Identifying The Needs and Preferences of Highly Intelligent College Students

Identifying the Needs and Preferences of Highly Intelligent College Students
by
Michael Whalen
An Applied Dissertation Submitted to the

Fischler School of Education and Human Services
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Education
Nova Southeastern University

2009
Approval Page
This applied dissertation was submitted by Michael F. Whalen under the direction of the
persons listed below. It was submitted to the Fischler School of Education and Human
Services and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor
of Education at Nova Southeastern University.
_____________________________________
William Austin, EdD
Committee Chair
____________________
Date
_____________________________________
Clenton A. Blount, Jr., EdD
Committee Member
____________________
Date
_____________________________________
Maryellen Maher, PhD
Executive Dean for Research and Evaluation
____________________
Date
ii
Acknowledgments
In his book, Illusions, Richard Bach wrote, You are never given a dream without
also being given the power to make it true. . . .You may have to work for it, however, to
which I add, and work, and work, and work.
I am hopeful that this report will lead to further research and new discoveries in
the area of education for the high-IQ student. I am indebted to the following for making
sure this work ended up in its final form, and not a half-finished pile of random papers:
American Mensa, Ltd. (Mensa). This organization has allowed me to meet the
most tremendous people from all over, filling an enormous social and intellectual void.
Specifically, I thank Dr. Irv Freeman, Dr. Matt Crawford and the Research Review
Committee for offering advice and approving my request to involve Mensa in this study.
The National Collegiate Honors Council (NCHC). I wish to emphasize that the
conclusions contained in this report are offered with the hope that they help the NCHC
continue to improve the landscape of collegiate honors education.
The Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. I thank the center for
allowing me to use two of their powerful instruments for data collection.
Mensas Gen-X and Gen-Y Special Interest Groups. I thank the members of these
interest groups for volunteering to take my survey. I hope the next study will be received
with as much enthusiasm.
I deeply appreciate the advice and especially the patience of Dr. Will Austin and
Dr. Clenton Blount, as they read and helped me improve many versions of this project.
Last, I wish to thank my family for always supporting me and putting up with my
occasional bouts of confusion and despair. I hope that seeing this final report reassures
them that I wasnt delusional and that it was worth the effort.
iii
Abstract
Identifying the Needs and Preferences of Highly Intelligent College Students. Whalen,
Michael, 2009: Applied Dissertation, Nova Southeastern University, Fischler School of
Education and Human Services. Academically Gifted/Intelligence/Honors Curriculum/
Educational Strategies
This study was designed to identify the academic and social needs and preferences that
highly intelligent college students have in common. The researcher conducted a survey of
94 college students and alumni, all of whom possess an IQ measured at or above the 98th
percentile. After defining the common needs and preferences, the study examined
whether these needs were being met.
More than 700 American institutions of higher education belong to the National
Collegiate Honors Council (NCHC, 2007b); therefore, the researcher compared the
findings from the study to the guidelines published by NCHC (2007a). These guidelines
are intended to help member institutions design and deliver effective honors programs,
which offer high-achieving students certain exclusive features.
The study used a mixed-methods design. The researcher collected and analyzed data from
the survey, and several revealing relationships emerged. The researcher next conducted
interviews with several participants to add background and first-hand accounts to add
meaning to the results.
Survey results indicate that many collegiate honors programs are not reaching the
institutions high-IQ students. The report concludes with recommendations for improving
the reach and effectiveness of collegiate honors programs, based on the needs and
preferences expressed by high-IQ participants. The data presented in this report point to
several paths of further study that could build upon the results shown in this report.
iv
Table of Contents
Page
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ....................................................................................... 2
Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................. 3
Research Questions ................................................................................................ 8
Definitions of Terms .............................................................................................. 9
Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature .......................................................................... 12
Academic Needs of Gifted Students .................................................................... 12
Social and Other Needs of Gifted Students ......................................................... 14
Other Factors Impacting Academic Performance ................................................ 15
Personality Types and Giftedness ........................................................................ 17
Honors Programs Today ...................................................................................... 25
Benefits to the Institution ..................................................................................... 27
The Current Study ................................................................................................ 29
Relation to the Research Questions ..................................................................... 32
Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 33
Chapter 3: Methodology ................................................................................................... 35
Research Design and Rationale ........................................................................... 35
Participants ........................................................................................................... 37
Instrument ............................................................................................................ 40
Procedures ............................................................................................................ 42
Chapter 4: Results ............................................................................................................. 48
General Results .................................................................................................... 48
Participants ........................................................................................................... 49
Research Question 1 ............................................................................................ 55
Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 100
Chapter 5: Discussion ..................................................................................................... 101
Overview of Applied Dissertation ..................................................................... 101
Research Question 1 .......................................................................................... 102
Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................. 123
Implications of the Findings .............................................................................. 128
Limitations and Delimitations............................................................................ 130
Recommendations for Further Research ............................................................ 133
v
References ....................................................................................................................... 138

Appendixes
A National Collegiate Honors Council: Basic Characteristics of a Fully
Developed Honors Program ..........................................................................145
B MENSA Research Review Committee Approval Letter .............................. 150
C CSEQ Item Use Agreement .......................................................................... 152
D NSSE Item Use Agreement .......................................................................... 155
E Survey Consent Form ................................................................................... 158
F Interview Consent Form ............................................................................... 161
G Student Survey .............................................................................................. 165
H Data ............................................................................................................... 179
I Interview Questions ...................................................................................... 201
Tables
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Demographic Characteristics of Survey Participants ..................................... 50

Myers-Briggs Type Indicators (MBTI) of Survey Participants ...................... 51
Distribution of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Traits Among Survey
Participants ...................................................................................................... 52
Relationship Between Introversion and Career Selection .............................. 53
Influence of Judging or Perceiving Dimension on Degree Completion ......... 54
Influence of Judging or Perceiving Dimension on Grade Point Average ....... 55
Frequency of Selection of Academic Features as Most Important ................. 58
Frequency of Selection of All Features as Most Important ............................ 61
Frequency of Participation in Academic Programs ........................................ 66
Gender and Rating of Overall Educational Experience .................................. 71
Greek Membership and Participation in a Campus Organiztion ................... 82
Greek Membership and Leadership in a Student Organization ...................... 83
Availability of Exclusive Academic or Social Programs at National
Collegiate Honors Council Schools ................................................................ 87
Frequency of Participation in Exclusive Programs at National Collegiate
Honors Council Schools ................................................................................. 88
Mean Ratings of Schools Emphasis on Development of Student
Qualities .......................................................................................................... 89
Percentage of Students Participating in Experiential Learning ...................... 91
Percentage of Students Participating in Learning Communities .................... 91
Percentage of Students Participating in Research with Faculty...................... 92
Percentage of Students Participating in a Study-Abroad Program ................. 92
Percentage of Students Studying Independently............................................. 92
Percentage of Students Participating in a Culminating Academic
Experience ...................................................................................................... 93
Respondents Participating in Special Academic Programs at National
Collegiate Honors Council Schools ................................................................ 97
Figures
1
Highest Degree Earned, According to Presence of Judging or Perceiving

Trait ................................................................................................................. 54
vi
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Effect of Judging or Perceiving Trait on Grade Point Average. ..................... 55

Mean Rating of Each Academic Feature ........................................................ 57
Relationship Between Academic Achievement and Preference for
Smaller Classes ............................................................................................... 59
Influence of Introversion Trait on Preference for the Chance to
Accelerate Studies and Graduate Early........................................................... 59
Importance of Dedicated Housing for High-IQ Students, as it Relates to
of Education .................................................................................................... 62
Influence of Intuitive Trait on Preference for Sports and Recreational
Activities ......................................................................................................... 63
Rating of Academic Advising ......................................................................... 64
Relationship Between the Tendency to Discuss Career Plans and Ideas
with Faculty and a Students Opinion of His or Her Overall Experience ...... 68
Effect of Faculty Approachability on Student Achievement .......................... 68
Relationship Between the Perceived Quality of Academic Advising and
Students Rating of Their Overall Educational Experience ............................ 69
Relationship Between Satisfaction with Ones Undergraduate
Experience and the Tendency to Continue Ones Studies Beyond the
Undergraduate Level ....................................................................................... 70
Relationship Between Quality of Academic Advising and Level of
Education Attained.......................................................................................... 70
Influence of Gender on Students Rating of Their Overall Educational
Experience........................................................................................................72
Relationship Between Student Gender and the Perception of the Amount
of Academic Support Offered by the Institution ............................................ 73
Comparison of Students Evaluation of the Difficulty of Their Collegiate
Exams, Based on the Choice of a Science-Related or
Nonscience-Related Career ............................................................................. 74
Influence of Introversion Trait on Career Choice ...........................................75
Comparison of Students Evaluation of the Difficulty of Their Collegiate
Exams, Based on the Amount of Social Interaction Inherent in the
Students Career .............................................................................................. 76
Frequency of Participation in Campus Social Opportunities .......................... 77
Relationship Between Students Participation in Campus Events and
Their Tendency to Pursue Graduate Degrees ................................................. 79
Relationship Between Students Participation in Campus Organizations
and Their Tendency to Pursue Graduate Degrees........................................... 80
Relationship Between Students Experience in Positions of Leadership in
Student Organizations and Their Tendency to Pursue Graduate Degrees ...... 80
Influence of Gender on Students Perception of the Institutions
Emphasis on Attending Campus Events ......................................................... 81
Relationship Between Students Membership in a Sorority or Fraternity
and Their Rating of the Friendliness of Other Students ................................. 83
Relationship Between Students Membership in a Sorority or Fraternity
and Their Perception of the Amount of Social Support Offered by the
Institution .........................................................................................................84
vii
26 Relationship Between Ones Feeling or Thinking Trait and Ones Rating

