students as a result of
the rich educational environment in college.
These changes occur on various levels, including intellectual
changes, psychological changes, social changes, and personal
changes. Research has
shown that college can help students establish personal identity and
self-worth (Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Cohen, 1985; Erikson,
1968). As part of these
changes, students begin to separate from their parents and form
ideas about autonomy (Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Kegan, 1982).
In addition, students begin to shape their values, their
ideation about career focus, their modes of interpersonal behavior,
and their individual lifestyle choices (Pascarella & Terenzini,
1991; Super, 1984). Other
research has shown that students can attain self-knowledge while in
college (Astin, 1993). Life
skills are also a developmental task that can be learned in college
(Gazda, Childers, & Brooks, 1987; Miller & Prince, 1976).
Havinghurst
defines a developmental task as “a task which arises at or about a
certain period in the life of an individual, successful achievement
of which leads to happiness and to success with later tasks, while
failure leads to unhappiness in the individual, disapproval by
society and difficulty with later tasks” (1953, p. 2).
Chickering listed seven vectors as developmental tasks for
young adults (1969, p. 8-19). These
areas are developing competence, managing emotions, moving through
autonomy, developing mature interpersonal relationships,
establishing identity, developing purpose, and developing integrity.
According to this theory, “emotional, personal, and ethical
development deserves equal billing with intellectual development”
(Chickering & Reisser, 1993, p. 39).
In terms of career development, researchers have used
developmental theory to explain vocational maturity (Tiedeman &
O’Hara, 1963; Gribbons & Lohnes, 1968; Super, Starishevsky,
Matalin, & Jordaan, 1963; Super, 1984, 1986).
When
reviewing developmental theories, there are three basic principles
about the developmental process that emerge.
They are that development is continuous, cumulative, and a
continuum (Winston, Miller, & Cooper, 1999).
Growth occurs as young adults move through life’s
experiences and through to more complex patterns of behavior.
Understanding how this process of development occurs is vital
for professionals working with college students.
Evans, Forney, and Guido-DiBrito (1998) highlight the
importance of assessing these developmental changes in students in
order to provide the best environment for growth to flourish.
Psychosocial
Development in the Gifted
Theories
of human development are obviously applicable to honors students in
many of the same ways that they have been applied to the college
student population as a whole. Yet
specific insight as to how being gifted might shape development can
be derived focusing on certain theorists and researchers who have
paid considerable attention to this population.
Dabrowski’s theory of Positive Disintegration (1964) is one
example of a theory with particular applications for the gifted,
stating that gifted students may possess overexciteabilites, or
heightened awarenesses, which have the potential to become the
building blocks of extremely high moral development.
Silverman (1993a) describes the Polish translation of
overexcitability to be “superstimulatability,” meaning “an
unusual capacity to care, an insatiable love of learning, vivid
imagination, endless energy, and so forth” (p. 13).
These overexcitabilities occur in five areas, psychomotor,
intellectual, emotional, imaginational, and sensual.
The theory of Positive Disintegration holds that people who
possess these overexcitabilities have the potential for advanced
development in personal, ethical, and psychosocial matters,
especially as delineated by Dabrowski’s (1964, 1967) five levels
of integration.
Research
on the applicability of Dabrowsk’s theory to the gifted adds
further to this discussion. Piechowski
(1986) asserts that possessing overexcitabilities includes an
increased likelihood of attaining self-actualization and moral
development. Psychomotor
overexcitability may be seen in a student’s ability to work long
hours, function on less sleep, and move at a physically quick pace (Piechowski,
1991; Silverman & Kearney, 1989).
However, the psychomotor overexcitability has been found to
be developmentally different in the gifted only when it occurs in an
individual possessing additional overexcitabilities (Piechowski
& Cunningham, 1985).
Sensual
overexcitabilities may include issues such as reactions to certain
types of fabric or clothing, such as lace around a collar or a
constricting turtleneck. One
study has found sensual overexcitabilities to be present at a higher
level in gifted adults (Silverman & Ellsworth, 1980).
However other studies are inconclusive, indicating no
differences between gifted and average adolescents (Gallager, 1985;
Schiever, 1985) or even lower levels of sensual overexcitabilities
among the gifted (Piechowski & Colangelo, 1984).
This overexcitability, like psychomotor, may be an enigma
that is best understood when considered in context with other
overexcitabilities.
