FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W182534905> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W182534905 startingPage "49" @default.
• W182534905 abstract "Over the last ninety years, we have witnessed an explosion of diverse honors programs and colleges throughout the United States, often with the sole common feature of providing differentiated experiences and individualized instruction for an institution's most academically talented students. Concomitant with the tremendous growth in the number of honors programs and colleges in the U.S. has been the growth of honors as a separate and distinct niche in higher education. Indeed, the National Collegiate Honors Council, which publishes two journals and a monograph series, recently held its forty-fifth annual meeting in Kansas City. Additionally, a small yet increasing number of academics are slowly being recognized for their work within honors, not only applying some of their honors contributions towards tenure but also being selected for top administrative posts and prestigious fellowships. Given the proliferation and professionalization of honors, the time is ripe to evaluate the impact of honors on institutions of higher learning in the U.S. Honors education in the United States can trace its roots in large part to the groundbreaking curricular changes that Frank Aydelotte introduced at Swarthmore upon becoming its president in 1921 (Rinn, 70). Reacting to increased enrollment and influenced by his experience as a Rhodes Scholar, Aydelotte wanted to break the lock-step, homogenizing approach of American higher education that catered to the average students in a group or class, holding back the best and brightest. Using oxford-style tutorials as inspiration, Aydelotte wanted to create a more individualized educational experience for gifted students that focused on the creation of knowledge more than its mere reproduction. College and university ranks in the U.S. swelled again after World War II, the G.I. Bill, and the baby boom that followed. To deal with this amazing growth, America applied its business savvy to higher education and led the way in efficient, mass-production approaches, with introductory college classes sometimes taught in theaters, auditoriums, or even basketball arenas capable of holding thousands of students. Like Charlie Chaplin caught in the gears of progress in Modern Times, we became capable of churning students out on an educational assembly line that would make the most ardent Fordist proud (Huxley). one can easily see the immense benefit of the wide availability of higher education opportunities; the U.S.'s high GDP and standard of living are directly related to the education level of its inhabitants and, quite frankly, who among us wouldn't want to live in a society surrounded by well-educated neighbors? However, as Aydelotte noticed years before, the massive expansion of our colleges and universities came at a cost, particularly for students of high ability. During the many social changes of the 1960s and 70s, colleges and universities revisited Aydelotte's approach and attempted to raise academic quality by initiating a host of new honors programs specifically tailored to smaller groups of students with higher academic credentials and/or intellectual abilities (Wolverton et al, 27). Consistent with Aydelotte's original vision and rooted in the liberal arts tradition, most honors programs continue to complement high-achieving students' curricula with an individualized experience that uniquely challenges their talent and encourages original thinking. Honors at most institutions is by design different, providing a counterpoint to the mass-production model of education. While honors is now noted for its diversity of pedagogical approaches, individualized teaching practices (e.g. independent research, tutorials, small classes) remain common features of almost all honors programs and colleges. The NCHC's monograph series, Honors in Practice, and the Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council are brimming with original research and unique, innovative pedagogical approaches custom-designed for collegiate honors students, but, at the same time, virtually all honors programs provide classes limited to a maximum of twenty high-achieving students in order to encourage discussion and critical thinking as opposed to memorization and replication. …" @default.
• W182534905 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W182534905 creator A5029368489 @default.
• W182534905 date "2011-09-22" @default.
• W182534905 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W182534905 title "Honors Education:Innovation or Conservation?" @default.
• W182534905 cites W2096818497 @default.
• W182534905 cites W2993834930 @default.
• W182534905 cites W2994418423 @default.
• W182534905 cites W658929202 @default.
• W182534905 cites W2169818487 @default.
• W182534905 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W182534905 type Work @default.
• W182534905 sameAs 182534905 @default.
• W182534905 citedByCount "10" @default.
• W182534905 countsByYear W1825349052013 @default.
• W182534905 countsByYear W1825349052014 @default.
• W182534905 countsByYear W1825349052015 @default.
• W182534905 countsByYear W1825349052016 @default.
• W182534905 countsByYear W1825349052017 @default.
• W182534905 countsByYear W1825349052019 @default.
• W182534905 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W182534905 hasAuthorship W182534905A5029368489 @default.
• W182534905 hasConcept C120912362 @default.
• W182534905 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W182534905 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W182534905 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W182534905 hasConcept C161191863 @default.
• W182534905 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W182534905 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W182534905 hasConcept C2780510313 @default.
• W182534905 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W182534905 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W182534905 hasConceptScore W182534905C120912362 @default.
• W182534905 hasConceptScore W182534905C144024400 @default.
• W182534905 hasConceptScore W182534905C145420912 @default.
• W182534905 hasConceptScore W182534905C15744967 @default.
• W182534905 hasConceptScore W182534905C161191863 @default.
• W182534905 hasConceptScore W182534905C17744445 @default.
• W182534905 hasConceptScore W182534905C199539241 @default.
• W182534905 hasConceptScore W182534905C2780510313 @default.
• W182534905 hasConceptScore W182534905C36289849 @default.
• W182534905 hasConceptScore W182534905C41008148 @default.
• W182534905 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W182534905 hasLocation W1825349051 @default.
• W182534905 hasOpenAccess W182534905 @default.
• W182534905 hasPrimaryLocation W1825349051 @default.
• W182534905 hasRelatedWork W152246440 @default.
• W182534905 hasRelatedWork W1693199117 @default.
• W182534905 hasRelatedWork W17113173 @default.
• W182534905 hasRelatedWork W1725249880 @default.
• W182534905 hasRelatedWork W1837114721 @default.
• W182534905 hasRelatedWork W1862105752 @default.
• W182534905 hasRelatedWork W206058301 @default.
• W182534905 hasRelatedWork W2107508801 @default.
• W182534905 hasRelatedWork W2112625062 @default.
• W182534905 hasRelatedWork W2115608736 @default.
• W182534905 hasRelatedWork W2120650191 @default.
• W182534905 hasRelatedWork W2120916775 @default.
• W182534905 hasRelatedWork W2213462041 @default.
• W182534905 hasRelatedWork W2596204922 @default.
• W182534905 hasRelatedWork W2608036464 @default.
• W182534905 hasRelatedWork W331195194 @default.
• W182534905 hasRelatedWork W335982429 @default.
• W182534905 hasRelatedWork W73197898 @default.
• W182534905 hasRelatedWork W1853008495 @default.
• W182534905 hasRelatedWork W1860815592 @default.
• W182534905 hasVolume "12" @default.
• W182534905 isParatext "false" @default.
• W182534905 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W182534905 magId "182534905" @default.
• W182534905 workType "article" @default.