of the Friendliness of Other Students.............................................................. 85
27 Relationship Between Ones Judging or Perceiving Trait and Ones
Tendency to Take a Leadership Role in a Student Organization.................... 85
28 Relationship Between Choosing a Science-Oriented Career and
Tendency to Attend Social Events on Campus ............................................... 86
29 Degree of StudentFaculty Interaction is Nearly Identical Between
National Collegiate Honors Council Member Institutions and
Nonmember Institutions.................................................................................. 90
30 Comparing Student Evaluations of Academic Advising .................................94
31 Comparison of Students Rating of Academic Support Provided by the
Institution ........................................................................................................ 94
32 Relationship Between an Institutions Membership in the National
Collegiate Honors Council and its Students Perception of the
Institutions Emphasis on Developing Personal Academic Qualities............. 95
33 Comparison of Student Rating of the Friendliness of Other Students,
According to the Schools Membership in National Collegiate Honors
Council .............................................................................................................96
viii
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Many American colleges and universities cater to their best-performing students
by offering honors programs. These honors programs often include benefits such as
smaller classes, exclusive research and travel opportunities, and separate student housing.
A high grade point average is usually required for admission into an honors program.
However, as research cited in this study shows, a variety of factors might prevent
students with exceptionally high intelligence from achieving high grades. As a result,
colleges that offer special advantages only to those students with a high grade point
average might not meet the academic and social needs of this unique segment of their
student populations.
Chapter 1 of this dissertation describes (a) the situation as it currently exists,
(b) the background of the problem the researcher addressed, and (c) the purpose of the
study. In chapter 2, the researcher presents a review of related literature, including
studies, journal articles, and other reports. The literature review also includes support for
the researchers chosen methods. Chapter 3 reviews the methodology used in this study
and includes descriptions of the survey instrument and the studys participants.
The researcher designed the study to cover a wide range of topics, with the
expectation that certain common preferences and experiences would emerge from the
survey. Chapter 4 presents these results, which are then analyzed and discussed in the
chapter 5, which also includes comments gathered from interviews and e-mails that
survey participants sent to the researcher. These comments help flesh out the results and
add background. The report concludes with suggestions for improvement to collegiate
honors programs and recommendations for further study.
2
Statement of the Problem
Many American colleges fail to meet the needs of their highly intelligent students
because they emphasize grades as an admission criterion into honors programs and
because they fail to investigate the unique needs of these students. Failing to understand
and address the needs of high-IQ students might impede their performance or even turn
them away from school. A recent study concluded that more research is needed in the
area of gifted college student development and that having a stronger understanding of
retention and attrition patterns, and factors that contribute to both, will help honors
program faculty and administrators in providing for the needs of honors students (Rinn,
2005, p. 165).
Many colleges offer honors or advanced academic programs for students with
proven academic abilities. More than 700 such programs follow the guidelines offered by
the National Collegiate Honors Council (NCHC, 2007b) and include such features as
small classes, special research projects, and independent study opportunities (NCHC,
2007a). Certainly, many of these students possess an IQ well above average and apply
their superior intellect to their academic pursuits.
However, possessing high intelligence does not necessarily lead to high academic
achievement (Freedman, 2000; Hadaway & Marek-Schroer, 1992). Factors unrelated to
intelligence, such as motivation and parental support, can strongly affect a students
academic performance (Hammond, McBee, & Hebert, 2007). It is not uncommon for a
high school student who possesses a very high IQ to earn average or below-average
grades, or even to drop out (Freedman, 2000). Factors interfering with high academic
achievement might include lack of desire, a need to work while attending school, a
language barrier, immaturity, or social issues. For instance, Parker and Michael (2006)
3
found economic and demographic factors to be more reliable predictors of academic
success in college than high school performance. Freedman (2000) found that such
factors as depression, social comfort, and initiative affected academic success among
gifted high school students.
Highly intelligent students who, for whatever reasons, do not perform extremely
well academically will not qualify for collegiate honors programs that admit students
based on grades. The resultant exclusion from the honors programs means these students,
who have great potential, are not able to avail themselves of the benefits offered to
honors students. Although they might have the intellectual potential to make great
contributions to their schools and to society, their unique academic and social needs
might not be met.
Purpose of the Study
A commission appointed by the Secretary of Education recently questioned the
continued ability of American postsecondary institutions to produce informed and
skilled citizens who are able to lead and compete in the 21st century, global marketplace
(U.S. Department of Education, 2006, p. 13). The commissions report included a call for
an increased commitment to attract the best and brightest minds from across the nation
(p. 27), particularly in key strategic areas such as science, engineering, medicine, and
other knowledge-intensive areas (p. 27). Understanding the needs, preferences, and
expectations of highly intelligent students and gearing honors programs toward these
needs might help American colleges respond to this call. Extending the reach of todays
collegiate honors programs to include more of the highly intelligent population will better
serve these students, the schools, and the country.
The current study will contribute to three ongoing, related bodies of research. The
4
first body focuses on enhancing the college experience. These studies have followed a
natural progression, from defining student involvement (Astin, 1984, 1993) to evaluating
learning and outcomes (Kuh, 2001), to the development of honor standards. Studies by
Shushok (2002) and Huggett (2003) evaluated the effectiveness of honors programs,
leading finally to a review of student satisfaction with honors programs (Cossentino,
2006) and a study of predictors of success for honors students (Marriner, 2007).
Chickering (2000) suggested that student interaction with faculty and peers has value on
a course level, suggesting that a program could make up for institutional weakness in this
area. Although Chickerings study offered evidence supporting the importance of
well-designed programs, it did not focus on honors programs.
Also in 2000, Indiana UniversityBloomington conducted the National Survey of
Student Engagement (NSSE) and identified five factors for evaluating collegiate
programs. These indicators included level of academic challenge and degree of
facultystudent interaction. The director of the NSSE would later write that programs
should be evaluated based on how they foster learning and how they provide activities
inside and outside the classroom (Kuh, 2003a). Each of these studies supported the notion
that colleges could make improvements by studying student involvement and satisfaction.
Several other studies examined the effectiveness of honors programs. DeHart
(1993) compared two honors programs and determined that they both encountered similar
administrative challenges. Included in these challenges was student retention. DeHarts
study was important in this timeline because it considered the questions of student
satisfaction and suggested that students in honors programs might have needs apart from
those of typical students. The finding regarding retention suggested dissatisfaction among
the honors students and supported the current studys goal of finding ways to help todays
5
honors programs better meet the demands of their students.
At the same time, a second thread of inquiry has examined the factors relating to
the academic performance of intellectually gifted children (Bickley, 2001) and gifted
high school students (Freedman, 2000). This body of research was significant because it
advanced the hypothesis that the academic performance of highly intelligent students
might be affected by factors that are even more influential than their exceptional
intelligence. The study described in this report follows naturally both of these bodies of
research by incorporating the findings of the previous studies and by refocusing the
scrutiny toward a population that has yet to be thoroughly examined: highly intelligent
college students.
Astin (1984, 1993) suggested that student learning and development is determined
by the level of that students involvement. In other words, ones commitment and
interaction with faculty and peers goes a long way toward determining the level of ones
success in college. These studies are mentioned here because they represent a beginning
of the path toward understanding qualitative factors in a students collegiate experience,
beyond quantitative measures such as grade point average or test scores. The study by
Freedman (2000) of gifted high school students examined the factors that affect a
students academic performance, but that are not related to intelligence. These studies
lent support to the premise that addressing these needs at the college level might be of
benefit to the intellectually gifted student. Research Questions 1 and 2, guiding this study,
focused on identifying the academic needs of high-IQ students and on evaluating whether
those needs were being met.
The current study took the findings of Bickley (2001) and Freedman (2000)that
high intelligence does not always produce high academic achievementand applied
6
them to the college level. According to their results, existing studies that arrived at
conclusions regarding students with high grade point averages could not necessarily
apply those conclusions to all highly intelligent students. The study by Cossentino (2006)
identified the preferences and desires of honors students, but did not necessarily involve
students who were in possession of high intelligence. In fact, Cossentino defined
Intellectually Talented Undergraduate Student as the undergraduate students that met
the requirements for admission to the university Honors program (p. 14). Cossentinos
definition excluded those students who possessed high IQs, but who did not earn the
grades required by the honors programs. The current study included participants with
documented high intelligence, regardless of grade point average.
The third body of related research considered the personality traits and other
psychological factors that the intellectually gifted have in common. Bickley (2001)
examined the special academic and social needs of intellectually gifted children.
Bickleys study focused on subjects of a much younger age than did the study described
in this report; however, it serves as a valuable reference because it found a distinct pattern
of common traits among the intellectually gifted. A branch of this area of research
included several recent studies that found relationships between intelligence and certain
personality types, as measured by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). These
studies suggested that certain assumptions could be made about the personalities and
learning styles of gifted students (Cross, Cassady, & Miller, 2006; Cross, Speirs
Neumeister, & Cassady, 2007; Sak, 2004).
A recent study by Hebert and McBee (2007) identified some of the unique needs
and preferences of gifted students; however, it left several gaps. First, although the study
identified certain preferences, it did not compare the students preferences to their
7
experiences. Second, the study did not compare the students preferences to the NCHC
(2007a) guidelines. Third, their study included only seven students. Rinn (2007)
compared the experiences of gifted college students who were enrolled in honors
programs with those of gifted college students who were not enrolled in an advanced
program.
The research questions for the current study include two questions that relate to
this body of research: Research Question 1 explored the social needs of the highly
intelligent college student and Research Question 2 evaluated whether those needs were
being met. The literature review in chapter 2 provides more background on these prior
studies.
In 1994, the NCHC (2007a) first published its guidelines, Basic Characteristics of
a Fully Developed Honors Program (Basic Characteristics). More than 700 college
campuses in the United States have adopted this bodys guidelines for meeting the needs
of students who have proven to be excellent students (NCHC, 2007b). For example,
NCHC member institution Berry College (2007) limits its honors class size to 15
students, and NCHC member Baldwin-Wallace College (2006) offers to its honors
students courses with opportunities for international travel.
The NCHCs (2007a) attempt to standardize honors programs indicates an
acceptance of the notion that higher-performing students have unique needs; schools
wishing to attract and retain these students should attend to these needs. Nevertheless, it
should be noted that the NCHC Basic Characteristics guidelines focus on academic
characteristics and do not address social needs. In addition, despite these efforts to meet
the needs of academic high-achievers, students with special needs that are related to their
exceptional intelligence might not be benefiting. The NCHC has continued to revise and
8
update its Basic Characteristics. Research Question 5 focused on evaluating the
effectiveness of the NCHC guidelines.
The primary goal of this study was to add to the research that has sought to
understand the unique academic and social needs of highly intelligent college students.
Developing this understanding should assist colleges in their missions to provide the best
possible learning environment for highly intelligent students, in the same way that they
have addressed the needs of academic standouts. By widening the tent in this fashion,
colleges might benefit themselves, their students, and the overall community. After
defining these needs, the researchers goal was to examine whether those needs were
being met; thus, determining whether changes in the NCHC (2007a) guidelines might
benefit these students with exceptionally high intelligence. This research continues the
paths of inquiry described in preceding paragraphs.
Research Questions
The questions examined in this study were
Research Question 1. What academic needs are common among college students
with high IQs? By answering this question, the study should help college officials and
future researchers acquire a better understanding of this overlooked population.
Research Question 2. What social needs are common among college students with
high IQs? To answer this question, it was necessary first to identify the needs then to
ascertain whether they were being met.
Research Question 3. Do students or graduates with high IQs feel that the college
they attended met their academic needs? The researcher set out to ascertain whether the
studys participants felt the colleges they attended met the academic needs that were
identified by the Research Question 1.
9
Research Question 4. Do students or graduates with high IQs feel their social
needs were met by the colleges they attended? The researcher set out to ascertain whether
the studys participants felt the colleges they attended met those social needs identified
by the Research Question 2.
Research Question 5. Do the NCHC (2007a) guidelines adequately address the
needs and preferences expressed by students with high IQs?
Research Question 6. What can colleges do to meet better the academic and social
needs of their highly intelligent students?
Definitions of Terms
College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ). A survey produced by the
Indiana UniversityBloomington to explore the activities in which students participate
(Pace & Kuh, 1998).
High-IQ (Intelligence Quotient). For the purpose of this study, the terms
high-IQ and high intelligence as applied to individuals indicate that they have an IQ that
is measured at or above the 98th percentile.
Honors program. Classes, accommodations, and procedures established to meet
the needs of students of exceptional ability and motivation. Typically, honors classes are
small and are taught at a high level of sophistication by some of the best and most
innovative faculty (Louisiana Tech University, 2003, para. 2).
Intelligence. For the purpose of this study, intelligence refers to ones capacity for
reason and ability to learn.
Intelligence quotient (IQ). This measurement quantifies a persons intelligence.
Tests that measure IQ assign a value of 100 to those with average intelligence. The
standard deviation is 15, meaning 68% of the population possess an IQ between 85 and
10
115 (Sprinthall, 2003). Tests that measure or correlate to IQ include the Stanford-Binet,
the California Test of Mental Maturity, the Miller Analogies Test, and the Wonderlic
Personnel Test (Mensa, 2008). IQ tests are assessments used to determine the general
intelligence of an individual in relation to other people the same age (Ballas, 2006, para.
3). Originally, ones IQ was obtained by dividing an individuals mental age by his or her
chronological age and then multiplying by 100 (American Psychological Association,
2006). In other words, a 10-year-old child who exhibited a mental age of 12 would be
said to have an IQ of 120.
Mensa. Mensa (2008) is an international organization with one qualification for
membership: applicants must possess an IQ that measures at or above the 98th percentile.
To be accepted, applicants must present evidence in the form of an acceptable score on a
test that is recognized as a reliable indicator of IQ. Although there is some minor variance
in tests, an IQ of 132 is generally considered the score that indicates the 98th percentile.
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). A personality inventory that applies the
theories of Carl Jung and that identifies ones preferences along four dimensions:
Extraversion or Introversion, Intuitive or Sensing, Thinking or Feeling, and Perceiving or
Judging (Myers & Briggs Foundation, 2008c).
National Collegiate Honors Council [NCHC]. An organization based at the
University of Nebraska for the purpose of the promotion and advancement of honors
education . . . in institutions of higher learning (NCHC, 2007c, para. 2).
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). A survey administered
throughout the country that seeks to determine the level of student involvement in various
academic practices (Indiana University Bloomington, 2007a).
Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). A test produced by the College Board, Inc. (2008)
11
and used as part of the admissions process at the vast majority of colleges in America.
12
Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature
Rinn and Plucker (2004), Rinn (2007), Cossentino (2006), and Hebert and McBee
(2007) have recently addressed the topic of honors students and their experiences. In
addition, Hicks (2003), Gonzales and Nelson (2005), and Frey and Detterman (2004)
provided background that guided the construction of the current study. Rinn (2007)
suggested, The current study [Rinns] needs to be replicated in a more systematic
fashion with students across varying types of institutions and Honors programs (p. 246).
Chapter 1 demonstrated how the existing record of research in this area comprises
three bodies of research. One body traces the development of collegiate honors programs
and their effectiveness. The second body examines the effect of nonacademic factors on
the academic performance of students with high intelligence, and the third investigates
the behaviors associated with personality type. At the convergence of these three bodies
of work, the current study sought to identify the unique traits common among college
students with high intelligence and then to examine whether the current NCHC (2007a)
honors program guidelines address these needs. Thus, it is prudent to review the existing
literature relating to these existing bodies of research and literature related to the design
of the current study.
Academic Needs of Gifted Students
Bickley (2001) pointed out, Although gifted students require special education
due to their advanced intellect, it is seldom provided in regular classrooms (p. 22).
Bickley was writing about younger children, but this study reinforces the idea that
students with higher intelligence have needs apart from the rest of the student body. This
belief is at the root of the Davidson Academy (2006), an innovative high school designed
for intellectually gifted students. This school is housed on property owned by the
13
University of Nevada at Reno, and the college participates actively in the development of
these students. The students have access to college personnel, equipment, and resources,
and they are invited to enroll at the college upon completion of the high school
requirements. If this creative solution proves successful, it might have the effect of
focusing further attention on the subject of educating gifted students.
Little research exists on the subject of the needs of gifted college students. Rinn
(2007) remarked, Although the experiences of gifted students at the K12 level have
been studied extensively . . . the academic and psychological experiences of gifted
college students are relatively unknown (p. 232). Rinn sought to fill a void identified in
an article published 3 years earlier. In this earlier work, Rinn and Plucker (2004)
explained that research on the programs and opportunities provided for talented
undergraduates at institutions of higher education is limited, leaving researchers to
question what universities are doing for bright students (p. 54). Long (2002) also
reported that little research existed to further explore the perceptions of students enrolled
in honors programs, beyond the work of Bajdek and Kim (1999).
Hebert and McBee (2007) also published a separate study that began the task of
identifying the unique preferences and needs of intellectually gifted college students.
However, their study was limited to merely seven students, and it did not relate to the
NCHC (2007a) guidelines, leaving a need for further study in this area. Bickley (2001)
aimed at younger subjects, identifying a number of common academic features that
benefited the intellectually gifted. Among them were early entrance, acceleration,
curriculum compacting, self-paced instruction, independent study, and mentorships.
Caplan (2003), Campbell (2005), and Christopher (2003) highlighted the benefits
of improving the academic experience for gifted students. Caplan acknowledged that
14
intellectually gifted students benefited from programs designed specifically for them: As
Kaplan test preparatory courses, music camps and math tutors remind us, access to things
that improve the mind is already skewed unfairly. The solution . . . is to provide fair
access (p. 105).
A later section in this literature review will examine personality types and their
relation to gifted students. Studies using instruments such as the MBTI have revealed
commonalities among gifted students, and examining these common personality traits
can lead to a better understanding of these students needs and habits.
Social and Other Needs of Gifted Students
Greenspon (2000) studied gifted children and revealed that their ability to process
information at a more advanced level led to difficulties in relationships with their peers.
Intellectually gifted students who attended schools that did not account for their abilities
reported negative feelings such as anger, loneliness, and anxiety. Similar conditions
might exist at the college level. Bickley (2001) agreed, suggesting that, if a gifted childs
academic needs were not met, that child would have difficulties establishing friendships
and maintaining a positive attitude. Freedman (2000) reported that, contrary to popular
belief, gifted high school students underachieve and drop out at a rate higher than the
general population. Freedman found that personal struggles with anxiety and depression
correlated with poor academic performance among gifted girls, and that social comfort
and initiative were individual traits that led toward success. Again, these authors focused
their studies on children, but identifying and addressing the needs of any group of
students should assist in maintaining that groups success once enrolled in a college
program.
15
Other Factors Impacting Academic Performance
A premise of this study is that high-achieving students might only be of average
or above-average intelligence, yet succeed academically. Hadaway and Marek-Schroer
(1992) found that good grades may be associated with mediocre to high achievement as
well as with conformity and teacher pleasing and low grades do not necessarily
preclude lack of/or limited ability, but may indicate a lack of motivation or heavy
emphasis by the grader on non-academic achievement factors such as attitude or class
attendance (p. 73). Other factors, such as ambition, study habits, home environment, and
the quality of ones high school might affect the college students academic achievement.
Freedman (2000) found that adolescents with high IQs, but lower-than-expected
grades, shared certain common traits. Girls, in particular, exhibited self-deprecation
(that) could be problematic both for their academic achievement and personal welfare
(p. 49). Understanding these traits is a step toward meeting the needs of these students
and supports the notion that intellect alone does not predict grade performance.
Allitt (2006) warned that programs allowing college freshmen too much control
could lead to problems. He stated, The system assumed freshmen were grown-ups who
knew their own minds. Anyone familiar with a crowd of 17- and 18-year-olds knows that
assumption is not always dependable (p. B7). Accordingly, even programs aimed at the
intellectually gifted must keep in mind that students will need guidance throughout, and
that schools should use reliable measurements when identifying gifted students.
Oppenheimer (2006) agreed that colleges could adopt admissions strategies
designed to identify intellectual students: Admissions committees . . . should ask: What
do you read outside of your proposed field of study? What are your favorite books?
Where would you most like to travel, and why? What periodicals do you read? If a
16
student has no aspirations to travel, doesnt seem to read much . . . and shows no interest
in academic debates well, thats . . . a bad candidate for the academy that America
needs (p. B15).
Acknowledging the importance of qualitative characteristics reinforces the notion
that a students intelligence might manifest itself in ways other than measurable results
such as test scores and grade points. For instance, Golden (2000) quoted a Stanford
admissions official as saying, Homeschoolers bring certain skillsmotivation, curiosity,
the capacity to be responsible for their educationthat high schools dont induce very
well (p. A1). This assertion supports the finding of Klicka (2006) that two-thirds of the
incoming home-schooled freshmen at Ball State University in 2002 were admitted into
the Honors College. Sagario (2004, as cited in Klicka, 2006) reported that Iowa State
University data reveal that home-schooled students achieved higher grade point averages.
These observations point toward homeschooling as a factor leading to academic
achievement and support the notion that factors other than raw intelligence can lead to
academic success.
Regarding identifying gifted students, Frey and Detterman (2004) showed that
the SAT may have been overlooked as a potentially useful measure of general cognitive
functioning. . . . The SAT correlated significantly (p < .05) with all six of the traditional
intelligence tests examined . . . this is strong evidence that the SAT is an intelligence test
(pp. 78). This is valuable because general intelligence is one of the most reliable
predictors of academic achievement (p. 6). This conclusion is at odds with those
expressed by Rinn (2005) and Marriner (2007). In addition, Mensa does not accept SAT
scores earned later than January 1994 as evidence of IQ, as changes in the test rendered it
unreliable as an indicator of IQ (Heather Miller, personal communication, January 6,
17
2008).
Another study examined the relationship between certain predictors of academic
performance and actual performance in college honors programs (Marriner, 2007).
Marriner documented research that proved illuminating, as it examined such factors as
SAT score and student self-estimation in relation to academic performance. The current
study was built on an assumption that high intelligence does not necessarily predict
outstanding academic performance; therefore, Marriners data and analysis provided
useful background. His research is supported by that of Hammond et al. (2007) that
identified personal motivation as a key factor in the academic achievement of gifted
students.
Personality Types and Giftedness
A review of the literature linking giftedness with certain personality types lent
additional support for this study. Research seeking to determine whether gifted students
share certain personality characteristics relates to Research Question 1 and Research
Question 2.
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. The MBTI is widely used as a mechanism for
exploring and categorizing the ways in which an individual gathers and processes
information from his or her environment. Its stated purpose is to apply Jungs theory of
psychological types in a way that is understandable and useful in peoples lives. The
essence of the theory is that much seemingly random variation in (peoples) behavior is
actually quite orderly and consistent, being due to basic differences in the ways
individuals prefer to use their perception and judgment (Myers & Briggs Foundation,
2008c, para. 1).
The MBTI measures these different ways of using judgment and perception in
18
four areas: Extraversion or Introversion (E/I), Sensing or Intuition (S/N), Thinking or
Feeling (T/F), and Judging or Perceiving (J/P). The MBTI was designed to evaluate the
subject according to these four domains, resulting in a four-letter designation representing
one of 16 possible personality types (Myers & Briggs Foundation, 2008c). For example, a
subject might be found to exhibit the characteristics consistent with the INTP personality
type. In this example, the I indicates characteristics more consistent with introversion
than extroversion. The N designation indicates an intuitive thinker, as opposed to one
who derives information more from his or her senses. The T designation represents
thinking, which is opposed to feeling on the scale, and the P represents perceiving,
which is opposite of Judging. Thus, a subject might be labeled ESFJ, ENTP, ISFP, and so
forth (Myers & Briggs Foundation, 2008c).
MBTI indicators of giftedness. The MBTI represents a convenient method for
discovering trends and patterns. A recent study of high-school-aged students by Cross et
al. (2006) found that intuition and perceiving were characteristics that were more
common among the gifted students than among heterogeneous groups of individuals
(p. 298). This theme repeats in the literature. In fact, Cross et al. (2007) later described
the four most common personality types among gifted adolescents as INFP, INTP, ENFP,
and ENTP. By comparison, the most common personality types found among nongifted
adolescents were ESTP, ESFP, ESTJ, and ESFJ.
Immediately apparent is the consistent presence of the N (Intuitive) dimension
in the gifted group, along with the consistent presence of the P (Perceiving) dimension.
Individuals with a Sensing (S) preference (opposite of Intuitive) prefer to take in
information through their five senses and to be focused in the here and now. An intuition
(N) is built on a sixth sense, and people with this preference tend to be creative and
19
imaginative (Salter, Forney, & Evans, 2005, p. 209). The N personality type reflects
a tendency to prefer tasks that involve imagination, insight, and inspiration. They also
prefer courses on theory rather than courses that are heavily fact laden. They prefer to
learn independently and at their own pace, progress nonlinearly, and drop projects when
their enthusiasm wanes (Cross et al., 2007, p. 286). Mills (1993) interpreted the N
designation as a preference for abstract and theoretical thinking, whereas most nongifted
students prefer to be factual and pragmatic (as cited in Freeman, 2006, p. 390). The
discovery of the strong association of gifted students with the Intuitive personality feature
lends support to the notion that gifted college students, as a group, differ from nongifted
students in their approach to learning. A college program intended to benefit gifted
students should be designed with this in mind.
Cross et al. (2006) also found that gifted high school students were equally likely
to be introverted as they were to be extroverted. Although, on its face, it might appear
that a 50/50 distribution between Introversion and Extroversion is expected, Nadel (2008)
reported that, in the general population, introversion is indicated only 25% of the time.
Delbridge-Parker and Robinson (1989), Gallagher (1990), and Hoehn and Bireley (1988,
as cited in Sak, 2004) put the percentage of introverts in the general population at only
25%. These findings support Cross et al. (2007) who found the I personality trait
among half the gifted subjects tested. Introverts are comfortable being alone, tend to be
reflective, and focus on ideas and their inner world (Myers & Briggs Foundation,
2008a, para. 7). Again, these findings can be of value to a school wishing to meet the
social needs of its gifted student population.
Sak (2004) synthesized 14 studies (N = 5,723) and found that, overall, gifted
students were higher on the Introversion, Intuition, Thinking, and Perceiving dimensions
20
of the personality scales of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) when compared to
general high school students (p. 1). This conclusion mirrors the findings reported in
recent years, including the list of most common personality types among the gifted, as
reported by Cross et al. (2006). In addition to the prevalence of I and N
characteristics, all four of the most common personality types among the gifted exhibit
the P (Perceiving) feature. Sak (2004) wrote, Most gifted adolescents prefer perceiving
to judging in planning their lives. Consequently, this preference can make them more
open to alternatives and more curious about new situations. They also can have
difficulties in finishing projects because perceiving types are usually unorganized
(p. 76). Again, these observations contain clues for developing gifted-centric academic
programs.
Folger, Kanitz, Knudsen, and McHenry (2003) arrived at a different conclusion
than the other studies that sought relationships between MBTI types and giftedness.
Folger et al.s Centralis Scholars study of college scholars (N = 93) found a majority
indicated Feeling over Thinking by a margin of 57%43%. However, the results might
have differed because of the definition of scholar. Nevertheless, the study described its
participants as academically gifted. A central theme to the current study is that academic
success might not equate with high intelligence; therefore, the subjects of the Centralis
Scholars study might not qualify as highly intelligent or intellectually gifted, despite their
academic success. As Freeman (2006) wrote, Intelligence . . . is only part of the complex
dynamics of exceptionally high-level performance, which must include extracognitive
dynamics such as self-esteem, support, and motivation as well as opportunity (p. 389).
Other characteristics in common. It is interesting to note that the typical gifted
personality type might also correlate to other traits. Janowsky, Morter, and Hong (2002)
21
examined the relationship of MBTI designations to the presence of suicidality among
affective disorder patients. They found that suicidal affective disorder patients were
significantly more Introverted and Perceiving than nonsuicidal patients (p. 33). Cross et
al. (2006) supported this concept, reporting data that reach the same conclusion. Their
report included conclusions from other researchers linking giftedness with depression and
psychological distress. Baker (1995) warned educators of gifted students, for
approximately 10% of their students may be suffering from clinically significant levels
(p. 223).
Neihart (1999, as cited in Cross et al.) concluded that the problem of
psychological distress escalates along with IQ, and that there comes a point where it
becomes difficult to meet the instructional and supportive needs of the students. They
concluded, The highly gifted student may be more vulnerable to psychological distress
than the moderately gifted student (pp. 297298). This intersection of gifted and suicidal
among the Introverted and Perceiving MBTI types might merit further research.
MBTI reliability, validity, and effectiveness. Researchers and companies around
the world use the Myers-Briggs instrument, for it is recognized as a reliable and valid
assessment tool. As a test of reliability, researchers Salter et al. (2005) administered the
MBTI to 13 cohorts of graduate students, with each cohort participating in three separate
administrations of the test over their academic careers. By administering the test
repeatedly, the researchers were able to evaluate testretest reliability. Salter et al.
acknowledged that the strength of ones traits could fluctuate over time, but the basic
characteristics that the MBTI measures were thought to be innate and, therefore, would
remain constant upon repeated administrations of the instrument.
Moore, Dettlaff, and Dietz (2004) summarized the relevant studies that document
22
the MBTIs validity:
Extensive research on the instrument since its development supports its reliability
and validity. Several studies concluded that the MBTI has internal consistency as
high as that of most major psychological scales, with coefficient alphas ranging
from 0.86 to 0.95. Testretest reliability is consistent over time, with alphas
ranging from 0.83 to 0.97 (Carlson, 1989; Carskadon, 1979; Harvey, 1996;
McRae & Costa, 1989; Murray, 1990). Numerous studies have established
construct validity of the MBTI through factor analysis and correlations with
personality variables measured by other instruments (Carlson, 1985, 1989; Myers
et al., 1998; Thompson & Borrello, 1986). (p. 338)
Interestingly, not only did Moore et al. use Carlson (1989) in support of the reliability
and validity of the MBTI, but Johnson, Mauzey, Johnson, Murphy, and Zimmerman
(2001) used Carlsons (1989) review as evidence against reliability and validity. Johnson
et al. wrote that Carlson concluded that although recent reports have been favorable,
very few studies have demonstrated reliability for scores from the MBTI (p. 97).
Carlson (1989) left room for interpretation in either direction. Carlson generally
approved of the reliability and validity of the MBTI from a statistical point of view,
writing, The MBTI has yielded generally satisfactory split-half and testretest
reliabilities and similarly favorable . . . validity measurements across a variety of studies
(p. 484). However, in the same journal article, Carlson called for more research on the
psychological validity of the instrument. In other words, is the instrument true to Jungs
theories? Carlson claimed that the fourth MBTI dimension (Judging or Perceiving) is an
innovation of the MBTI, which doubles the possible combinations of personality types
from Jungs 8 to 16 (p. 484). Thus, one could refer to Carlson to support the MBTI, as
did Moore et al. (2004), or one might refer to Carlson to refute its efficacy, as did
Johnson et al. (2001).
In fact, Johnson et al. (2001) joined Carlson (1989) in questioning whether the
MBTI remains true to Jungs theory, citing other researchers for support. Costa and
23
McCrae (1989) suggested that the data indicated that either Jungs theories were incorrect
or that Myers and Briggs incorrectly adapted them (as cited in Johnson et al., 2001).
Johnson et al. wrote, [Costa and McCrea] asserted that the MBTI indexes measured only
four of five major dimensions of personality. Weiss, Mendelsohn, and Feimer (1982)
agreed with these comments and suggested abandoning the Jungian framework in favor
of a five-factor model (p. 98).
The Big Five model. One five-factor personality model that has gained
widespread acceptance in the field of psychological assessment is the Big Five. This
model allows one to be evaluated along five dimensions: Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, Extraversion, and Openness. Each of these
factors is broken into more specific areas (Mount & Barrick, 1998). Lounsbury,
Saudargas, and Gibson (2004) applied Big Five personality type research to the question
of college retention. Lounsbury et al. categorized college students according to the Big
Five dimensions, plus the narrow personality traits of Aggression,
Career-Decidedness, Optimism, Self-Directed Learning, Sense of Identity, ToughMindedness, and Work Drive (p. 517). Of these traits, they found that four of them
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability and Extraversionwere
significantly, negatively correlated with intention to withdraw from college (p. 525).
It might seem self-evident that a student who is labeled conscientious would be
less likely to withdraw from college than one who is labeled not conscientious; however,
the study is still valuable, for it reinforces the concept that student behavior might be
generalized according to personality type. In turn, this was valuable to the current study
because it lent support to the idea that students who were labeled gifted and considered to
possess giftedness-related traits (e.g., Introversion and Intuitiveness) could be expected to
24
bring with them certain universal needs and preferences.
Regardless of whether one prefers the MBTI, the Big Five, or some other
assessment method, there is practical value in understanding the personality types of
college students. Of particular relevance to the current study were the studies described
above that found commonality between gifted students in several areas. The more
researchers are able to identify common traits (e.g., Intuitiveness and Introversion)
among gifted students, the better able schools will be to meet their needs.
Strategies for teaching. Moore et al. (2004) took the next step and illustrated
specific ways that students who exhibit certain traits could best be taught. Moore et al.
addressed specifically the area of in-the-field education for students in the social work
program, but the advice might certainly apply anywhere in a college setting. Literature
described earlier in this report shows a much higher occurrence of Introversion among
gifted students than in the general population (Cross et al., 2006). Moore et al. (2004)
suggested that instructors should be careful not to mistake reflection for lack of interest
among their introverted students, and that these students tend to be self-motivated and
self-reinforcing, so immediate feedback is less important (p. 341).
Cross et al. (2007) showed that each of the four most common personality types
among gifted students included a preference for the Intuitive trait, as opposed to the
Sensing trait. Referring specifically to students favoring the Intuitive trait, Moore et al.
(2004) suggested that instructors need to set firm limits concerning project completion,
as intuitive students may begin several projects and struggle to complete them and that
instructors should provide a variety of creative learning opportunities and allow them to
use their imaginations to explore possibilities to keep their intuitive students engaged
and challenged (p. 343).
25
The last trait shown to be dominant among gifted students is the preference
toward the Perceiving dimension, as opposed to Judging (Cross et al., 2007). Sak (2004)
described Perceiving people as being more open to alternatives and more curious about
new situations. They also can have difficulties in finishing projects because perceiving
types are usually unorganized (p. 76). Moore et al. (2004) agreed, suggesting that
instructors who lead Perceiving students need to help them to develop organizational
skills and to remain on task.
Honors Programs Today
Christopher (2003) documented the reasons why qualified students seek honors
programs in college, and these data provide a valuable benchmark against which to
compare the findings of the current study. Interestingly, Christopher found that, although
students entered the honors program expecting to find their academic and social needs
addressed, the students held no expectations for attention to be paid to what the author
described as affective needs (pp. 9697).
Recent research examined the satisfaction and performance of students enrolled in
college honors programs. Bajdek and Kim (1999) conducted a survey to document the
preferences and needs of honors students, and their data were instrumental in improving
the honors program at Northeastern University. Cossentino (2006) surveyed students at
four public colleges to assess the effectiveness of their honors programs. Cossentino
concluded that the NCHC (2007a) standards should be modified so that they would better
meet the needs and expectations of the students enrolled in honors programs. Cossentino
sought to answer questions similar to those in the current study, but with one significant
difference: Cossentino selected participants according to academic performance, not
intelligence.
26
In addition, Hicks (2003) examined the factors that affect student choice and
perception of quality at a major university. A portion of Hicks study was geared toward
the perceptions of National Merit Scholars and, in addition to focusing on academic
issues, examined student preferences in other areas such as counseling, facilities, and
scholarship availability. Hicks showed that these areas were important to high-achieving
students, and the current study included these areas as it examined the preferences of
highly intelligent college students.
The work of Hicks (2003) was similar in some ways to a survey conducted by
Dickeson (2001) who surveyed high-achieving high school seniors in Indiana and sought
to identify common traits. The study found that these students cited talented and caring
teachers as the most important factor in their success, by far. Other factors, such as small
class size and challenging courses ranked far behind. Dickeson also concluded, One
significant factor in academic success is whether or not a student is exposed to programs
that recognize and encourage intellectual talent (p. 5). Lundberg (2004) agreed, writing,
Interaction with faculty is a strong predictor of student learning (p. 549). Lundberg
further identifies retention and grade point average as the areas showing improvement,
intellectual development, and problem solving.
Rinn (2005) examined the changes in the academic self-concept of honors
students as they progress from year to year. Rinn defined academic self-concept as the
way one feels about his or her academic abilities and discovered that honors students
suffer a significant drop in their academic self-concept as they enter their senior year
(p.158). This study concludes with a recommendation that an examination of gifted
college students, the programming available for gifted college students, and the effects of
honors programming on gifted college student development would aid researchers and
27
educators in the pursuit of providing a quality educational experience for academically
talented students (p. 165).
Rinn (2007) compared the experiences of gifted college students who were
enrolled in honors programs with those of gifted students who were not enrolled in an
advanced program. This study is of interest because it did not equate gifted with honors,
as others have done. Rinn concluded, Gifted college students who are enrolled in an
Honors program have higher academic achievement and higher academic
self-concepts than gifted college students not enrolled in an Honors program (p. 233).
This conclusion underscores the benefit of extending honors benefits to as many
intellectually gifted students as possible.
Benefits to the Institution
There is evidence that a well-conducted study can result in improvements. Prior
studies involving honors students (not necessarily students with high intelligence) have
revealed certain shared needs and preferences (Cossentino, 2006; Hebert & McBee,
2007). The study by Bajdek and Kim (1999) resulted in improvements at Northeastern
University, where researchers surveyed their honors students and discovered
dissatisfaction with the availability of courses and the cumbersome registration process.
The data collected by the researchers were compelling and justified making these
improvements. Studies such as Cossentinos can help schools create an atmosphere of
learning that encourages and accommodates high-performing students. The study
described in this report might prove to be similarly useful.
Campbell (2005) suggested that assessment efforts such as the current study could
be valuable tools for administrators, as these studies help decision makers improve their
programs. Cloud (2007) summed up the prevailing situation in public education by
28
suggesting that, in the American educational system, lifting everyone up to a minimum
level is more important than allowing students to excel to their limit. . . . It has become
more important for schools to identify deficiencies than to cultivate gifts (p. 40). This
sentiment is echoed in the Spellings reports call for a renewed commitment to attract
the best and brightest minds from across the nation and around the world (U.S.
Department of Education, 2006, p. 27).
Allitt (2006) compares the focused curricula of the British colleges against the
more general education provided at American schools: The great virtue of the British
system, particularly the early specialization, was that it enabled us to learn one discipline
really well, to become far more deeply engaged with it than was possible for our
American counterparts. . . . Bright young physicists who want only to study physics
should be free to do so. . . . Americas commitment to equality and to universal education
is noble and invigorating. But it shouldnt mean that one size fits all (p. B7). Honors
programs are built on the premise that one size of collegiate education indeed does not
fit all and that those with extraordinary promise need and deserve certain features to
enhance their studies.
The NCHC (2007a) Basic Characteristics guidelines are presented in Appendix
A. The data collected throughout this study are summarized in chapter 4 of this report.
An analysis of these data revealed certain areas where the needs of high-IQ college
students are not being met. Chapter 5 of this dissertation includes recommendations for
changes that the NCHC might consider incorporating into future versions of its Basic
Characteristics.
29
The Current Study
Recent studies concerned with gifted college students either limited their scope to
honors students (Cossentino, 2006) or were extremely limited in the number of
participants surveyed (Hebert & McBee, 2007). Creswell (2003) suggested using such
opportunities in the current literature as a guide for progressing with a new study. The
researcher designed the current study according to accepted practices and strategies
provided in the literature. Other research by Hicks (2003), Gonzales and Nelson (2005),
and Frey and Detterman (2004) influenced the design of the current study.
As for the mechanics of conducting the proposed study, several recent studies
offer suggestions and warn of possible pitfalls. Dunning (2006) called for objective
measurements of ability, explaining, Students overrate themselves, their talents, and
their expertise. . . . They hold unrealistic views about their future career prospects. . . .
They are willing to bend any evidence they have about themselves in a
self-congratulatory direction (p. B24). Reporting the results of a test that examined how
students evaluated their own skills, Dunning reported, When we give students tests of
logic (and) grammar . . . those performing at the bottom usually think they are doing
better than a majority of their peers (p. B24). Dunnings findings emphasized the need
for objective, documented evidence of high intelligence when selecting participants, and
the need for a valid, reliable instrument.
In an effort to create an instrument of proven reliability and validity, the
researcher adapted items from the NSSE and CSEQ. As Creswell (2003) stated, validity
is seen as a strength of qualitative research (p. 195). Kuh (2003b) documented the
testing that verified the validity of the NSSE. Kuh calculated the tests correlation of
concordance, which measures the strength of the association between scores from two
30
time periods (p. 14). This test involved comparing year-over-year results at institutions
that administered the test more than once. Kuh also explained that researchers
administered the NSSE a second time to a test group of students to document that the
instrument stood up to the testretest standard. Kuh further documented the methods used
to verify the validity of individual items on the survey, including correlating certain
questions with results from achievement tests, and comparing answers to similar
questions on other established surveys.
Kuh (2003b) spelled out these verification methods in detail in The NSSE:
Conceptual Framework and Overview of Psychometric Properties and they were
supplemented by a report from Oklahoma State University (OSU, 2002). The OSU
document described factor analysis, focus group testing, cognitive testing interviews,
stability testing, and reliability testing that took place during the development of the
NSSE. Further, the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems
field-tested the instrument, and a panel of recognized experts, including George Kuh and
Arthur Chickering, conducted a pilot test with the instrument (as cited in OSU, 2002).
Expert review is valuable because, as Huck (2004) wrote, subjective opinion from such
experts establishes or doesnt establishthe content validity of the instrument (p. 89).
Regarding the other source for survey items, the theory behind CSEQ is that
student perceptions and self-reported experiences can give valuable insight into the
nature and success of college experiences. . . . A number of research studies have shown
that self reported data correlate strongly with independent achievement tests (Burwell,
2005, p. 1). The questionnaire asks, How often [has] the student done or experienced
a particular event during the current school year by using rating scales (Gonyea, Kish,
Kuh, Muthiah, & Thomas, 2003, p. 4). Lundberg (2004) noted that the CSEQ has
31
demonstrated reliability and validity since its inception and that self-reports in this
instrument are correlated with more objective measures of learning gains, such as scores
on achievement tests (p. 553).
The current study used an online survey as a method of data collection. Gall, Gall,
and Borg (2003) advised, Internet questionnaires can be designed to be interactive:
Items can be tailored to the individual respondent, and respondents can be given feedback
as they complete the items (p. 230). However, in an online environment, care must be
taken to prevent multiple submissions from the same respondent or a submission from
an individual not in the sample (p. 230).
Tesch (as cited in Creswell, 2003) spelled out an eight-step process for coding
qualitative data. By assembling segments according to their codes, the researcher broke
the data free from their original cases and repositioned them among similar segments
from other cases. This restructuring of the data allowed themes to emerge. Multiple-case
data, such as those that were collected in this study, also can be analyzed to detect
relational or causal patterns. The researchers constructs can be thought of as variables
and analyzed for relationships (Gall et al., 2003, p. 457). The results of this analysis are
provided in chapter 4.
Regarding the preparation of the report, Gall et al. (2003) pointed out that
member checking (the process of having interview participants review the researchers
notes) is valuable because it is possible that the opportunity to read the report will cause
participants to recall new facts or to have new perceptions of their situation. The report
would then have to be rewritten accordingly (p. 464). Further, by crafting rich, thick
description to convey the findings, the researcher attempted to transport readers to the
setting and give the discussion an element of shared experiences as advised by Creswell
32
(2003, p. 196). Gall et al. (2003) defined thick descriptions as those that re-create a
situation and as much of its context as possible, accompanied by the meanings and
intentions inherent in that situation (p. 439).
The researcher anticipated that this study would discover certain needs and
preferences in common among the participants; therefore, the researcher also anticipated
the opportunity to offer solutions. One innovative style of teaching that has appeared on
the landscape is project-based learning. Gonzales and Nelson (2005) explained, In
project-based learning, instruction occurs within the context of a challenging project. . . .
Student teams are presented with complex problems that focus and act as catalysts for
what they need to learn. Projects build upon each other and can carry over from semester
to semester as they facilitate the learning process (p. 12). This method clearly serves the
gifted student well and served as an example of a recommendation that the current study
would propose in chapter 5.
Additional literature supporting the specific methods described in this report is
presented in chapter 3.
Relation to the Research Questions
The researcher chose the studies cited in this literature review for their relevance
to the five research questions listed earlier. Several studies reviewed here examined the
academic and social needs of gifted learners, which related directly to Research Question
1 and Research Question 2. However, much of the existing literature only addressed
children or secondary school students.
Examining the personality traits held in common by intellectually gifted people
sheds some light on Research Question 1 and Research Question 2. The data that are
revealed later in this report provide some insight into the influence of personality type on
33
ones academic and social habits and lay some groundwork for future study. The
literature that examined current collegiate honors programs provided background and a
point of comparison for data related to student perceptions (Research Question 3 and
Research Question 4). This literature served as a guide for improvements suggested in
answer to Research Question 5 and Research Question 6. Last, the literature regarding the
institutional benefits of improving honors programs might play a role in compelling the
NCHC (2007a) to consider adapting its guidelines.
Conclusion
In summary, existing literature supported the current study in several ways. Astin
(1984, 1993) identified the value of student involvement and satisfaction, and Rinn
(2005) wrote of the lack of enlightening research regarding the experiences of gifted
college students. Lundberg (2004), Marriner (2007), and Hammond et al. (2007)
concluded that factors other than intelligence influenced students academic performance.
The works of Baker (1995), Freedman (2000), Greenspon (2000), Bickley (2001), and
Janowsky et al. (2002) showed correlations between high intelligence and certain
psychological traits that gifted students had in common. Even the traits of suicide
ideation and depression are important to recognize, as college administrators should take
these traits into account when considering ways to support the students in their honors
programs. Cross et al. (2006, 2007) led two studies and Sak (2004) summarized more
than a dozen others that showed several ways in which gifted students shared certain
Myers-Briggs type indicators, such as intuitiveness and perception. Sak (2004) and
Moore et al. (2004) suggested strategies for teaching that took into account the particular
traits that gifted students had in common, and Rinn (2007) documented that gifted
students who participate in special programs benefitted more than did gifted students in
34
traditional programs.
Although researchers such as Cossentino (2006), Bajdek and Kim (1999), Hicks
(2003), and Hebert and McBee (2007) endeavored to identify the special needs and
preferences of high-IQ college students, much work remained to be done. Cossentino
(2006) attempted to gauge student satisfaction with honors programs, but did not
distinguish between highly intelligent students and those with good grades. Hebert and
McBee (2007) began to identify the unique needs of the highly intelligent college student,
but did not survey many students and did not compare their findings to the NCHC
(2007a) guidelines.
Rinn (2007) concluded, The academic and psychological experiences of gifted
college students are relatively unknown and previous studies need to be replicated in a
more systematic fashion with students across varying types of institutions and Honors
programs (p. 232, 246). Shushok (2002) reported that there was little research to link
honors programs with student outcomes, and Huggett (2003) agreed that much of the
available research regarding honors programs focused on administrative issues, and not
on outcomes. This study is a step toward filling these gaps in the literature.
35
Chapter 3: Methodology
Research Design and Rationale
The methods described in this section and supported by the literature (as shown
above) comprised the strategy for answering the research questions. Creswell (2003)
agreed that qualitative methods were called for when one intended actively to involve the
participants in the study and when one attempted to measure perceptions. McMillan
(2004) supported the use of qualitative methods when it was important for the researcher
to consider the studys setting. Further, Gall et al. (2003) supported the case study
approach because it was designed to consider the perspective of the participants in their
natural context. Last, Denzin and Lincoln (2004) recommended using interviews to
examine the background behind the responses shown in the survey.
The current study examined perceptions and levels of satisfaction; therefore, a
qualitative, case-study approach was appropriate. Creswell (2003) explained, Qualitative
research uses multiple methods that are interactive and humanistic. The methods of data
collection involve active participation by those taking part in the study (p. 181). What is
perhaps most important is that qualitative research uses open-ended observations,
interviews, and documents. The researcher analyzes the resultant data, then makes an
interpretation of the findings (Creswell, 2003).
Gall et al. (2003) defined case study research as the in-depth study of instances
of a phenomenon in its natural context and from the perspective of the participants
involved in the phenomenon (p. 436). Using a survey and follow-up interviews achieves
the goal of obtaining the participants individual perspectives. Trochim (2006a) warned
that in a qualitative, survey-based study,
The data are more raw and are seldom precategorized. Consequently, [the
36
researcher needs] to be prepared to organize all of that raw detail. . . . On the
positive side, it enables [the researcher] to describe the phenomena of interest in
great detail, in the original language of the research participants (para. 5-6).
In addition, using interviews to explore the background behind the survey responses
allowed the researcher to meet the goal of Denzin and Lincoln (2004) in attempting to
make sense of, or to interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them
(p. 5).
The research questions described earlier are concerned with the impressions,
perceptions, and preferences of the studys participants. By using a survey, the researcher
sought to discern areas of agreement among the participants and to identify trends. More
specifically, the literature supports using an Internet-based survey, which maximizes the
studys scope and minimizes the inconvenience to the participants (Gall et al., 2003).
The survey included Likert-scale items to quantify the participants preferences
and their satisfaction with their schools efforts to meet their needs. The survey items
examined social preferences, intellectual challenges, academic resources, and the power
to influence ones course of study. According to Trochim (2006b), Likert scales are
unidimensional, such that they are not only are easier to understand, but also can act as a
foundation for comprehending the more complex multidimensional concepts (para.
5-6). Using Likert scales allowed the participants input to be quantified and analyzed
and using follow-up interviews allowed for a deeper exploration of the participants
experiences. In addition, participants had the opportunity to add free-text responses to
certain items as they completed the survey. The free-text answers and unsolicited
correspondence from some participants provided the researcher with valuable
background and led to more focused interviews. The survey and interviews were
designed to answer Research Questions 14 outlined previously.
37
Researchers are increasingly taking advantage of the Internet to administer
questionnaires (Gall et al., 2003). Electronic surveys eliminate the costs and delays
associated with paper-based questionnaires. The survey at the heart of this study was
hosted on the Internet by the commercial service SurveyMethods, Inc. (2007), available
at www.surveymethods.com. This service provided a convenient and anonymous way for
respondents to access the survey at their convenience from anywhere in the world. The
researcher provided potential respondents with an Internet link that led directly to the
survey. Using a commercial service such as SurveyMethods, Inc., also meant that
respondents did not have to manage unwanted e-mail or download anything to their own
computers. These conveniences prevented several of the objections that often prevent
potential respondents from participating.
Participants
First, it should be noted that this study required the participation of respondents
who attended college and who possess IQs that place them in the 98th percentile or
higher. Mensa (2008) is comprised of members who have provided documentation to
show that they meet this high-IQ standard. By recruiting participants from this group, the
researcher gathered participants who have already had their IQs reliably documented to
meet this studys definition of high IQ.
Mensa (2008) requires its applicants to demonstrate their intellectual
qualifications either by providing evidence of a qualifying IQ score earned on a properly
designed and administered test or by scoring at the appropriate level on tests administered
by the group. Candidates must score at or above the 98th percentile to be admitted,
according to one of the groups designated test proctors. Mensa uses an adapted version
of the California Test of Mental Maturity and the Wonderlic Personnel Test as its
38
entrance examinations (T. LeFebvre, personal communication, August 27, 2007). Trained
proctors supervise testing sessions and the results are interpreted under the supervision of
Mensas resident psychologist. Applicants may also submit proof of qualifying scores on
standardized tests such as the Miller Analogies Test or the Stanford-Binet (Mensa, 2008).
Mensas Gen-X Special Interest Group is comprised of Mensans born between the
years of 1961 and 1981 and facilitates communication among its members via an
electronic forum and a Web site. The group includes more than 1400 members
nationwide. Mensas Gen-Y Special Interest Group is comprised of members born
between the years 1976 and 1988 (Mensa, 2009). These two groups provided a desirable
pool of participants: all members have had to provide documentation of their IQs, and
these age ranges include current and recent college students. Prior to the commencement
of the survey, the researcher obtained formal permission from Mensas Research Review
Committee to approach members. The approval letter is attached to this report as
Appendix B.
Participation in the study was limited only by the membership in one of the
Mensa Special Interest Groups described above and current or previous enrollment in an
American college. It is important to note that, unlike recent studies (e.g., Cossentino,
2006), this study was not limited to students who participated in an honors program. A
main premise of this study was that high-IQ students might not qualify for honors
programs because of inadequate grades; therefore, their experiences and perceptions are
important data to consider. In addition, the current study was not limited to participants
who attended certain schools. The surveys content and method of delivery were intended
to cast as wide a net as possible.
The survey was open to all members of the Gen-X and Gen-Y Mensa Special
39
Interest Groups, without regard to gender, ethnicity, or any other characteristic. As noted
above, limiting participation to members of these groups meant the survey was made
available only to Mensa members born between the years 1961 and 1988, inclusive.
Other demographic data, such as current occupation, membership in a Greek organization
while in college, parents collegiate achievement, and MBTI were collected to help the
researcher identify trends.
Several participants contacted the researcher with comments after taking the
survey and volunteered to be interviewed further. In addition, after reviewing the survey
results, the researcher advertised for interviewees who met specific criteria. The purpose
of follow-up interviews was to allow the researcher the opportunity to explore themes
that were revealed in the survey and to search for common ground among respondents.
Interviews and unsolicited e-mail correspondence provided the researcher with the stories
behind the survey data, which helped to illustrate the studys conclusions.
When selecting participants for follow-up interviews, the researcher used data that
were related to certain demographics. This method resulted in follow-up interviews with
participants who were most able to shed light on issues identified in the survey results.
After taking the survey, other participants came forward of their own accord to offer
additional comments and to volunteer for interviews. Unsolicited comments received in
this fashion were separated from any identifying information. The researcher transferred
these e-mails into a separate document and broke them into components in order to
organize the comments according to their topic. Some were used as a guide for follow-up
interviews and other comments were included in this report. Although each of the
interviews was unique and dynamic, they all began with a common set of questions,
which are included as Appendix I.
40
Instrument
To gather data that were as accurate as possible, the researcher used an instrument
that was created with validity in mind. The majority of the items in the instrument have
been used in well-established educational research projects. Most of the items in the
survey were adapted from the NSSE and the CSEQ. The NSSE was designed to provide
information colleges and universities can use to improve the quality of undergraduate
education and is administered at hundreds of institutions nationwide (Indiana University
Bloomington, 2008, p. 1). The CSEQ is a related instrument. It intersects with the NSSE
in several areas, but also looks into students activities outside the classroom.
The researcher created a survey instrument largely comprised of questions from
established instruments such as the NSSE and the CSEQ to take advantage of the fact that
the creators of these instruments have already documented the validity of their items. It
is not unusual for items used on nationally normed instruments to be adapted for use on
local surveys because researchers perceive them to be good and reliable, especially if
psychometric analyses demonstrate that the items are sound (Ouimet, Carini, Kuh, &
Bunnage, 2001, p. 2). This also applies to questions seeking such basic data as
demographic information. Rather than attempt to construct original items that would seek
the same information, the researcher maximized the accuracy and validity of the study by
using items from these well-established, proven instruments. The researcher added
several original items as needed to address the research questions fully.
The researcher obtained permission from the owners of the CSEQ and NSSE to
incorporate their items into the current studys instrument. The letters acknowledging
permission to use these items are attached to this report as Appendix C and Appendix D,
respectively. The instructions page of the survey indicated which items were original, and
41
which were adapted from the NSSE or the CSEQ.
Creswell (2003) recommended conveying the steps that the researcher intends to
take to maximize the accuracy and credibility of the studys findings. The survey items
created by the researcher were used in a small pilot study (N = 40) and modified to
become more effective in eliciting relevant information. Participants in the pilot study
were all college-educated members of Mensa, and their feedback led to clarifications of
wording and depth. This pilot study was intended to improve the construct validity of
these items by ensuring that they elicited the intended information from the participants.
Other suggestions included repeating instructions throughout the instrument, and
providing a Likert-type scale whenever possible.
These author-created items were then presented to a formative committee of four
college-educated Mensa members. Their feedback resulted in a second round of
modifications, including a suggestion that the researcher limit the survey to respondents
who had graduated within a specific number of years. This suggestion led to the
limitation of the study to the two Mensa Special Interest Groups described above. The
committee also offered suggestions regarding securing the survey to ensure that the
participants truly represented the high-IQ population, and suggested repeating
instructions throughout the survey. These modifications improved the content validity of
the instrument. Gall et al. (2003) defined content validity as the extent to which
inferences resulting from an instrument adequately represent the content or conceptual
domain that the test is claimed to measure (p. 621).
After the survey data were collected, the researcher tested the key original survey
items for internal consistency by calculating the Kendall tau rank correlation coefficient.
The researcher used Kendalls tau because this tool compares sets of ranked variables; it
42
is a correlational technique that does a better job of dealing with tied ranks than does
Spearmans rho (Huck, 2004, p. 64). The variables and results of the Kendalls tau
calculations are presented in chapter 4. Additional questions created by the researcher
simply sought demographic data (e.g., asking the participant to indicate his or her
gender).
Upon accessing the online survey, participants were first presented with an
electronic version of the consent form that is attached as Appendix E. Only participants
who agreed with the Consent Statement and who had confirmed membership in Mensa
were allowed to proceed; those who did not meet these criteria were automatically
removed from the survey. Participants who were later interviewed for background
information were first presented a hard-copy consent form (Appendix F).
Procedures
The study proceeded according to the following steps:
Step 1. Using a Web-based service, the researcher presented an online survey,
allowing convenient and expedient access to participants regardless of their location. The
researcher announced the online location of the survey by posting messages via the
online communities serving the Gen-X and Gen-Y Mensa Special Interest Groups. These
online invitations reached approximately 14001500 members of these groups, and
resulted in 94 completed surveys. Recent studies, such as those conducted by Rinn and
Plucker (2004), Rinn (2007), and Hebert and McBee (2007) examined very small groups
of students. The researcher collected data from a larger group of participants in order to
allow trends and themes to emerge.
The automated nature of the survey allowed the researcher to program the survey
to present additional questions or to skip certain questions depending on the respondents
43
input. For example, respondents who selected yes when asked whether their college
offered special academic opportunities for students with high grade point averages were
next presented with an opportunity to provide free-text details. Respondents who selected
no or not sure were moved ahead automatically to the next item. This dynamic feature
was a distinct advantage and assisted in gathering pertinent follow-up data from certain
participants. Another advantage to using this online service was that the company
provided access to analysis software that assisted in organizing the data after they were
collected.
The online service engaged for this current study has the capability of tracking
participants to limit each participant to only one instrument. The service also allowed the
survey to be programmed to close automatically once 100 responses had been collected.
Step 2. The data collection and analysis effort moved to the second phase after the
survey had reached 100 participants. At the very beginning of the survey, each participant
was asked to verify that he or she was a member of Mensa or one of two other recognized
high-IQ organizations. The survey was programmed to prevent the participant from
proceeding any further if membership was not confirmed. This occurred in four instances,
and was likely an error on the part of the participant because the link to the instrument
was only made available to current Mensa members. However, because these four
participants were not permitted to proceed, their surveys did not contain any data. Two
other surveys were not usable because the participants failed to identify an American
college as their place of study.
Several participants took it upon themselves to contact the researcher via e-mail
and to offer opinions or additional detail to certain answers. Some of these participants
were invited to participate in follow-up interviews. The researcher removed identifying
44
data from the unsolicited comments received by e-mail.
The researcher analyzed the survey responses to determine which needs and
preferences were most common among the participants. In addition to determining the
preferences and evaluations of the test group as a whole, the researcher organized the
survey results by demographic characteristics. This process is discussed in detail below.
Step 3. Once collected, the data were analyzed in an appropriate manner. A
confidence interval is an estimate that reflects the uncertainty inherent in random
sampling (Carver & Nash, 2006, p.101). Thus, the smaller the confidence interval, the
more likely that the sample reflects the group it represents. The researcher calculated and
documented a 95% confidence interval for each response in the item requiring
participants to rank the two features that they considered most important. These
calculations were based on an overall group size of 10,900. According to an official with
American Mensa, 10,900 current members (born between the years 1961 and 1988
inclusive) indicate some college-level or trade school study. The number of graduates in
this group is somewhat smaller (8962), but the participation in the survey only required
college experience, not a completed degree (H. Prince, personal communication, January
22, 2009). The sample size of 94 respondents produced confidence intervals ranging from
2.08 to 10.12 on this key item.
Gall et al. (2003) and Creswell (2003) described similar processes of analyzing
the collected data in a qualitative study. The data were divided into individual segments
of information, and those segments were then grouped together into categories. For
example, data obtained from Participant No. 1 regarding the importance of small classes
were grouped with like data from other participants. Some categories were
predetermined, while others were determined after the data were collected. Breaking the
45
qualitative data into segments and grouping them by categories was achieved by coding.
Each segment was assigned a code pertaining to the categories to which the segments
data belonged.
In this study, independent variables included participants demographic
characteristics, type of school attended, degree attained, and personality type. Dependent
variables included level of satisfaction with the colleges attention to the students
academic and social needs, and the academic performance of the students, as indicated by
grade point average.
The researcher used the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
software to create cross-tabulation charts. This effort revealed several apparent
relationships, and those with a Pearsons chi-square value of p < .05 were reported in
chapter 4 and discussed in chapter 5. In the instances where a particular respondent did
not provide a response, that respondents data were omitted from the analysis of that
variable. This process is known as listwise deletion and is the reason some tables and
figures in chapter 4 indicate a sample size smaller than 94.
The processes of coding qualitative statements and analyzing the quantitative data
obtained via the survey allowed the researcher to identify themes and causal relationships
in the data. The second phase of data collection, the follow-up interviews, further
explored these themes. For example, initial analysis indicated a less-than-expected
preference for honors housing among the respondents, so the researcher included this
topic in the interviews. Obtaining such background material was instrumental in allowing
the researcher to produce a more meaningful analysis and final report.
Step 4. Once themes emerged from the survey data, the researcher conducted
interviews by telephone. As mentioned, after taking the survey, several participants came
46
forward of their own accord to offer comments and to volunteer for interviews.
Comments collected via interview were added to free-text responses from the survey and
the comments sent by e-mail to the researcher. The researcher also contacted an official
with the NCHC for comment.
By collecting data in this fashion, the researcher was able to present answers to
the studys research questions and to craft meaningful suggestions for improvement. The
surveys and interviews also revealed specific areas of concern worthy of future research,
which are discussed in chapter 5. By allowing the researcher to delve into the
backgrounds behind the survey results, the interviews also led to specific suggestions for
improving the NCHC (2007a) guidelines.
Step 5. The results of the survey and interviews were then compared with the
NCHC (2007a) guidelines, to determine where the guidelines appeared to fall short of
addressing the needs and preferences identified in the study. This process addressed
Research Question 5: Do the NCHC guidelines adequately address the needs and
preferences expressed by students with high IQs?
Step 6. The production of the final report included several steps suggested by
Creswell (2003) to maximize accuracy, including member-checking. The researcher
provided interviewees with a summary of their contribution, along with any direct quotes
to be attributed, to give them a chance to verify accuracy or offer clarifications. A second
technique is to provide thick descriptions. Using open-ended, free-text items in the survey
and the follow-up interviews facilitated the exploration of the thoughts and experiences
that resided behind the data.
Any researcher must also take care to identify and explain any areas of possible
bias. A section appearing later in this report covers biases and other limitations of the
47
study. In addition, a researcher must present findings that run counter to the anticipated
outcomes or that deviate from the majority of the study. By enlisting the services of a
peer reviewer, the researcher took the opportunity to receive knowledgeable feedback
throughout the process of creating this final report.
Last, collecting data through several methods achieves the goal of triangulation.
Triangulation is another method of demonstrating the validity of findings in a qualitative
study (Creswell, 2003; Gall et al., 2003). The researcher surveyed respondents, conducted
follow-up interviews with select participants, and examined documents such as the
NCHC (2007a) guidelines. Survey items were designed to cover certain areas more than
once to demonstrate consistency and validity.
48
Chapter 4: Results
General Results
The researcher created a critical portion of the survey. One item in particular
asked the respondents to rate each of 10 features on a Likert scale ranging from Strongly
Disagree to Strongly Agree. For each feature, respondents were asked to indicate whether
they would favor a school that offered such a feature, were they to return to college.
Seven of these features were related to academics and were examined to answer Research
Question 1. The remaining features applied to Research Question 2.
Because these items played an important role in the study, the researcher needed
to document their reliability. A separate item on the survey again presented the same 10
features and asked the respondent to select which two features would be most influential
in choosing a college. The researcher tallied the total number of mentions for each
feature. This data set was then compared to the Likert scale results and a test for
Kendalls tau determined that the items correlate on a significant level
( = .75, p < .01). These items appear as Items 2 and 3 on the survey (Appendix G).
The majority of the survey instrument was adapted from the NSSE and CSEQ, as
previously described. The NSSE presents its questions in three main sections. These are
college activities, education and personal growth, and opinions about the students
schools. According to the Indiana University Bloomington (2007b), the Chronbachs
alpha reliability coefficients for the three sections are .85, .90, and .84, respectively. The
CSEQ has been similarly tested for validity. According to the Indiana University Center
for Postsecondary Research, the reliability alpha coefficients for the five sections of the
CSEQ range from .73 to .92, with most sections greater than .80 (Williams, 2007).
Detailed data regarding tests for reliability and validity of individual items and the
49
instrument as a whole are provided in College Student Experiences Questionnaire Norms
for the Fourth Edition (Gonyea et al., 2003).
The researcher added free-text areas to certain items on the instrument, allowing
participants to elaborate on their responses if they were so inclined. In addition, a number
of participants took it upon themselves to contact the researcher via electronic message
and to offer comments that were even more in-depth. Comments received in this fashion
were separated from identifying data and coded for analysis along with the free-text
comments from the survey. These data were used to provide background and support for
discussions presented in chapter 5.
Participants
The reasons and procedures for inviting Mensa members to participate in the
study were described in chapter 3. As noted, 94 participants satisfactorily completed the
survey. Those who attempted to begin the survey, but who did not confirm their
membership in Mensa, were not presented with the survey items. Two participants did
not indicate attendance at an American college, so those participants responses were not
included in the final data set of the 94 respondents. Notable demographic characteristics
are presented in Table 1.
In addition, respondents were asked to provide their Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
(if they knew it), and 56 of the 94 respondents did so. This allowed the researcher to
break this group into personality types and to look for relationships between personality
features and certain responses on the survey. Although the sample group is admittedly
smaller for this portion of the analysis, examining personality type yielded significant
results. The breakdown of MBTI types among the participants is presented in Table 2.
Breaking the dimensions into their individual traits reveals the results shown in Table 3.
50
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Survey Participants
Characteristic
Gender
Male
37
Female
57
Type of college (undergraduate)