Imaginational
overexcitability and intellectual overexcitability are two areas
where gifted students exhibit consistently higher levels that those
of average students. Research
shows imaginational overexcitability to be found at higher levels
than their adolescent peers (Gallagher, 1985; Schiever, 1985;
Piechowski and Colangelo, 1984).
In addition, the intellectual overexcitability, which is
different from intelligence, has been seen at high levels among the
artistically gifted (Piechowski and Cunningham, 1985).
Both of these patterns indicate reasoning and imagination at
high levels that could lead to the intensely curious nature that is
often associated with the gifted.
Finally, emotional overexcitabilities, which can be exhibited
as high levels of empathy or high intensities of emotions, have also
been found at extremely high levels among the gifted (Gallagher,
1985; Schiever, 1985; Piechowski and Colangelo, 1984; Silverman and
Ellsworth, 1980). Research
in the areas of the overexcitabilities seem to indicate that each of
these areas, whether viewed alone or in conjunction with each other,
may be indicators of how the gifted develop differently than others.
Other
developmental differences among the gifted have also been studied.
The need to focus on the emotional development of the gifted
was first noted by Leta Hollingworth in her work with the highly
gifted (1939). Lewis
Terman has also been highly concerned about the psychosocial nature
of the gifted. In his
landmark research on the gifted during the early twentieth century,
he noted that there is an inversely proportional relationship
between high intelligence and social ease and acceptance (Terman,
1931). It is important
to remember, though, that the gifted, like others, achieve advanced
development through “the strengthening of one’s value system,
the creation of greater and greater challenges for oneself, and the
development of broader avenues for expression compassion”
(Silverman, 1993a, p. 22). The
process of development among the gifted may occur in a similar
fashion as that of others; however the differences that are inherent
in the gifted may offer fertile ground for further research as to
whether or not there are nuances present that create a contextually
different developmental process for the gifted.
Gender
Issues in Development
Gender differences
have been noted in the way that men and women develop ideas of
autonomy and independence (Josselson, 1987).
In her research on the intellectual developmental process for
male and female college students, Marcia Baxter Magolda (1992) noted
that there were preferences or patterns exhibited by men and women,
but would not go so far as to label them differences.
The presence or lack of gender differences has been an area
of research in many fields, including the field of gifted education.
Several gender-based issues, especially as they relate to
females, are worthy of consideration.
Gifted
females
Several
research articles point to the special needs of gifted females as an
area of concern for educators. One
of the areas of concern is underachievement.
While women tend to receive higher grades than men in courses
in high school and college, as adults their productivity is often
lower than that of their male counterparts (Stockard & Wood,
1984; Achenbach, 1970; Coleman, 1961; Davis, 1964).
It has also been argued that underachievement for gifted
women is a much greater concept than can be measured by grades
(Reis, 1987). Part of
the difficulty occurs in the fact that women face societal pressures
to have families in addition to (or instead of) careers.
As a result, some women may show signs of refraining from
academic challenges in order to relieve societal pressure (Horner,
1972; Lavach & Lanier, 1975; Stockard, 1980).
This relief can reveal itself in the need to conform that is
experienced by some gifted women (Kramer, 1991) and the need to fit
in where peers are concerned (Holland & Eisenhart, 1990).
Research on the self-perception of
gifted women has also revealed a challenge for educators.
Stipek (1998) noted that all theories of motivation are tied
to a person’s perception of ability.
The role of parents also plays a key role in the
self-perception of children (Entwisle & Baker, 1983; Kramer,
1991; McBride, 1990; Parsons, Adler, & Kaczlal, 1982).
Other authors have noted that some women who do attain
success exhibit lower self-esteem than their male counterparts.
This phenomenon has been called the “imposter syndrome” (Clance,
1985; Machlowitz, 1982; Warschaw, 1985).
As a result of this poor self-image, women attribute
successes to a variety of reasons other than the fact that they
deserved the success. Reasons
can include luck, outward factors that were beyond their control (as
opposed to internal factors), and the help of others (Reis, 1987).
One of the detrimental aspects of this syndrome is that it
involves extreme self-criticism and can often cause a gifted woman a
great deal of personal frustration and agony (Bell, 1990).
Another
phenomenon that women may experience is known as the “Superwoman
syndrome” (Callahan, Cunningham, & Plucker, 1994).
