Honors College Faculty Support for High-Impact Practice Participation

Abstract

Much of the existing research on honors colleges or programs is focused on the student experience, with less information offered concerning the faculty perspective. This study presents findings from the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), comparing support for high-impact practices between faculty who teach honors courses and those who do not. Along with core FSSE items, this study uses responses from 1,487 faculty members at 15 institutions on two experimental items about teaching honors courses. A series of ordinary least squares and binary logistic regression analyses suggest that faculty who teach honors courses are more likely to supervise undergraduates on research and internships and to think that it is important for students to participate in learning communities, study abroad, and research with faculty. These findings are interpreted within the context of previous research and current theory, bridging knowledge from the fields of higher education and gifted education.

Keywords

honors colleges faculty high-impact practices higher education

Research on student engagement has long supported the idea that participation in at least two high-impact practices (HIPs) leads to beneficial outcomes such as retention and the support of students’ affective and cognitive development (Kilgo et al., 2015; Kuh, 2008). In addition, the teaching practices and values of faculty can greatly enhance students’ experiences and learning outcomes (Nelson Laird, Lambert, et al., 2014; Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005). Honors programs or honors colleges are often an avenue for students’ engagement with HIPs such as undergraduate research or senior capstones. While scholars have examined the role of HIPs in the honors curriculum (Cobane & Jennings, 2017; Cognard-Black & Savage, 2016), there is little research on the role of faculty in supporting and implementing these initiatives. This study extends research on the importance of specialized programming, curriculum, and teaching for high achieving individuals to the undergraduate level, using data from the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) to compare support for HIP participation between faculty who teach honors courses and those who do not. Specifically, the guiding research questions focus on whether honors faculty, compared to faculty who do not teach honors courses, are more likely to perceive that participation in internships, formal leadership roles, learning community, study abroad, research with faculty, culminating senior experience, and service learning are important for their students, even when controlling for demographic and institutional characteristics known to influence the faculty experience. Another guiding research question for this study focuses on whether honors faculty are more likely than nonhonors faculty to supervise undergraduates in research or internships, even when controlling for demographic and institutional characteristics.

Honors Colleges in the Gifted Context

Several theoretical models regarding high ability students incorporate an environmental element, citing a need to examine the role of “nurture” for these individuals, and this extends to the vital role of teachers (Gagné, 2009; Tannenbaum, 2003). Although many models might be applicable, one far-reaching model of giftedness that connects to multiple domains, contains structural specificity, and recognizes the importance of environment is Gagné’s (1999) Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT). This model, and the subsequent update of the “DMGT 2.0” (Gagné, 2009), distinguishes between giftedness, presented as aptitude domains; talents, presented as fields in which these aptitudes are expressed; and developmental processes, presented as the uniting path between the abilities of giftedness and their manifestation as talents (Gagné, 2000, 2003); In addition, this model acknowledges how intrapersonal characteristics, environmental factors, and chance can also influence various elements of the developmental process. For each of these categorized elements (giftedness, developmental processes, talent expression, intrapersonal attributes, environmental factors, and chance), there are successive subfactors. The DMGT incorporates the environmental subfactors of milieu (including physical, cultural, social, and familial capital), specific individuals (including parents, other family members, peers, teachers, and mentors), and provisions (including enrichment from curriculum and pedagogy as well as administrative matters such as grouping and acceleration) (Gagné, 2009).

In terms of teachers, the creator of the model highlights several ways in which they can have a crucial impact on gifted students. Gagné (2015) notes that teachers are in a position to evaluate the ability levels of students as they progress, and best match them to an appropriately challenging curriculum; this interaction has not only a direct influence on the students’ knowledge and skills in the domain, but also an indirect influence when it comes to student motivation, confidence, and self-understanding. Previous research applying the DMGT model to understanding the role of teachers in development of gifted learners suggests that teacher influence goes beyond the transmission of content knowledge, citing the importance of teacher character strength in areas such as generosity, nurturing, and passion for a subject (Majid et al., 2014). Teachers can enhance and nurture good attitudes among gifted students, motivating them to succeed, helping them understand themselves and others, and guiding them to develop autonomy and perseverance.

The level of specificity, along with the broad applications of the DMGT, are relevant to the honors college experience for other reasons as well. Undergraduate students participating in these programs are interacting with professors and classmates and also with other peers at their institutions (roommates, friends, social clubs, etc.), and many still have close ties to their families. Furthermore, their experience is situated within the greater setting of higher education in general, and how they navigate this life stage is likely shaped by prior social and educational experiences. Certain curricular elements of honors programs can also have an impact, as these may or may not be similar to what these students have come across during their earlier K–12 education (such as self-contained classrooms or enrichment activities). An extensive amount of the research focused on models of gifted education has centered on younger elementary and secondary populations; subsequently, it is also beneficial to expand research investigating the functionality of these models across all ages.

Characteristics of Honors Colleges and Programs

For any analysis of high achieving students within honors colleges or programs, it is essential to highlight that there is possible variance in the mission, structure, and implementation of such programs. An “Honors College” at one institution might differ in numerous ways from a program with an identical title at another (which also frequently happens with K–12 schools, even within the same state, county, or district). Honors admissions policies are created within the context of overall institutional admissions requirements (Cognard-Black & Spisak, 2019). In some cases, honors students are admitted in their first year at the university; in other situations, they are given honors status only after achieving a minimum number of credit hours or a particular grade point average (GPA; Schuman, 2006). Many honors students have been formally identified as academically gifted during their prior educational experiences, but the services and programming they may have received can vary widely (Rinn & Plucker, 2004). Most honors colleges do require a GPA (high school or college) and/or standardized test score cutoff criteria for admissions (Cognard-Black et al., 2017), and it is highly likely that honors college students have been identified as gifted at some point during their prior education. For instance, a study of 393 undergraduate honors students at one university found that nearly all Honors College students (92%) self-reported participation in gifted programming during elementary, middle, and/or high school, although the types of programs in which they had participated differed considerably (Miller & Speirs Neumeister, 2017).

Despite the potential variety of experiences, there are nonetheless some fundamental components of most honors colleges, including more academically rigorous versions of general education courses, often with smaller class sizes for increased student-faculty interaction, and these courses are often prerequisites to more challenging courses such as colloquia or seminars (Cognard-Black et al., 2017; Fischer, 1996; Freyman, 2005; Sederberg, 2005). A typical requirement is that students complete around 20% to 25% of their courses from this honors-specified curriculum (Seifert, 2009). Many of these courses are interdisciplinary, and students can still select the major of their choice; moreover, there is frequently a required final thesis, capstone, or creative project that must be completed prior to graduation (Digby, 2005). A more recent systematic investigation of honors curricula demonstrated that most programs have independent research elements, but there is more diversity when it comes to requirements for other HIPs such as internships, service learning, and study abroad (Cognard-Black & Savage, 2016). Regardless of whether or not these practices are required, honors students are much more likely to report participating in research with faculty, study abroad, internships, and leadership of student organizations (Cognard-Black & Spisak, 2019). Many universities also have designated honors residence halls or study rooms available exclusively to honors students (Noldon & Sedlacek, 1998; Rinn, 2004), as well as honors-specific academic advisors (M. Johnson et al., 2018). Although few honors colleges have implemented a conceptual framework for their curriculum (Chancey & Butts, 2018; see University of Connecticut for an exception: https://honors.uconn.edu/about-us/theoretical-framework/), incorporation of elements outside of the traditional classroom, such as dedicated residence halls and programming, advisors, and independent research, speak to the milieu, individuals, and provisions aspects of the aforementioned DMGT framework (Gagné, 2009).

Students may start their honors program with strong expectations for their college experience (Rinn, 2008), yet these expectations may or may not be met, depending on the details and implementation of each program (Rinn & Plucker, 2004, 2019); honors program participation is related to several positive outcomes for students, in terms of academic achievement, cognitive gains, academic self-concept, self-efficacy, and effective use of learning strategies (Furtwengler, 2015; Rinn, 2007; Rinn & Plucker, 2019; Seifert, 2009). Students in honors programs were also found to be higher on subjective well-being, compared with their nonhonors peers (Plominski & Burns, 2018) and have reported that participation in honors brought about rewarding interpersonal experiences with other honors students (Mammadov et al., 2018; Perrone et al., 2010). Honors students also cite that a major benefit of participation in these programs is the development of meaningful relationships with the faculty (S. R. Dean, 2019).