Community college
Public 4-year
55
Private, nonprofit
13
Private, for-profit
18
Highest degree or equivalent credits completed

None
Associate
14
Bachelor
43
Master / JD
31
Doctorate
Belonged to a sorority or fraternity?

Yes
11
No
79
51
Table 2
Myers-Briggs Type Indicators
(MBTI) of Survey Participants
MBTI
ENFJ
ENFP
ENTJ
ENTP
10
ESFJ
ESFP
ESTJ
ESTP
INFJ
INFP
INTJ
13
INTP
ISFJ
ISFP
ISTJ
ISTP
52
Table 3
Distribution of Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator Traits Among Survey
Participants
Trait
26
46
Introversion
30
54
Intuitive
46
82
Sensing
10
18
Feeling
11
20
Thinking
45
80
Judging
33
59
Perceiving
23
41
Extraversion
Breaking the survey participants into demographic groups allowed the researcher
to find relationships between certain groups and responses on the survey. These will be
presented in the following sections. In addition, this analysis uncovered relationships
between certain demographic elements that might bear further study. For instance, of the
56 respondents who indicated their MTBI type, 53 provided their occupation. The
researcher coded each occupation as either involving science or not involving science.
Examples of science-related occupations included here are aerospace engineer,
pharmacist, and marine scientist.
The survey results showed a clear relationship between the MTBI Extraversion or
Introversion trait and whether a career involved science, as shown in Table 4. Those
53
reporting careers in science tended to report themselves as Introverts on the MBTI scale,
while those participants in nonscience careers tended to identify themselves as Extraverts.
Table 4
Introversions Effect on Career Selection
Science career?
MBTI trait
Yes
No
20
20.0
80.0
13
15
46.4
53.6
Extraversion
Count
% within Extraversion
Introversion
Count
% within Introversion
Another personality-related relationship concerns the Judging or Perceiving

dimension. Respondents identifying themselves as possessors of the Judging trait
reported earning higher degrees than respondents identifying as Perceiving. The data
supporting this relationship are shown graphically in Figure 1. The data behind the
relationship shown in Figure 1 are presented in Table 5. Note the majority of Judging
participants hold a graduate degree.
Further, those identified as possessing the MBTI Judging trait also reported higher
grade point averages than those who reported possessing the Perceiving trait. The data
supporting this relationship are illustrated graphically in Figure 2 and presented in more
detail in Table 6. Within the Judging group, those also identified as Introverts tended to
achieve higher grade point averages (p < .01).
54
Figure 1. Highest degree earned, according to presence of Judging

(n = 33) or Perceiving (n = 23) trait.
2(3, n = 56) = 8.43, p = .04.
Table 5
Influence of Judging or Perceiving Dimension on Degree Completion
Highest completed degree
MBTI trait
Associate
Bachelor
Master
Doctorate
10
16
12.1
30.3
48.5
9.1
16
4.3
69.6
21.7
4.3
Judginga
Count
% within Judging
Perceivingb
Count
% within Perceiving
a
n = 33. bn = 23.
55
Figure 2. Effect of Judging or Perceiving trait on grade point average.