This idea includes the notion that women can (and should) be
able to take on multiple roles from mother to athlete to successful
student with great success. Other
specific needs of gifted women which should be addressed by
educators include a tendency to have undefined goals for the future
and therefore no plan to attain those goals as well as dealing with
the contradictory messages that women receive from society, parents,
school personnel, and peers (Callahan, Cunningham, & Plucker,
1994).
Gifted
Males
A
disconnect is often noted between the talents and abilities of a
gifted men and the emotional and behavioral difficulties they face
in adulthood, especially during adolescence.
In addition, research indicates several traits found in
gifted males that offer insight about their development.
Kerr and Cohn (2001) point out that many gifted boys are
highly intense and may engage in high levels of activity.
Gifted males have also been noted to possess high levels of
sensitivities to issues and intense emotionality (Kerr and Cohn,
2001). These traits in
particular may put a gifted male at odds with his peers if he is
perceived as being more feminine than masculine as a result of these
deep feelings and his sensitive nature.
Some gifted boys
may refuse to do work or procrastinate with assignments as an
expression of perfectionistic tendencies.
Silverman (1993b) notes that perfectionism is a trait often
exhibited by gifted students and might be attributed to asynchronous
development. Morelock
(1992) describes asynchronous development as the conflict that
occurs when one’s physical, emotional, and intellectual
development occurs at different rates.
All of these issues may integrate to form heavy challenges
for gifted men as they struggle to grow and develop.
A
final issue seen in the literature on gifted males is that of
difficulty in relating to his peers.
Lovecky (1993) notes that confusion and self-doubt can occur
because peers are unable to see the important issues that are so
clear to the gifted male. As
is the case with emotional sensitivities, gifted males who feel
qualitatively different from their peers may choose to separate
further from peer interactions.
Pollack (1998) describes a Boy Code that dictates appropriate
behavior for males in our society.
In the Boy Code, crying is not permitted, and boys are
expected to be macho and tough.
Gifted males who do not ascribe to the masculine standards
set by society may have a difficult time developing peer
relationships. All of
these challenges in conjunction with giftedness may be forces at
play impacting the development of gifted men in the college
environment.
Honors
Programs
As
noted earlier, honors programs have been in place for several
decades, and those that are “programs” in the truest sense of
the word are striving to educate the student through more than an
advanced curriculum. “In
order to foster intellectually autonomous learners, an honors
program’s primary goal must be to recognize that the developmental
needs of bright students are a wonderful invitation for us to
contribute to their success, and that educationally responsive
nurturing is especially important and effective when it is
consistently and warmly practiced” (Haas, 1992, p. 21).
According
to Day, honors programs need to provide the following items for
honors students: a positive support
climate; a place to foster self-awareness and self-esteem; an
academic challenge; a flexible learning environment; interactions
with other students and faculty; a special orientation session;
programs to develop social and academic skills; academic, career,
and personal counseling; and opportunities to develop creativity and
leadership skills (1989). Research
has also noted the need for honors students to be provided with an
environment that is conducive to intellectual inspiration,
exploration of the liberal arts, co-curricular involvement, moral
development, and peer groups development (German, 1995).
Shepherd and Shepherd observed that, especially at large
universities, the honors program functions like a small, liberal
arts college within the context of a large university (Shepherd
& Shepherd, 1996).
“One
of the most obvious problems that beginning honors teachers
everywhere experience is the failure to recognize the development
levels of honors students…In every area except academic
accomplishment, honors students are much the same as their
less-gifted friends…These students are not necessarily freer of
problems, more emotionally mature, or inherently more daring than
non-honors students of the same age” (Haas, 1992, pg. 21).
It is clear that honors students have educational and
developmental needs that colleges should be trying to address
outside of the classroom. In
order to do this well, there must be research into the nature of
these needs and the role that gender plays in psychosocial
development. Prescriptive
measures in the form of intentional programmatic changes can only be
made on the basis of further exploration into the area of
psychosocial development.
Given
the theoretical contexts described above, the following research
questions guided this investigation:
-
Are
there differences in psychosocial development levels
between honors and non-honors students as measured by the
tasks and subtasks of the SDTLA?
-
Are
there gender differences between male and female honors students
as measured by the tasks and subtasks of the SDTLA?