HIPs in Higher Education

One important category of positive educational experiences at the college level is participation in HIPs. Kuh (2008) documented numerous cocurricular educational experiences as being remarkably effective in promoting learning, development, and persistence among college students. Programs such as learning communities, service learning, undergraduate research with faculty, internships, senior capstone projects or culminating experiences, and study abroad were recognized as “high-impact” due to their positive association with essential educational outcomes as well as the shared qualities that guide their effectiveness. Even though they may differ in their exact procedures from one institution to another, in general HIPs require a considerable amount of students’ time and effort, offer structured opportunities for reflection and integrative thinking, provide substantive feedback from faculty, opportunities for learning outside of the classroom, meaningful contacts with faculty and peers, and interactions with diverse others (Kuh, 2008; Kuh & O’Donnell, 2013; Sweat et al., 2013). Research also suggests that these interactions with faculty are positively related to participation in HIPs for minoritized populations (BrckaLorenz et al., 2017; Garvey et al., 2018). In addition, participating in these types of activities can serve to “blur the boundaries between students’ academic and out-of-class lives” (Terenzini et al., 1996, p. 158), making them more educationally compelling and enhancing the social and cognitive impact. HIP participation has also been linked to positive outcomes regarding graduate school and job attainment (Miller et al., 2018).

A great deal of interest has been generated concerning HIPs because participation has been shown to have a positive association with student learning and development in college. For example, participating in a learning community, where students take two or more courses as a group and work closely with one another and their professors on a common topic, has been connected to higher GPAs, increases in collaborative learning and interactions with faculty, and self-reported learning gains (Rocconi, 2011; Zhao & Kuh, 2004). Service-learning activities, where students participate in a project or organization that serves the community, offer students the opportunity to solve problems and have also been shown to increase intrapersonal development and multicultural communication skills (Chesbrough, 2011; Keen & Hall, 2009). At the undergraduate level, research with faculty allows students to explore a substantive area of research, gain technical skills, and improve critical thinking; it also provides students with a better understanding of the potential graduate school experience and increases their likelihood of attending graduate school (Craney et al., 2011; Lopatto, 2007; Miller et al., 2018). Completing an internship or other direct experience in a work setting not only offers students practical applications and real-world experiences but has further been shown to increase students’ leadership skills, professional development, and intercultural effectiveness (Coco, 2000; Kilgo et al., 2015). Completing a senior capstone course or project, where students integrate and apply what they have learned over their time at their institutions, has been associated with students’ ability to think imaginatively and integrate, synthesize, and apply course concepts to practice (Kinzie, 2013). Furthermore, participation in a study abroad program allows students to explore cultures, life experiences, and worldviews different from their own; this kind of experience has been shown to heighten students’ linguistic competency, intercultural competencies, and interpersonal accommodation (i.e., patience/flexibility) (Cisneros-Donahue et al., 2012; Stebleton et al., 2013).

Faculty in Honors Colleges and Programs and HIPs

Much of the research on honors colleges focuses on characteristics of the students and student outcomes (Rinn & Plucker, 2019), or the student experience and student engagement (e.g., Seifert et al., 2007; Shushok, 2006). Even those that touch on the role of faculty often do so from a student perspective. In a study comparing honors students’ experiences and outcomes to those of students with similar academic ability who did not participate in honors, Shushok (2006) discovered that while GPA did not differ between these groups, honors students more frequently interacted with faculty and other students, suggesting that faculty relationships are a key element of the honors experience. Seifert and colleagues (2007) also compared honors students to nonhonors students and found that honors students had more exposure to a variety of educationally effective “best practices” during their first year of college. Many of these practices were directly linked to faculty, such as use of higher-order learning techniques, clarity in instructional skills, and timely feedback to students. Furthermore, other research demonstrates that honors faculty are highly motivated and supportive of their students (Daily, 2016), but not all research in this area provides cross-comparison to nonhonors faculty.

Research on the role of faculty in honors programs is largely focused on pedagogy and teaching strategies (e.g., C. Johnson et al., 2011; Szasz, 2017). While these studies provide support for faculty and opportunities to develop one’s own teaching practice, they do not offer information on whether or not these practices are being used across multiple faculty and institutions. Furthermore, research on the role of faculty in honors’ student engagement is limited, often framing the role of faculty as peripheral. Framing service learning as a pedagogy of engagement, Stewart (2012), using pretesting and posttesting, found that honors students who participated in a service-learning program improved their sense of community connectedness, civic attitudes, and civic efficacy. More recently, research from Miller and colleagues (2021) found that faculty who teach honors courses were more likely to encourage engagement in the areas of student–faculty interaction, learning strategies, and collaborative learning, compared to their faculty peers who did not teach honors courses, yet there were no discernable differences in other areas such as higher-order learning and quantitative reasoning. Although the role of faculty is important, there is little research on faculty support for various HIPs for honors students, although research indicates that in general, effective HIPs include faculty support (Kuh, 2008).

Generating evidence for quality teaching within the honors community is necessary to support faculty, as K. W. Dean and Jendzurski (2012) found that after developing a process for recognizing honors faculty at their institution, teaching effectiveness increased and the honors community was acknowledged as “advocates for quality teaching” (p. 186). On a smaller scale, this study indicates that recognition of best practices can improve overall teaching at a single institution. On a larger scale, these findings can be expanded further, as recognizing areas of success for honors faculty may be able to set institutional benchmarks for improvement both within and outside of honors colleges. In addition, Austin (1990) urges institutions to strive toward understanding the mix of faculty cultures (those of the academic profession, disciplines, the academy as an organization, and of their institutional type) on their campus to best support faculty in how they create institutional priorities, establish evaluation systems, and celebrate faculty values. Similar to the DMGT’s conceptualization of teachers as more than just those who transmit content knowledge (Gagné, 2015), faculty contribute in many ways to the overall campus environment. Faculty are key to providing or facilitating student participation in HIPs and are significantly influential in the fidelity of implementation of these experiences (Kuh & Kinzie, 2018). Similar to the need for supporting faculty in honors programs, departmental support (i.e., financial, time allowance, recognition, developmental assistance) is critical to faculty willingness and ability to provide quality HIPs (Murphrey et al., 2016; White, 2018). The importance that faculty place on undergraduate research has been shown to be as valuable as faculty participation in providing this experience to student engagement (Kuh et al., 2007; Webber et al., 2013) suggesting that faculty values play a part in promoting campus cultures that actively engage students in high-impact experiences (Nelson Laird, BrckaLorenz, et al., 2014; Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005). Learning more about faculty beliefs regarding the importance of students’ participating in HIPs can help facilitate conversations about institutional change and improvement.

The Current Study

Recent research suggests that honors students are more likely to be engaged in some, but not all, aspects of the college experience, and that these patterns can differ by class level (Miller & Dumford, 2018). However, is also important to consider whether honors programs are having an impact on effective educational practices from the perspective of another vital institutional group: faculty. Faculty certainly play a role when it comes to the honors curriculum, but not all HIPs are part of a traditional course. Some of these experiences might fall on the border of teaching and service, or in the case of supervising student research, this would fall in all three areas (teaching, research, and service) that are expected of faculty work. While there is some research on the role of faculty for HIPs and honors students, more is needed. Further examination on this topic could determine whether HIP participation, perceived as a best practice in the field of higher education (Kuh, 2008), has a differential impact or implementation when it comes to honors faculty. Given that many honors students have previously been identified as gifted, it is also important to explore more deeply the types of pedagogies that are generally reserved for these students, compared to other undergraduate students, and the perspectives of faculty who are delivering these experiences as a means of bridging higher education and gifted education research.

FSSE is a companion survey to the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and addresses many of the same constructs but from a faculty perspective. FSSE assesses a variety of behaviors related to student engagement with faculty at 4-year colleges and universities across the United States and Canada (see http://fsse.indiana.edu for more information). Items on FSSE require faculty to reflect on the frequency of promoting various academic behaviors in their courses as well as on more abstract concepts of growth, learning, and development. Therefore, this study was developed to address whether faculty who teach honors courses are more or less likely to encourage and support HIP participation, compared to their peers who do not teach honors courses. Specifically, the study explores whether honors faculty, compared to faculty who do not teach honors courses, are more likely to perceive importance for student participation in internships, formal leadership roles, learning community, study abroad, research with faculty, culminating senior experience, and service learning, even after controlling for demographic and institutional characteristics known to influence the faculty experience. Furthermore, the study compares whether honors faculty are more likely than nonhonors faculty to supervise undergraduates in research or internships, after controlling for demographic and institutional characteristics.