2(4, n = 55) = 10.50, p = .03.
Table 6
Influence of Judging or Perceiving Dimension on Grade Point Average
Grade point average
MBTI trait
2.002.49
2.502.99
3.003.49
3.503.79 3.80+
Count
17
% within Judging
15.6
18.8
53.1
12.5
12
4.3
13.0
52.2
17.4
13.0
Judginga
Perceivingb
Count
% within Perceiving
a
n = 32. bn= 23.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 was What academic needs are common among college
56
students with high IQs? To examine this question, the researcher included an item (Item
2) in the survey that asked participants to rate the importance of certain academic
benefits. Assuming they were choosing a college in which to enroll, participants rated the
importance of the following features using a scale with five options ranging from
Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree:
1. Allows students with high intelligence to design their own majors.
2. Allows high-IQ students to accelerate their studies and graduate early.
3. Guarantees a lower instructorstudent ratio for high-IQ students.
4. Allows high-IQ students to participate in research with faculty members.
5. Admits students into honors programs based on IQ.
6. Offers seminars in areas such as time management and organization.
7. Offers credit for life experience related to ones major.
For analysis purposes, a value of 1 was assigned to Strongly Disagree and 5 to Strongly
Agree. The features with the highest means were the ability to accelerate studies and
graduate early (mean: 4.28), the opportunity to participate in research with faculty (mean:
4), and the availability of supportive seminars (mean: 3.7). Figure 3 illustrates these
results. The results for each feature, including frequency of each response and confidence
interval, are presented in Table H1 (Appendix H).
Another item (Item 3) on the survey asked respondents to indicate which two of
the above items they considered the most important. These results were compared against
the means shown above to assess internal validity of these items. It should be noted that
three social features not included in the above results were among the choices for
participants to designate as one of their two most important features. The frequency with
which each academic feature was selected as one of the two most important features is
57
shown in Table 7. Kendalls tau revealed a correlation between the two sets of data,
verifying internal validity for these key items ( = .71, p < .01).
Figure 3. Mean rating of each academic feature, where (1) indicates

Strongly Disagree that the feature is important, and (5) indicates
Strongly Agree.
2(20, n = 92) = 40.52, p = 01.
The research question sought to discover the academic needs that high-IQ
students, as a group, have in common. The data displayed in Figure 3 and Table 7
demonstrate that the most common academic preference among high-IQ college students
is the ability to accelerate studies and graduate early. The next most common preference
is the opportunity to participate in research with faculty. Perhaps surprising is the weak
showing in the area of small class size.
A deeper analysis of the data reveals several relationships between certain subsets
and their responses. Using SPSS to detect these relationships and verify their authenticity
and statistical significance, the researcher was able to examine the research question
more narrowly. The data revealed several relationships that met the standard for
statistical significance.
58
Table 7
Frequency of Selection of Academic
Features as Most Important
Feature
Frequency
Accelerated study
43
Research with faculty
33
Credit for life experience
24
Supporting seminars
15
Small classes
11
Honors based on IQ
10
Design individual major
As Figure 4 illustrates, the data show a relationship between a participants grade

point average and his or her preference for lower instructorstudent ratios. Even though
the overall analysis revealed that small class size ranked low on the list of preferences for
the entire group, the data shows a preference for small classes among those with the
stronger academic records.
A second significant relationship related to the data from Research Question 1
involves the Extrovert or Introvert dimension of the MBTI. The survey data show a
relationship between Introversion and the value placed on the opportunity to graduate
early. Those reporting the Introversion characteristic tend to value the opportunity to
accelerate study and graduate early. This relationship is illustrated in Figure 5 and
discussed in chapter 5.
59
Figure 4. Relationship between academic achievement, as measured by

grade point average, and preference for smaller classes.
2 (9, n = 90) = 18.26, p = .03.
Figure 5. Influence of Introversion trait on preference for the chance to

accelerate studies and graduate early.
2 (3, n = 56) = 7.92, p = .05.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 was What social needs are common among college students
with high IQs? To examine this question, the researcher included an item (Item 2) in the
60
survey that asked participants to rate the importance of certain social features. Assuming
they were choosing a college in which to enroll, participants rated the importance of the
following features using a scale with five options ranging from Strongly Disagree to
Strongly Agree. The social features presented to the participants were as follows:
1. Offers dedicated housing for high-IQ students.
2. Offers high-IQ students a way of networking with high-IQ students at other
schools.
3. Offers a variety of intramural sports and other recreational activities.
As a group, the data show a clear preference for networking opportunities with high-IQ
students at other schools (mean: 3.69). The next-most valued social feature was the
availability of sports and recreational facilities (mean: 3.48) followed by dedicated
housing for high-IQ students (mean: 2.82). The ability to network with high-IQ students
from other schools was selected as one of the two most important features 15 times, while
sports was chosen 11 times and dedicated housing only 6. As with Research Question 1,
the researcher tested for internal validity of these original items by using Kendalls tau.
The data from these three social features were combined with the data from the seven
academic features, and a valid correlation was revealed between the students Likert scale
responses and their ranking of the two most important features ( = .75, p < .01). Testing
just these three social features for internal consistency resulted in a perfect agreement
( = 1.0, p < .01).
The survey item requiring the selection of the two most important features
included both the academic and social features; therefore, it is interesting to note that the
opportunity to network (a social feature) was selected more times (15) than was low
instructorstudent ratio (11). Dedicated housing for high-IQ students was the feature
61
selected the fewest number of times (6). Ranked by number of times selected as one of
the two most important features, with all 10 features included, the data show accelerated
studies to be most important, and dedicated housing least important (see Table 8).
Table 8
Frequency of Selection of All Features as Most Important
Feature
Frequency Academic or Social
Accelerated study
43
Academic
33
Academic
24
Academic
Supporting seminars
15
Academic
Networking opportunities
15
Social
Small classes
11
Academic
Honors based on IQ
10
Academic
Sports and recreation
10
Social
Independent or custom program
Academic
Dedicated housing
Social
As with Research Question 1, a close examination of the data showed additional

relationships that were based on demographic characteristics. Although the availability of
dedicated housing for high-IQ students was deemed the least important overall, the
participants preference for this feature was related to the level of degree they had
attained (p = .01). As Figure 6 illustrates, the issue of dedicated housing does not rise to
62
the level of importance until the participants are at the level of having attained a
bachelors degree, and this preference falls backward again at the doctorate level.
Figure 6. Importance of dedicated housing for high-IQ students, as it relates to

level of education. It should be noted that neutral (Unsure or No Opinion) or
negative (Disagree or Strongly Disagree) responses represent the majority at
each level.
2 (12, n = 93) = 26.32, p = .01.
The data pertaining to Research Question 2 also show a relationship between the
MTBI Intuitive or Sensing dimension and the preference for sports and recreational
activities (p = .02). Students reporting the Intuitive trait greatly outnumbered those who
reported the Sensing trait and reported a stronger preference for sports and recreational
opportunities. Interestingly, not a single Intuitive respondent selected Strongly Disagree
when presented with the statement that they would favor a school that offered a variety of
sports and recreation. At the same time, not a single student with the Sensing trait chose
Strongly Agree. The relationship between giftedness and personality types was discussed
in the literature review and will be re-examined in chapter 5 in light of this studys data.
63
Figure 7. Influence of Intuitive trait on preference for sports and

recreational activities.
2 (4, n = 56) = 11.70, p = 02.
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, Do students or graduates with high IQs feel their
academic needs were met by the colleges they attended? The researcher set out to
ascertain whether the studys participants felt that the colleges they attended addressed
those academic needs identified by Research Question 1. Much of the data related to
Research Questions 3 and 4 are found in the responses to the CSEQ and NSSE items used
in the survey. It should be noted that academic advising and academic support are
different features; academic support can include such benefits as tutoring services,
computer labs, libraries, and research opportunities. It could be stated that academic
advising is one aspect of academic support.
The researcher isolated the individual items from the survey that relate to
Research Question 3. The aggregate results for each related item are presented first. Next,
this section will present several statistically significant relationships that emerged upon
analysis. Discussions regarding the meaning behind these results will be presented in
64
chapter 5. Descriptions of certain academic benefits offered to honors or high-IQ students
will also be discussed in chapter 5.
Aggregate data. Among the potentially most revealing survey items was one that
asked the participant to evaluate the quality of academic advising you have received at
your institution on a scale that included poor, fair, good, and excellent. For analysis
purposes, these responses were coded as 1, 2, 3, or 4, with 1 representing poor and 4
representing excellent. The mean of the responses to this item was 2.26 (n = 90), or closer
to fair than to good. Figure 8 illustrates this result. This result is reported here because
relationships to be shown later revealed that the quality of academic advising was a
significant factor in student success and satisfaction.
Figure 8. Rating of Academic Advising. Participants were asked to rate

the quality of academic advising they received. This graph shows the
number of times participants selected each option.
Another revealing item (Item 68) asked participants, To what extent does your
institution emphasize . . . providing the support you need to help you succeed
academically? Participants indicated their responses on a scale that included very little,
some, quite a bit, and very much. For analysis purposes, participants responses were
65
coded as 1, 2, 3, or 4, with 1 representing very little, and 4 representing very much. The
mean of the responses to this item was 2.44 (n = 90), which is slightly more positive than
the item motioned above, but still on the negative side of the scale. As will be discussed
below, female participants tended to rate this item much more positively than male
participants.
The next group of survey items related to academic preferences and experiences
asked participants to report how often they have engaged in a certain activity, and
provided never, occasionally, often, and very often, as possible responses. For analysis
purposes, these responses were coded as 1, 2, 3, or 4, with 1 representing never and 4
representing very often. The first of these items (Item 28) asked participants, About how
often have you . . . discussed your career plans and ambitions with a faculty member?
The mean among responses was 2.04 (n = 94), indicating that the sample group as a
whole did not often seek career advice nor did these students share their career plans with
faculty members. However, those participants who did seek advice or share plans tended
to be female and tended to report a higher level of overall satisfaction with their
educational experiences, as will be discussed below.
The second item (Item 31), using the never to very often scale, asked participants,
About how often have you . . . asked your instructor for comments and criticisms about
your academic performance? Responses to this item differed from the above question on
a case-by-case basis, but the overall mean was the same: 2.04 (n = 94). On average, the
students and graduates in the sample group occasionally sought criticism and feedback
from faculty, but not often.
The third item (Item 35), using the never to very often scale, asked participants,
About how often have you . . . used a campus learning lab or center to improve study or
66
academic skills (reading, writing, etc). The mean response to this item was 1.36, or less
than halfway between never and occasionally. The small standard deviation (.62)
indicates a tight grouping around this mean.
The next group of Research Question 3 items (Items 59-64) asked participants
whether they had participated in certain academic programs. These items were offered
with five possible responses: done, plan to do, did not or will not do, undecided, and not
available. The mean responses for these items are not revealing because the scale of
potential responses is not ordinal. Taking part (or planning to take part) in internships and
clinical assignments (Item 59) was the only activity that received more responses that
indicated experience in the activity than responses that indicated no experience and no
plans. Participants provided far more negative than positive responses for the other items
in this group, as documented in Table 9.
Table 9
Frequency of Participation in Academic Programs
Academic program
Did not do or
Done or do not plan to
Not
plan to do
do
available
Internship or other experiential learning (Item 59)
47
26
18
Learning community (Item 60)
23
29
38
Research with faculty (Item 61)
40
45
Study abroad (Item 62)
24
47
18
Independent study or self-designed major (Item 63)
15
62
12
Culminating academic assessment (Item 64)
23
46
21
67
Relationships. This section presents relationships identified during the data
analysis process. Several relationships materialized and two aspects of the student
experience emerged as most important factors: relationship with faculty and quality of
academic advising. This analysis examines the impact of certain variables on three
indicators of student success: grade point average, level of highest degree earned, and the
students rating of their overall educational experience. It bears repeating that these
results relate specifically to high-IQ college students.
A relationship was revealed between a students tendency to discuss career plans
with faculty and that individuals overall satisfaction with his or her entire educational
experience (p =.03). Interviews reported in chapter 5 will examine the reasons why
discussing career plans with faculty is significant. Figure 9 illustrates the data behind this
relationship. Discussing a career with faculty is suggested here as an indicator of a level
of comfort and respect for the faculty member that extends beyond the classroom. Note in
Figure 9 that both students who rated their overall experience as poor and half the
students who rated it fair also reported never discussing career plans with faculty.
Another relationship demonstrates the importance of positive relationships
between students and faculty members. One of the survey items adapted from the
National Survey of Student Engagement asked participants to rate their relationships with
faculty members on a scale with seven choices. One end of the scale represents faculty
members who were approachable, helpful, understanding, encouraging. The opposite
end of the scale was labeled remote, discouraging, unsympathetic (see Item 55 in
Appendix G). The data show a very clear relationship between quality of relationship
with faculty and a students undergraduate grade point average (p < .01). Figure 10
illustrates this relationship.
68
Figure 9. Relationship between the tendency to discuss career plans

and ideas with faculty and a students opinion of his or her overall
experience.
2 (9, n = 90) = 18.26, p = .03.
Figure 10. Effect of faculty approachability on student achievement, as

indicated by grade point average.
2 (30, n = 91) = 120.48, p < .01.
Earlier, chapter 4 demonstrated that the sample group as a whole did not rate
highly its schools academic advising. An analysis of the data reveals the importance of
quality academic advising. Figures 11-13 illustrate the impact of academic advising on
69
the students tendency to continue his or her education beyond the undergraduate degree.
Figure 11 shows the influence that quality of academic advising has on a students overall
satisfaction with his or her undergraduate experience.
Figure 11. Relationship between the perceived quality of academic

advising and students rating of their overall educational experience.
2 (9, n = 90) = 46.20, p < .01.
Figure 12 demonstrates the next step and demonstrates the relationship between
the students satisfaction at the undergraduate level and his or her highest level of
education. Clearly, a student who is happy with his or her undergraduate experience is
more likely to obtain a graduate degree.
The syllogism is completed by showing the relationship between a students
opinion of the academic advising he or she received as an undergraduate and his or her
highest degree earned (Figure 13). Those who rated their academic advising as poor
rarely progressed beyond the bachelors level, and never progressed to the doctoral level.
At the same time, a majority of those who reported good advising completed a masters
degree.
70
Figure 12. Relationship between satisfaction with ones undergraduate

experience and the tendency to continue ones studies beyond the
undergraduate level.
2 (9, n = 89) = 19.85, p = .02.
Figure 13. Relationship between quality of academic advising and level

of education attained.
2 (9, n = 89) = 21.80, p = .01.
When broken down by gender, the data revealed several sharp distinctions
between the academic experiences of male and female students in the sample group.
Overall, female participants reported greater overall satisfaction with their undergraduate
71
educational experience than did their male counterparts. In Table 10, note the true count
of 15 females rating their experience as excellent, compared to the expected count of
10.6, while males selected excellent only three times, despite an expected count of 7.4.
Further, 71.7% of female respondents rated their overall experience as excellent or good,
compared to only 56.7% of male respondents. These data demonstrate a significant
relationship between a participants gender and his or her evaluation of the overall
undergraduate educational experience (p = .04).
Table 10
Gender and Rating of Overall Educational Experience
Rating of overall educational experience
Gender
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
16
18
Expected Count
0.8
11.9
16.9
7.4
% within Gender
43.2
48.6
8.1
13
23
15
Expected Count
1.2
17.1
24.1
10.6
% within Gender
3.8
24.5
43.4
28.3
Male
Count
Female
Count
p = .04.
Figure 14 illustrates the data graphically. The overall data is presented here rather
72
than at the end of chapter 4 with the other overall results because these data revealed
other gender-related findings. Presenting the gender disparity on overall satisfaction first
should put the chapters remaining data into clearer context.
Figure 14. Influence of gender on students overall educational

experience.
2 (3, n = 90) = 8.34, p = .04.
First, the data revealed a relationship between a students gender and his or her
relationship with the faculty. Although there was no significant relationship between
gender and the frequency of interaction with faculty, there was a significant relationship
when the nature of that interaction was addressed. Females reported discussing their
career plans with faculty members far more frequently than did males (p = .03; Table
H2). Less than three percent of male respondents reported discussing their career plans
with faculty very often, compared to 17.5% of females. It bears repeating that Figure 9
(above) showed that a significant relationship exists between a students history of career
discussions with faculty and overall satisfaction with the educational experience.
Another area in which female students reported a higher level of satisfaction was
the area of academic support. Participants were asked, To what extent does your
73
institution emphasize . . . providing the support you need to help you succeed
academically? Responses from females were more likely to be positive than those from
males (p = .03). Actual counts for female responses of very much and quite a bit were
both higher than expected counts, and actual male counts were lower than expected for
both categories (Figure 15; Appendix H, Table H3).
Figure 15. Relationship between student gender and the perception of

the amount of academic support offered by the institution.
2 (3, n = 90) = 9.05, p = .03.
The final gender-based relationship apparent in the items related to Research

Question 3 concerns participation in internships, co-ops, or clinical assignments. Female
participants were more likely than males to report participation in off-campus academic
programs such as these (p = .01). Those data are presented in Appendix H, Table H4.
Of the 90 participants who answered the question about membership in a sorority
or fraternity, only 11 indicated membership. Despite this small number, these students
demonstrated more of a likelihood to seek criticism and feedback from faculty members
(p = .02). The datum that stands out here is that not a single sorority or fraternity member
indicated never seeking criticism from an instructor, while 39.2% of nonmembers
74
indicated never. Table H5 (Appendix H) presents the data supporting this observation.
One additional set of relevant relationships emerged that relates to Research
Question 3. Participants were asked to name their current occupation. The researcher
grouped the occupations according to certain factors, including whether they related to
science. Examples of science-related areas are pharmacist, aerospace engineer, and
marine scientist. Table H6 (Appendix H) presents all of the reported occupations and
their categories for analysis purposes. Admittedly, grouping qualitative data in this
fashion is subjective. Participants who indicated a career related to science reportedly
found their college exams less challenging than those in other careers (see Figure 16).
Figure 16. Comparison of students evaluation of the difficulty of their

collegiate exams, based on the choice of a science-related or
nonscience-related career.
2 (6, n = 87) = 15.30, p = .02.
These participants, who are currently in a science-related occupation, also relate

to the Myers-Briggs Extravert or Introvert dimension. Among those who reported their
MBTI designation (n = 53), 46% of the Introverts ended up in a science-related career,
compared to 20% of Extraverts (Figure 17, p = .04).
75
Figure 17. Influence of Introversion trait on career choice.

2 (1, n = 53) = 4.11, p = .04.
Another variable for organizing the reported occupations is whether the

occupation is solitary in nature or involves frequent interaction with other people.
Examples of solitary occupations are editor, real estate broker, and consultant.
Nonsolitary occupations include call center supervisor, teacher, and meeting planner. The
standard used for categorization was whether the primary duties associated with the
occupation require interaction with other people. For example, the occupation of a
teacher is not considered solitary for this analysis because a teachers main duties require
interaction with students. The data revealed a relationship similar to the one presented in
Figure 16. Table H6 (Appendix H) lists the occupations reported by participants and their
classification. In Figure 18, the data show the relationship between a solitary career and
perceived degree of exam difficulty.
Again, these categorizations might differ from researcher to researcher, as these
determinations are subjective. The results are being offered here to serve as a possible
starting point for further, better-defined research.
76
Figure 18. Comparison of students evaluation of the difficulty of their

collegiate exams, based on the amount of social interaction inherent in
the students career.
2 (6, n = 87) = 15.61, p = .02.
Research Question 4
Research Question 2 in this study sought to identify the social needs and
preferences common among high-IQ college students. Research Question 4 was designed
to ascertain whether the participants felt the colleges they had attended met those social
needs and preferences. The social aspects of the colleges included sports and recreational
activities, organized events such as dances and parties, interaction with students from
other schools, and housing arrangements, among other events.
To answer Research Question 4, the researcher isolated the individual items from
the survey that relate to the participants experiences in a variety of social activities. The
aggregate results for each related item are presented first. Several statistically significant
relationships that emerged upon analysis follow. Discussions regarding the meaning
behind these results will be presented in chapter 5.
Aggregate data. Before examining the relationships between demographic
77
characteristics and responses to survey items, the results for the entire sample group are
presented here. First, five items (Items 33, 34, 36, 38, 39) were adapted from the CSEQ;
these items asked respondents to indicate the frequency with which they took part in
certain activities, for which choices were never, occasionally, often, and very often.
Results were coded such that never was assigned a value of 1 and very often a value of 4.
The mean for each of these five items lies in the range between occasionally and often
(see Figure 19).
Figure 19. Frequency of participation in campus social opportunities,

where (1) indicates never and (4) indicates very often.
The results shown in Figure 19 reflect the students individual participation and
experiences. More revealing are the data related to the students perceptions of the
schools support for social interaction. Participants were asked, To what extent does
your institution emphasize . . . helping you cope with your non-academic responsibilities
(work, families, etc)? Choices included very little, some, quite a bit, and very much. For
analysis purposes, very little was assigned a value of 1 and very much was assigned a
value of 4. The mean response for this item was 1.80, or between very little and some
78
(n = 90). The researcher used cross-tabulation tables to look for relationships between the
response on this item and demographic characteristics, but the negative assessment was
consistent across all groups.
A similarly negative result was seen when participants were asked, To what
extent does your institution emphasize . . . providing the support you need to thrive
socially? The mean of the responses barely crossed the some threshold, at 2.07 (n = 90).
This result is well below the mean score of 2.44 when the question related to academic
support.
The participants estimations of their classmates were positive overall, but not
overwhelmingly so. On Item 53, survey participants were asked to rate the quality of their
relationships with other students, on a seven-point Likert scale, where 1 represented a
feeling of competition and alienation from other students, and 7 represented a sense of
belonging, support and friendliness. The overall mean score for responses to this item
was 4.90 (n = 93).
Relationships. This section presents relationships identified during the data
analysis process. In the Aggregate Data section, the variable highest degree earned
was identified as an indicator of student success, adding importance to the first
relationship noted. Figure 20 illustrates the relationship detected between a students
frequency of attendance at on-campus social events and that students highest completed
degree (p < .01).
The validity of the relationship revealed in Figure 20 is supported by data
indicating a relationship between the participants highest earned degree and the
frequency with which the participant worked on a project or organization unrelated to
classes. The item (Item 38) asked the respondent to indicate how often he or she worked
79
on a campus committee, student organization, or project (publications, student
government, or special event). With one exception, the students who earned an
associates degree, but not a bachelors degree, reported never participating in the above
activities, and participation increased as level of study increased, through the masters
degree level (p < .01). Figure 21 illustrates these data.
Figure 20. Relationship between students participation in campus

events and their tendency to pursue graduate degrees.
2 (9, n = 93) = 26.56, p < .01.
Further, the relationship between engagement (as indicated by participation in

nonacademic activities such as intramural sports, clubs, and student government) and the
participants highest completed degree is supported by the responses to a related item
(Item 39) regarding leadership in organizations. The item asked respondents to indicate
how often they managed or provided leadership for a club or organization, on or off the
campus (Figure 22, p < .01). This result was similar to the results presented in Figures
20 and 21.
80
Figure 21. Relationship between students participation in campus

organizations and their tendency to pursue graduate degrees.
2 (9, n = 93) = 29.21, p < .01.
Figure 22. Relationship between students experience in positions of

leadership in student organizations and their tendency to pursue
graduate degrees.
2 (9, n = 91) = 29.23, p < .01.
As with the academic perceptions reported in the previous section, a relationship

that related to gender appeared among the data derived from the participants perceptions
81
of their schools emphases on social activities. The participants were asked, To what
extent does your institution emphasize . . . attending campus events and activities (special
speakers, cultural performances, athletic events, etc)? Female respondents perceived a
stronger emphasis on such activities than males (p = .03), as illustrated in Figure 23.
Figure 23. Influence of gender on students perception of the

institutions emphasis on attending campus events.
2 (3, n = 89) = 8.88, p = .03.
Perhaps not surprisingly, several relationships emerged that involved a

participants membership in a sorority or fraternity. However, it should be noted that very
few respondents reported membership in a sorority or fraternity (n = 11), and 79
indicated not belonging to such an organization. Nevertheless, within these responses,
those belonging to a sorority or fraternity reported more participation and leadership in
social clubs and activities. Item 38 of the survey asked participants to indicate, About
how often have you . . . worked on a campus committee, student organization, or project
(publications, student government, special event, etc.)? The results from this item are
shown in Table 11.
Related, Item 39 of the survey asked, About how often have you . . . managed or
82
provided leadership for a club or organization, on or off the campus? Certainly,
belonging to an organization such as a fraternity or sorority can bring with it the
opportunity to be involved in a leadership capacity. The results of this item are shown in
Table 12.
Table 11
Greek Membership and Participation in a Campus Organization
Worked on campus project or organization
Greek membership
Never Occasionally
Often
Very often
Members
Count
% within members
9.1
27.3
0.0
63.6
34
17
11
17
43.0
21.5
13.9
21.5
Nonmembers
Count
% within nonmembers
n = 90, p = .01.
Membership in a sorority or fraternity also influences the perception of ones

fellow students. Figure 24 illustrates the more positive opinion that the sorority or
fraternity members had for their peers (p = .02). Similarly, the participants who belonged
to a sorority or fraternity had a higher opinion of their schools efforts at providing the
support you need to thrive socially (p < .01; Figure 25).
As in the academic section, the researcher compared results from the social items
to respondents personality types, where possible. Two significant relationships emerged.
First, participants who reported the Thinking trait were more likely to describe their
83
fellow students favorably than those reporting the Feeling trait (Figure 26).
Table 12
Greek Membership and Leadership in a Student Organization
Managed or led club or organization
Greek membership
Never
Occasionally
Often
Very often
Members
Count
% within members
36.4
9.1
54.5
34
18
14
11
44.2
23.4
18.2
14.3
Nonmembers
Count
% within nonmembers
n = 88; p < .01.
Figure 24. Relationship between students membership in a sorority or

fraternity and their rating of the friendliness of other students.
2 (6, n = 90) = 15.34, p = .02.
84
The second relationship that was related to MBTI personality traits and that
emerged from the survey data was that between the participants Judging or Perceiving
identity and his or her likelihood to have managed or led a club or organization. Those
participants who exhibited the Perceiving trait were very unlikely to participate in the
leadership of an on-campus club or organization. Indeed, more than 60% of the
Perceiving respondents reported never doing so, compared to only 11% of the Judging
respondents. Figure 27 illustrates the relationship.
Figure 25. Relationship between students membership in a sorority

or fraternity and their perception of the amount of social support
offered by the institution.
2 (3, n = 90) = 14.07, p < .01.
In the results related to Research Question 3, the data showed relationships

between certain academic variables and the graduates careers. An analysis of the data
that was related to Research Question 4 revealed one such relationship in the social area
of the study. Participants who reported a career in the sciences, such as engineers and
programmers, were far less likely to participate in social events on campus, as illustrated
in Figure 28.
85
Figure 26. Relationship between ones Feeling or Thinking trait and

ones rating of the friendliness of other students.
2 (6, n = 55) = 14.40, p = .03.
Figure 27. Relationship between ones Judging or Perceiving trait and

ones tendency to take a leadership role in a student organization.
2 (3, n = 56) = 12.80, p < .01.
The survey collected information regarding participants exposure to online

classes and the level of education achieved by their parents. However, these data did not
relate significantly to the experiences and preferences examined in this report.
86
Figure 28. Relationship between choosing a science-oriented career and

tendency to attend social events on campus.
2 (3, n = 91) = 8.53, p = .04.
Research Question 5
Research Question 5 asked, Do the NCHC (2007a) guidelines adequately
address the needs and preferences expressed by students with high IQs? To examine this
question, it is useful to segregate the survey responses based on whether the participants
school is a member of NCHC. Of the 94 respondents, 58 reported an NCHC member
institution as their undergraduate college. Table H7 (Appendix H) lists the colleges and
their status as members or nonmembers of the NCHC.
To address Research Question 1, this reporting of the data will take several forms.
First, participant responses on key survey items will be reported, so that responses from
NCHC schools can be compared against non-NCHC schools. The items that are
examined in this fashion relate to the NCHC (2007a) guidelines. Next, two relationships
emerging from these data will be presented. Last, this section will present the mean
responses to these 14 key items by a particular set of respondents: those who attended
NCHC schools and indicated that they participated in special programs offered to honors
87
students. This section will raise certain questions and generate observations, which will
all be explored in chapter 5.
Respondents were asked whether their schools offered special programs or
benefits for students with high IQs or grade point averages, or both. The survey asked
about academic and social benefits. Some students indicated that special benefits indeed
existed, but they were not certain whether one qualified by test scores, grade point
average, or other criteria. Regardless of the qualification, the first question to be
answered is whether special benefits existed at all. Of the 58 participants who attended
NCHC schools, many of them indicated that either their school did not offer benefits, or
that they were not sure (Table 13).
Table 13
Availability of Exclusive Academic or Social Programs at National
Collegiate Honors Council Schools
Available?
Programs
Yes
No
Not Sure
Academic benefits based on IQ
34
16
Academic benefits based on GPA
39
14
Social benefits based on IQ
37
17
Social benefits based on GPA
17
16
25
n = 58
The number of students from NCHC schools that reported taking advantage of
special programs of some sort was a fraction of the yes students in Table 13. Identifying
those specific participants who attended an NCHC school and those who actually took
88
part in special programs allows a more focused assessment effort when considering
Research Question 5.
Twenty-three respondents from NCHC schools reported taking part in some kind
of special academic benefit, and 11 reported participating in some kind of special social
benefits. Table 14 summarizes the actual participation in these special programs. Table
H8 (Appendix H) specifies the participants responses and their schools.
Table 14
Frequency of Participation in Exclusive Programs at National Collegiate Honors
Council Schools
Frequency of participation
Programs
Very often
Often
Sometimes
Never
Academic benefits based on IQ
Academic benefits based on GPA
12
19
Social benefits based on IQ
Social benefits based on GPA
Chapter 5 will include comments from former students who reported attending an
NCHC school. With the participants separated according to their colleges NCHC status,
a comparison of perceptions could be constructed. To accomplish this, the researcher
isolated specific items from the survey that relate to NCHC (2007a) guidelines.
The first four items (Items 46-49) asked respondents to indicate their schools
emphasis in certain areas, based on a 7-point scale. For each of the following aspects,
ratings ranged from 1 (weak emphasis) to 7 (strong emphasis). Respondents were asked
to evaluate their schools emphasis on developing:
89
1. Academic, scholarly, and intellectual qualities (Item 46).
2. Aesthetic, expressive, and creative qualities (Item 47).
3. Critical, evaluative, and analytical qualities (Item 48).
4. An understanding and appreciation of human diversity (Item 49).
The mean scores for these items are shown in Table 15, and are discussed in chapter 5. It
bears repeating that the results shown in the table represent all of the respondents,
regardless of whether they themselves participated in honors programs.
Table 15
Mean Ratings of Schools Emphasis on Development of Student Qualities
Institutions NCHC membership
Qualitiesa
Memberb
Nonmember
Academic, scholarly, and intellectual qualities
4.98
5.69c
Aesthetic, expressive, and creative qualities
3.90
4.49d
Critical, evaluative, and analytical qualities
4.97
5.58c
Understanding and appreciation of human diversity
4.71
4.54d
on a scale of 1(lowest rating) to 7(highest rating).