Methodology
Participants
The
participants in this study were freshman honors students at The
University of Georgia. Honors
students were identified as students enrolled in the Honors Program
at UGA. An email
invitation to participate in the research study was sent to the
freshman honors student listserv.
There were approximately 417 honors students who signed on to
the listserv at the beginning of fall semester.
Of those students, fifty-two completed the instrument, with
thirty-seven females responding and fifteen males responding to the
invitation to participate in the study, indicating a response rate
of 12.5%.
Instrumentation
Using
the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA:
Winston, Miller, & Cooper, 1999) to measure psychosocial
development that typically occurs during the college years, the
researcher searched for correlations between the scores of honors
students and the scores of non-honors students. Because
the SDTLA is divided into several developmental tasks, markers can
be chosen to highlight particular areas of development in these
students. The purpose of
the Student Developmental Tasks and Lifestyle Assessment “is to
provide an assessment tool and procedure that educational
practitioners can use with young adult college students to
facilitate development of life purpose, mature interpersonal
relationships, and academic autonomy as well as the establishment of
healthy lifestyles. The
assessment procedure is based on concepts and principles of human
development, specifically that of developmental task achievement
that typically occurs within the college setting” (Winston,
Miller, & Cooper, 1999, p. 3).Test-retest
and internal consistency checks were employed to estimate the
reliability of the SDTLA. A
total of fifty-two pre- and post-tests were collected from students,
with correlations falling around .80.
Alpha coefficients (Cronbach, 1970) for students (n=1822) at
thirty-two colleges in the
United States
and
Canada
showed ranges of .88 to
.62.
The validity estimates for the SDTLA
resulted from a variety of scales (Winston, Miller & Cooper,
1999). Tasks and
subtasks for Establishing and Clarifying Purpose were checked scales
from several instruments, including Career Development Inventory
(Super et al., 1981), College Student Experiences (Pace,
1983), and Life Skills Development Inventory, (Picklesimer,
1991). Developing
Autonomy Tasks and subtasks were compared with the Georgia
Autonomy Scales (Winston et al., 1997) and scale measures from
the College Student Questionnaire (Peterson, 1968).
The tasks and subtasks for Developing Mature Interpersonal
Relationships were correlated using total scores from the
Multi-group Ethnic Identity Measure (Phinney, 1992).
The Salubrious Lifestyle scale was correlated with an
instrument measuring wellness designed by Baker and Cooper (in
press). Finally,
validity estimates on the Response Bias scale arose from comparisons
with the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability scale (Crowne &
Marlowe, 1960).
Research
Design
This quantitative
study looked at the outcomes from a single test offering of the
SDTLA. The scores on the
SDTLA obtained from the honors students were compared with the
normative sample data from the SDTLA. In order to account for the
unequal sample sizes in the honors student data set and the
normative data set, the researcher took a random sample of 40% of
the freshman respondents in the normative set, resulting in a
comparison group of 249 students.
Data
Collection
The data was
collected through test administration by the researcher.
Honors students were identified through cooperation with the
Honors Program at The University of Georgia.
Student participants were sent an email invitation and given
a website address to go to in order to take the instrument.
Participants were notified about the length of the tests
prior to test administration. An
explanation of the purpose of the study as well as testing
procedures was also included in the invitation to participate in the
study. Consent from all
the participants was obtained prior to the viewing of the
instrument. After data
collection, statistical computer programs were employed in order to
guarantee the confidentiality and security of data and interpret
results.
Results
The first
comparisons were t-tests on each subtask and scale of the SDTLA to
determine if differences occurred between the honors students and
the normative sample. Levene’s
Tests for equality of variances were administered, and equal
variances were assumed for each task and subtasks except Peer
Relationships and Emotional Autonomy.
Adjustments were made in the t-scores reported due to the
fact that the assumption of equal variances was not met.
Significant differences were not seen in the
Career Planning or Lifestyle Planning subtasks between the two
groups. However,
differences were noted in each of the other subtasks, including
Instrumental Autonomy, Cultural Participation, Peer Relationships,
Tolerance, Emotional Autonomy, Salubrious Lifestyle, Academic
Autonomy, Interdependence, and Educational Involvement.
In addition, differences were measured by all three of the
SDTLA tasks, Purpose, Autonomy, and Mature Interpersonal
Relationships (see Table 1). In
every case but one, the mean score for the honors group was higher
than the mean score for the normative group.