Method

Data and Sample

For this study, data from the 2016 administration of the FSSE were used. FSSE annually collects information from faculty about student engagement both in and out of the classroom. FSSE asks faculty about their promotion of learning and development in their courses and the allocation of their time, both course-related and outside of their courses. The reasons that institutions participate vary and generally include national and regional accreditation, departmental/program reviews, curricular reform, and institutional improvement efforts. In 2016, more than 14,500 faculty members from 119 4-year colleges and universities responded to the survey. Overall, FSSE respondents and participating institutions are representative of all U.S. bachelor’s degree–seeking faculty and institutions, with a few exceptions (FSSE, 2016).

In addition to the main survey instrument, FSSE adds experimental questions for research and development purposes. In 2016, several item sets were tested at a random subset of participating institutions, and this study uses responses to an item set including two additional demographics questions about teaching honors courses that were appended to the core survey instrument. While this was a subset of 15 FSSE institutions, they were selected by random assignment and mirrored the overall national landscape when looking at size, Carnegie classification, and control (FSSE, 2016). The institutions ranged in enrollment size from 470 to 39,100 students. Three institutions had enrollments of less than 1,000; five had enrollments between 1,000 and 2,500; two had enrollments between 2,500 and 5,000; three had enrollments between 5,000 and 10,000; and two had enrollments more than 10,000. Of these 15 institutions, five were public and 10 were private. There were three Doctoral Universities, seven Master’s Colleges and Universities, and five Baccalaureate Colleges. Six institutions were located in cities, three in suburban areas, four in towns, and two in rural locations.

There were available data from 1,487 faculty members at these 15 institutions offering honors colleges or programs. Of the sample of faculty members, 46% were men and 76% were white. Less than 2% of the faculty members were non-U.S. citizens. Among the faculty, 68% held a doctorate. Combining academic rank and employment status, there were 25% full Professors, 24% Associate Professors, 22% Assistant Professors, 16% full-time Lecturers/Instructors, and 13% part-time Lecturers/Instructors. When asked to respond to certain questions based on one particular undergraduate course section they were teaching, 37% responded based on a lower-division undergraduate course (mostly first-year students and sophomores), while 56% responded based on an upper-division course (mostly juniors and seniors).

Data Collection Procedures

Faculty were recruited through an email requesting their participation. Although FSSE encourages institutions to recruit all of their faculty who teach at least one undergraduate course during the current school year, institutions are able to choose which of their faculty members receive this email, which contained a link to the online survey instrument. The surveys were completed online during untimed sessions. FSSE is administered annually during the spring semester and, depending on the institution’s calendar, administrations can range from April to May. Faculty receive a maximum of four contact emails. The average institutional response rate was 46%.

Measures

On the core survey, faculty are asked to rate the importance of undergraduate participation in several HIPs, including internships, formal leadership roles, learning community, study abroad, research with faculty, culminating senior experience, and service learning, using a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from “not important” to “very important.” Furthermore, faculty report whether or not they work with undergraduates on research or supervise them in internships (yes/no).

In addition to the core survey, these results incorporate responses from an additional experimental item on teaching honors courses that was given to faculty members at the subset of 15 institutions offering honors colleges or programs. This item asked if faculty had taught any honors courses during the academic year (15% responded yes). Comparisons on demographic differences across honors and nonhonors faculty suggest that the groups are not significantly different in terms of gender, race/ethnicity, citizenship status, and years teaching. Full and Associate professors, as well as those in the arts and humanities, were more likely to teach honors courses (Table 1).

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics for Honors and Nonhonors Faculty.

Characteristics	% Nonhonors	% Honors	% Total	Sig.^a
Man	41.5	51.9	46.1	n.s.
Woman	50.8	43.4	49.7
Another gender identity	0.2	0.0	0.2
Prefer not to respond	3.8	4.7	4.0
Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander	2.7	1.4	2.5	n.s.
Black or African American	4.6	3.3	4.4
Hispanic or Latino	3.8	4.2	3.9
White	76.3	77.7	76.5
American Indian, Alaska Native, Other, Multiracial	4.2	6.0	4.5
I prefer not to respond	8.3	7.4	8.2
Not a U.S. citizen	1.4	1.4	1.4	n.s.
U.S. citizen	98.6	98.6	98.6	n.s.
Full professor	24.2	31.3	25.2	.001
Associate professor	22.4	30.8	23.6
Assistant professor	22.6	17.4	21.9
Full-time lecturer/instructor	16.4	13.9	16.1
Part-time lecturer/instructor	14.4	6.5	13.2
Arts and humanities	20.0	31.5	21.6	.032
Biological sciences, agriculture, and natural resources	7.5	6.1	7.3
Physical sciences, mathematics, and computer Sciences	9.3	10.3	9.5
Social sciences	14.6	13.1	14.4
Business	10.0	10.3	10.0
Communications, media, and public relations	4.8	3.3	4.6
Education	10.3	7.0	9.8
Engineering	1.7	0.9	1.6
Health professions	9.2	8.5	9.1
Social service professions	5.7	2.3	5.2
Other disciplines (not reported)	6.9	6.6	6.8
4 or fewer years teaching	15.8	9.4	14.9	n.s.
5–9 years teaching	15.7	16.0	15.7
10–19 years teaching	32.8	34.9	33.1
20–29 years teaching	20.3	25.0	21.0
30 or more years teaching	15.4	14.6	15.3

Chi-square test of independence.

The core survey instrument also collected demographic information from respondents. The survey instrument data were then combined with publicly available data, such as institution control, selectivity, and size. This demographic and institutional information served as control variables for all of the models. As a variety of research in the field of higher education points to important differences in the faculty experience based on these characteristics (Nelson Laird, BrckaLorenz, et al., 2014; Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005), it is important to include them in the models. For additional descriptions and coding of these variables, see Appendix.

Analyses

A series of ordinary least squares (OLS) and binary logistic regression analyses, controlling for certain faculty and institutional characteristics, were conducted. In each of the analyses, the corresponding flag for teaching honors courses was entered as the last step predictor variable by itself. Selected faculty and institutional characteristics were entered as step 1 of the model (Appendix). The faculty characteristics were gender, race/ethnicity, U.S. citizenship, doctorate-earned status, academic rank, discipline of appointment, age, and number of years of teaching experience; the institutional characteristics were locale, enrollment size, Barron’s selectivity, and control. All categorical independent variables were dummy coded. The seven HIP importance items were the outcome variables in each of the OLS models, while the two HIP supervision items were the outcome variables in the binary logistic regression models. The variance inflation factor (VIF) values for each predictor variable in these regression models were all well below 5 (ranging from 1.0 to 3.6), suggesting that multicollinearity was not an issue (Field, 2009).

Results

OLS Regression Models

The results of the OLS regression models indicate that faculty who teach honors courses are significantly more likely to think that it is important for students to participate in learning communities, study abroad, and research with faculty. The positive, statistically significant effects emerged from the models, even when controlling for other demographic and institutional characteristics. However, teaching an honors course did not have a statistically significant impact on perceived importance for internship, formal leadership, culminating experience, or service-learning participation. Model summary statistics are reported in Table 2, and individual beta coefficients for all models are reported in Tables 3 and 4. Overall, the predictor variables accounted for 6.0% to 14.9% of the total variance on the perceived importance items. However, teaching an honors course seems to be one of many explanatory factors in the model outcomes, contributing between .1% and .7% of the overall model variance.

Table 2.

Model Summary Statistics and Explained Variance for Teaching Honors Courses Predicting High-Impact Practice Importance Rating.

HIP rating—Importance of:	F	df	Sig.	Adjusted R²	ΔR²
Internship or field experience	5.484	34, 1,241	<.001	.109	.001
Formal leadership role	4.262	34, 1,233	<.001	.083	.002
Learning community	4.911	34, 1,236	<.001	.097	.004
Working with faculty on research	5.152	34, 1,240	<.001	.102	.004
Culminating senior experience	3.330	34, 1,234	<.001	.060	.002
Study abroad	7.371	34, 1,238	<.001	.149	.007
Service learning	7.088	34, 1,238	<.001	.143	.002

Note. HIP = high-impact practice.

Table 3.

OLS Regression Models for HIP Importance: Standardized Beta Coefficients (Part 1).

