Presentation by Suzanne Vrancken and Sanne Tromp (JCU) at International Conference "Evoking Excellence in Higher Education and Beyond", Groningen 3-4 October 2012

1. Characteristics of a challenging
learning environment affecting
students’ learning processes
and achievements
Suzanne Vrancken & Sanne Tromp
Junior College Utrecht
Utrecht University
s.e.a.vrancken@uu.nl
s.tromp@uu.nl

2. Contents
• Introduction
• Research aim
• Theoretical framework
• Method
• Results
• Conclusion & recommendations
4-10-2012 2

3. Introduction (1)
• Talented students
Can do more than is offered in regular curriculum
Need to be challenged
Education needs to be adapted to students’ needs and
capacities
• Dutch government policy
Education is insufficiently challenging for talented
students
Motivating and challenging learning environments need
to be created
• Excellence programs
Existing programs can serve as sources of knowledge and
inspiration
4-10-2012 Introduction - Research aim - Theoretical framework – Method – Results – Conclusion & recommendations 3

4. Introduction (2)
Junior College Utrecht (JCU)
• Science program for 100 students in grade 11th and
12th of pre-university education
• Two years, two days a week
• Students are selected
• Accelerated and enriched curriculum
• Research activities
• Excellent student achievements
• Example of an excellence program: Junior College
learning environment affects students’ learning
processes and achievements
4-10-2012 Introduction - Research aim - Theoretical framework – Method – Results – Conclusion & recommendations 4

5. Research aim & questions
• To identify characteristics of a learning
environment that affect the learning processes
and achievements of 11th and 12th grade pre-
university students
• Research questions
(1)What are the characteristics of the JCU learning
environment, according to students?
(2)What effects do the characteristics of the JCU learning
environment have on students’ learning processes and
achievements, according to students?
4-10-2012 Introduction - Research aim - Theoretical framework – Method – Results – Conclusion & recommendations 5

6. Theoretical framework
Natural abilities &
previous
experiences
Learning process
Learning
environment within
school Learning achievements
Learning
environment outside
school
4-10-2012 Introduction - Research aim - Theoretical framework – Method – Results – Conclusion & recommendations 6

7. Method (1)
• Research strategy
Grounded theory
Deduct answers on research questions based on
students’ experiences
Choice for JCU as site for data collection: critical case
sampling (Patton, 2001)
4-10-2012 Introduction - Research aim - Theoretical framework – Method – Results – Conclusion & recommendations 7

8. Method (2)
• Data collection
Graduation speeches of 300 students
Open group interviews with 4 x 3 students
Semi structured interviews with 9 students
Transcribed
Interviews summarized
Member checks
• Data analysis
Qualitative analysis of transcripts using AtlasTI
Speeches coded ‘in vivo’
Codes grouped and categorized
Second analysis
Intercoder agreement of 92%
4-10-2012 Introduction - Research aim - Theoretical framework – Method – Results – Conclusion & recommendations 8

9. Results (1)
Characteristics of JCU learning environment
Teachers Education Learning community General
Teaching skills Challenging Social interaction between Physical
education students environment
Meaningful
educational Social interaction between Organization
activities students and teachers
Autonomy for Shared culture
students
Academic
environment
Training skills
4-10-2012 Introduction - Research aim - Theoretical framework – Method – Results – Conclusion & recommendations 9

10. Results (2)
Effects on students
Knowledge and skills Attitude Personal Future Personal
development wellbeing
Knowledge aquisition Urge to Self esteem Study Stress
learn choice
Thinking skills Work Independence Part of a
attitude community
Changing results
Satisfaction
Skill development
4-10-2012 Introduction - Research aim - Theoretical framework – Method – Results – Conclusion & recommendations 10

11. Results (3)
Teachers Education Learning community
Social
Social
Autonomy Meaningful interaction
Teaching Challenging Academic Training interaction Shared
for educational between
skills education environment skills between culture
students activities students and
students
teachers
Knowledge and
skills
Knowledge
2 16 6 5 29 2 1 3 4
acquisition
Skill development 1 2 1 1 5 10 2
Thinking skills 2 5 3 8 3
Changing results 4 8 7 2 1 1 1 3
Attitude
Urge to learn 16 11 3 8 11 2 2 6 16
Work attitude 5 9 1 7 4 5 5 17
Personal
development
Satisfaction 10 1 1
Independence 4 1 11 1 1 1
Self esteem 5 2 2 2 3 5 7 2
Future
Study choice 1 12 11 4 41 1
Personal
wellbeing
Stress 9 2 2
Part of a
1 1 1 4 1 3 30 10
community
Number = how often students relate a characteristic of the learning environment to an effect
4-10-2012 Introduction - Research aim - Theoretical framework – Method – Results – Conclusion & recommendations 11

12. Results (4)
Teachers Education Learning community
Social
Social
Autonomy Meaningful interaction
Teaching Challenging Academic Training interaction Shared
for educational between
skills education environment skills between culture
Knowledge and students activities students and
students
skills teachers
Knowledge
2 16 29
acquisition
“I really learned a lot from my thesis research at the university research group. You
work together with scientists and share your knowledge with each other. That was a
very valuable experience.”
(cf. Pyryt, 2002)
“In modules you don’t just learn about one subject, but also about related topics
beyond the subject.”
(cf. Reis & Renzulli, 2009; Rogers, 2007)
“At my own school teachers only explain the stuff that is written in your book, but at
JCU they explain much more. I really like that I learn more than just what I need to
know for my exam.”
(cf. Croft, 2003; Hattie, 2009; Pyryt, 2002)
“Because of the high pace you don’t always have time to practice everything and take
time to learn. I feel that I know the things I learn less thoroughly.”
(cf. Rogers, 2007; Subban, 2006; Tomlinson, 2005)
4-10-2012 Introduction - Research aim - Theoretical framework – Method – Results – Conclusion & recommendations 12