The Peer Relationships subtask indicated a lower mean for the
honors students (M=37.0588) than normative students (M=40.5373).
In order to investigate whether or not
gender differences were present among the students, the participants
were divided into four groups, normative males (NM), normative
females (NF), honors males, (HM) and honors females (HF).
One-way ANOVA’s were run on each subtask and task in order
to determine whether or not differences were evident among the
groups. Statistical
differences were not noted in three subtasks, Career Planning,
Lifestyle Planning, and Emotional Autonomy.
In addition, there were no statistical differences seen in
the Purpose task. Differences
between the groups are reported below (see Table
2).
Tukey’s Post-Hoc tests revealed
statistical differences between several of the groups (see Table
3).
It is important to note that standardization information
about the SDTLA predicts that women would score higher than men on
all subtasks and tasks, even though this statistical difference did
not bear out in the relationships between the randomly selected
normative sample males and females.
Discussion
Results from this
study offer important insight for professionals working with honors
students. Honors females
scored higher than both normative males and females on several
developmental subtasks, including Instrumental Autonomy, Cultural
Participation, Tolerance, Academic Autonomy, and Interdependence.
Honors males scored higher than their normative male
counterparts only on the Cultural Participation subtask.
On the tasks, honors males and females had higher scores than
both normative males and females on the Autonomy task, and honors
females scored higher than normative males on the Mature
Interpersonal Relationship task.
Interestingly, honors females
scored lower than all other groups on the Peer Relationship subtask,
with honors males scoring the third lowest mean.
Even though the difference is only statistically significant
for the honors females, these scores might indicate that the
formation of peer relationships is an area where more intervention
needs to occur for both honors males and females.
Grouping honors students together for core classes or
creating an honors residence hall might be means of encouraging the
development of peer relationships among their honors peers.
Additionally, it could be helpful to
design programs that couple honors students that may be struggling
with peer relationships with a mentor student who is more adept at
making these connections.
Mentor
relationships have been
cited as highly beneficial for honors students who are choosing
careers (Silverman, 1993c), looking for academic counseling (VanTassel-Baska,
1993), and dealing with the pressures of societal gender
expectations (Pollack, 1998; Kerr, 1994; Kerr & Cohn, 2001).
It may be reasonable to infer that if mentorships are
beneficial to honors students in the above situations that they
would also be beneficial in the formation of peer relationships.
The literature noted both a tendency for a decrease in
productivity among college women (Stockard & Wood, 1984;
Achenbach, 1970; Coleman, 1961; Davis, 1964)
and a decline in self-perception (Stipek, 1998).
Placing a programmatic emphasis on building positive peer
relationships might help alleviate some of these issues and the
struggle women have with conforming to peers (Holland &
Eisenhart, 1990).
It is also noteworthy that no
significant differences were noted between the four groups in the
Career Planning subtask, the Lifestyle Planning subtask, the
Emotional Autonomy subtask, and the Purpose task.
This might indicate that honors students are facing the same
dilemmas in these areas that their non-honors freshman counterparts
on campus are facing. Honors
students are grappling with career choices, lifestyle choices, and
developing emotional autonomy. Professional
working with honors students should work to ensure that the level of
programming in these areas is similar to levels designed for the
typical college freshman.
Limitations
While this research
study has contributed much-needed data on the psychosocial
development of honors students, there are certainly limitations that
must be considered. This
research was conducted at a single institution in the southeastern
United States
. Generalizations
to other institutions should be made with caution since it is
impossible to have all populations represented in the study.
In addition, a limitation to the study could occur since the
researcher is using the normative data as a comparison to the
results collected from honors students.
There is no way to know if honors students were included in
this data collection. However,
since the normative sample is so large, this should not be a
statistical concern.
In addition, the
use of the normative data in and of itself could be viewed as
problematic. However,
the researcher did take steps to minimize this limitation.
One is that the normative data set has been recently
collected. This set
included over 1800 college students from institutions that varied by
size and region in 1999, making it a reliable data set for
comparisons. Additionally,
a random sample was drawn from the freshman student population of
that normative data set, and this act helped to lessen the
limitation of using the normative data.
Finally, the
participants in this study were volunteers from the larger
population of honors students at The University of Georgia.