Predictor Variable	Internship or field exp.	Formal leadership		Learning community			Research with faculty
Predictor Variable	Std. β	Sig.	Std. β β	Sig.	Std. β	Sig.	Std. β β	Sig.
Step 1: Faculty demographics
Gender: Woman^a	0.062	.033	0.032	.281	0.063	.032	−0.012	.677
Gender: Other^a	−0.037	.179	0.006	.819	0.028	.302	0.000	.994
Gender: Prefer not to respond^a	0.015	.639	−0.014	.660	−0.063	.049	−0.018	.567
Race: Asian/Pacific Islander^b	0.029	.296	0.082	.004	0.064	.023	0.002	.951
Race: Black/African American^b	0.043	.124	0.085	.003	0.121	.000	0.066	.019
Race: Hispanic/Latino^b	0.087	.002	0.112	.000	0.105	.000	0.082	.003
Race: Other race/ethnicity^b	0.029	.297	0.018	.529	0.042	.127	0.018	.511
Race: Prefer not to respond^b	−0.016	.620	−0.012	.716	0.041	.202	−0.013	.674
U.S. citizen	−0.031	.274	−0.036	.211	−0.025	.373	0.003	.918
Tenured	−0.027	.431	−0.001	.974	−0.042	.228	0.053	.127
Doctoral degree	−0.027	.590	0.007	.899	−0.097	.056	0.054	.290
Rank: Associate^c	0.026	.456	0.011	.761	0.053	.129	−0.024	.497
Rank: Assistant^c	0.033	.511	0.047	.362	0.022	.659	0.105	.040
Rank: Full-time lecturer^c	−0.019	.690	0.048	.332	−0.032	.514	0.025	.606
Rank: Part-time lecturer^c	−0.017	.709	−0.042	.364	−0.008	.866	0.037	.423
Disc: Bio Sci.^d	0.077	.013	−0.055	.083	−0.028	.368	0.114	.000
Disc: Phys. Sci.^d	−0.038	.224	−0.102	.001	−0.046	.145	0.011	.724
Disc: Social science^d	0.041	.208	−0.008	.805	−0.054	.103	0.018	.582
Disc: Business^d	0.155	.000	0.125	.000	−0.027	.405	−0.222	.000
Disc: Comm.^d	0.111	.000	0.041	.170	−0.019	.516	−0.049	.099
Disc: Education^d	0.237	.000	−0.004	.898	0.148	.000	−0.162	.000
Disc: Engineering^d	0.030	.283	0.057	.049	0.010	.730	0.015	.607
Disc: Health Prof.^d	0.189	.000	0.069	.033	0.093	.004	−0.073	.023
Disc: Soc. Serv. Prof.^d	0.099	.001	0.053	.078	−0.007	.825	−0.059	.047
Disc: Other^d	0.092	.003	0.088	.005	0.065	.036	−0.056	.070
Number of years teaching	−0.003	.951	0.002	.967	−0.059	.155	−0.019	.645
Age	0.024	.520	0.041	.283	0.100	.010	0.010	.797
Institution size	−0.068	.134	−0.105	.023	0.038	.406	0.013	.779
Barron’s selectivity	−0.049	.188	−0.072	.056	−0.003	.936	−0.030	.418
Institution control	0.024	.599	0.021	.652	0.017	.720	0.062	.186
Locale: Suburban^e	0.039	.319	0.055	.165	0.012	.764	0.040	.312
Locale: Town^e	−0.013	.718	−0.065	.075	0.008	.825	0.011	.751
Locale: Rural^e	−0.024	.393	−0.019	.516	−0.017	.559	−0.016	.582
Step 2
Teaching honors course	0.036	.192	0.041	.146	0.069	.013	0.063	.023

Table 4.

OLS Regression Models for HIP Importance: Standardized Beta Coefficients (Part 2).

	Culminating Sr. experience	Study abroad			Service learning
Predictor Variable	Std. β	Sig.	Std. β β	Sig.	Std. β	Sig.
Step 1: Faculty demographics
Gender: Woman^a	0.104	.001	0.032	.259	0.134	.000
Gender: Other^a	0.028	.316	−0.013	.626	0.018	.502
Gender: Prefer not to respond^a	0.015	.645	−0.022	.468	−0.040	.200
Race: Asian/Pacific Islander^b	0.026	.363	0.061	.027	0.009	.738
Race: Black/African American^b	0.035	.225	0.065	.018	0.065	.019
Race: Hispanic/Latino^b	0.076	.008	0.120	.000	0.071	.009
Race: Other race/ethnicity^b	0.044	.121	0.066	.014	0.040	.136
Race: Prefer not to respond^b	−0.002	.961	−0.011	.714	0.034	.270
U.S. citizen	−0.005	.874	−0.049	.076	−0.027	.334
Tenured	−0.029	.413	0.054	.112	−0.092	.007
Doctoral degree	−0.016	.753	0.010	.833	−0.023	.645
Rank: Associate^c	0.049	.169	0.017	.622	0.039	.253
Rank: Assistant^c	0.062	.235	0.000	.998	0.028	.570
Rank: Full-time lecturer^c	0.002	.960	−0.058	.222	0.032	.494
Rank: Part-time lecturer^c	−0.062	.183	−0.120	.007	0.005	.903
Disc: Bio Sci.^d	−0.070	.030	−0.109	.000	0.046	.134
Disc: Phys. Sci.^d	−0.124	.000	−0.230	.000	−0.119	.000
Disc: Social science^d	−0.088	.010	−0.047	.149	0.070	.030
Disc: Business^d	−0.042	.199	0.013	.687	−0.008	.795
Disc: Comm.^d	0.025	.406	−0.037	.192	0.068	.018
Disc: Education^d	−0.059	.073	−0.112	.000	0.142	.000
Disc: Engineering^d	0.076	.009	−0.082	.003	0.005	.860
Disc: Health Prof.^d	−0.049	.136	−0.159	.000	0.151	.000
Disc: Soc. Serv. Prof.^d	−0.023	.446	−0.102	.000	0.117	.000
Disc: Other^d	−0.049	.122	0.013	.657	0.061	.044
Number of years teaching	−0.004	.929	0.066	.099	−0.026	.518
Age	0.000	.999	0.016	.664	0.014	.701
Institution size	0.036	.445	−0.141	.001	−0.051	.252
Barron’s selectivity	−0.149	.000	0.171	.000	−0.080	.030
Institution control	0.165	.001	−0.158	.001	0.038	.400
Locale: Suburban^e	0.080	.049	−0.018	.633	−0.040	.293
Locale: Town^e	0.092	.013	−0.044	.204	−0.046	.191
Locale: Rural^e	0.037	.210	−0.014	.627	−0.003	.914
Step 2
Teaching honors course	0.050	.080	0.085	.002	0.046	.091

Note. Significant coefficients are bolded. OLS = ordinary least square; HIP = high-impact practice.

Reference group: Man. ^bReference group: White. ^cReference group: Full Professor. ^dReference group: Arts & Humanities. ^eReference group: Urban.

Faculty teaching honors courses were more likely to perceive learning community participation as important for their students (β = .069). Compared to the other significant coefficients in the model (Table 3), this was a relatively moderate, albeit statistically significant, coefficient. This finding is interesting to note, as some honors colleges operate with a designated residence hall for their students, offering programming and services that might function similarly to other learning communities.

Faculty teaching honors courses were also more likely to perceive participation in research with faculty as important for their students (β = .063). This was also a relatively moderate predictor, compared to the other significant coefficients in the model (Table 3). This finding is somewhat intuitive, given that participation in research projects is encouraged and often required for honors students. Therefore, it makes sense that faculty would recognize and support the gains made by students participating in guided research, as they are able to witness this progress firsthand.

Of models where teaching honors courses had a statistically significant result, the strongest effect was for perceived importance of study abroad (β = .085). It may be that honors students have more access and opportunities to participate in study abroad, or it may be the case that faculty deem honors students as more prepared for this type of advanced and intensive experience. Yet, it is also essential to note that while this was the largest significant coefficient (for teaching honors courses), compared to the other significant coefficients in the model (Table 4) it was again relatively moderate in magnitude. While faculty who teach honors courses are more likely to support this particular HIP, the magnitude of the coefficients also suggests that many other factors are having an influence on how important faculty perceive student participation in these HIPs.