n = 58. cn = 36. dn = 35.
The next survey item that related to NCHC (2007a) guidelines was Item 55. It
asked participants to rate the quality of their relationships with faculty members, again on
a seven-point scale. The low end of the scale (1) represented an assessment that found the
faculty members to be remote, discouraging, unsympathetic. The high end of the scale (7)
represented approachable, helpful, understanding, encouraging. Participants from NCHC
institutions as a group provided responses with a mean of 4.84 (n = 58), while
90
participants from non-NCHC schools provided responses with a mean of 5.0 (n = 35).
This item is of particular importance because, as was shown in previous sections of this
chapter, faculty interaction and the nature and quality of those interactions had a direct
relationship with students overall satisfaction and achievement.
Similar to Item 55, Item 57 sought to determine how often students worked with
faculty members on activities other than coursework such as committees or student life
activities. Again, the results from students who attended or are attending NCHC member
schools were separated from those of students who attended or are attending non-NCHC
member schools. A comparison of the two sets shows no appreciable difference between
NCHC schools and non-NCHC schools; both categories fared well in this evaluation.
Figure 29 shows the results graphically.
Figure 29. Degree of studentfaculty interaction is nearly identical

between National Collegiate Honors Council member institutions and
nonmember institutions.
The next set of related items (Items 57-62) asked the participants to indicate
whether they have done or plan to do certain academic activities. The response not
available might indicate that the activity was available, but was not known to the student.
91
Because the available responses were not offered in an ordinal scale, calculating
means is not helpful. The data are shown in Tables 1621, with responses from students
from NCHC schools compared against those from non-NCHC schools. The two groups
(NCHC schools and non-NCHC schools) are not of equal size, so responses are displayed
here as percentages. Results did not show an appreciable difference between the
experiences of students based on their schools membership status with NCHC. It should
be noted that the response not available indicates the students perception that the activity
was not available, which may or may not be accurate.
Table 16
Percentage of Students Participating in Experiential Learning
Did not or will
Undecided
not do
NCHC Membership
Done
Plan to do
Membera
49.1
1.8
28.1
0.0
21.1
Nonmemberb
50.0
2.9
29.4
0.0
17.6
Not available
n = 57. bn = 34.
Table 17
Percentage of Students Participating in Learning Communities
NCHC Membership
Did not or will

not do
Undecided
Done
Plan to do
Membera
26.3
0.0
26.3
1.8
45.6
Nonmemberb
22.9
0.0
40.0
2.9
34.3
n = 57. bn = 35.
Not available
92
Table 18
Percentage of Students Participating in Research with Faculty
Did not or will
not do
Undecided
NCHC Membership
Done
Plan to do
Membera
25.0
1.8
55.4
3.6
14.3
Nonmemberb
22.9
2.9
45.7
0.0
28.6
Not available
n = 56. bn = 35.
Table 19
Percentage of Students Participating in a Study-Abroad Program
Plan to do
Did not or
will not do
Undecided
NCHC Membership
Done
Membera
12.5
5.4
64.3
1.8
16.1
Nonmemberb
14.3
0.0
74.3
2.9
8.6
Not available
n = 56. bn = 35.
Table 20
Percentage of Students Studying Independently
NCHC Membership
Done
Plan to do
Did not or
will not do
Undecided
Membera
24.6
1.8
45.6
1.8
26.3
Nonmemberb
22.9
0.0
57.1
2.9
17.1
n = 57. bn = 35.
Not available
93
Table 21
Percentage of Students Participating in a Culminating Academic Experience
NCHC Membership
Done Plan to do Did not or will not do Undecided Not available
Membera
33.3
8.8
49.1
0.0
8.8
Nonmemberb
42.9
2.9
48.6
0.0
5.7
n = 57. bn = 35.
The next two academic items to be compared based on NCHC membership (Items
66 and 68) relate to academic advising and academic support. As shown in the section
dealing with Research Question 3, the quality of academic support and particularly
academic advising related directly to student success and satisfaction. The NCHC
(2007a) guidelines specifically call for special academic counseling of Honors students
by uniquely qualified faculty and/or staff personnel (para. 13).
Regarding academic advising, there was not a statistically significant relationship
between a participants evaluation of the schools academic advising and the schools
membership in NCHC (p = .26). However, Figure 30 shows that participants from NCHC
students were five times more likely to assign a rating of poor than a rating of excellent.
They were also far more likely to assign a rating of poor than were participants who
attended schools not belonging to NCHC (29% v 11.4%).
The next academic item to be compared between NCHC schools and non-NCHC
schools (Item 68) asked, To what extent does your institution emphasize providing the
support you need to help you succeed academically? Participants from NCHC schools
report receiving very little or some support 56.3% of the time, compared to 48.6% for
94
non-NCHC participants. Figure 31 shows the data, which are consistent with the results
of a similar item (Item 46) reported earlier, with a slight difference in focus.
Figure 30. Comparing student evaluations of academic advising.

Ratings differ between NCHC and non-NCHC schools although not
to a statistically significant degree. However, within the non-NCHC
schools the data display as a normal bell curve, while the NCHC
students were more likely to offer a negative rating than a positive one.
Figure 31. Comparison of students rating of academic support

provided by the institution, based on each schools NCHC status. This
does not represent a significant relationship but the majority of NCHC
participants gave a lower rating (very little or some) while the majority
of non-NCHC participants gave a higher rating.
95
Item 46 focused on whether the college helped the student develop his or her own
scholarly and intellectual qualities. As reported earlier, non-NCHC schools received a
higher mean rating on this characteristic (5.69) than did schools that are members (4.98).
It is noteworthy that the high-IQ students and alumni taking part in this study felt the
schools that did not have an organization guiding their honors programs did a better job
of helping them develop their critical academic qualities than did the NCHC schools
(p = .01). Item 46 asked, To what extent was there an emphasis on developing academic,
scholarly, and intellectual qualities and the results are displayed in Figure 32.
Figure 32. Relationship between an institutions membership in

National Collegiate Honors Council and its students perception of the
institutions emphasis on developing personal academic qualities.
2 (5, n = 94) = 14.32, p = .01.
Another revealing comparison between NCHC and non-NCHC schools to emerge

from this portion of the data regards social interaction between students. Although this
was not quite to a statistically significant degree (p = .09), participants from non-NCHC
schools were more likely to rate their relationships with other students positively than
were participants from NCHC-member institutions. Students from NCHC schools rated
96
their relationships with other students negatively (a rating of 1, 2, or 3 on the seven-point
scale) 22.4% of the time, compared to only 11.5% of the non-NCHC students. The data
are illustrated in Figure 33.
Figure 33. Comparison of student rating of the friendliness of other

students, according to the schools membership in National Collegiate
Honors Council.
Other nonacademic items on the survey did not reveal any appreciable difference
between NCHC students and non-NCHC students. Items that asked students to rate their
institutions efforts at providing support with nonacademic issues and at providing social
support were examined in earlier research questions. The schools membership or lack of
membership in NCHC did not influence student responses; therefore, those data need not
be re-examined in this section.
The final category of data resulted from the distillation of the overall responses so
that only students who attended NCHC-member schools and participated in special
academic or social programs for honors or gifted students were included. This subset is
comprised of 22 participants from NCHC schools who took part in some kind of special
academic program, and 11 who benefited from some kind of social program. The data
97
examined in this portion of the report will consist of the mean responses from just these
students on the 14 survey items identified as being most relevant to the NCHC (2007a)
guidelines. This focused review should provide a snapshot of how well or poorly the
programs in place at NCHC institutions are meeting the needs of those high-IQ students
who are taking part in these special opportunities. Commentary on the results will follow
in chapter 5.
Participants who reported participation in some kind of special program at an
NCHC school answered a set of items (Items 59-64) that sought to determine how often
the student experienced a certain activity or program. These 22 participants were most
likely to participate in an internship or clinical experience (68%), and least likely to have
studied abroad (18%). For the purpose of this review, responses of done and plan to do
were combined and presented in Table 22.
Table 22
Respondents Participating in Special Academic Programs at National Collegiate
Honors Council Schools
Programs
Percentage reporting done or