Since this was not a random selection, there may be some
difficulty making generalizations to other honors students.
The small sample size may be viewed as a limitation, and the
small numbers of honors males are also a limitation of the current
study.
Implications
for future research
Results
from this study offer several suggestions for future research.
More investigation needs to be done on the nature of the peer
relationships formed by female honors students.
The findings in this research leave many questions as to the
nature of these relationships for honors women especially, since
they scored the lowest mean of all four groups.
Qualitative studies designed to probe deeply into friendships
and peer relationships held by these women would offer a great deal
of insight on this issue and would help professionals working with
these students understand how programmatic interventions might be
more conducive to forming these important relationships.
Given the important roles that peer relationships play in
many developmental processes such as psychosocial, cognitive, and
ego development, this is a critical area in much need of continued
research.
More
research should be conducted in the several areas where honors
students scored higher than the normative student population.
It would benefit researchers and practitioners of student
development to know more about the behaviors, the reasoning, and the
emotions that may be contributing to these differences.
Insight might be gained through investigating the behaviors
or activities honors students are participating in that might be
contributing to their developmental growth above and beyond that of
their non-honors student peers. Knowing more about these areas would
benefit all students by providing further information and support
for programmatic interventions.
Both quantitative and qualitative studies can play a
significant role in addressing these issues.
Researchers
may also find areas for future exploration by studying honors males.
Honors males scored significant differences in only the
cultural participation subtask and the autonomy task while honors
females scored significantly higher than their normative male and
female counterparts on seven subtasks and two tasks.
This suggests that males are developmentally more congruent
with the non-honors students than they are the honors females.
Further qualitative and quantitative study on these
developmental differences between honors males and females would
provide much needed data for professionals working with honors
students. Analysis
of the developmental needs of honors students is instrumental in
partnering with academic affairs and offering honors programs highly
necessary research support as to the variety of program components
most needed by honors students.
Tables
Table
1: Mean
SDTLA Scores by Student Group
Table
2: Mean
SDTLA Scores by Gender and Student Group
Table
3: Tukey Post-Hoc Differences by Gender and Student Group
|
|
References
Achenbach, T.M., (1970).
Standardization of a research instrument for identifying
associative responding in children.
Developmental Psychology, 2, 283-291.
Astin, A.W. (1993). What
matters in college? Four critical years revisited.
San Francisco
: Jossey-Bass.
Baxter
Magolda, M. (1992).
Knowing and reasoning in college:
Gender-related patters in students’ intellectual
development.
San Francisco
: Jossey-Bass.
Bell,
L.A.
(1990). The gifted woman
as imposter. Advanced
Development, 2, 55-64.
Byrne, J. P. (1997). Honors programs in community colleges:
A Review of recent issues and literature (pp. 1-29).
Washington
,
D.C.
: EDRS. (417 785).
Callahan,
C.M., Cunningham, C.M., & Plucker, J.A. (1994).
Foundations for the future:
The socio-emotional development of gifted, adolescent women.
Roeper Review, 17(2), (99-105).
Chickering,
A.W. (1969). Education
and identity.
San Francisco
: Jossey-Bass.
Chickering,
A.W., & Reisser, L. (1993).
Education and identity (2nd Ed.).
San Francisco
: Jossey-Bass.
Clance,
P.R., (1985). The
imposter phenomenon. New
Woman, 15(7), 40-43.
Cohen,
R.D. (1985). From in
loco parentis to auxilio parentum.
In R.D. Cohen (Ed.), Working with parents of college students
(pp. 3-14). New
Directions for Student Services, no. 32.
San Francisco
: Jossey-Bass.
Coleman,
J. (1961). The
adolescent society.
New York
: Free Press.
Crowne,
D.P., & Marlowe, D. (1960).
A new scale of social desirability independent of
psychopathology. Journal
of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.
Cronbach,
L.J. (1970).
Essentials of psychological testing (3rd
ed.).
New York
: Harper & Row.
Dabrowski,
K. (1964). Positive
disintegration.
Boston
: Little, Brown.
Dabrowski,
K. (1967). Personality-shaping
through positive disintegration.
Boston
: Little, Brown.
Davis,
J.A. (1964). Great
aspirations: the school
plans of
America
’s college seniors.
Chicago
: Aldine.