Although not the focus of this study, it is also worth noting a few of the demographic and institutional characteristics that seem to play a role in perceived importance of student HIP participation, even for those models where teaching honors courses did not have a statistically significant effect. For instance, the disciplinary area in which the faculty teach seems to be the driving force within perceived importance of internships, and also seems to have an influence on perceptions of research with faculty and study abroad (Tables 3 and 4). Furthermore, racial/ethnic minority status seems to predict perceived importance of learning communities, formal leadership, and study abroad participation, while institutional characteristics tend to predict perceived importance of culminating senior experiences and study abroad (Tables 3 and 4).

Binary Logistic Regression Models

The binary logistic regression analyses suggest that faculty who teach honors courses are significantly more likely to work with undergraduates on research and supervise internships. The positive, statistically significant effects emerged from the models even when controlling for other demographic and institutional characteristics. Model summary statistics are reported in Table 5, and individual coefficients and odds ratios for both models are reported in Table 6. Overall, the predictor variables accounted for 24.4% (research) and 13.0% (internship) of the total variance on faculty HIP supervision. However, teaching an honors course seems to be one of many explanatory factors in the model outcomes, contributing 2.2% (research) and .5% (internship) of the overall model variance.

Table 5.

Model Summary Statistics and Explained Variance for Teaching Honors Courses Predicting High-Impact Practice Supervision.

Supervision of:	Omnibus χ²	Sig.	% Correctly classified	Nagelkerke R²	ΔR²
Undergraduates on research	245.232	<.001	71.4%	.244	.022
Internship of field experience	120.884	<.001	68.4%	.130	.005

Table 6.

Logistic Regression Models for HIP Supervision: Coefficients and Odds Ratios.

Predictor variable	Undergraduate research				Internship or field experience
Predictor variable	Coeff.	SE	OR	Sig.	Coeff.	SE	OR	Sig.
Step 1: Faculty demographics
Gender: Woman^a	0.080	0.140	1.083	.570	0.176	0.139	1.193	.205
Gender: Other^a	0.260	1.257	1.298	.836	0.412	1.321	1.510	.755
Gender: Prefer not to respond^a	0.253	0.451	1.288	.575	0.527	0.427	1.694	.217
Race: Asian/Pacific Islander^b	−0.423	0.425	0.655	.319	−0.234	0.415	0.792	.574
Race: Black/African American^b	0.282	0.323	1.326	.382	0.069	0.312	1.071	.825
Race: Hispanic/Latino^b	0.515	0.342	1.673	.132	0.937	0.328	2.552	.004
Race: Other race/ethnicity^b	0.098	0.326	1.103	.764	0.193	0.309	1.213	.533
Race: Prefer not to respond^b	−0.044	0.301	0.957	.883	0.246	0.303	1.279	.417
U.S. citizen	−0.397	0.565	0.672	.482	0.390	0.625	1.477	.533
Tenured	0.335	0.185	1.398	.070	−0.364	0.184	0.695	.047
Doctoral degree	0.195	0.251	1.215	.437	0.335	0.243	1.398	.168
Rank: Associate^c	−0.193	0.189	0.824	.308	0.184	0.188	1.201	.329
Rank: Assistant^c	0.064	0.294	1.066	.829	0.308	0.280	1.360	.273
Rank: Full-time lecturer^c	−1.039	0.326	0.354	.001	−0.476	0.311	0.621	.126
Rank: Part-time lecturer^c	−1.045	0.336	0.352	.002	−0.913	0.325	0.401	.005
Disc: Bio Sci.^d	0.551	0.267	1.736	.039	0.808	0.276	2.244	.003
Disc: Phys. Sci.^d	0.051	0.241	1.052	.833	0.057	0.271	1.059	.834
Disc: Social Science^d	0.139	0.213	1.149	.515	0.721	0.228	2.056	.002
Disc: Business^d	−1.412	0.297	0.244	.000	0.522	0.267	1.685	.051
Disc: Comm.^d	−0.094	0.321	0.910	.770	0.315	0.352	1.370	.371
Disc: Education^d	−1.535	0.293	0.215	.000	1.587	0.254	4.889	.000
Disc: Engineering^d	1.061	0.543	2.888	.051	0.713	0.520	2.039	.170
Disc: Health Prof.^d	−1.061	0.273	0.346	.000	0.936	0.258	2.549	.000
Disc: Soc. Serv. Prof.^d	−0.689	0.335	0.502	.040	0.971	0.320	2.641	.002
Disc: Other^d	−0.419	0.288	0.657	.145	0.892	0.287	2.441	.002
Number of years teaching	−0.010	0.009	0.990	.282	−0.003	0.009	0.997	.760
Age	−0.004	0.008	0.996	.602	−0.002	0.008	0.998	.778
Institution size	0.011	0.009	1.011	.231	−0.010	0.009	0.990	.284
Barron’s selectivity	0.047	0.100	1.049	.637	−0.022	0.097	0.979	.825
Institution control	−0.093	0.230	0.912	.687	−0.491	0.220	0.612	.026
Locale: Suburban^e	−0.106	0.228	0.899	.641	−0.170	0.214	0.844	.427
Locale: Town^e	0.206	0.200	1.229	.301	0.033	0.192	1.034	.863
Locale: Rural^e	−0.233	0.380	0.792	.539	−0.167	0.364	0.846	.647
Step 2
Teaching honors course	0.890	0.185	2.435	.000	0.400	0.182	1.492	.028

Note. Significant coefficients/odds ratios are bolded. HIP = high-impact practice.

Reference group: Man. ^bReference group: White. ^cReference group: Full Professor. ^dReference group: Arts & Humanities. ^eReference group: Urban.

In terms of supervising research with faculty, those who teach honors courses were around two and half times as likely to report doing so (odds ratio = 2.435). This is the largest significant odds ratio in the model, thus honors teaching status is having a substantive predictive influence here (Table 6). Given that research is generally encouraged and often required as part of the honors curriculum, it makes sense that these faculty are more likely to supervise undergraduates in research projects. Similarly, faculty who teach honors courses were more likely to supervise internship or field experiences, although this odds ratio was not as strong in magnitude (odds ratio = 1.492), meaning that they were almost 50% more likely to do so. In examining the other significant coefficients in this model, it appears that discipline seems to be a much stronger predictor of supervising internships or field experiences (Table 6).

Discussion

Taken together, there were some findings from this study that were consistent with previous research, while others were somewhat more surprising. One main finding from the analyses suggests that faculty value undergraduate research within honors colleges, based on their beliefs about the importance of participation as well as their supervisory roles in this activity. Faculty teaching honors courses were not only significantly more likely to cite the importance of this HIP, but they were also significantly more likely to actually supervise undergraduate research (even after controlling for other variables). This pattern of results complements those of Cognard-Black and Savage (2016), who found that most honors programs include independent research elements in their required curricula. Undergraduate research has been shown to support institutional goals and outcomes such as retention and graduation (e.g., Cobane & Jennings, 2017; Rogers & McDowell, 2015) and provides important socialization into the academic profession and shapes student intentions to go to graduate school (Eagan et al., 2013). Administrators emphasize the importance of research through including it as a requirement for students, and this is also reflected in faculty behaviors and perceptions of importance. Furthermore, because the honors courses tend to be smaller, it also follows that faculty teaching these courses would know their students better, be able to assign more research and hands-on opportunities as part of these courses, and be able to supervise more research as a part of these assignments.

While the connection between honors faculty and support for research makes sense, given existing knowledge of honors college requirements, some of the other significant findings from the models are somewhat more surprising. One might not expect honors faculty to be more involved in learning communities, compared with nonhonors faculty. Likewise, logistically very few would need to serve as direct supervisors of a study abroad course or program, given the relatively low overall participation rates (only 15% by their senior year) in study abroad (NSSE, 2014). Therefore, the statistically significant relationship between teaching honors courses and support for these two HIPs is of notable interest. Conceptually, this could be related back to the milieu and provisions elements of the DMGT, as in these learning communities and study abroad programs there can be overarching topics, themes, and shared social experiences that contribute to student development. More research is needed to further explore the specific gains for honors students that faculty associate with these two HIPs in particular.

In the remaining models looking at the importance of leadership roles, culminating experiences, service learning, and internship, the effect of teaching honors courses is not statistically significant. For some of the HIPs, such as formal leadership roles and culminating senior experiences, it is surprising that these are not perceived as more important to honors faculty, although somewhat promising from the perspective that all college students can benefit from participation in these activities. For some of the other models with nonsignificant findings for honors faculty, this may be due to a stronger impact of a specific major field (such as internship or service learning) or that faculty universally find these experiences to be important for undergraduates. It is also of interest to point out that while honors faculty are not significantly more likely to perceive internship or field experiences as important, they are significantly more likely to supervise these types of experiences. More research is needed to determine the reasons for this discrepancy. In addition, it should be stated that even for those models that did find a significant effect for teaching honors, many of these statistically significant (standardized) coefficients are considered small when interpreting effect size (Courville & Thompson, 2001). Therefore, many other variables were contributing to the explained variance in perceived importance and supervision of HIPs.