13. Results (5)
Teachers Education Learning community
Social
Social
Autonomy Meaningful interaction
Teaching Challenging Academic Training interaction Shared
for educational between
skills education environment skills between culture
students activities students and
students
Attitude teachers
Urge to learn 16 11 16
Work attitude 9 17
“I never want to be the worst at anything. I always want to be the best, but the bar is
set much higher at JCU than at my own school.”
(cf. Gallagher, 2003; Lens & Rand, 2002; OECD, 2010)
“I’m used to always being the best of my class, but at JCU I’m not. I feel really stupid
sometimes.”
(cf. Kulik, 2003; Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius & Worrell, 2011)
“The teachers at JCU ask more challenging questions. I like that and it stimulates me
to ask more challenging questions too.”
(cf. Croft, 2003; Hattie, 2009)
“The high pace can sometimes be really demotivating. Last weekend I worked really
hard on my math homework, but I’m still not up to speed.”
(cf. Rogers, 2007; Subban, 2006; Tomlinson, 2005)
4-10-2012 Introduction - Research aim - Theoretical framework – Method – Results – Conclusion & recommendations 13

14. Results (6)
Teachers Education Learning community
Social
Social
Autonomy Meaningful interaction
Teaching Challenging Academic Training interaction Shared
for educational between
skills education environment skills between culture
Personal students activities students and
students
development teachers
Satisfaction 10 1 1
“I rather work hard and get a 6 (B-), than do nothing and get an 8 (A). The results I
get at JCU are much more satisfying and I can really be proud of my grades.”
“I think it’s good that I finally learned to earn my grades by working hard. If you work
hard for something and earn a good grade, you really feel good.”
(cf. Lens & Rand, 2002)
“JCU really challenges me. When I get home after a day at JCU, I really feel like I
learned something. It’s exhausting, but also satisfying.”
4-10-2012 Introduction - Research aim - Theoretical framework – Method – Results – Conclusion & recommendations 14

15. Conclusion & recommendations
Teachers Knowledge and skills
Teaching skills Knowledge acquisition
Education Skill development
Challenging education Natural abilities Thinking skills
Academic environment & previous Changing results
Autonomy for students experiences
Attitude
Meaningful educational Urge to learn
activities
Learning Learning process Work attitude
Training skills
environment Personal
Learning community development
within school Learning achievements
Social interaction
Satisfaction
between students and
teachers Independence
Social interaction
Learning
Self esteem
between students environment
Future
Shared culture outside school
Study choice
General
Personal wellbeing
Physical environment
Stress
Organization
Part of a community
4-10-2012 Introduction - Research aim - Theoretical framework – Method – Results – Conclusion & recommendations 15

16. References
Croft, L. J. (2003). Teachers of the gifted: gifted teachers. In N. Colangelo, & G.A. Davis (red.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.)
(pp.558-571). Boston, Verenigde Staten: Allyn and Bacon.
Gallagher, J.J. (2003). Issues and challenges in the education of gifted students. In N. Colangelo, & G.A. Davis (red.), Handbook of
gifted education (3rd ed.) (pp.11-23). Boston, Verenigde Staten: Allyn and Bacon.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, Verenigd Koninkrijk:
Routledge.
Kulik, J.A. (2003). Grouping and tracking. In N. Colangelo, & G.A. Davis (red.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.) (pp.268-281).
Boston, Verenigde Staten: Allyn and Bacon.
Lens, W., & Rand, P. (2002). Motivation and cognotion: their role in the development of giftedness. In K. Heller, F. Mönks, R.
Sternberg, & R. Subotnik (red.), International Handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed.) (pp.193-202). Oxford, Verenigd Koninkrijk:
Pergamon.
OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: what makes a school successful? (volume IV). Paris: OECD.
Pyryt, M.C. (2002). Talent development in science and technology. In: Heller, K., Mönks, F., Sternberg, R. & Subotnik, R. (Eds.),
International Handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed.). (pp.427-438). Oxford, Verenigd Koninkrijk: Pergamon.
Reis, S.M., & Renzulli, J.S. (2010). Is there still a need for gifted education? An examination of current research. Learning and
individual differences, 20, 308-317.
Rogers, K.B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: a synthesis of the research on educational practice.
Gifted child quarterly, 51, 382-396.
Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated instruction: a research basis. International education journal, 7(7), 935-947.
Subotnik, R.F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F.C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: a proposed direction forward
based on psychological science. Psychological science in the public interest, 12(1), 3-54.
Trost, G. (2002). Prediction of excellence in school, higher education and work. In K. Heller, F. Mönks, R. Sternberg, & R. Subotnik
(red.), International Handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed.) (pp.317-330). Oxford, Verenigd Koninkrijk: Pergamon.
Tomlinson, C.A. (2005). Quality curriculum and instruction for highly able students. Theory into practice, 44(2), 160-166.
4-10-2012 PPT FIsme 16