Day,
A. L. (1989). Honors Students. In M. Upcraft & J. N. Gardner
(Eds.), The Freshman Year Experience.
San Francisco
: Jossey-Bass.
Entwisle,
J.S., & Baker, D.P. (1983).
Gender and young children’s expectations for performance in
arithmetic. Developmental
Psychology, 19, 200-209.
Erikson,
E.H. (1968). Identity:
Youth and crisis.
New York
: Norton.
Evans
,
N.J.
, Forney, D.S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998).
Student development in college:
Theory, research, and practice.
San Francisco
: Jossey-Bass.
Gallagher,
S. A. (1985).
A comparison of the concept of overexcitabilities with
measures of creativity and school achievement in sixth grade
students. Roeper
Review, 8, 115-119.
Gazda,
G.M., Childers, W.C., & Brooks, D. K., Jr. (1987).
Foundations of counseling and human services.
New York
: McGraw-Hill.
German,
R. E. (1995, June 30). Co-curricular involvement characteristics
of
Bowling Green
State
University
Honors Students
(pp. 1-17).
Washington
,
D.C.
: EDRS. (386 138).
Gribbons,
W.D., & Lohnes, P.R. (1968).
Emerging careers.
New York
: Teachers College
Press.
Haas,
P. E. (1992). Honors programs: Applying the reflective judgment
model. Liberal Education, 78(1), 20-23.
Havinghurst,
R.J. (1972). Human
development and education (3rd ed.).
New York
: McKay.
Holland
,
D.C.
, & Eisenhart, M.A., (1990).
Educated in romance: Women,
achievement, and the college culture.
Chicago
:
University
of
Chicago
.
Hollingworth,
L.S. (1939). What we
know about the early selection and training of leaders.
Teachers College Record, 40, 575-592.
Horner,
M.S. (1972). Toward an
understanding of achievement related conflicts in women.
Journal of Social Issues, 28, 157-175.
Josselson,
R. (1987).
Finding herself: Pathways
to identity development in women.
San Francisco
: Jossey-Bass.
Kegan.
R. (1982). The
evolving self.
Cambridge
,
MA
:
Harvard
University
Press.
Kerr,
B.A. (1994).
Smart girls: A
new psychology of girls, women, & giftedness.
Scottsdale
,
AZ
: Gifted Psychology
Press.
Kerr,
B.A. & Cohn, S. J. (2001).
Smart boys: Talent,
manhood & the search for meaning.
Scottsdale
,
AZ
: Gifted Psychology
Press.
Kramer,
L.R., (1991). The social
construction of ability perception:
An ethnographic study of gifted adolescent girls.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 340-362.
Lavach,
J.F., & Lanier, H.B. (1975).
The motive to avoid success in 7th, 8th,
9th, and 10th grade high-achieving girls.
The Journal of Educational Research, 68, 216-218.
Lovecky, D.V.
(1993). The quest
for meaning: Counseling
issues with gifted children and adolescents.
In L.K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted and talented.
Denver
,
CO
:
Love Publishing Co.
Machlowitz,
M. (1982). The great
imposters. Working
Women, 7(2), 97-98.
McBride,
M. (1990, April). Gender
and the discourse of mathematics education:
A study of the effects of the consequences of socialization.
Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational
Research Association,
Boston
.
Miller,
T.K., & Prince, J.S. (1976).
The future of student affairs: A guide to student
development for tomorrow’s higher education.
San Francisco
: Jossey-Bass.
Morelock,
M.J. (1992).
Giftedness: The view from within.
Understanding Our Gifted, 4(3), 11-15.
Pace,
C. R. (1983). College
student experiences: A
questionnaire (2nd ed.).
Los Angeles
: University of
California, Higher Education Research Institute.
Parsons,
J., Adler, T., & Kaczala, C. (1982).
Socialization of achievement attitudes and beliefs:
Parental influences. Child
Development, 53, 310-321.
Pascarella,
E.T., & Terenzini, P.T. (1991).
How college affects students:
Findings and insights from twenty years of research.
San Francisco
: Jossey-Bass.
Phinney,
J.S. (1992). The
multi-group ethnic identity measure:
A new scale for use with diverse groups.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 7(2), 156-176.
Picklesimer, B. K.
(1991). The
development and evaluation of the life-skills development
inventory—college form. Doctoral
dissertation,
University
of
Georgia
.