Many of these significant results corroborate previous research focusing on honors college participation from the perspective of the students. Seifert and colleagues (2007) found that first-year honors students had more exposure to certain “best practices” such as certain faculty teaching practices, including feedback and clarity, as well as interactions with peers. The findings concerning significantly greater perceived importance and more supervision of research for undergraduates are also in alignment with the idea of “Type-III” research and inquiry projects on topics of interest from the gifted education literature (Renzulli, 1986). Research suggests these projects can have many positive outcomes, even at the undergraduate level (Syer et al., 2013), and the emphasis on process, rather than just the final product can enhance the learning that takes place. In terms of the DMGT (Gagné, 2009), these findings are consistent with the descriptive functions of the environmental factor. The specific individuals (i.e., professors and administrators) supply provisions (i.e., supervision of research and internship experiences, perceived support for HIP participation) that enhance the experience of the honors students. These aspects are critical for delivering an appropriately challenging education to high ability students.

The results from these analyses can also be related to previous research looking at students’ perceptions of honors faculty and faculty academic identity. Shushok (2006) found that both honors students and nonhonors students perceived honors faculty to be more involved, having more frequent interactions with their students. It may be that the increased likelihood of honors faculty supervision of internships and research projects contributes to this perception. Furthermore, according to Daily (2016), honors faculty view themselves as mentors and advocates for students, valuing their interactions, and striving to incorporate “interesting experiences in the classroom” as a core focus of their teaching philosophies (p. 170). This also relates to the DMGT concept of teachers of the gifted serving as more than transmitters of domain knowledge, but also having an influence on student motivation, confidence, and self-understanding (Gagné, 2015). Thus, student–faculty interactions and other best practices, such as learning communities, study abroad, and research with faculty, may be considered highly important among those who work in honors colleges or with honors students.

Although this increased involvement for honors faculty should be acknowledged and celebrated, we also note the increased burden that these faculty may face. In addition to the overall faculty expectation of creating high-quality course experiences and maintaining quality interactions and mentorship, the current findings suggest that they are more likely to further encounter the work of supervising undergraduate research and supervising internships. Some of the efforts in these tasks, particularly the extensive mentoring, could be considered to be aspects of faculty service (W. B. Johnson, 2016). Even if participation in HIPs is technically viewed as an aspect of teaching, “service to students” (such as providing mentoring in undergraduate research) may not be as valued to institutions in terms of tenure and promotion (Schwartz, 2012). Although faculty with clearly defined administrative roles may receive compensation for their service work, most faculty do not receive extra recognition, support, or reward for such work beyond acknowledgment in annual performance reviews (Guarino & Borden, 2017). In addition, service roles are often inequitably distributed, resulting in increased burdens for women and faculty of color (Guarino & Borden, 2017; Pyke, 2011). Institutions should re-evaluate their policies for supporting faculty undertaking these additional responsibilities and ensure that these faculty have adequate support to continue doing their good work, including access to training for it (Pfund et al., 2006).

In addition to critically examining the burden placed on faculty invested in creating high-quality courses, we also need to interrogate who has access to participation in honors programs. The requirement of GPA or test standards (Cognard-Black et al., 2017) can potentially create a sense of hierarchy and exclusion. Furthermore, critical research has highlighted the inherent racism and classism in standardized testing that may create barriers for students from low socioeconomic and racially minoritized communities from accessing these honors programs (Au, 2016; Knoester & Au, 2017). Access to honors programs is largely perceived as merit-based, yet there may be underlying systemic barriers limiting participation for many students. As noted above, a large number of students in honors programs had previously been admitted into gifted programs (Miller & Speirs Neumeister, 2017), but research indicates that black and Latinx students are underrepresented in these programs beginning in elementary school and following them through their educational trajectory (Grissom & Redding, 2016). Furthermore, rates of HIP participation are often lower for certain disadvantaged demographic groups, including students of color, first-generation students, and nontraditionally-aged students (NSSE, 2019). This discrepancy is problematic, given the research demonstrating the positive outcomes of HIP participation (Kilgo et al., 2015; Kuh, 2008). If we, as a field, want to commit ourselves to equity and inclusion, we must interrogate and eliminate the barriers to receiving a high-quality education at all levels. While seeking to support faculty teaching in honors programs, it is also crucial to provide the necessary time, resources, and incentive for all faculty to create student-centered, high-quality courses for undergraduate students.

Limitations

There are some limitations of this research that should be considered when interpreting the results. Although there were a variety of institutions included in this sample and they represented FSSE participants as a randomly selected subsample of all FSSE institutions, the results may not be reflective of all 4-year undergraduate institutions across the country. Institutions elect to participate in FSSE and can further select to whom the survey will be administered. Data were collected from 15 institutions, so while the results are not institution-specific, only having 15 institutions in the sample did not allow for in-depth examinations of the influences of institutional characteristics, such as enrollment size, selectivity, or institutional control (public versus private), although these were included as control variables in the models. Furthermore, the sizes of courses each faculty was teaching were not measured in the survey, although it was assumed from the literature (i.e., Sederberg, 2005) that honors courses tend to be smaller. Even though the survey items focused on faculty courses and perspectives, it could be that honors faculty practices have a disparate impact depending on aspects of the institutional climate or specifics of the honors program (such as curricular stipulations).

A further limitation involves the use of self-reported measures. Although this type of research has the advantage of increased sample size and ease of online data collection, responses to the measures may not always be completely objective. We are also unaware of the specific details of the HIPs faculty reported supervising, and our data did not allow us to account for the degree to which faculty delivered the HIP as intended or their effectiveness as a supervisor. Most faculty who teach honors courses also teach some nonhonors courses, so the analytic distinction may have been somewhat diluted. In addition, there were relatively low standardized coefficients and percentages of explained variance for many of the models, which suggest that there are many other factors not included in the analyses influencing the variables of interest. In large samples, statistical significance should always be interpreted in conjunction with effect sizes (Courville & Thompson, 2001), in this study many of which were small to moderate. Moreover, given the research design, this study was unable to test for causal relationships between honors course teaching and HIP perceived importance and supervision. The results can only confirm whether or not they are associated. Given these caveats, the results should be interpreted with caution.

Future Directions and Conclusions

Overall, this study provides further evidence for increased perceived importance and supervision of certain HIPs among honors faculty. However, in other areas there were no differences between honors and nonhonors faculty for perceived HIP importance, after controlling for demographic and institutional factors. Therefore, this study contributes to the multifaceted combination of theories and knowledge within gifted education and research-based best practices in the field of higher education, specifically examining honors faculty perceptions and supervision of HIPs from the context of the DMGT. These findings are important because faculty play an important role in honors education, so understanding their perspectives on HIPs can help to improve the implementation of these beneficial activities. These results also demonstrate a need to further explore the experiences and best practices involved with serving gifted students at the undergraduate level.

All students, regardless of ability level, can benefit from faculty who support their participation in HIPs (Kuh, 2008), but establishing that at least some attitudes and behaviors toward HIPs are especially fostered in honors colleges is crucial as well. This understanding conveys not only the potential advantages of honors college participation but can also address other related issues. Are faculty perceptions of honors courses and students in alignment with students’ perceptions, and vice versa? Another future approach to studying honors faculty might be qualitative, examining case studies of high-performing institutions. What are their curricular models? What are the administrative and implementation details of their HIPs? Do honors faculty receive any pedagogical training or support specifically for honors courses or supervision of students in HIPs? In what ways do they differentiate for honors courses? Are they able to overcome existing inequalities for underrepresented demographic groups?

It is imperative to evaluate the effectiveness of honors colleges, in terms of faculty practices and perceptions as well as student outcomes, rather than merely presuming they are superior. These appraisals can subsequently impact efforts toward institutional improvement, programming enhancements, and resource allocation for honors colleges. In some cases, it may be productive to assimilate existing K–12 gifted education models into an undergraduate classroom setting, but in others there may be a need to generate new curricular components that are more developmentally appropriate for undergraduates. . Continuing research related to the experiences of honors college students and faculty, as well as the effectiveness of these honors programs, can benefit the fields of both gifted education and higher education. In the long run, generating this evidence can help educators to better serve high ability students at the undergraduate level.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix.