plan to do
Internship or other off-campus learning (Item 59)
68
Learning community (Item 60)
41
Research with faculty (Item 61)
45
Study abroad (Item 62)
18
Independent study or self-designed major (Item 63)
23
Culminating academic assessment (Item 64)
50
98
On the evaluative items, these 22 participants were asked to rate their schools on
three factors on a seven-point scale (7 representing the best response). Regarding their
schools emphasis on developing academic, scholarly, and intellectual qualities, these
students rated their NCHC-member schools a mean of 5.14. These schools fared slightly
better with a mean score of 5.23 in the area of emphasizing the development of students
critical, evaluative, and analytical qualities. Participants were less impressed with their
relationships with faculty members, indicating a mean rating of 4.91.
The last set of items to review with this subset of participants consists of three
items requiring a response on a 4-point Likert scale (Items 57, 66, and 68). When asked
to rate whether they worked with faculty members on activities other than coursework by
indicating never, sometimes, often, or very often, the mean response was 2.95, or just
short of often. The participants also rated the quality of their schools academic advising
and how well it provided the support that they needed to succeed academically. On Item
66, the academic advising item, the mean response was 2.33, with ratings ranging from 1
( poor) to 4 (excellent). A mean score of 2.33 rates closer to fair than good. Item 68, the
item concerned with providing support to help students succeed academically, offered
four responses: very little, some, quite a bit, and very much. Using a scale where ratings
ranged from 1 (very little) to 4 (very much), the mean score was 2.52. In other words,
these participants rated their schools academic support efforts approximately midway
between some and quite a bit.
Last, this review will present results obtained from the subset of participants who
attended NCHC schools and reported participating in a special program of some sort that
was not academic in nature. Items 47, 49, and 53 presented participants with a 7-point
Likert scale. Participants were asked to rate the emphasis their schools provided in the
99
area of developing aesthetic, expressive, and creative qualities. With a value of 1
representing weak emphasis and 7 representing strong emphasis, these participants
responded with a mean rating of 3.55. Using the same Likert scale, participants were
asked to evaluate their schools emphasis on developing an understanding and
appreciation of human diversity. On this dimension, the institutions fared better, with a
mean response of 5.18. In the area of their relationships with other students, these
participants again provided a mean rating of 5.18, on a scale where 1 indicates a sense of
alienation and competitive fellow students, and 7 represents a sense of belonging among
friendly fellow students.
In the areas of helping (one) cope with your nonacademic responsibilities (work,
families, etc), on Item 69, respondents were given choices ranging from 1 (very little) to
4 (very much). This item revealed a mean response of 1.7 (n = 10). One participant left
this item blank. A similar item (Item 70) asked respondents to use the same 4-point scale
to rate their school in the area of providing the support you need to thrive socially. The
mean response was 1.9 (n = 10). Again, one participant left the item blank.
Research Question 6
Research Question 6 is focused on making recommendations for improvement.
To understand the data discussed in this chapter, the researcher conducted interviews
with five participants, who are described in the conclusion of this chapter. Fifty-seven
females and 37 males took the survey; therefore, the researcher selected 3 female and 2
male participants for interviews. These interviews allowed the researcher to explore some
of the themes that emerged from the survey data. For example, the data shown earlier in
this chapter indicated dissatisfaction among many participants in the area of academic
advising. The interviews allowed the researcher to hear specific experiences that high-IQ
100
college students have had with academic advising. The interviews centered on a common
set of questions (Appendix I) that was created after the researcher reviewed the survey
data.
Conclusion
The survey was the first step in collecting the data called for in this study. As
shown in this chapter, the participants reported similar experiences and preferences in
several areas. The survey included opportunities for participants to contribute free-text
responses, which many did. In addition, several participants sent correspondence to the
researcher with additional background information relating to the survey. These
contributions helped to shape the follow-up interviews that support the conclusions and
analysis in chapter 5.
101
Chapter 5: Discussion
Overview of Applied Dissertation
The purpose of this study was to identify the needs of high-IQ college students
and to evaluate whether those needs were being met. Applying the collected data against
the NCHC (2007a) Basic Characteristics guidelines might identify ways in which these
guidelines might be improved to help member colleges enhance their honors programs.
The study examined needs and preferences that related to both the academic lives and the
social lives of the high-IQ college student.
Yin (2003) recommended a question-and-answer approach that organized the
study into a set of specific questions to be answered. Chapter 4 of this researchers study
laid out the pertinent data that resulted from the survey (Appendix G), organized by
research question. Creswell (2003) recommends presenting the voices and backgrounds
of the participants through quotes. Chapter 5 will discuss each research question in turn,
adding additional input from five interviewees. This approach allows the researcher to
use the participants own memories, opinions, and experiences to add background and
meaning to the data presented earlier.
Coupled with the free-text comments that some participants left on the survey and
e-mail sent to the researcher by survey participants, the follow-up interview process
provided the researcher with the opportunity to explore some of the themes that emerged
from the survey. For the purpose of confidentiality, the interviewees were each assigned a
pseudonym. The interviewees were as follow:
1. Aaron, a PhD student and adjunct college instructor. He attended a very large
Southeastern public university for his undergraduate degree and earned good grades (in
the 3.0 3.49 range). He did not know his Myers-Briggs indicator, but did not consider
102
himself an Introvert. He rated his relationship with faculty as a 7 (the highest choice) and
his relationships with other students as a 1 (the worst possible rating).
2. Helen, a financial manager. She graduated from a medium-sized public
university in the Pacific Northwest, with a grade point average between 3.5 and 3.79. She
also did not report an MBTI designation, but did not consider herself an Introvert.
3. Ira, a systems administrator. He attended a large public college in the
mid-Atlantic region, earned high grades (3.5 3.79), and identified himself on the
Myers-Briggs scale as INFJ.
4. Laura, a corporate trainer. She first attended a medium-sized private Texas
university, which she left before completing her undergraduate degree at a medium-sized
public college that primarily enrolls women. Both schools are NCHC members. She
graduated with high grades and reported her personality type as ENFP.
5. Marilyn, a mental health therapist. She attended a small private college in the
Midwest that is a member of the NCHC. She earned good grades (3.0 3.49) and
identified herself as an INTP in the Myers-Briggs classification.
Research Question 1
The first research question was intended to determine which academic features
high-IQ college students would favor as they chose a college to attend. Of the seven
features presented, the clear favorites were the chance to accelerate ones studies to
graduate more quickly, and the opportunity to participate in research with faculty.
Surprisingly, the promise of smaller classes was the academic feature that the participants
chose least often.
The desire to complete college and to graduate as soon as possible might be
related to a lack of interest in the social aspects of college or, for some, it might be an
103
inability to mix easily with other students. The literature discussed in chapter 2 indicated
that Introversion is much more prevalent among the intellectually gifted than the general
population (Cross et al., 2007). The survey reflects this claim, as 54% of the respondents
who indicated their MBTI type indicated introversion (see Table 3). These respondents,
as a subgroup, clearly indicated a preference for accelerated study (p < .05). Improved
attention to these students unique social needs might have the effect of reducing their
preference for accelerated study.
Although the prospect of providing smaller classes for high-IQ students ranked
last among the academic features in importance to the study group, those who indicated
strongly agree that a low instructorstudent ratio is important also reported higher grade
point averages. This relationship was significant (p < .01). This datum should be
considered with care; however, as it is possible that participants who were involved in
honors programs were more likely to experience smaller classes and, thus, recognize their
benefits.
Prevalent in the written responses was a preference for discussion and
exploration, as opposed to learning simple facts. Several participants indicated that
participation in seminars was a favorable benefit of participating in an honors program.
This preference falls in line with the literature analyzing the learning styles of different
MBTI types. Forty-six of the 56 respondents who provided their MBTI type indicated
possessing the Intuitive (N) preference, as opposed to Sensing (S). This is consistent with
literature that identifies the four most common personality types among gifted
adolescentseach of the four most common types includes the Intuitive trait. Possessors
of this personality type prefer tasks that involve imagination, insight, and
inspirationthey prefer to learn independently and at their own pace, progress
104
nonlinearly, and drop projects when their enthusiasm wanes (Cross et al., 2007, p. 286).
As one Intuitive survey participant wrote, I got it into my head that college classes
would run a lot like Platonic dialogues. When I realized it was not, I slipped into old
habits. Another described one-credit seminar courses that were offered only to select
high-intelligence students. This participant described these courses as lots of discussion
. . . very free-thinking. Best courses at the college, in my opinion.
It was reported in chapter 4 that two relationships emerged that related to the
Judging or Perceiving dimension: the highest degree earned and the students grade point
averages. Participants reporting a preference for the Judging dimension continued
through graduate degrees far more often than did those reporting a Perceiving preference,
and reported higher undergraduate grade point averages (Figure 2; Table 6). Although
this survey attracted more Judging than Perceiving participants, Sak (2004) analyzed
5723 cases and found that the Perceiving trait was more prevalent among gifted high
school students than was the Judging trait. This is consistent with the finding described
earlier that the four most common MBTI types among the gifted include the Perceiving
trait. Sak writes, perceivers can have difficulties in finishing projects because perceiving
types are unusually unorganized (p. 76). A gifted student, then, is likely to possess two
personality traits (Intuitive and Perceiving) that bring him or her difficulties in following
through, in maintaining interest, in being grounded in the here-and-now, and in remaining
organized. These difficulties are certainly handicaps in the college environment and
might help to explain the relationship observed between possessing the Perceiving trait
and having the tendencies to earn lower undergraduate grades and to fail to progress to
graduate school.
105
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 sought to determine which social aspects of college were
most important to the high-IQ student. The highest rated social feature among the
participants was the ability to network with high-IQ students at other schools. The least
preferred social feature was dedicated housing for high-IQ students. In fact, dedicated
housing ranked last of all 10 features (academic and social combined) presented on the
survey (see Table 8).
As stated earlier, gifted students possess the tendency toward Introversion at a
much higher rate than the general population (Cross et al., 2007; Nichols & Pass, 1993).
The Myers & Briggs Foundation (2008a) describes those displaying the tendency toward
Introversion to be comfortable being alone, reflective, and tending to focus on their
inner world (para. 7). Certainly, this characteristic can have its advantages. One
participant wrote, Being an introvert meant I had more time to focus on my studies and
fewer distractions, and another echoed those thoughts by writing, I did computer
science; introversion leads to more computing time, so it actually helped quite a lot.
These participants clearly did not feel that they were missing social benefits.
Not all echo these sentiments. Helen offered, I wouldnt have wanted to have
been labeled as one of the High-IQ kidseven at the college level, that would have been
isolating. Asked to expand on this, she continued,
College is an excellent safe place to try out ones personality before the corporate
world gets a hold of us. Id rather have the High-IQ person facing the reality of
working alongside dumb people in college when a job doesnt depend on it, than
making them feel so very special for another four years and then getting slapped
in the face in the job market when many other things matter to get ahead.
Offering special housing for honors or exceptional students (even as a voluntary choice)
might have the unintended consequence of stifling socialization to the detriment of the
106
student. Ira said, The introversion limited not only what I was willing to do, but also
limited my knowledge of what was available. Other participants in the survey reported
having trouble socializing. Comments included:
1. Few friends the first 2 years.
2. I had a difficult time bonding with them on more than a superficial level.
3. Never felt like I belonged.
4. I was always too shy to socialize much.
5. I made good friends with a small number of students, I was indifferent about
most, a few I avoided whenever possible.
These comments might help explain why Introverts rate accelerated study so
highly, and might provide some insight into an area where attention is needed. The fourth
research question examined the colleges efforts at meeting this need.
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 examined the actual academic experiences reported by
survey participants. Chapter 4 presented the relationships that emerged from the data. For
discussion purposes, three indicators will be used as measurements of student success:
grade point average, highest degree earned, and overall satisfaction with ones
educational experience.
Academic advising and academic support. One factor that influenced student
success and satisfaction was the area of academic advising and support. A majority of
survey participants rated their experience with academic advising as either poor or fair.
The question of overall academic support did not fare much better, with a mean rating
that still only reaches closer to fair than good. Interestingly, when asked how often a
participant used a campus, learning lab or center to improve academic skills, the mean
107
response was not even halfway between never and occasionally. This might indicate an
unwillingness to take advantage of academic resources, a lack of awareness of resources,
or a tendency for such learning labs to be aimed at a skill level well below that of the
survey participants. One participant wrote, I went from a high school that catered to
smart kids to a college that couldnt have cared less.
Participants rated academic advising along the same lines as their overall
educational experience; that is, those who rated their overall experience favorably tended
to also rate their academic advising favorably (p < .01). A similar relationship existed
between the quality of academic advising and the highest degree earned (p = .01).
The importance of academic advising and support is reinforced when the data are
segmented by gender. As shown in chapter 4, women rated their overall educational
experience higher than did men (p = .03). If we accept the relationship between quality of
academic support and overall satisfaction suggested above, it is not surprising that the
data show a significant relationship between the womens rating of their overall
experience and the academic support they received. More than half the male respondents
(70.3%) reported receiving very little or some academic support, which were the two
lowest possible ratings. By contrast, more than half the female respondents (58%)
reported receiving quite a bit or very much academic support, the two highest possible
ratings. This raises the question: Are academic support and resources being made
available for women more than for men, or are women more likely or more successful in
seeking them out?
Marilyn had the most to say about advising. At her small, private college, which
is an NCHC member, faculty members also served as academic advisers. Regarding
course selection and planning, her adviser made assumptions about what I had taken and
108
what I needed. . . .I chose everything, put it in front of him, and he signed it. He was a
good professor, but he didnt know me. However, Marilyn serves as an example of the
need for advising to go beyond simply approving course selection:
When I was in college, I would have done better had I had a mentor of sorts. Not
an advisor, really, they just sign off on your course load. But I grew up in a
socially forbidding, emotionally neglectful and verbally/physically violent family.
I escaped at 17 and ran to college with no money and extremely few 'real-world'
skills. Oh, and whenever I tried to reach out for helpbecause I knew I needed
itI was told that I had things under control just fine. I just needed someone to
help me fill in the gaps between the stuff I was very good at and the 'normal' stuff
I didnt know at all.
She indicated that because she managed to get good grades, she did not appear to be in
need. Theyd listen to what I said but then look at my grades and say all is OK. The
outcome was, despite her top-2% IQ and good grades, I left college with a degree and
went right into poverty. I didnt know where to go from there. I worked at Wendys and
lived with a friend. I didnt know how to apply for a job, how to write a resume, get a car
. . . but all along I kept being told youre doing just fine. She described the career
services options at her college as pamphlets in a room.
Laura is similarly critical. The two colleges she attended are both NCHC
members. She spent her first 3 years at a medium-sized Texas college with a strong
religious affiliation. Regarding advising, she responded, I can tell you all about all the
academic advising I never got. She continued, I never got any advice . . . I had a
quote-unquote advisor, but really he was just checking boxes. All her decisions
regarding classes and programs were made without any input from her advisor. She
found the advising to be better once she transferred to another school, but admits,
Maybe I was just better able to know what was needed. Her comments also agreed with
those from Marilyn; she stated, I was terribly unprepared for college life, with extreme
109
ignorance about how any of it worked and how to choose a major, etc. . . . After four
years I had no clue what I was about. Interestingly, she indicated that she was not aware
of her high-IQ status through college.
Helen also reported being tossed around among advisors, and turned to a
finance professor for advice. Course selection was accomplished with the help of a
pretty good booklet. Like Marilyn and Laura, Helen says, I didnt know what I wanted
when I left school.
Aarons first word when asked to describe the academic advising at his college, a
very large public institution in the Southeast, was terrible. He says, I felt adrift at sea,
until my last year and a half. The effect of inadequate advising, he says, was that I took
too many elective classes that I didnt need and that didnt help. Where his comments
diverge from the interviewees mentioned above is in the area of preparation for life after
graduation. Aaron described a course called Career and Lifespan Planning, which he
found very helpful, and which he says has led to his career in environmental science.
Ira offers a moderately better assessment of his experience with advising,
indicating that his advisors were good at what they did, but that he wishes their focus was
on a bigger picture. He says,
I would have liked a more career-focused level of academic advising. . . . My
advisor helped me ensure that I would get all the classes I needed for my major
and minor before I graduated, but it would have been nice to have spent more
time focusing on whether or not computers was really where I wanted to be. . . . It
would be time consuming to do this for all students, so I understand why it is not
feasible. However, I feel that very few students have a full understanding of all
the options available to them at that point in their life.
Iras alma mater is an NCHC member.
By sharp contrast, some of the interviewees gave their schools good marks for
providing other academic resources. Aaron responded with fabulous and ten out of
110
ten regarding his schools efforts at providing resources such as computer labs, libraries,
academic-centered organizations and the like. Marilyn, on the other hand, reported that
her small colleges library was frequently out of stock of needed items, and that often
students had to place orders for items that would typically take a week to arrive. She feels
the students would have benefited from more internship opportunities.
Faculty. The impact of faculty on the participants taking the survey was strong in
several ways. A clear relationship was indicated between students who developed
relationships with their instructors beyond the confines of the classroom and those
students success and overall satisfaction. One item on the survey asked whether students
had discussed their career ambitions with their faculty. Those who felt comfortable
enough and trusted their faculty enough to seek advice in this fashion tended to report a
higher degree of satisfaction with their overall educational experience (Figure 9). This
relationship was supported by another that showed that students who rated their faculty
on the higher end of the seven-point scale, measuring the facultys openness to
interaction, also reported higher grade point averages (Figure 10). In fact, six items on the
survey (Items 28, 30, 31, 40, 55, 57) asked the participants to evaluate the faculty
according to some dimension or to describe their level of interaction; in four of those
items, (Items 28, 30, 55, 57) those responding positively tended also to report higher
satisfaction with their overall educational experience, to a statistically significant degree.
The opportunity to conduct research with faculty was rated the second highest among the
10 features presented to survey takers.
Given the importance of faculty interaction, it is worth noting a trend that
emerged in the free-text comments that some survey takers offered. Participants were
presented with a seven-point scale, where 1 represented an opinion that faculty that was
111
remote, discouraging, unsympathetic and where 7 represented faculty that was
approachable, helpful, understanding, encouraging. Participant comments included:
1. Mix of 7s and 1s.
2. Most seemed remote and overburdened, but if approached they were usually
helpful.
3. Instructors fell at both ends of the scale.
4. The 80% of faculty that were helpful definitely rank 7s, but the rest were
around the 2 range.
Participants interviewed for this study were asked to describe a faculty member
that they particularly liked. Aaron, who says he went out of his way to get to know all of
his instructors, described one favorite professor as being energetic, enthusiastic, and
explanatory. Helen described an economics professor that she particularly liked, saying,
I remember sitting in his office, having chats with him, including chats about personal
things, too. Marilyn had trouble coming up with an example before describing a
professor that she liked because he was willing to listen, was willing to help and show
you how to help yourself. . . . He also had a good sense of humor. Iras example
encouraged my efforts and praised what I accomplished even if the end result was a
failure. Only Laura mentioned qualities related to subject knowledge or teaching skills
when describing a particularly liked professor. Her example had a passion for the
material. She made the material come alive. And she was respectfulshe would consider
what students would say, without judgment. Interestingly, Laura used the words
passion and respectful three times, each while describing this professor. Overall, a
clear theme is evident from the interviewees comments: each of them remembered a
favored professor because of (in some part at least) his or her style of communication and
112
willingness to interact with the students.
It might be that the value placed on interaction with the faculty stems at least
partly from a tendency for high-IQ students to relate better with faculty members than
with their peers. One participant wrote, When I was interested in something spoken in
class and wanted to discuss it with someone, often the prof [sic] was the only one that
could converse with me about it at my level. Another offered, Nerds were not very
popular in my school . . . I hung out with teachers and had NO (sic) opportunities at the
time to hang out with intelligent students. The need for assisting high-IQ students with
socialization will be explored later in this chapter, but these issues are interrelated.
Difficulties with peer interaction can lead to stronger interaction with facultyat least
with those faculty members that are open to such interaction.
Personality type. Another relationship involves the Myers-Briggs Judging or
Perceiving dimension. Data presented in chapter 4 showed relationships between the
Judging or Perceiving dimension and indicators of academic success, that is, grade point
average and highest degree earned. In both cases, those identified with the Judging trait
reported a greater degree of success. The Myers-Briggs explanation of the difference
between these two types also helps explain the relationship with grade point average. The
Judging students are more organized in their thinking and are more accepting of straight
facts, such as formulas, definitions, and dates. Contrarily, Perceiving students seek the
story behind the facts (Myers & Briggs Foundation, 2008b). A comment from
interviewee Laura supports this analysis. When asked to describe a professor she disliked,
she described a professor who was rigid, by the book and didnt put the information
into context. As one who exhibits the Perceiving trait, she felt as though she was not
getting the story behind the facts, which was really where her interest was focused.
113
Participation. A segment of the participants (n = 57) reported a wide variety of
benefits offered to students in honors programs. Most commonly mentioned were honors
societies, scholarships, dedicated classes (often smaller than others), research
opportunities, dedicated housing, the opportunity to enroll in more classes at one time
and complete the degree faster, and special distinction at graduation. However, when
asked whether they availed themselves of these opportunities, only 6 indicated very often
and 10 indicated often. Seventeen indicated seldom, and the remaining 24 indicated
never.
One participant wrote, I HATED (sic) the honors program at (my school). She
says, she stayed in it only to get the early registration until I had enough credits to be
classified as a senior (seniors also got early registration). Her school is an NCHC
member.
Many of the never respondents referred to above reported low grades in high
school, making them ineligible for honors programs that relied upon grade point average
for admission. Nearly a third of the surveys participants indicated less-than-satisfactory
high school achievement and these participants were asked to indicate a reason for this
result. Among those who answered were participants who offered these comments:
1. Lack of stimulating environment, lack of motivation, etc. (mentioned 11 times).
2. Poor work ethic (mentioned four times).
3. Bad teachers or school (mentioned three times).
4. Too focused on other activities (mentioned three times).
5. Bad home life (mentioned twice).
One participant reported, Low high-school GPA led to rejection from (the) Honors
College component of state university with its inherent challenges, socialization, and
114
personalization . . . despite high test scores, visible determination and strong essays.
Another refers to the effect of challenges upon entering college, which was during a
high stress time (juggling multiple jobs with full-time school, health problems,
undiagnosed major depression and disowned by my family) . . . unfortunately my 2.5
GPA has not allowed me to participate in the high GPA classes.
These cases illustrate a central premise proposed at the beginning of this study,
that is, honors programs that rely upon high grades as a criterion for admission might be
failing to reach students of exceptional potential and ability who, for reasons beyond their
control, have not achieved the desired grade point average. It bears repeating that the
above comments and the many participants who did not benefit from any type of honors
or specialized academic benefit are all possessors of exceptionally high intelligence.
Recall that the Spellings report found a need to attract the best and brightest minds from
across the nation, particularly in key strategic areas such as science, engineering,
medicine, and other knowledge-intensive areas (U.S. Department of Education, 2006, p.
27). Ensuring that highly intelligent students are offered the resources they need to
succeed in college, regardless of grade point average, is important.
Research Question 4
Research Question 4 was intended to ascertain whether the study participants felt
their undergraduate colleges met their social needs. For the purposes of this study,
housing was considered a social feature. Before examining the relationships that
appeared, chapter 4 revealed that the study group as a whole reported less-than-expected
social interaction while earning the undergraduate degree.
Participants, on average, reported some participation in such activities as using a
student lounge, attending social events on campus, making use of campus recreational
115
facilities, working on an event or with a student organization, and holding a leadership
position in an organization. This relative lack of interest in social activities might relate to
the finding that the subject group expressed a strong preference for accelerated programs
and the ability to graduate sooner.
Interviews with certain participants revealed the close relationship between social
support and academic success. First, as a group, participants responded negatively to the
question, To what extent does your institution emphasize . . . helping you cope with
your nonacademic responsibilities (work, families, etc)? The mean response of 1.80
indicates a rating between very little and some. This appears to be an area where schools
might not recognize the importance of their efforts. As reported earlier, Introversion,
depression, and even suicide ideation are more prevalent among the gifted than the
general population (Baker, 1995; Cross et al., 2006; Janowsky et al., 2002). It should not
be assumed that students coming to college are prepared to handle real-life challenges
that they might be experiencing for the first time. Comments offered by interviewees in
the section regarding advising blend with this topic; in the minds of our interviewees,
there remains a need for assisting students with their transition from being dependents to
acquiring the skills they will need upon leaving college.
Participants gave a mean rating of 2.09 (or just barely past the some response)
rating when asked, To what extent does your institution emphasize . . . providing the
support you need to thrive socially? In this area, schools that maintain honors housing
might be actually doing some of their students a disservice. Not only did dedicated
housing rank last on the list of most important features presented to the study group, but
also some indicated that such housing could have an isolating effect. Consider the
comments from Helen, who lived in a house dedicated exclusively for honors students in
116
her freshman year, but then moved to regular dorms. Although she had good memories of
her experiences in the honors house, she stated, I learned a lot about myself by mixing
with the general population. (I) got to get up close and personal with people who didnt
see the world as I did. Her earlier comment bears repeating; she warned against causing
high-IQ students to get slapped in the face in the job market by making them feel so
very special for another four years. Further, participants in the survey indicated a
generally positive estimation of their fellow students and indicated via comments that IQ
was not a factor that influenced their desire to interact with other students.
Positive relationships were observed between the highest degree earned and the
participants involvement in social events and organizations. From the data in the survey,
it is not possible to postulate whether participating in campus organizations influenced
the students decisions regarding enrolling in additional degree programs, or whether
participation in these organizations was merely an indicator of a pre-existing connection
to their colleges. This positive relationship might relate to the relationship revealed
earlier between outside-of-class interaction with faculty and degrees earned.
These indicators seem to illustrate the importance of beyond-the-classroom
experiences. In fact, regardless of the nature of these student activities and organizations,
a common theme that emerged through written comments and interviews was the value
of the simple practice that such interactions allowed these students. Again, many in the
high-IQ category are introverted to the point of dysfunction, and many have been isolated
to some degree through their high school years. As Ira commented, I simply didnt know
any of my fellow students. They all led much more interesting lives and were not
interested in a nerd like me . . . at least that is what I believed. Aaron says he was
uncomfortable and had difficulty in getting along with others. He felt as though he
117
carried a label of being different and, as a result, it was harder to fit in. Marilyn says
her freshman year was awful, due to her shyness.
Interestingly, Aaron and Marilyn seemed to have no trouble participating in
student organizations such as student government committees and academic clubs.
Although Marilyn specifically commented that she did not view her extracurricular
activities as substitutes for other socialization, these activities seem to have filled a large
void for her and for Aaron. When asked whether he would have participated in high-IQ
social events, Aaron responded, Yes, absolutely. His comment is supported by Ira, who
indicated, I wouldnt have known where to go to meet other high-IQ students, and its
something I certainly would have liked to do. . . . For those more introverted students,
such as myself, it would have been immensely helpful in expanding my social circle.
Some survey participants wrote free-text comments to provide examples of the
social opportunities offered to honor students at their schools. Examples included:
1. There was an honors lounge in a separate location from the dedicated housing.
2. Parties, receptions, picnics, or the like were held at least once a semester.
3. Several social opportunities that were only available to people in the honors
program (gatherings, banquets, parties, networking).
4. The Freshman honors house that Helen described included an obligation for the
residents to host get-togethers for the honors students.
5. Honors sororities and fraternities.
6. They ranged from movie nights to (free) ballet recitals and receptions at the
presidents home.
7. Weekly social event in honors housing with faculty, special events, summer
undergrad research housing.
118
8. Student honors association that arranged volunteer and social events.
In the area of managing or taking a leadership role in a club or organization, once
again, the participants with the Judging MBTI trait reported such participation far more
often than those with the Perceiving trait (Figure 27). According to the Myers & Briggs
Foundation (2008b), those with a preference for Judging prefer a more structured and
decided lifestyle, feel more comfortable when decisions are made, and present a planned
and orderly life to others. On the other hand, those with the Perceiving preference prefer
to remain open to new information, are adaptable, and present a more flexible and
spontaneous lifestyle (Myers & Briggs Foundation, 2008b). The strong preference against
holding positions of leadership among the Perceiving subset might be reflective of a
disdain for time commitments, deadlines, and fixed schedules.
One participant saw no need for special social opportunities at her Ivy League
alma mater. She indicated that every single student had a high IQ, and it would have
seemed bizarre to have high IQ activities . . . I would not want (my school) to have
them, and I would have never attended if they did. She indicated that the survey
seemed more geared toward community college, online, or maybe state university
students, who might need such support systems.
Respondents who reported membership in a sorority or fraternity were more
likely to indicate positive opinions of their fellow students and of their schools efforts at
helping them thrive socially. However, although these relationships were statistically
significant, the number of respondents indicating membership (n = 11) was too small to
support any conclusions to be made here.
Examining the responses from those who knew their MBTI designation proved
interesting as well. When asked to rate their relationships with other students on a
119
seven-point scale, these participants demonstrated a sharp division between the Feeling
and Thinking personality types. On this scale, 1 represents competitive, uninvolved, sense
of alienation, and 7 represents friendly, supportive, sense of belonging. Not one of the
Feeling participants responded with a rating of 5, while 5 was the mode for the Thinking
group. The Feeling group indicated responses on both ends of the spectrum, while the
Thinking group displayed almost a perfect bell curve centered on the 5 (Figure 26).
This result might indicate a sensitivity on the part of the Feeling group that
magnified their perceptions of those with whom they came into contact, while the
Thinking group might be more matter-of-fact and less likely to rush to judgment. The
Myers-Briggs explanation of the Feeling or Thinking dimension supports this analysis.
Those exhibiting a preference for the Feeling trait tend to weigh others opinions and
preferences, and like to do whatever will establish or maintain harmony (Myers &
Briggs Foundation, 2008d). Applying this approach to interpersonal relationships would
conceivably result in some relationships where such an approach is welcome and others
where it is exploited. This might explain the both ends of the spectrum rating of the
Feeling groups relationships with other students. At the same time, those with the
Thinking preference tend to analyze pros and cons, and try to be impersonal so that
personal wishes do not interfere with logical decisions (Myers & Briggs Foundation,
2008d).
The last relationship to appear in the social-experience area of the study related
participation in social events with the nature of the students career. Those who reported
careers in the sciences were less likely to participate in social events. Recalling that this
group also reported an easier time taking tests, a higher grade point average, and a
tendency toward introversion, one could conclude that eschewing social events left more
120
time for studying.
Research Question 5
Research Question 5 was designed to compare the lessons learned in the first four
questions to the NCHC (2007a) guidelines. The goal was to determine how these
guidelines compared to the high-IQ needs and preferences identified in the study.
Readers should be reminded that the NCHC establishes guidelines, but that it is up to the
individual schools to adopt and implement them. Hallie Savage, the co-chair of NCHCs
Assessment and Evaluation Committee, emphasized that the guidelines (NCHC, 2007a)
are not a template or an accreditation standard, but are rather an attempt to say, at the
very least, here are some of the things (a college) needs to provide its most talented
students (H. Savage, personal communication, March 11, 2009). Actual
implementation, she states, is determined by the mission of the institution (H. Savage,
personal communication).
As shown in Table H7 (Appendix H), the respondents were separated based on
whether their undergraduate college was a member of the NCHC at the time of the
survey. Of course, present-day membership might not reflect membership at the time all
respondents were in college. This might explain why 20 respondents indicated their
NCHC-member schools did not offer academic benefits based on IQ or grade point
average. Another explanation could simply be that the school offered programs, but that
they were not well known to students who were not invited to participate. The discussion
addressing Research Question 3 described the reasons offered by participants in
explanation of less-than-satisfactory academic performance in high school. As that
discussion showed, issues such as family problems and lack of interesting courses were
often to blame for grades that were not high enough to warrant an invitation into certain
121
honors programs.
Dividing respondents based on their schools membership status has allowed this
study to accomplish two goals. First, by examining the reported experiences and
evaluations of those who attended NCHC schools and participated in honor programs, the
study can examine the effectiveness and value of these programs. Further, by comparing
responses from participants who attended NCHC schools against those from nonmember
schools, the study might discover areas where particular guidelines might need
re-examination.
To compare NCHC schools and non-NCHC schools, participants were divided
according to the undergraduate school they listed on their survey. Fifty-eight participants
listed NCHC-member schools, and 36 reported nonmember schools.
When asked to rate their schools emphasis on developing academic and scholarly
qualities, the non-NCHC schools were rated more highly than NCHC schools. Similar
results were seen for ratings of the schools emphasis on developing creative qualities
and again, on developing critical and analytical qualities (Appendix G, Items 4648).
Member institutions fared slightly better than nonmember schools in the area of
emphasizing an appreciation of human diversity.
These results do not take into consideration whether the participants attended
honors programs, so a low rating in an area for an NCHC school might be reflective of
the non-honors experience. Later in this chapter, the researcher will distill respondents
into a subgroup of those who attended NCHC schools and who participated in honors
programs while there.
Relationships shown in chapter 4 indicated that a schools faculty is one of the
strongest indicators of student success. In the item that asked participants to rate the
122
approachability and helpfulness of the faculty (Item 55), non-NCHC schools again fared
better than NCHC member institutions. This particular rating does not reflect subject
knowledge or teaching ability, but rather looks at whether the faculty members were
approachable and understanding, or remote and discouraging. Positive results were found
regarding member and nonmember schools in Item 57, the item that asked how often
students had worked with faculty members on activities other than coursework (e.g.,
committees or student life activities).
One important area of faculty interaction was related to the availability of
research opportunities. When asked to rank 10 academic and social features according to
importance, the high-IQ participants in the survey ranked research opportunities with
faculty to be the second-most-important feature (behind only the opportunity to
accelerate study and graduate early). In fact, research with faculty was chosen three times
as often as was the choice indicating small class size. Students from NCHC schools
reported more experience and more opportunity for participating in research with faculty
than did respondents from non-NCHC schools.
Another key area deserving comparison is the area of academic advising.
Relationships have already been presented that demonstrate the impact that academic
advising has on student success. The NCHC (2007a) guidelines recommend, Special
academic counseling of honors students by uniquely qualified faculty and/or staff
personnel (para. 13). Despite this guideline, respondents from NCHC schools were far
more likely than were participants from nonmember schools to describe poor academic
advising. Similarly, in the more general area of academic support, nonmember schools
received better evaluations, as they also did in the overall category that evaluated
emphasis on developing academic and scholarly qualities.
123
Poor performance by NCHC member institutions continued in the social area as
well. Students from nonmember institutions reported better evaluations of their
relationships with other students. A tendency to house honors students together at some
NCHC schools might partially explain this finding, as some respondents found such
arrangements to be socially stifling.
Again, the results summarized above are from respondents who might or might
not have participated in special programs, so it is not possible to judge the effectiveness
of specific NCHC (2007a) guidelines from those results. However, in a broader sense, the
above results indicate a lower level of overall satisfaction, in both academic and social
areas among alumni from NCHC schools than among those from nonmember institutions.
Distilling the responses further, we can make better evaluations of the NCHC honors
programs.
Respondents who both attended an NCHC school and who participated in some
version of an honors program were isolated for the following analysis. In all, 22
respondents met this qualification. The details of the responses were presented in chapter
4. They seem to indicate a general satisfaction with academic emphasis, with mean
results clustering around the 5 in a 7-point scale. Similarly, average ratings were seen for
academic advising and support. Nevertheless, in the social areas, the respondents rated
these NCHC schools more poorly, with mean scores below 2 on a 4-point Likert scale.
The current NCHC (2007a) guidelines contain no mention of social development or
support.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Several recommendations for improving the college experience for high-IQ
students emerged from this study. These recommendations resulted from an analysis of
124
the data and interviews, and are presented in response to Research Question 6.
Reach. The participants in this study have demonstrated that many of them did not
benefit from the academic opportunities designed to enrich the college experience for the
most capable students, despite their high intelligence. The failure to reach and engage
many of the brightest students on an academic level certainly merits further scrutiny and
correction. The statement by Freeman (2006) regarding intelligence bears repeating; he
wrote, Intelligence . . . is only part of the complex dynamics of exceptionally high-level
performance, which must include extracognitive dynamics such as self-esteem, support,
and motivationas well as opportunity (p. 389).
Currently, each school decides its own criteria for entrance into their honors
programs. The NCHC (2007a) guidelines could be modified to encourage schools to offer
participation in honors programs to students with demonstrated high intelligence without
regard to grade point average, or at least to allow so-qualified entering freshmen to
participate on a probationary basis. This will extend the benefits prescribed in the
guidelines to those students with superior intellectual potential. It also appears that some
students who qualify under the current criteria are not aware of the opportunities
available to them, which indicates a need to improve the orientation and advising of
incoming students.
Another way of reaching the high-IQ students is to include them in the process.
The NCHC maintains an elected board of directors, on which students from NCHC
member institutions are included (H. Savage, personal communication, March 11, 2009).
An effort to include a high-IQ representative in these bodies would help bring the
high-IQ perspective to the process of developing honors program guidelines. This
perspective might or might not be currently represented; admittedly, many honors
125
students are also high-IQ, but it is not a certainty.
Housing. The idea of specialized housing for honors or high-IQ students received
mixed reviews. Some participants reported feeling segregated and isolated, even in high
school, and that dedicated honors housing in college continued this isolation. They
reported difficulty with socialization and a desire to interact more with the general
student body. Certainly, some reported benefits from living in dedicated housing, so the
choice should be up to the student. It bears repeating that housing was the
least-mentioned feature on the part of the survey that ranked the importance of 10
academic and social benefits.
Advising. The quality of academic advising was mentioned often as a complaint
on the survey, and comments from interviewees provided more insight. Participants
report seeing their advisors as merely someone to sign off on the choices that they (the
students) had made on their own. College students in general often enter college without
knowing what kind of career they want to pursue, or even what their scholastic options
are. It seems likely that the general student population would echo the complaints heard
in this study regarding advising.
Advising deserves special emphasis here, for two additional reasons. First, the
data show a relationship between level of academic support received and the students
success. Second, advising for honors students already receives specific mention in the
NCHC (2007a) guidelines. In this area, the guidelines seem to be on point, but the
schools are not living up to the standard. Advisers in general could do more to reach their
students, learn their interests and talents, and help them plan their academic careers rather
than simply approve the students own selections. Marilyn suggested surveying incoming
freshmen to learn their interests and needs. In addition, those who work with honors
126
students or the highly intelligent should not only be uniquely qualified as the NCHC
(2007a) guidelines specify (para. 13), but should also be trained to understand the special
challenges that high-IQ students present. Training in recognizing psychological distress,
understanding Introversion, respecting social preferences, etc, would make these
special advisors more effective.
Adding a career preparation emphasis to advising is also called for. Most schools
maintain a separate career placement office, but advisers should be able to help students
to research career options and to examine their possibilities.
Faculty interaction. The quality of faculty and instruction was not an issue raised
in the study, but the level of faculty interaction outside the classroom emerged as a
recurring theme. Those reporting positive interaction with faculty members, whether
asking for career advice or participating in a project of some sort, reported greater levels
of success and satisfaction. The data behind this comment are presented in chapter 4 and
discussed earlier in chapter 5. Faculty should be made aware of the strong positive impact
of their interaction with students. On a related note, the feature that was rated the second
highest of the 10 features presented to survey participants was the opportunity to
participate in research with faculty. This topic is not addressed in the NCHC (2007a)
guidelines, but should be considered.
Class size. Although the NCHC (2007a) guidelines do not specify class size, they
do call for special courses, seminars, colloquia, and independent study (para. 5).
Among the seven academic features listed on the survey, small class size was the least
important. A suggestion to consider would be to use some of the resources currently
being dedicated toward providing honors students with small classes and focus more
attention and resources on providing opportunities for students to participate in research
127
and other outside-the-classroom activities with faculty members. The guideline that
recommends offering opportunities for students to participate in regional and national
conferences, honors semesters, international programs, community service, and other
types of experiential education is right on-point.
Social needs. A recurring theme among the literature, the survey, and the
interviews was a pronounced difficulty among high-intelligent students to interact and
socialize with their peers. Many are burdened with introversion to a debilitating degree,
and others simply had limited interaction outside their gifted and honors classes in high
school. Four participants answered yes when asked whether they participated in social
events in college that catered to high-IQ students, and 67 others indicated that they would
haveif such activities had been available. By contrast, only two said they did not
participate and 21 would not have if they had been available. In other words, 2 out of
every 3 high-IQ students surveyed indicated that they would have participated in such
activities if they had been made available. Keeping in mind that the participants for this
study were selected from a social organization that is exclusive to high-IQ members and,
therefore, not representative of all high-IQ students, it remains evident that attention
should be paid to the social aspects of the high-IQ students college experience.
Transition assistance. College is a time of transition. Students who enter college
straight out of high school are suddenly faced with decisions that will affect the rest of
their lives. Those who leave home take on the extra challenge of suddenly managing their
own daily lives, including responding to the temptations and pitfalls that come with their
newfound freedom. In this sense, high-IQ students are no different than the othersthey
might very well be arriving at this crucial point without family support, adequate skills
development, social confidence, or a clear idea of their futures. The interview with
128
Marilyn illustrates the need for some kind of needs assessment effort for incoming
students.
The second transition occurs as the student leaves college and enters the working
world. Two of the five high-IQ students interviewed for this study, all of whom finished
college with good grades, independently reported a feeling of not knowing what to do
upon graduating. These are college graduates with 98th-percentile IQs who succeeded
according to the measurements: good grades and completed degree. That they report a
feeling of desperation and confusion, despite achieving academic success, indicates a
strong need for another needs assessment intervention prior to graduation. Pamphlets in
a room is not adequate. The NCHC should add these interventions to their guidelines,
and schools should offer them to non-honors students.
Implications of the Findings
The findings presented in this study might be used as a starting point for
examining the effectiveness of the NCHC (2007a) guidelines from the point of view of
the high-IQ student. Moreover, non-NCHC schools might learn valuable insights that will
be useful in the design and implementation of their own honor programs. The data that
indicate the importance of the social component might prove to be particularly
enlightening.
These findings might help dispel some common myths regarding the gifted
college student. First, the survey responses support the initial premise of this study:
Honors programs that choose candidates based only on grades are missing many of the
most promising students. As the literature and survey indicated, lack of motivation in
high school, difficult family situations, and other challenges can negatively affect a
students grades, but this does not mean the student does not possess superior intelligence
129
and potential. Second, there appears to be a belief among many who are charged with
providing academic advising that students who earn good grades do not require any
assistance. As has been shown, even students with Grade A averages can have emotional
trouble and uncertainty regarding their choice of major. These high-achieving students
might drop out if they are depressed, confused, or not feeling as though their time in
college is benefiting them. Third, it seems to be a common perception that
higher-performing students prefer smaller classes. The data shown in this study indicated
that high-IQ college students cared less about class size than about all of the other
academic characteristics offered. If further study validates this finding, perhaps schools
will turn their attention and resources more toward those features that the high-IQ
students value more strongly, such as the opportunity to participate in research with
faculty members.
Last, at the risk of overstating the importance of this study, the findings presented
here might prove to have an impact on American society in general, particularly if these
findings lead to further, more comprehensive study. Our country faces historic
challenges, including deep economic troubles, climate change, shaky international
relations, and an unhealthy dependence on petroleum. Who will be our next generation of
problem solvers to tackle these issues? The U.S. Department of Education (2006)
expressed concern regarding the countrys ability to produce informed and skilled
citizens who are able to lead and compete in the 21st-Century global marketplace (p.
13). If American colleges continue to allow their gifted students to drop out and continue
to assume that the current programs are doing the best they can to meet the needs of these
special students, they do a disservice to society. By better understanding the needs and
preferences of the exceptionally intelligent college student, colleges might be able to give
130
them the tools and support they need to make the best use of their potential.
Limitations and Delimitations
Participants in this study were self-selecting, in the sense that participation was
voluntary. The only stated requirements were that participants belong to Mensa, be of a
particular age group, and have experience as a student at an American college or
university. The study was limited to members of Mensa because imposing this restriction
ensured that the participants had documented evidence of an IQ reliably measured at or
above the 98th percentile. The study was also limited to participants who had experience
at American colleges or universities, for these institutions subscribe to the NCHC (2007a)
guidelines. The participants needed not have graduated to participate.
Due to the nature of the data collection method, the participants needed access to
a computer with an Internet connection and had to have the basic computer skills
necessary to complete the online survey. The survey and interviews were conducted in
English, so survey participants had to be able to follow directions written in English, and
those participants who were selected for interviews had to have been able to
communicate verbally in English. Further, it is important to note that the participants
were selected through Mensa; therefore, it follows that participation in this study was
limited to those who had been inclined to join such an organization. This means that
members of the general population who met the intelligence and college-related
requirements, but who had not joined Mensa, were excluded from the study. This fact
might have affected the portion of the survey that dealt with social and interpersonal
characteristics.
Moreover, recruitment for the survey was conducted through the online message
boards run by Special Interest Groups within Mensa, which are exclusive, based on age.
131
Therefore, Mensa members who did not meet the age requirement or who did not
participate in the online communities might not have been aware of the study.
The researcher did not participate in an honors program in college, so the
researchers personal academic experiences did not influence participant selection or data
analysis. In his career, the author has worked for four institutions of higher education, as
a resident assistant, instructor, program director, and an associate dean; however, none of
the institutions at which the researcher worked in an academic capacity offers an honors
program.
The researcher is an active member in Mensa. Because of this, there would
ordinarily be the danger of the researcher exhibiting bias due to the halo effect; that is,
the researcher might treat certain participants favorably due to a favorable impression of
those participants (Gall et al., 2003). However, all participants in this study were drawn
from the membership of Mensa; therefore, the halo effect was negated. In other words,
any cognitive bias that might have been generated would have applied to all participants
equally.
As noted in an earlier section, the majority of the items on the questionnaire were
adapted from well-known instruments of documented validity and reliability. However,
as necessary to cover the research questions, the researcher also created a number of
survey items. The Instrument section describes the steps taken to establish the validity
of the author-created items.
The researcher included several comments in the narrative, recognizing the fact
that the NCHC membership status of institutions can change from year to year, and that
the results reported and discussed in this study reflect the NCHC status of the institutions
involved as of the implementation of the survey. A school that is considered an NCHC
132
school in this study might or might not have been an NCHC member during the time the
participant actually attended.
Portions of the study involve participants Myers-Briggs personality indicators.
The researcher relied upon participants to self-report their MBTI type, if known.
Independently assessing or verifying participants MBTI type was not part of the study.
Four common threats to validity must be considered. Creswell (2003) defines
internal validity threats as procedures in the study or characteristics of the participants
that threaten the researchers ability to draw correct inferences from the data in an
experiment (p. 171). For example, the researcher took measures to ensure that those who
were invited to participate in the survey truly belonged to Mensa.
A second category of common threats to the validity of a study is external threats.
These occur when the researcher draws incorrect inferences from the data and applies
findings to other groups or situations (Creswell, 2003). For example, if only men had
participated in the survey, it would not have been valid to apply the lessons learned in the
study to all high-IQ college students. The researcher collected demographic information
from survey participants to ensure that the study would include participants who
represent a variety of personality types, areas of study, and types of schools attended,
among other factors discussed above.
Another common threat to the validity of a study is statistical invalidity, which
occurs when the researcher makes incorrect conclusions, due to flaws in the statistical
assumptions (Creswell, 2003). Statistical invalidity is a strong concern in quantitative
studies or studies that focus on outcomes. Last, Creswell states, Threats to construct
validity occur when investigators use inadequate definitions and measures of variables
(p. 171). The researcher has attempted to limit the threats to the construct validity of the
133
study by using survey items of documented validity and reliability. The copy of the
instrument that appears in Appendix G indicates the source of each survey item (NSSE,
CSEQ, or author). The researcher also used pilot testing and a formative committee to
maximize the construct validity of the few survey items that were created specifically for
this study. Gall et al. (2003) recommend the pilot study include a sample of individuals
from the population from which you plan to draw your respondents (p. 230). The
researcher followed this advice.
Recommendations for Further Research
The findings presented in this report might serve as a jumping-off point for
further research in several directions. First, more research is called for regarding the
gifted college student in general. Much research has been reported concerning high-IQ
children and adolescents, but the research falls off at the college level. Interviews with
this studys respondents indicate a need to learn more about the prevalence of depression,
isolation, and other issues that might impede the academic success of high-IQ students.
For example, Janowsky et al. (2002) reported that suicide ideation is more prevalent
among Introvert and Perceiving types, and Cross et al. (2006) and Baker (1995) reported
that gifted adolescents are more susceptible to depression and psychological distress than
is the general population. How do these conditions affect the gifted adolescent upon
entering college? Does being away from home and being charged with unprecedented
responsibility improve or worsen this situation? How are these students affected socially
and academically?
A related area that calls for further research is the field of personality types and
their impact on a students college experience. The participants in this study exhibited
traits in line with the Myers-Briggs definitions, and their free-text and interview
134
comments fortified the notion that personality type strongly affects many aspects of ones
college experience. Of particular interest is the impact of the Judging or Perceiving
dimension. In several areas of this study, the Judging trait related directly to better
engagement and better academic performance. Those reporting the Judging trait reported
higher grade point averages, a stronger tendency to earn graduate degrees, and a stronger
tendency to be involved in student organizations. Is the undergraduate experience
oriented too strongly toward this type of student, favoring the dissemination of straight
facts at the expense of deeper understanding of their meaning? Three statistically
significant relationships suggest this is more than coincidence.
Certainly, another area related to personality types that merits further research is
the impact of Extraversion and Introversion. As noted, gifted adolescents exhibit the
Introversion preference at a much higher rate than the general population. Comments
offered by participants of this study illustrate how strong an impact this trait can have,
and it can be made worse by well-meaning policies such as dedicated housing and
independent study programs. In addition, it is interesting to note that more than 46% of
the Introvert respondents in this study pursued science-related careers after college,
compared to 20% of the Extravert respondents (see Figure 17). These numbers might
merit further investigation. For instance, is it possible to attract more high-IQ students
into science-related careers, where they are badly needed, by making college science
programs more appealing to students who possess the Extraversion trait? Future
investigators might consider assessing MBTI types independently, rather than relying on
participants to know and report their types.
The dissatisfaction with academic advising was a common theme in this study. A
study to determine how often high-IQ students switch majors during their undergraduate
135
experience might prove to be an area of further research that positively affects this
situation. What are their reasons for changing majors? How often do they switch, and
how easy or difficult is the process? It is conceivable that students entering college in
their late teens are not aware of the many possibilities that lie before them, and that
exposure to other careers and interests while in their first few semesters might ignite a
desire for a change of direction. Achieving a better understanding of this thought process,
and passing that understanding to academic advisors might help make them more
effective and more in tune with the needs of the high-IQ student. As comments from
Marilyn, Aaron, and Laura showed, it is both easy and destructive for an adviser to see
good grades on a transcript and then to assume that the student has his or her academic
issues under control.
Rinn (2005) documented a drop in academic self-concept between a students
junior and senior years that was both significant and unexpected. Perhaps the insecurity
and anxiety about feeling unprepared for life after college, as expressed by three of the
interviewees, contributed to that decline. A study that compares senior-level academic
self-concept between schools would be interesting, as those findings might correlate with
student evaluations of academic advising at those institutions.
An obvious opportunity for further research involves expanding the study
described in this report. Members of American Mensa are given the optional opportunity
of providing personal data to the organizations membership department; as of January
2009, 10,900 members with birth years between 1961 and 1988 reported some college
experience, and 8962 reported earning a degree (H. Prince, personal communication,
January 22, 2009). This group represents a convenient and sizeable, sample group that
represents high-IQ college graduates who have attended college recently enough for the
136
results to be relevant. A follow-up study could build on the current study by eliminating
the areas that did not yield meaningful results and focusing on those that did.
This study pointed out different experiences between male and female students in
several areas. It is not known whether these differences exist only among the high-IQ
population or whether they exist also among the general college population. An example
would be the tendency for females to rate their overall experience positively and to give
better reviews of their schools academic support. A number of possible realities could
explain these data: Are females simply more predisposed to be nice on these surveys?
Do females have an honest but inaccurate perception and recollection of the quality of
their schools academic support? Were female students simply more likely than males to
seek out academic resources? Are academic resources somehow more accessible to
female students? Finding the root causes for these relationships could help colleges adjust
their systems of academic support so that all students can make the best use of these
resources.
All of these issues could be studied further to see how they apply in the world of
online education. Online instruction is now accepted by the accrediting bodies and is
growing at a fast pace. This method of study caters to the Introverted and the Judging
personality types, as group interaction and discussion and are all but impossible in this
environment. The conveniences of online education will be as attractive to high-IQ
students as they would be to any student, so research into its effectiveness in meeting the
needs of these high-IQ students is warranted.
An expanded study with a larger high-IQ sample group could include a
comparison of results with the results compiled by the researchers that administer the
CSEQ and NSSE. Areas where the high-IQ group deviates from the general sample
137
groups might prove to be worthy of further investigation.
A thorough review of procedures and outcomes at NCHC member institutions
might be valuable. Collecting student MBTI types and IQs, along with demographic
information, would allow a future researcher to explore some of the intriguing
relationships revealed in this study. Polling participating students on the features they
consider most important would help the NCHC to develop the most effective guidelines.
Last, further research is called for in the general area of honors programs.
Long-held beliefs might be revealed as erroneous if, for instance, further research
validates the finding in this study that small classes are not very important to the high-IQ
student. It would be valuable to compare the colleges internal evaluations of their honors
programs against the perceptions of the students and faculty who have participated in
them. Such a study might help these schools, and the NCHC, adjust their programs so
that resources are spent on the features that these students truly find valuable.
138
References
Allitt, P. (2006). Should undergraduates specialize? The Chronicle of Higher Education,
52(41), B7.
American Mensa, Ltd. (2005). Quarterly report: Fall 2005. Dallas, TX: H. Miller.
American Mensa, Ltd. (2007, March). Guidelines and procedures for research involving
Mensa members as research subjects. Arlington, TX: Author.
American Mensa, Ltd. (2008). Join Mensa. Retrieved March 3, 2008, from http://www.
us.mensa.org/join
American Mensa, Ltd. (2009). Special interest groups. Retrieved March 8, 2009, from
http://www.us.mensa.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=SIG_List&Template=/
customsource/SIGs-p.cfm
American Psychological Association. (2006). Intelligence quotient. Psychology Matters.
Retrieved December 12, 2007, from http://www.psychologymatters.org/
glossary.html
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297308.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bajdek, A. J. & Kim, S. (1999, Spring). Student opinion surveys at Northeastern
University. New Directions for Student Services, 85, 2332.
Baker, J. A. (1995). Depression and suicidal ideation among academically talented
adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(4), 219233.
Baldwin-Wallace College. (2006). Honors program. Retrieved November 1, 2007, from
http://www.bw.edu/academics/Honors/about
Ballas, P. (2006). IQ Testing: Definitions. National Institutes of Health. Retrieved
December 12, 2007, from http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/
001912.htm
Berry College. (2007). Honors program. Retrieved November 1, 2007, from
http://www.berry.edu/provost/Honors
Bickley, N. Z. (2001). The social and emotional adjustment of gifted children who
experience asynchronous development and unique educational needs. (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Connecticut). Retrieved from ProQuest Digital
Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 3034004).
139
Burwell, R. (2005). Report: College student experiences questionnaire Messiah
College seniors, Spring 2004. Grantham, PA: Office of Academic Assessment,
Messiah College.
Campbell, K. C. (2005). Allocation of resources: Should honors programs take priority?
Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, 6(1), 7583.
Caplan, A. (2003). Is better best? A noted ethicist argues in favor of brain enhancement.
Scientific American, 289(3), 104105.
Carlson, J. G. (1989). Affirmative: In support of researching the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator: Reply and rebuttal. Journal of Counseling and Development, 67(8),
484486.
Carver, R., & Nash, J. (2006). Doing data analysis with SPSS. Belmont, CA: Thomson.
Chickering, A. W. (2000). Creating community within individual courses. New
Directions for Higher Education, 109, 2333.
Christopher, M. M. (2003). Perceptions of the university Honors College by gifted
university students: A case study. (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University).
Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT
3108689).
Cloud, J. (2007, August 27). Are we failing our geniuses? Time, 170, 4044.
College Board, Inc. (2008). About the SAT. Retrieved April 14, 2008, from http://www.
collegeboard.com/testing
Cossentino, A. L. (2006). Understanding the experiences, satisfaction and performance of
honors students: A multisite case study at public higher education institutions.
(Doctoral dissertation, The University of Nebraska Lincoln). Retrieved from
ProQuest Digital Dissertations Database. (Publication No. AAT 3243737).
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cross, T. L., Cassady, J.C., & Miller, K.A. (2006). Suicide ideation and personality
characteristics among gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(4), 295306.
Cross, T. L., Speirs Neumeister, K. L., & Cassady, J. C. (2007). Psychological types of
academically gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 285295.
Davidson Academy. (2006). What is the Davidson Academy of Nevada? Retrieved
November 25, 2006, from http://www.davidsonacademy.unr.edu
140
DeHart, K. E. (1993). A comparative study of two northeast Ohio universities' honors
programs: The University of Akron and Kent State University. (Doctoral
dissertation, The University of Akron). Retrieved from ProQuest Digital
Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 9409215).
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of
qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (pp. 1-29). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dickeson, R. C. (2001, April). Setting educational priorities: High achievers speak out.
Paper presented at the meeting of the Ameritchieve Forum, Indianapolis, IN.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 454 946)
Dunning, D. (2006). Not knowing thyself. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(35),
B24.
Folger, W. A., Kanitz, H. E., Knudsen, A. E., & McHenry, S. (2003). Analysis of MBTI
patterns in college scholars. College Student Journal, 37(4), 598-603. Retrieved
from ProQuest Psychology Journals database. (Document ID: 534651191).
Freedman, J. (2000). Personal and school factors influencing academic success or
underachievement of intellectually gifted students in middle childhood. (Doctoral
dissertation, Yale University). Retrieved from ProQuest Digital dissertations
database. (Publication No. AAT 9973688).
Freeman, J. (2006). Giftedness in the long term. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
29(4), 384405.
Frey, M., & Detterman, D. (2004). Scholastic assessment or G? The relationship between
the Scholastic Assessment Test and general cognitive ability. Journal of the
Mensa Education and Research Foundation, 35(3), 612.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction.
Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Golden, D. (2000, February 11). Class of their own: Home-schooled pupils are making
colleges sit up and take notice. Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition), p. A1.
Retrieved October 10, 2007, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID:
49412238).
Gonyea, R. M., Kish, K.E., Kuh, G. D., Muthiah, R., & Thomas, A. (2003). College
Student Experiences Questionnaire Norms for the Fourth Edition. Bloomington,
IN: Centre for Postgraduate Research, Policy and Planning, Indiana University.
Gonzales, A. H., & Nelson, L. M. (2005). Learner-centered instruction promotes student
success. Technical Horizons in Education Journal, 32(6), 1015.
141
Greenspon, T. (2000). The self experience of the gifted person: Theory and definitions.
Roeper Review, 22, 176.
Hadaway, N. L., & Marek-Schroer, M. F. (1992). Multidimensional assessment of the
gifted minority student. Roeper Review, 15, 7377.
Hammond, D. R., McBee, M. T., & Hebert, T. P. (2007). Exploring the motivational
trajectories of gifted university students. Roeper Review, 29(3), 197205.
Hebert, T. P., & McBee, M. T. (2007). The impact of an undergraduate honors program
on gifted university students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(2), 136152.
Hicks, D. J. (2003). Factors affecting choice and perceptions of quality of the University
of Tennessee, Knoxville: A qualitative study. (Doctoral dissertation, The
University of Tennessee). Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations
database. (Publication No. AAT 3104388).
Huck, S.W. (2004). Reading statistics and research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Huggett, K. N. D. (2003). A grounded theory of high-quality undergraduate honors
programs. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Wisconsin Madison).
Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT
3089609).
Indiana University Bloomington. (2007a). National Survey of Student Engagement.
Retrieved from http://nsse.iub.edu/html/survey_instruments_2008.cfm
Indiana University Bloomington. (2007b). 2002 Psychometric framework. Retrieved
from http://www.nsse.iub.edu/html/psychometric_framework_2002.cfm
Indiana University Bloomington. (2008). Using NSSE data. Retrieved from
http://nsse.iub.edu/institute/?view=tools/using_nsse_data
Intertel. (2008). About Intertel. Retrieved March 3, 2008, from http://www.
intertel-iq.org/about.php
Janowsky, D. S., Morter, S., & Hong, L. (2002). Relationship of Myers-Briggs type
indicator personality characteristics to suicidality in affective disorder patients.
Journal of Psychiatric Research, 36(1), 3339.
Johnson, W. L., Mauzey, E., Johnson, A. M., Murphy, S. D., & Zimmerman, K. J.
(2001). A higher order analysis of the factor structure of the Myers-Briggs type
indicator. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34(2),
96109.
Klicka, C. (2006). Homeschooled students excel in college. Home School Legal Defense
Association. Retrieved October 10, 2007, from http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/
142
000000/00000017.asp
Kuh, G. D. (2001, May). What really matters to student learning. Change, 35, 2432.
Kuh, G. D. (2003a, March). What were learning about student engagement from NSSE.
Change, 35, 2432.
Kuh, G. D. (2003b). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual
framework and overview of psychometric properties. Retrieved from
http://uat.okstate.edu/assessment/surveys/student/nsse/2002/info/
reliability_validity.htm
Long, B. T. (2002). Attracting the best: The use of honors programs to compete for
students. (Report No. HE 035 005). Chicago, IL: Spencer Foundation. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 465 355)
Louisiana Tech University. (2003).The honors program: Building a foundation for the
21st Century. Louisiana Tech University. Retrieved on January 9, 2008, from
http://www.latech.edu/tech/academics/Honors/about.html
Lounsbury, J. W., Saudargas, R. A., & Gibson, L. W. (2004). An investigation of
personality traits in relation to intention to withdraw from college. Journal of
College Student Development, 45(5), 517535.
Lundberg, C. A. & Schreiner, L. A. (2004). Quality and frequency of facultystudent
interaction as predictors of learning: An analysis by student race/ethnicity.
Journal of College Student Development, 45(5), 549565.
Marriner, N. R. (2007). Above average ability, creativity and self-efficacy as predictors
of success for honors students. (Doctoral dissertation, State University of New
York at Buffalo). Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database.
(Publication No. AAT 3244252).
McMillan, J. H. (2004). Educational research fundamentals for the consumer. Boston,
MA: Pearson Education.
Moore, L. S., Dettlaff, A. J., & Dietz, T. J. (2004). Using the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator in field education supervision. Journal of Social Work Education, 40(2),
337350.
Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1998). Five reasons why the big five article has been
frequently cited. Personnel Psychology, 51(4), 849857.
Myers & Briggs Foundation. (2008a). Extraversion or introversion. Retrieved April 14,
2008, from http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/
mbti-basics/extraversion-or-introversion.asp
143
Myers & Briggs Foundation. (2008b). Judging or perceiving. Retrieved March 7, 2009,
from http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/
judging-or-perceiving.asp
Myers & Briggs Foundation. (2008c). MBTI Basics. Retrieved April 14, 2008, from
http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics
Myers & Briggs Foundation. (2008d). Thinking or feeling. Retrieved March 7, 2009,
from http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/
thinking-or-feeling.asp
Nadel, L. (2008). Introverted intuitives: Managing diversity in the workplace. Interbeing,
2(1), 1-10. Retrieved from ProQuest Religion database. (Document
ID: 1680535201).
National Collegiate Honors Council. (2007a). Basic characteristics of a fully developed
honors program. Retrieved January 10, 2009, from http://www.nchchonors.org/
basichonorsprogramcharacteristics.shtml
National Collegiate Honors Council. (2007b). Members. Retrieved August 25, 2007 from
http://www.nchchonors.org/nchc_members.htm
National Collegiate Honors Council. (2007c). The Constitution of the National Collegiate
Honors Council. Retrieved May 21, 2009 from http://www.nchchonors.org/files/
NCHC-Constitution-Bylaws-Standing-Orders-Current.pdf
Nichols, T. & Pass, A. (1993). Focus on individuality: Allow your students to bring their
personalities into the classroom. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 5,
2628.
Oklahoma State University. (2002). NSSE Survey reliability and validity. Retrieved
March 2, 2008 from http://uat.okstate.edu/assessment/surveys/student/nsse/2002/
info/ reliability_validity.htm
Oppenheimer, M. (2006). Where have all the intellectuals gone? The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 53(5), B14B15.
Ouimet, J., Carini, R., Kuh, G., & Bunnage, J. (2001, June). Using focus groups to
establish the validity and reliability of a college student survey. Paper presented at
the meeting of the Association of Institutional Research, Long Beach, CA.
Pace, C. R., & Kuh, G. (1998). College Student Experiences Questionnaire. Retrieved
March 1, 2008, from http://www.cseq.iub.edu
Parker, J. D., & Michael, C. (2006). When smart students fail: Emotional intelligence
and academic success. Trent University. Retrieved from http://www.
trentu.ca/oirsp/documents/06-CIRPA-EI.pdf
144
Rinn, A. N. (2005). Trends among Honors College students: An analysis by year in
school. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16(4), 157167.
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), 232246.
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), 5470.
Sak, U. (2004). A synthesis of research on psychological types of gifted adolescents.
Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15(2), 7081.
Salter, D. W., Forney, D. S., & Evans, N. J. (2005). Two approaches to examining the
stability of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator scores. Measurement and Evaluation in
Counseling and Development, 37(4), 208220.
Shushok, F. X., Jr. (2002). Educating the best and the brightest: Collegiate honors
programs and the intellectual, social and psychological development of
students. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland). Retrieved from
ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 3070562).
Sprinthall, R. (2003). Basic statistical analysis. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
SurveyMethods, Inc. (2007). Creating Effective Surveys: Six Steps to Relevant Feedback.
Retrieved March 2, 2008, from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/
qual.php
Trochim, W. M. K. (2006a). Qualitative measures. Web center for social research
methods. Retrieved February 9, 2008, from http://www.socialresearchmethods.
net/kb/qual.php
Trochim, W. M. K. (2006b). Likert scaling. Web center for social research methods.
Retrieved February 9, 2008, from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/
scalgen.php
U.S. Department of Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S.
higher education (DOE Publication No. ED 1.2:L 47/10). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Williams, J.M. (2007). CSEQ assessment program. Indiana University Center for
Postsecondary Research. Retrieved from http://cpr.iub.edu/uploads/ AIR_2007_
Kansas%20City.pdf
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
145
Appendix A
National Collegiate Honors Council:
Basic Characteristics of a Fully Developed Honors Program
146
Basic Characteristics of a Fully Developed Honors Program
No one model of an Honors program can be superimposed on all types of institutions.
However, there are characteristics that are common to successful fully developed Honors
programs. Listed below are those characteristics, although not all characteristics are
necessary for an Honors program to be considered a successful and/or fully developed
Honors program.
A fully developed Honors program should be carefully set up to accommodate the
special needs and abilities of the undergraduate students it is designed to serve. This
entails identifying the targeted student population by some clearly articulated set of
criteria (e.g., GPA, SAT score, a written essay). A program with open admission needs to
spell out expectations for retention in the program and for satisfactory completion of
program requirements.
The program should have a clear mandate from the institutional administration
ideally in the form of a mission statement clearly stating the objectives and
responsibilities of the program and defining its place in both the administrative and
academic structure of the institution. This mandate or mission statement should be such
as to assure the permanence and stability of the program by guaranteeing an adequate
budget and by avoiding any tendency to force the program to depend on temporary or
spasmodic dedication of particular faculty members or administrators. In other words, the
program should be fully institutionalized so as to build thereby a genuine tradition of
excellence.
The Honors director should report to the chief academic officer of the institution.
There should be an Honors curriculum featuring special courses, seminars,
colloquia, and independent study established in harmony with the mission statement and
147
in response to the needs of the program.
The program requirements themselves should include a substantial portion of the
participants undergraduate work, usually in the vicinity of 20% to 25% of their total
course work and certainly no less than 15%.
The program should be so formulated that it relates effectively both to all the
college work for the degree (e.g., by satisfying general education requirements) and to the
area of concentration, departmental specialization, pre-professional or professional
training.
The program should be both visible and highly reputed throughout the institution
so that it is perceived as providing standards and models of excellence for students and
faculty across the campus.
Faculty participating in the program should be fully identified with the aims of the
program. They should be carefully selected on the basis of exceptional teaching skills and
the ability to provide intellectual leadership to able students.
The program should occupy suitable quarters constituting an Honors center with
such facilities as an Honors library, lounge, reading rooms, personal computers and other
appropriate decor.
The director or other administrative officer charged with administering the
program should work in close collaboration with a committee or council of faculty
members representing the colleges and/or departments served by the program.
The program should have in place a committee of Honors students to serve as
liaison with the Honors faculty committee or council who must keep them fully informed
on the program and elicit their cooperation in evaluation and development. This student
group should enjoy as much autonomy as possible conducting the business of the
148
committee in representing the needs and concerns of all Honors students to the
administration, and it should also be included in governance, serving on the
advisory/policy committee as well as constituting the group that governs the student
association.
There should be provisions for special academic counseling of Honors students by
uniquely qualified faculty and/or staff personnel.
The Honors program, in distinguishing itself from the rest of the institution,
serves as a kind of laboratory within which faculty can try things they have always
wanted to try but for which they could find no suitable outlet. When such efforts are
demonstrated to be successful, they may well become institutionalized thereby raising the
general level of education within the college or university for all students. In this
connection, the Honors curriculum should serve as a prototype for things that can work
campus-wide in the future.
The fully developed Honors program must be open to continuous and critical
review and be prepared to change in order to maintain its distinctive position of offering
distinguished education to the best students in the institution.
A fully developed program will emphasize the participatory nature of the Honors
educational process by adopting such measures as offering opportunities for students to
participate in regional and national conferences, Honors semesters, international
programs, community service, and other types of experiential education.
Fully developed two-year and four-year honors programs will have articulation
agreements by which Honors graduates from two-year colleges are accepted into fouryear Honors programs when they meet previously agreed-upon requirements.
A fully developed program will provide priority enrollment for honors students
149
who are active in the program in recognition of their unique class scheduling needs.
(National Collegiate Honors Council, 2007a).
150
Appendix B
MENSA Research Review Committee Approval Letter
151
152
Appendix C
CSEQ Item Use Agreement
153
154
155
Appendix D
NSSE Item Use Agreement
156
157
158
Appendix E
Survey Consent Form
159
Identifying the Needs and Preferences of Highly Intelligent College Students