Piechowski,
M. M. (1986). The
concept of developmental potential.
Roeper Review, 8, 190-197.
Piechowski,
M. M. (1991). Emotional
development and emotional giftedness.
In N. Collangely & G.
Davis
, (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp.
285-306).
Needham Heights
,
MA
: Allyn & Bacon.
Piechowski,
M. M. & Colangelo, N. (1984).
Developmental potential of the gifted. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 28, 80-88.
Piechowski,
M. M. & Cunningham, K. (1985).
Patterns of overexcitability in a group of artists.
Journal of Creative Behavior, 19 (3), 153-174.
Pollack,
W. (1998).
Real boys: Rescuing
our sons from the myths of boyhood.
New York
:
Henry Holt and Company.
Reis,
S. M. (1987). We can’t
change what we don’t recognize: Understanding the special needs of
gifted females. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 31, 83-88.
Schiever,
S. W. (1985).
Creative personality characteristics and dimensions of mental
functioning in gifted adolescents.
Roeper Review, 7, 223-226.
Shepherd,
G., Shepherd, G. (1996). War attitudes and ideological orientation
of honors directors in American higher education. Journal of
Higher Education, 67(3), 298-321.
Silverman,
L.K., (1993a). The
gifted individual. In
L.K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted and talented.
Denver
,
CO
:
Love Publishing Co.
Silverman,
L.K., (1993b). A
developmental model for counseling the gifted.
In L.K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted and
talented.
Denver
,
CO
:
Love Publishing Co.
Silverman,
L.K., (1993c). Career
counseling. In L.K.
Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted and talented.
Denver
,
CO
:
Love Publishing Co.
Silverman,
L. K. &
Kearney
, K.
(1989). Parents
of the extraordinarily gifted. Advanced
Development, 1, 41-56.
Stipek,
D. (1988). Motivation
to learn: From theory to
practice.
Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Stockard,
J. (1980). Why sex
inequalities exist for students.
In J. Stockard, P.A.
Schmuck,
K. Kempner, P. Williams, S.K. Edson, & M.A. Smith (Eds.), Sex
equity in education.
New York
: Academic Press.
Stockard,
J., & Wood, J.W. (1984). The
myth of female underachievement:
A reexamination of sex differences in academic
underachievement. American
Educational Research Journal, 21, 825-838.
Super,
D.E., Starishevsky, R., Matlin, R,. & Jordaan, J.P. (Eds.).
(1963). Career
Development: Self-Concept
theory.
New York
: College Board.
Super,
D.E., Thompson, A.S., Lindeman, R.H., Jordaan, J.P. & Myers, R.A.
(1981). The Career
development inventory (college and university form).
Palo Alto
,
CA
: Consulting
Psychologist Press.
Super,
D.E. (1984). Career and
life development. In D.
Brown, L. Brooks, & Associates, Career choices and
development: Applying contemporary theories to practice (pp.
192-234).
San Francisco
: Jossey-Bass.
Super,
D.E. (1986). Life career
roles: Self-realization in work and leisure.
In D.T. Hall (Ed.), Organizing careers.
New York
: College Board.
Terman,
L.M (1931). The gifted child. In
C. Murchison (Ed.), A handbook of child psychology (pp.
568-584).
Worcester
,
MA
:
Clark
University
Press.
Tiedman,
D.V., & O’Hara, R.P. (1963).
Career development: Choice and adjustment.
New York
: CEEB.
VanTassel-Baska, J.
(1993).
Academic counseling for the gifted.
In L.K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted and
talented.
Denver
,
CO
:
Love Publishing Co.
Warschaw,
T. (1985). The
“I-don’t-deserve-it” syndrome.
New Women, 15(4), 134-137.
Whitmore,
J.R. (1979). The
etiology of underachievement in highly gifted young children.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 3, 38-51.
Winston,
R.B., Jr., Phelps, R. E., Mazzeo, S., & Torres, V.
(1997). A short
measure of students’ autonomy development: The
Georgia Autonomy Scales. College
Student Affairs Journal, 17, 4-17.
Winston,
R.B., Jr., Miller, T.K., & Cooper, D.L. (1999).
Preliminary technical manual for the student development
task and lifestyle assessment.
Athens,
GA
: Student Development
Associates, Inc.
|