Faculty and Institutional Characteristic Measures.

Name	Description
Faculty characteristics
Gender^a	Woman, Other, Preferred not to respond; Man
Race/ethnicity^a	Asian American/Pacific Islander; Black/African American; Hispanic/Latino; Other (including American Indian and Native American, multiracial, and race/ethnicity descriptions that do not fit other categories); Preferred not to respond; White
U.S. citizen	0 = non-U.S. citizen; 1 = U.S. citizen
Tenured	0 = No tenure; 1 = Tenured
Doctorate earned	0 = No doctorate; 1 = Doctorate earned
Rank and employment status^a	Associate Professor; Assistant Professor; Full-time Lecturer/Instructor; Part-time Lecturer/Instructor; Full Professor
Disciplinary area^a	Biological sciences; physical sciences; social sciences; business; communication; education; engineering; health professions; social service professions; other; arts and humanities
Number of years taught	Continuous variable for the number of years teaching
Age	Continuous variable for age
Institutional characteristics
Enrollment size	Continuous variable for the total number of undergraduates enrolled
Barron’s selectivity	1 to 6 score based on Barron’s selectivity index
Control	0 = Public; 1 = Private
Locale^a	Suburban; Town; Rural; Urban

Dichotomous variables were created for each category (1 = in category, 0 = not in category) with the last category listed serving as the reference group.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

ORCID iD

Angie L. Miller

Data Availability Statement

The FSSE data set is proprietary and not currently available for free public use. Syntax for all analyses included in this paper are available from the authors upon request.

Author Biographies

Angie L. Miller, Ph.D. is an associate research scientist at the Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. She does research and data analytic support for the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and the Strategic National Arts Alumni Project (SNAAP). Her research interests include creativity assessment, the utilization of creativity in educational settings, factors impacting gifted student engagement and achievement, and survey methodology.

Samantha M. Silberstein is a doctoral candidate at Indiana University and a project associate for NSSE Institute. Her research interests include co-curricular learning, participatory research methodologies, and avenues for engaging white students in creating inclusive campus communities.

Allison BrckaLorenz, Ph.D. is an associate research scientist at Indiana University and the project manager for the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement. Her research interests focus on the teaching and learning of college students and the accompanying issues faced by faculty, the socialization of graduate students, and the experiences of small and understudied populations with an emphasis on the engagement of LGBQ+ students.

References

(2016). Meritocracy 2.0: High-stakes standardized testing as a radical project of neoliberal multiculturalism. Educational Policy, 30(1), 39–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815614916

Austin

A. E.

(1990). Faculty cultures, faculty values. New Directions for Institutional Research, 68, 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.37019906807

BrckaLorenz

Garvey

J. C.

Hurtado

S. S.

Latopolski

(2017). High-impact practices and student-faculty interactions for gender-variant students. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 10(4), 350–365. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/dhe0000065

Chancey

J. M.

Butts

J. L.

(2018). Gifted students, honors students, and an honors education. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council: Online Archive, 584. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nchcjournal/584/

Chesbrough

R. D.

(2011). College students and service: A mixed methods exploration of motivations, choices, and learning outcomes. Journal of College Student Development, 52(6), 687–705. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2011.0071

Cisneros-Donahue

Krentler

K. A.

Reinig

Sabol

(2012). Assessing the academic benefit of study abroad. Journal of Education and Learning, 1(2), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v1n2p169

Cobane

C. T.

Jennings

(2017). Lessons from honors: National scholarships, high-impact practices, and student success. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council: Online Archive, 556, 39–44.

Coco

(2000). Internships: A try before you buy arrangement. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 65(2), 41–47.

Cognard-Black

A. J.

Savage

(2016). Variability and similarity in honors curricula across institution size and type. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council: Online Archive, 17(1), 93–113.

10.

Cognard-Black

A. J.

Smith

P. J.

Dove

A. L.

(2017). Institutional variability in honors admissions standards, program support structures, and student characteristics, persistence, and program completion. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council: Online Archive. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nchcjournal/598/

11.

Cognard-Black

A. J.

Spisak

A. L.

(2019). Creating a profile of an honors student: A comparison of honors and non-honors students at public research universities in the United States. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council: Online Archive, 20(1), 123–157.

12.

Courville

Thompson

(2001). Use of structure coefficients in published multiple regression articles: β is not enough. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(2), 229–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164401612006

13.

Craney

Mckay

Mazzeo

Morris

Prigodich

de Groot

(2011). Cross-discipline perceptions of the undergraduate research experience. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(1), 92–113. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2011.0000

14.

Daily

(2016). Honors teachers and academic identity: What to look for when recruiting honors faculty. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council: Online Archive, 17(1), 151–188.

15.

Dean

K. W.

Jendzurski

M. B.

(2012). Affirming quality teaching: A valuable role for honors. Honors in Practice: Online Archive, 8, 183–192.

16.

Dean

S. R.

(2019). Understanding the development of honors students’ connections with faculty. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council: Online Archive, 20(1), 107–121.

17.

Digby

(2005). Peterson’s honors programs: The official guide of the National Collegiate Honors Council (4th ed.). Peterson.

18.

Eagan

M. K.

Hurtado

Chang

M. J.

Garcia

G. A.

Herrera

F. A.

Garibay

(2013). Making a difference in science education: The impact of undergraduate research programs. American Educational Research Journal, 50(4), 683–713. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213482038

19.

Faculty Survey of Student Engagement. (2016). FSSE 2016 overview. Center for Postsecondary Research, Indiana University. https://nsse.indiana.edu/fsse/findings-data-reports/fsse-overview/index.html

20.

Field

(2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). SAGE.

21.

Fischer

(1996). The new honors programs. U.S. News and World Report, 121, 108–110.

22.

Freyman

(2005). What is an honors student? Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council: Online Archive. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1156&context=nchcjournal

23.

Furtwengler

S. R.

(2015). Effects of participation in a post-secondary honors program with covariate adjustment using propensity score. Journal of Advanced Academics, 26(4), 274–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X15603365

24.

Gagné

(1999). Is there light at the end of the tunnel? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22, 194–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329902200208

25.

Gagné

(2000). Understanding the complex choreography of talent development through DMGT-based analysis. In Heller

K. A.

Monks

F. J.

Sternberg

R. J.

Subotnik

R. F.

(Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 67–79). Elsevier.

26.

Gagné

(2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. In Colangelo

Davis

G. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 60-74). Pearson Education.

27.

Gagné

(2009). Building gifts into talents: Detailed overview of the DMGT 2.0. In MacFarlane

Stambaugh

(Eds.), Leading change in gifted education: The festschrift of Dr. Joyce VanTassel-Baska (pp. 61–80). Prufrock Press.

28.

Gagné

(2015). Academic talent development programs: A best practices model. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16, 281–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-9366-9

29.

Garvey

J. C.

BrckaLorenz

Latopolski

Hurtado

S. S.

(2018). High-impact practices and student-faculty interactions for students across sexual orientations. Journal of College Student Development, 59(2), 210–226. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2018.0018

30.

Grissom

J. A.

Redding

(2016). Discretion and disproportionality: Explaining the underrepresentation of high-achieving students of color in gifted programs. AERA Open, 2(2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415622175

31.

Guarino

C. M.

Borden

V. M. H.

(2017). Faculty service loads and gender: Are women taking care of the academic family. Research in Higher Education, 58(6), 672–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9454-2

32.

Johnson

Anelli

Galbraith

Green

(2011). Information literacy instruction and assessment in an honors college science fundamentals course. College & Research Libraries, 72(6), 533–547. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl-166

33.

Johnson

Walther

Medley

K. J.

(2018). Perceptions of advisors who work with high-achieving students. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council: Online Archive, 571, 105–124.

34.

Johnson

W. B.

(2016). On being a mentor: A guide for higher education faculty (2nd ed.). Routledge.

35.

Keen

Hall

(2009). Engaging with difference matters: Longitudinal student outcomes of co-curricular service-learning programs. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(1), 59–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2009.11772130

36.

Kilgo

C. A.

Sheets

J. K. E.

Pascarella

E. T.

(2015). The link between high-impact practices and student learning: Some longitudinal evidence. Higher Education, 69, 509–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9788-z

37.

Kinzie

(2013). Taking stock of capstones and integrative learning. Peer Review, 15(4). https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/taking-stock-capstones-and-integrative-learning

38.