Purpose: You are invited to participate in a study being conducted by a Mensan who is
completing a Doctor of Education degree at Nova Southeastern University. The purpose
of the study is to identify the unique needs and preferences that exist in common among
college students with high IQs. For this study, high IQ is defined as an IQ measured at or
above the 98th percentile. The researcher is interested in your experiences and opinions.
Participation Requirements: Participants are being sought through Mensa and Intertel
(2008), as these groups have taken care to verify that their members meet the 98%
percentile requirement. Participants must have attended an undergraduate college in the
United States. This survey is open to current students as well as graduates and former
students.
Procedure: You will be presented with a 74-item survey. It will take approximately 20
minutes to complete.
Researcher: The researcher conducting this study is Michael Whalen and he may be
contacted at any time with questions or concerns. You may contact him at
whalen809@comcast.net or by phone at (740) 5129583.
Potential Risk/Discomfort: Although there are no known risks in this study, some of the
information may be personally sensitive (such as questions about your age, gender, and
college grades). However, you may withdraw at any time and you may choose not to
answer any question that you feel uncomfortable in answering.
Benefits to Participants: There are no direct benefits to you for participating in this
160
research. No incentives are being offered. It is hoped that the outcome of the study may
lead to certain colleges adopting changes that benefit students with high IQs.
Anonymity/Confidentiality: The data collected in this study are confidential. All survey
data are coded such that your name and organizational affiliation are not associated with
them. Should you choose to participate in the interview phase of the study, you will be
asked for your name and contact information. NOTE: You will be asked to provide your
Mensa or Intertel (2008) member ID number, so that the researcher may verify
participant qualifications. All member ID numbers will be destroyed immediately upon
verification, and will not be published. Participants who voluntarily provide contact
information as consent to be interviewed will have their data and identity known to the
researcher but no identifying information will be included in any reports.
Right to Withdrawal: You may withdrawal from the study at any time, and you may skip
questions without answering them.
Electronic Consent: By clicking on the button below, I certify that I have read the above
description of the study, and I agree to participate.
161
Appendix F
Interview Consent Form
162
163
164
165
Appendix G
Student Survey
166
Note: Delivering this instrument via on online delivery method required a change
in the physical formatting and numbering of some items from what is presented in this
hard copy. Certain questions listed below contain follow-up questions that might or might
not have been presented to the respondent, depending on the answer to the primary
question. Follow-up questions are indicated by indentation.
Instructions: This survey is intended to gather information about the
undergraduate college experiences of High-IQ students. Some questions are written in the
present tense. If you no longer attend college, please answer these questions as they apply
to your experience as an undergraduate. If you attended more than one college as an
undergraduate, please answer with your most recent college in mind. Thank you very
much for taking the time to contribute to this study.
The items listed below are grouped into three sections. The items in section 1
were created by the researcher. The items in section 2 were adapted from the College
Student Experiences Questionnaire, Fourth Edition (CSEQ). The items in section 3 were
adapted from the National Survey of Student Engagement 2008 (NSSE). Items from the
CSEQ and NSSE are used by permission.
167
Section 1:
1. Please indicate which of the following high-IQ societies you belong to (check all that
apply):
___ Mensa ___ Intertel
___ Triple-Nine ___ Other: _______________________
If Mensa is checked:
Please list your member number or Yahoo user id: ______________________
2. Please rate each of the following statements, using the following 15 scale:
(1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = unsure / no opinion, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree)
If I were/am interested in continuing my college studies, I would favor a school that.