Knoester

(2017). Standardized testing and school segregation: Like tinder for fire? Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 20(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2015.1121474

39.

Kuh

G. D.

(2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities.

40.

Kuh

G. D.

Chen

Nelson Laird

T. F.

(2007). Why teacher-scholars matter: Some insights from FSSE and NSSE. Liberal Education, 93(4). https://aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/why-teacher-scholars-matter-some-insights-fsse-and-nsse

41.

Kuh

G. D.

Kinzie

(2018, May). What really makes a “high-impact” practice high-impact? Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2018/05/01/kuh-and-kinzie-respond-essay-questioning-high-impact-practices-opinion

42.

Kuh

G. D.

O’Donnell

(2013). Ensuring quality & taking high-impact practices to scale. Association of American Colleges and Universities.

43.

Lopatto

(2007). Undergraduate research experiences support career decisions and active learning. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6(4), 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-06-0039

44.

Majid

R. A.

Ali

M. M.

Alias

(2014). Teacher character strengths and talent development. International Education Studies, 7(13), 175–183. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n13p175

45.

Mammadov

Hertzog

N. B.

Mun

R. U.

(2018). An examination of self-determination within alumni of an early college entrance program. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 41(3), 273–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353218781745

46.

Miller

A. L.

Dumford

A. D.

(2018). Do high achieving students benefit from honors college participation? A look at student engagement for first-year students and seniors. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 41(3), 217–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353218781753

47.

Miller

A. L.

Rocconi

L. M.

Dumford

A. D.

(2018). Focus on the finish line: Does high-impact practice participation influence career plans and early job attainment? Higher Education, 75(3), 489–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0151-z

48.

Miller

A. L.

Silberstein

S. M.

BrckaLorenz

A. B.

(2021). Teaching honors courses: Perceptions of engagement from the faculty perspective. Journal of Advanced Academics, 32(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20938021

49.

Miller

A. L.

Speirs Neumeister

K. L.

(2017). The influence of personality, parenting styles, and perfectionism on performance goal orientation in high ability students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 28(4), 313–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X17730567

50.

Murphrey

T. P.

Odom

S. F.

Sledd

(2016). An examination of university agricultural education faculty attitudes toward the implementation of high impact learning experiences. Journal of Agricultural Education, 57(3), 162–179. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2016.03162

51.

National Survey of Student Engagement. (2014). NSSE 2014 annual results: Bringing the institution into focus. Center for Postsecondary Research, Indiana University. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/handle/2022/23405

52.

National Survey of Student Engagement. (2019). NSSE 2019 annual results: Engagement insights—Survey findings on the quality of undergraduate education. Center for Postsecondary Research, Indiana University. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/handle/2022/25321

53.

Nelson Laird

BrckaLorenz

Zilvinskis

Lambert

. (2014, November). Exploring the effects of a HIP culture on campus: Measuring the relationship between the importance faculty place on high-impact practices and student participation in those practices [Conference session]. Association for the Study of Higher Education Annual Conference, Washington, DC, United States.

54.

Nelson Laird

Lambert

A. D.

Cogswell

C. A.

Ribera

A. K

. (2014, May). Faculty still matter to student engagement [Conference session]. Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum, Orlando, FL, United States.

55.

Noldon

Sedlacek

W. E.

(1998). Gender differences in attitudes, skills, and behaviors among academically talented university freshmen. Roeper Review, 21(2), 106–1069. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199809553940

56.

Perrone

K. M.

Wright

S. L.

Ksiazak

T. M.

Crane

A. L.

Vannatter

(2010). Looking back on lessons learned: Gifted adults reflect on their experiences in advanced classes. Roeper Review, 32(2), 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783191003587918

57.

Pfund

Pribbenow

C. M.

Branchaw

Lauffer

S. M.

Handelsman

(2006). The merits of training mentors. Science Magazine, 311, 473–474. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1123806

58.

Plominski

A. P.

Burns

L. R.

(2018). An investigation of student psychological wellbeing: Honors versus nonhonors undergraduate education. Journal of Advanced Academics, 29(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X17735358

59.

Pyke

(2011). Service and gender inequity among faculty. PS: Political Science & Politics, 44(1), 85–87. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096510001927

60.

Renzulli

J. S.

(1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In Sternberg

R. J.

Davidson

(Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 51–92). Cambridge University Press.

61.

Rinn

A. N.

(2004). Academic and social effects of living in honors residence halls. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council: Online Archive. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1153&context=nchcjournal#:~:text=Through%20these%20institutional%20factors%2C%20students,establishing%20identity%2C%20freeing%20interpersonal%20relationships%2C

62.

Rinn

A. N.

(2007). Effects of programmatic selectivity on the academic achievement, academic self-concepts, and aspirations of gifted college students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 232–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207302718

63.

Rinn

A. N.

(2008). Pre-college experiences and characteristics of gifted students. In Clark

Zubizarreta

(Eds.), Inspiring exemplary teaching and learning: Perspectives on teaching academically talented college students (pp. 9–17). National Collegiate Honors Council.

64.

Rinn

A. N.

Plucker

J. A.

(2004). We recruit them, but then what? The educational and psychological experiences of academically talented undergraduates. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800106

65.

Rinn

A. N.

Plucker

J. A.

(2019). High-ability college students and undergraduate honors programs: A systematic review. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 42(3), 187–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353219855678

66.

Rocconi

L. M.

(2011). The impact of learning communities on first year students’ growth and development in college. Research in Higher Education, 52(2), 178–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-010-9190-3

67.

Rogers

McDowell

W. G.

(2015). Assessing the impact of undergraduate research on graduation rates at the University of Georgia. Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly, 36(2), 33–38.

68.

Schuman

(2006). Beginning in honors: A handbook (National Collegiate Honors Council: Monograph series paper 7). https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/17214357.pdf

69.

Schwartz

(2012). Faculty as undergraduate research mentors for students of color: Taking into account the costs. Science Education, 96(3), 527–542. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21004

70.

Sederberg

(2005). Characteristics of the contemporary Honors College: A descriptive analysis of a survey of NCHC member colleges. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council: Online Archive. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nchcjournal/180/

71.

Seifert

T. A.

(2009). Honors programs. In Kerr

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of giftedness, creativity, and talent (pp. 437–438). SAGE.

72.

Seifert

T. A.

Pascarella

E. T.

Colangelo

Assouline

S. G.

(2007). The effects of honors program participation on experiences of good practices and learning outcomes. Journal of College Student Development, 48(1), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2007.0007

73.

Shushok

(2006). Student outcomes and honors programs: A longitudinal study of 172 honors students 2000-2004. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council: Online Archive, 15, 85–96.

74.

Stebleton

M. J.

Soria

K. M.

Cherney

B. T.

(2013). The high impact of education abroad: College students’ engagement in international experiences and development of intercultural competencies. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 22, Article 124.

75.

Stewart

(2012). Honours service-learning and civic responsibility. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 3(1), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.5204/intjfyhe.v3i1.99

76.

Sweat

Jones

Han

Wolfgram

S. M.

(2013). How does high impact practice predict student engagement? A comparison of white and minority students. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2013.070217

77.

Syer

C. A.

Chichekian

Shore

Aulls

M. A.

(2013). Learning “to do” and learning “about” inquiry at the same time: Different outcomes in valuing the importance of various intellectual tasks in planning, enacting, and evaluating an inquiry curriculum. Instructional Science, 41, 521–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9242-5

78.

Szasz

(2017). Interdisciplinary teaching of theatre and human rights in honors. Honors in Practice, 13, 55–69.

79.

Tannenbaum

A. J.

(2003). Nature and nurture of giftedness. In Colangelo

Davis

G. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 45–59). Pearson Education.

80.

Terenzini

P. T.

Pascarella

E. T.

Blimling

G. S.

(1996). Students’ out-of-class experiences and their influence on learning and cognitive development: A literature review. Journal of College Student Development, 37(2), 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01680039

81.

Umbach

P. D.

Wawrzynski

M. R.

(2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 153–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-004-1598-1

82.

Webber

K. L.

Nelson Laird

T. F.

BrckaLorenz

A. M.

(2013). Student and faculty member engagement in undergraduate research. Research in Higher Education, 54(2), 227–249. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/23355287

83.

White

(2018). Understanding the university and faculty investment in implementing high-impact educational practices. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 18(2), 118–135. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v18i2.23143

84.

Zhao

C. M.

Kuh

G. D.

(2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 115–138. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RIHE.0000015692.88534.de