a) allows students with high intelligence to design their own majors. _____
b) offers dedicated housing for high-IQ students. ____
c) offers high-IQ students a way of networking with high-IQ students at other
schools. _____
d) allows high-IQ students to accelerate their studies and graduate early. _____
e) guarantees a lower instructor/student ratio for high-IQ students. _____
f) allows high-IQ students to participate in research with faculty members. _____
g) admits students into honors programs based on IQ. _____
h) offers seminars in areas such as time management, organization, etc. _____
i) offers a variety of intramural sports and other recreational activities. _____
j) offers credit for life experience related to ones major. _____
3. Of the ten options listed in the above question, which two would you consider the most
valuable?
________ and ________
4. Please list the colleges or universities that you attended for at least one complete
academic year, starting with your last-attended undergraduate school. Please include
168
years of attendance.
1. ___________________________________________________________
2. ___________________________________________________________
3. ___________________________________________________________
5. Which of the following describes the undergraduate college or university you last
attended?
___ Community college ___ Public ___ Private, nonprofit ___ Private, for-profit
6. Which of the following describes the online component of your highest college degree:
___ No online courses
___ Some online courses
___ 100% online
NOTE: For the next four questions, please be aware that High intelligence or
High IQ does not necessarily mean having a high GPA.
7. The last college I attended as an undergraduate offered special academic opportunities
for students with high intelligence (based on test scores, IQ, or other measures not related
to grades alone).
____ yes
____ no
_____ not sure
If yes, then: please describe these programs:

___________________________________________________________
Did you take advantage of these opportunities?
___ Very Often ___ Often ___ Sometimes ___ Never
8. The last college I attended as an undergraduate provided social opportunities for
students with high intelligence (based on test scores, IQ, or other measures not related to
grades alone).
____ yes
____ no
_____ not sure
169

___________________________________________________________
Did you avail yourself of these opportunities? ____________
9. The last college I attended as an undergraduate offered special academic
opportunities for students with high grade point averages.
____ yes
____ no
_____ not sure

___________________________________________________________
Did you avail yourself of these opportunities? __________
10. The last college I attended as an undergraduate provided social opportunities for
students with high grade point averages.
____ yes
____ no
_____ not sure

__________________________________________________________
Did you avail yourself of these opportunities?
11. If you know your Myers-Briggs type, please indicate it here: _____________
12. Please indicate your gender:
___ Male
___ Female
13. What is your ethnic identification? (Fill in all that apply)

___ Native American
170
___ Asian or Pacific Islander
___ Black or African American
___ Caucasian (other than Hispanic)
___ Hispanic
___ Other: What? ______________
14. Please indicate your occupation:
___________________________________________________________________
15. If you are currently in an undergraduate program, indicate your year of study. If you
are a graduate, indicate graduate. If you left college before earning a Bachelors degree,
please indicate the last year you completed.
_____ Freshman _____ Sophomore ______ Junior _____ Senior
16. Please indicate any of the following degrees that you have completed: (check all that
apply)
___ Associate of Arts
___ Associate of Science
___ Bachelor of Arts
___ Bachelor of Science
___ Other Bachelor: ___________
___ Master of Arts
___ Master of Science
___ Other Master: ____________
___ PhD (indicate field): ________________ Other Doctorate: (specify): __________

17. Please describe any college-level program you are in the process of completing:
_____________________________________________________
18. Please describe your college-level work (if any) that did not lead to a degree: (ex: 20
credits MSW)
_____________________________________________________
19. What is your current or final undergraduate grade point average (based on a 4.0
scale)?
171
__ Below 2.0 __ 2.02.49 ___ 2.52.99 ___ 3.03.49 ___ 3.53.79 ___ 3.8 or above.
20. Please indicate your level of satisfaction with your high school grades, at the time you
graduated high school.
__ Very Dissatisfied __ Satisfied __ Unsure/No Opinion __ Satisfied __ Very Satisfied
(If the response is Very Dissatisfied or Dissatisfied, the following questions
appear):
What do you believe was the primary reason your grades were lower than
you would have liked?
___________________________________________________________
Did your high school grades negatively affect you in college? If so, how?
___________________________________________________________
21. If you graduated from college please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the
following statement, using a scale of 15:
Today, I feel as though earning my highest degree has had a positive impact on my life.
______
22. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statement, using a
scale of 15:
I consider myself an introvert. _______

(If the response is a 4 or a 5, the following questions appear):
Would you have participated in activities aimed at getting high-IQ
students to interact socially?
___________________________________________________________
Using the 15 scale, do you agree with the following statement?
Being an introvert hindered my academic performance in college. _____
172
Section 2: Items 2355 are used with permission from the CSEQ Assessment Program,
Indiana University, Copyright 1998, The Trustees of Indiana University.
23. Did either of your parents graduate from college?
___ No ___ Yes, both ___ Yes, Father only ___ Yes, Mother only ___ Dont know
REMINDER: If you no longer attend college, please answer these questions as they
apply to your experience as an undergraduate.
24. During the time school is in session, about how many hours a week do you usually
spend outside of class on activities related to your academic program, such as studying,
writing, reading, lab work, rehearsing, etc.?
___ 5 or fewer hours a week
___ 21 25 hours a week
___ more than 30 hours a week

25. If you have a job, how does it affect your school work?
___ I dont have a job
___ My job does not interfere with my school work
___ My job takes some time from my school work
___ My job takes a lot of time from my school work
In your experience at this institution, about how often have you done each of the
following?
26. Used information or experience from other areas of your life (job, internship,
interactions with others) in class discussions or assignments.
___ Very Often ___ Often ___ Occasionally ___ Never
27. Tried to explain material from a course to someone else (another student, friend,
173
coworker, family member.)
28. Discussed your career plans and ambitions with a faculty member.
29. Worked harder as a result of feedback from an instructor.
30. Socialized with a faculty member outside of class (had a snack or soft drink, etc.)
31. Asked your instructor for comments and criticisms about your academic performance.
32. Revised a paper or composition two or more times before you were satisfied with it.
33. Used a campus lounge to relax or study by yourself.
34. Attended a cultural or social event in the campus center or other campus location.
35. Used a campus learning lab or center to improve study or academic skills (reading,
writing, etc.).
36. Used campus recreational facilities (pool, fitness equipment, courts, etc.).
37. Played a team sport (intramural, club, intercollegiate).
174
38. Worked on a campus committee, student organization, or project (publications,
student government, special event, etc.).
39. Managed or provided leadership for a club or organization, on or off the campus.
40. Talked with a faculty member, counselor or other staff member about personal
concerns.
41. Explained your understanding of some scientific or mathematical theory, principle or
concept to someone else (classmate, coworker, etc.).
42. Read articles about scientific or mathematical theories or concepts in addition to those
assigned for a class.
43. Explained an experimental procedure to someone else.
44. Explained to another person the scientific basis for concerns about scientific or
environmental issues (pollution, recycling, alternative sources of energy, acid rain) or
similar aspects of the world around you.
45. How well do you like college?
___ I am enthusiastic about it
___ I like it
___ I am more or less neutral about it
175
___ I dont like it
Colleges and universities differ from one another in the extent to which they emphasize
or focus on various aspects of students development. Thinking of your experience at this
institution, to what extent do you feel that each of the following is emphasized? The
responses are numbered from 7 to 1, with the highest and lowest points illustrated. Fill in
the oval with the number that best represents your impression on each of the following
seven-point rating scales.
46. Emphasis on developing academic, scholarly, and intellectual qualities
Strong Emphasis 0
7
0
6
0
5
0
4
0
3
0
2
0 Weak Emphasis
1
47. Emphasis on developing aesthetic, expressive, and creative qualities

Strong Emphasis 0
7
0
6
0
5
0
4
0
3
0
2
0 Weak Emphasis
1
48. Emphasis on developing critical, evaluative, and analytical qualities

Strong Emphasis 0
7
0
6
0
5
0
4
0
3
0
2
0 Weak Emphasis
1
49. Emphasis on developing an understanding and appreciation of human diversity

Strong Emphasis 0
7
0
6
0
5
0
4
0
3
0
2
0 Weak Emphasis
1
50. Emphasis on developing information literacy skills (using computers, other

information resources)
Strong Emphasis 0
7
0
6
0
5
0
4
0
3
0
2
0 Weak Emphasis
1
51. Emphasis on developing vocational and occupational competence

Strong Emphasis 0
7
0
6
0
5
0
4
0
3
0
2
0 Weak Emphasis
1
176
52. Emphasis on the personal relevance and practical value of your courses
Strong Emphasis 0
7
0
6
0
5
0
4
0
3
0
2
0 Weak Emphasis
1
The next three ratings refer to relations with people at this college. Again, thinking of
your own experience, please rate the quality of these relationships on each of the
following seven-point rating scales.
53. Relationships with other students
Friendly, Supportive,
Sense of belonging
0
7
0
6
0
5
0
4
0
3
0
2
0
1
Competitive, Uninvolved,
Sense of alienation
54. Relationships with administrative personnel and offices

Helpful, Considerate
Flexible
0
7
0
6
0
5
55. Relationships with faculty members

Approachable, Helpful
0 0 0
Understanding, Encouraging 7 6 5
0
4
0
3
0
4
0
2
0
3
0
1
0
2
Rigid, Impersonal, Bound

by regulations
0
1
Remote, Discouraging,
Unsympathetic
Section 3: Items 5673 used with permission from The College Student Report,
National Survey of Student Engagement, Copyright 200108 The Trustees of Indiana
University.
In your current or most recent academic year, indicate how often you do the following:
56. Tutored or taught other students (paid or voluntary)
57. Worked with faculty members on activities other than coursework (committees,
orientation, student life activities, etc.)
58. Participated in activities to enhance your spirituality (worship, meditation, prayer,
etc.)
177
Which of the following have you done as part of your undergraduate program:
59. Practicum, internship, field experience, co-op experience, or clinical assignment.
___ Done ___ Plan to do ___ Did not / will not do ___ Undecided ___ Not available
60. Participate in a learning community or some other formal program where groups of
students take two or more classes together.
61. Work on a research project with a faculty member outside of course or program
requirements.
62. Study abroad.
63. Independent study or self-designed major.
64. Culminating senior experience (capstone course, senior project or thesis,
comprehensive exam, etc.)
65. Mark the box that best represents the extent to which your examinations challenged
you to do your best work.
Very little ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Very much
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
66. Overall, how would you evaluate the quality of academic advising you have received
at your institution?
____ Excellent ____ Good ____ Fair ____ Poor
178
67. How would you evaluate your entire educational experience at this institution?
____ Excellent ____ Good ____ Fair ____ Poor
To what extent does your institution emphasize each of the following?
68. Providing the support you need to help you succeed academically
____ Very much ____ Quite a bit ____ Some ____ Very little
69. Helping you cope with your nonacademic responsibilities (work, families, etc.).
70. Providing the support you need to thrive socially.
71. Attending campus events and activities (special speakers, cultural performances,
athletic events, etc.).
72. Spending significant amounts of time studying and on academic work.
73. Are you a member of a social fraternity or sorority?
____ Yes ____ No
179
Appendix H
Data
180
Because the participants choices on Item 2 and item 3 influenced much of the
direction of the study, the details of the responses are presented in Table H1.
Table H1
Comparing the Importance of Key Academic and Social Features
Likert scale responses
Feature
Frequency selected as one of

two most important features
Design customized major
94
95% Confidence
Interval
Strongly Disagree
5.32
4.52
Disagree
15 15.96
7.37
Unsure / No Opinion
27 28.72
9.11
Agree
36 38.30
9.79
Strongly Agree
11 11.70
6.47
Strongly Disagree
12 12.77
6.72
Disagree
27 28.72
9.11
Unsure / No Opinion
28 29.79
9.21
Agree
20 21.28
8.24
Strongly Agree
7.45
5.29
4.30
4.11
Dedicated high-IQ housing 94
Network w/ other schools

Strongly Disagree
93
15
181
Feature

95% Confidence
Interval
Disagree
6.45
4.97
Unsure / No Opinion
21 22.58
8.46
Agree
46 49.46
10.12
Strongly Agree
16 17.20
7.64
Strongly Disagree
2.13
2.91
Disagree
4.26
4.07
Unsure / No Opinion
7.45
5.29
Agree
34 36.17
9.67
Strongly Agree
47 50.00
10.06
Accelerated study
Small classes
94
94
43
11
Strongly Disagree
5.32
4.52
Disagree
21 22.34
8.38
Unsure / No Opinion
22 23.40
8.52
Agree
33 35.11
9.61
Strongly Agree
13 13.83
6.95
93
33
182
Feature

95% Confidence
Interval
Strongly Disagree
3.23
3.56
Disagree
1.08
2.08
Unsure / No Opinion
18 19.35
7.95
Agree
42 45.16
10.02
Strongly Agree
29 31.18
9.32
Strongly Disagree
12 12.77
6.72
Disagree
18 19.15
7.92
Unsure / No Opinion
8.51
5.62
Agree
36 38.30
9.79
Strongly Agree
20 21.28
8.24
Strongly Disagree
4.26
4.07
Disagree
9.57
5.92
Unsure / No Opinion
24 25.53
8.78
Agree
31 32.98
9.46
Strongly Agree
26 27.66
9.00
Honors admission based on

94
10
IQ
Supportive seminars
94
15
183
Feature

Sports and recreation
93
11
95% Confidence
Interval
Strongly Disagree
4.30
4.11
Disagree
13 13.98
7.02
Unsure / No Opinion
26 27.96
9.08
Agree
34 36.56
9.75
Strongly Agree
16 17.20
7.64
Strongly Disagree
2.13
2.91
Disagree
17 18.09
7.75
Unsure / No Opinion
17 18.09
7.75
Agree
31 32.98
9.46
Strongly Agree
27 28.72
9.11
94
24
Note. The means of each categorys Likert Scale responses were compared against the number of times
each category was selected as one of a students two most valued features, to test for internal validity of the
items, using Kendalls tau ( = .75, p < .01).
aN = 94. bn = 93.
184
Table H2 presents the data supporting the relationship between gender and
tendency to discuss career plans it faculty. This is important because interaction with
faculty outside the classroom seems to relate to overall satisfaction.
Table H2
Gender and Tendency to Discuss Careers with Faculty Members
Discussed Career Plans with Faculty?
Male
% within Gender
Female
% within Gender
2(3, n = 94) = 9.11, p = .03.
Never
Occasionally
Often
Very often
14
14
37.8%
37.8%
21.6%
2.7%
16
27
10
28.1%
47.4%
7.0%
17.5%
185
Table H3 presents the data supporting a relationship between gender and
evaluation of the respondents schools emphasis on providing academic support. This is
important because academic support and advising is shown throughout the study to be a
key factor in student success and satisfaction.
Table H3
Gender and Perception of Academic Support
Provided academic support
Male
% within Gender
Female
% within Gender
2 (3, n = 90) = 9.05, p = .03.
Very little
Some
Quite a bit
Very much
22
10
10.8%
59.5%
27.0%
16
24
11.3%
30.2%
45.3%
13.2%
2.7%
186
Table H4 presents the data showing the relationship between a respondents
gender and likelihood of participating in an experiential learning experience such as an
internship or clinical assignment.
Table H4
Gender and the Likelihood of Participating in Experiential Learning
Done
Male
Experiential learning experience

Did not /
Plan to do
Will not do
Not available
10
13
Expected Count
17.8
.8
10.3
% within Gender
27.8%
2.8%
36.1%
35
13
Female
12
7.1
33.3%
Expected Count
27.2
1.2
15.7
10.9
% within Gender
63.6%
1.8%
23.6%
10.9%
2(3, n = 91) = 12.47, p = .01.
187
Table H5 presents the data showing the relationship between membership in a
sorority or fraternity and the likelihood to interact with faculty outside the classroom.
Note the Never column.
Table H5
Greek Membership and Willingness to Seek Criticism from Instructors
Sought criticism from instructors
Member
% of members
Nonmember
% of nonmembers
2 (3, n = 90) = 10.14, p = .02.
Never
Occasionally
Often
Very often
.0%
63.6%
9.1%
27.3%
31
29
13
39.2%
36.7%
16.5%
7.6%
188
Table H6 shows the occupations reported by respondents and their classifications
for the purposes of this report. The researcher groped each individually named
occupation into general categories, then coded each category and its jobs according to
whether they (a) inherently involved interaction with others and (b) involved science. For
example, a job described as financial research was coded as solitary since the basic
nature of the job involves an activity that does not rely on interaction with others. On the
other hand, the job of teacher was coded as not solitary, since the teacher by definition is
interacting with others. Some job descriptions provided by the participants were vague,
and it is acknowledged that some of the occupations listed in the table could have been
coded differently. Researchers pursuing lines of inquiry related to this study might
consider gathering more detailed responses related to participants careers.
Table H6
Classification of Reported Occupations
Occupation
Account management
Solitary Science
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Account manager
Account executive
Consulting
Consultant
Security specialist
Design
Graphic designer
189
Occupation
Engineer
Solitary Science
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Electrical engineer
Test engineer
Aerospace engineer
Engineer
Finance
Investment management
Financial research (2)
Actuary
Gen manager
Office manager
Call center supervisor
Bank manager
HR employee development
Program manager
Gen office
Administrative assistant (2)
Accounting assistant
Governmenta
190
Occupation
Health care
Solitary Science
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Nurse
Pharmacist
Hobby
Knitting teacher & designer
Director of improve troupe
Language
Editor
Writing coach
Librarian
Legal
Attorney
General counsel
Marine
Marine fisheries biologist
Marine scientist
Marketing
Marketing manager (2)
R&D consumer products
191
Occupation
Solitary Science
Brand manager
Military
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Air Force NCO

Navy pilot
Not employed (2)a
Owner
Entrepreneur
Business owner
Owner: Consulting company
Physical
Fitness trainer
Athlete
Martial artist
Professor
College instructor
Professor
Programming
Software developer
Database architect
192
Occupation
Solitary Science
Software engineering
Online development
Web developer
Project mgr
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Student (2)
No
No
Systems
Yes
Yes
Project manager (2)

Engineering manager
Manufacturing manager
Meeting/convention planner
Real estate
Real estate broker
Real estate developer
Retail
Retail
Fashion marketing
Systems administrator
Network engineer
193
Occupation
Solitary Science
Computer engineer/consultant
Teacher (3)
No
No
Therapy
No
Yes
No
No
Behavioral aide
Mental health therapist
Speech-language pathologist
Trades/maintenance
Electrician
Facilities
a Responses indicating simply government or indicating no
employment were not included in any analysis related to the
relationships reported in chapter 4.
194
Table H7 presents the colleges listed by respondents as their undergraduate
institutions and indicates whether they were members of the National Collegiate Honors
Council at the time of the survey.
Table H7
National Collegiate Honors Council (NCHC) Membership Status of
Undergraduate Institutions
Institution
NCHC Status
Anoka Ramsey Community College
Member
Auburn University
Member
Boston University (3)
Nonmember
Bradley University
Nonmember
Broward College
Member
California State UniversityFullerton
Member
California State UniversitySacramento
Nonmember
Carnegie Mellon University
Nonmember
Carroll College
Nonmember
Case Western Reserve University
Nonmember
Clark College
Member
Community College of Allegheny County
Nonmember
Dartmouth College
Nonmember
Delaware State University
Member
195
Institution
NCHC Status
DeVry University (2)
Member
Eastern Illinois University (2)
Member
Embry Riddle Aeronautical University (4)
Member
Florida International University
Member
Franciscan University of Steubenville
Nonmember
Georgetown University
Nonmember
Gonzaga University
Nonmember
Hillsborough Community College

Humboldt State University
Iowa State University (2)
ITT Tech
Member
Nonmember
Member
Nonmember
James Madison University (2)
Member
Kent State University
Member
Lehigh University
Nonmember
Louisiana State University
Member
North Carolina State University
Member
Northern Virginia Community College
Member
Palm Beach Community College
Member
Pennsylvania State University
Member
196
Institution
NCHC Status
Portland Community College
Nonmember
Quinnipiac College
Member
Rutgers University
Member
Saint Leo University

Southern Methodist University
State University of NewYorkAlbany
Nonmember
Member
Nonmember
Susquehanna University
Member
Syracuse University
Member
Texas Woman's University
Member
The College of New Jersey
Member
Tidewater Community College
Nonmember
Tufts University
Nonmember
University of CaliforniaSanta Cruz
Nonmember
United States Naval Academy
Nonmember
University of Arizona
Member
University of CaliforniaIrvine
Member
University of Central Florida (2)
Member
University of Cincinnati
Member
University of Delaware (2)
Nonmember
197
Institution
NCHC Status
University of Florida (3)
Nonmember
University of Maine
Member
University of Maryland
Member
University of Miami
Nonmember
University of Michigan
Member
University of Minnesota
Member
University of New Haven
Member
University of New Hampshire
Member
University of North Dakota
Member
University of Notre Dame
Nonmember
University of Phoenix
Nonmember
University of Puget Sound
Nonmember
University of South Florida (3)
Member
University of Southern Maine
Member
University of Texas at Arlington
Member
University of Texas at Austin
Member
University of Toledo
Member
University of West Florida (2)
Member
University of Wisconsin
Member
198
Institution
NCHC Status
University of WisconsinParkside
Nonmember
Vanderbilt University
Nonmember
Wartburg College
Member
Whittier College
Nonmember
Wofford College
Nonmember
Wright State University
Member
199
Table H8 shows which schools are represented in the portion of the report that
refers to student participation in exclusive academic or social programs at NCHC
member institutions. Participant numbers exceed the reported sample size of 94
participants because several would-be participants did not progress beyond the first step
in the survey, which was to confirm membership in Mensa. Although no survey data was
collected from these volunteers, their participant numbers were not reused.
Table H8
National Collegiate Honors Council Students Reporting Participation in Exclusive
Programs
Participant ID
Institution
Academic
Social
University of Maryland
DeVry University
University of Cincinnati
10
Rutgers University
18
Wright State University
22
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical
23
Syracuse University
29
Susquehanna University
30
University of North Dakota
34
Quinnipiac College
35
North Carolina State University
200
Participant ID
Institution
Academic
Social
45
Eastern Illinois University
47
The College of New Jersey
50
University of Arizona
52
Iowa State University
53
University of Wisconsin Eau Claire
59
Kent State University
60
Auburn University
71
University of West Florida
89
Florida International University
94
University of South Florida
95
DeVry University
99
Rutgers University
102
University of Toledo
104
University of New Hampshire
201
Appendix I
Interview Questions
202
The follow questions served as the starting point for interviews:
1. Looking back on your undergraduate experience, how do you feel about the level of
academic advising you received? What would you have liked to have been different?
2. Was there anything you would have found academically helpful that your college did
not provide? Please explain.
3. Assuming you wanted to interact with other high-IQ students at your college, would
you have known how to go about doing so?
4. Regarding your undergraduate degree (if any), to what extent would you say the
degree represented the acquisition of new knowledge? Explain.
5. How much control, if any, did you have over the selection of your courses?
6. Did you switch majors while an undergrad? If so, what was/were the reason(s) for the
switch?
7. If you participated in any special academic programs such as studying abroad or
working on a special research project, please describe and evaluate the program.
8. Describe some of your favorite social activities while an undergraduate.
9. Did you work while attending college?
10. Did you hold any leadership positions while in college? (For example, Resident
Assistant, Student Government, etc).
11. Do you feel high-IQ students would benefit from exclusive social events?
12. Please describe the impact your undergraduate degree has had on your career.
13. (If the interviewee did not complete an undergraduate degree): What was the primary
reason for quitting school?
14. Describe a professor that you particularly liked.
15. Describe a professor that you did not like.
16. In general, how did you get along with other students? Do you feel
this had an impact on your studies?

Identifying The Needs and Preferences of Highly Intelligent College Students

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Identifying The Needs and Preferences of Highly Intelligent College Students

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Identifying the Needs and Preferences of Highly Intelligent College Students

An Applied Dissertation Submitted to the

Nova Southeastern University

References ....................................................................................................................... 138

Demographic Characteristics of Survey Participants ..................................... 50

Highest Degree Earned, According to Presence of Judging or Perceiving

Effect of Judging or Perceiving Trait on Grade Point Average. ..................... 55

26 Relationship Between Ones Feeling or Thinking Trait and Ones Rating

Type of college (undergraduate)

Highest degree or equivalent credits completed

Belonged to a sorority or fraternity?

Another personality-related relationship concerns the Judging or Perceiving

Figure 1. Highest degree earned, according to presence of Judging

Figure 2. Effect of Judging or Perceiving trait on grade point average.

n = 32. bn= 23.

Figure 3. Mean rating of each academic feature, where (1) indicates

Research with faculty

Credit for life experience

Design individual major

As Figure 4 illustrates, the data show a relationship between a participants grade

Figure 4. Relationship between academic achievement, as measured by

Figure 5. Influence of Introversion trait on preference for the chance to

Frequency Academic or Social

Research with faculty

Credit for life experience

Sports and recreation

Independent or custom program

As with Research Question 1, a close examination of the data showed additional

Figure 6. Importance of dedicated housing for high-IQ students, as it relates to

Figure 7. Influence of Intuitive trait on preference for sports and

Figure 8. Rating of Academic Advising. Participants were asked to rate

Internship or other experiential learning (Item 59)

Learning community (Item 60)

Research with faculty (Item 61)

Study abroad (Item 62)

Independent study or self-designed major (Item 63)

Culminating academic assessment (Item 64)

Figure 9. Relationship between the tendency to discuss career plans

Figure 10. Effect of faculty approachability on student achievement, as

Figure 11. Relationship between the perceived quality of academic

Figure 12. Relationship between satisfaction with ones undergraduate

Figure 13. Relationship between quality of academic advising and level

Figure 14. Influence of gender on students overall educational

Figure 15. Relationship between student gender and the perception of

The final gender-based relationship apparent in the items related to Research

Figure 16. Comparison of students evaluation of the difficulty of their

These participants, who are currently in a science-related occupation, also relate

Figure 17. Influence of Introversion trait on career choice.

Another variable for organizing the reported occupations is whether the

Figure 18. Comparison of students evaluation of the difficulty of their

Figure 19. Frequency of participation in campus social opportunities,

Figure 20. Relationship between students participation in campus

Further, the relationship between engagement (as indicated by participation in

Figure 21. Relationship between students participation in campus

Figure 22. Relationship between students experience in positions of

As with the academic perceptions reported in the previous section, a relationship

Figure 23. Influence of gender on students perception of the

Perhaps not surprisingly, several relationships emerged that involved a

Membership in a sorority or fraternity also influences the perception of ones

Figure 24. Relationship between students membership in a sorority or

Figure 25. Relationship between students membership in a sorority

In the results related to Research Question 3, the data showed relationships

Figure 26. Relationship between ones Feeling or Thinking trait and

_ Triple-Nine _ Other: _______________________

_ Other Bachelor: _________

_ Other Master: __________

_ PhD (indicate field): ____ Other Doctorate: (specify):