Preparing Students for the Honours Challenge

This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]On: 23 November 2014, At: 08:15Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Further andHigher EducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjfh20

Preparing Students for theHonours ChallengeNeil Harris a & Adam Palmer aa Southampton InstitutePublished online: 28 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Neil Harris & Adam Palmer (1996) Preparing Students forthe Honours Challenge, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 20:3, 31-44,DOI: 10.1080/0309877960200304

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0309877960200304

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjfh20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/0309877960200304

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0309877960200304

whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

8:15

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Preparing Students for the HonoursChallenge

Neil Harris and Adam PalmerSouthampton Institute

AbstractThis paper seeks to promote discussion on the nature of the challenges facingstudents in undergraduate business programmes and how first year students can behelped to prepare for them. The authors have undertaken the first stage of an actionresearch project in Southampton Business School to establish what represents thehonours challenge in undergraduate units. A model of critical thinking has beenused to structure and analyse interviews with staff. The results of the research areused to develop a rationale and a basis for the development of a new first year unitto improve the academic performance of students.

IntroductionIn 1994 a review of the measures taken to improve the quality of the first year

learning experience was undertaken by the authors. The resulting paper, deliveredat the 7th International Conference on the First Year Experience in Dublin in July1994, sought to demonstrate the problems facing the university sector in the UKin maintaining the quality of the student learning experience in the context of adiminishing resource base and rapid increases in student participation rates.Further, it reflected on the efforts of one business school to help students preparefor increasingly independent learning.

The view of the authors was not entirely negative about the pressure thatexpansion had put on staff to be creative and innovative in their approach tostudent learning. Indeed, out of necessity, business undergraduate programmes hadto become more student centred. If the approaches and mechanisms developedwere effective, students would be better prepared for life-long learning in a worldwhich demands that people can continually adapt to change and learn new skills.

At the same time it was recognised that increases in participation rates meantthat students had arrived in higher education with a much wider range and level ofqualifications than had previously been the case and, in some cases, no recentacademic experience. The problems presented by this diversity, in terms of studentperformance on business programmes, was alluded to in the paper.

The paper concluded that there was more to be done to ensure that all studentsmaximised the benefits of the learning opportunities available to them. Inductionprogrammes, business skills development, learning packs and innovative

JFHE 20 (3), AUTUMN 1996

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

8:15

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

32 PREPARING STUDENTS FOR THE HONOURS CHALLENGE

approaches in teaching have their part to play, but it was clear that students werenot, in many cases, prepared well enough to benefit from them. Further, studentsdo not have a clear idea of what it is that is expected of them to achieve successlater on in the course and in life.

It was decided that, in order to identify what it is that students need in terms ofpreparation for gaining full value from their programmes, it was the challenges ofthe final honours year that should be examined. Traditionally, in the UK universitysector, it has been expected that students arrive prepared and intuitively aware ofthe demands of an honours degree course and how it will enhance achievement inwork and life. The perception of staff and the final year performance of manystudents suggested that this was now a questionable assumption.

One of the most interesting questions in this regard is what is it that representshonours in any particular degree programme, and, even if tutors can articulate itclearly, do students know what they are required to demonstrate to achieve them?The writers decided to collaborate with colleagues to assess the demands of thefinal year in order that the first year can be designed to help students achieve moreat honours level.

The question of 'what is honours' was harder to track down in the literature thanexpected. It was envisaged that staff teaching on final year programmes wouldhave their own answers from their own subject perspective but to make sense ofthese a model was required. A generic model would also help in the articulation ofthe skills needing development in the first year. The subject perspective andcontext could then be used to enhance the relevance of skills development for thefirst year students.

Research Methodology

1. The Research Process

It was considered that the most appropriate format for this teaching and learningproject is action research. Action research is small-scale intervention in thefunctioning of the real world and a close examination of the effects of such inter-vention (Halsey 1972 in Cohen and Manion 1990).

Cohen and Manion (1990) provide a useful identification of the salient featuresof action research from the research literature. Action research is situational in thatit examines a problem in a specific context and tries to solve it in that context. Itis collaborative in that the researchers and practitioners work together on theproject. It is participative in that the researchers take part in implementing theresearch. It is self-evaluative in that any changes made to practice as a result of theresearch are continuously monitored and evaluated.

The project was concerned with diagnosing what does or should represent thehonours challenge in Southampton Business School undergraduate programmes.The staff of the Business School were involved in collaboration with the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

8:15

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

NEIL HARRIS & ADAM PALMER 33

researchers by sharing their interpretation of and approach to developing thehonours challenge in their courses. The researchers are staff of the BusinessSchool and will therefore be involved in implementing any changes to courseprogrammes resulting from the research findings. If resources permit, the authorswould wish to carry out a second stage to the research in the 1995/96 academicsession that evaluates the continual development of the 'honours challenge' incourse programmes.

The approach in 1994/95 was diagnostic. The extent to which the honourschallenge is represented in the Business School Undergraduate Programme(BSUP) was the main focus. It is hoped that the second stage alluded to abovewould be concerned with effecting improvements by disseminating andembedding 'good practice' more widely, and evaluating the effects of suchchanges e.g. through surveying student and staff reactions.

It was decided that the first stage in the measurement of the honours challengewould be achieved through an evaluation of course units. There is of course muchdebate in the literature concerning whether the level of student learning should beexpressed in terms of objectives or outcomes. However, the approach in theInstitute has been to develop courses based on detailed statements of aims andobjectives, as required by validating bodies, e.g. the now disbanded CNAA. It wastherefore decided to examine the paperwork for core units on Level 3 ofestablished undergraduate programmes that have seen at least one full cohortthrough to graduation. The focus of attention was on the 'process' element of theunits embodied in the aims, objectives, unit description and learning methods.

2. The Analytical ModelIt was considered important to identify a model that could be used to evaluate

each unit. From reviewing the literature it was clear that the most well establishedapproach to defining the levels of student learning was through the formulation oftaxonomies, the most well known of these being Bloom's taxonomy developed in1956. The many subsequent taxonomies that have been compiled have muchcommonality (see Heywood (1989) for a summary of Krathwohl et al (1964) andSteinaker & Bell (1969) and Biggs and Collis's SOLO taxonomy in Evaluating theQuality of Learning (1982).

An alternative approach to these taxonomies of learning are what might betermed matrices of critical thinking skills. These are based on the presumptionthat, since there is much commonality between the various taxonomies, there mustbe a core of thinking skills. This approach gives rise to models that are based moreon philosophical processes. A good example of the basis of this approach is theprocess of critical thinking iterated by Saupe (1961), quoted in Heywood (1989).Critical thinking requires:

(a) recognition of a problem(b) definition of the problem


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

8:15

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14


(c) selection of information pertinent to the problem(d) recognition of assumptions bearing on the problem(e) making relevant hypotheses(f) drawing conclusions validly from assumptions, hypotheses, pertinent

information(g) judging the validity of the process leading to a conclusion(h) evaluation of a conclusion in terms of its assessment.

It is the authors' view that it is the achievement of these levels of critical thinkingthat best represents the 'honours challenge' for higher education students.

Hey wood (1989) has already identified the need to include affective, cognitiveand value aspects of learning when developing a framework for analysing the levelof a student's academic achievement. The authors were keen to employ a modelthat was all embracing to capture the multi-dimensional nature of thinking andlearning on business courses. Further, it was considered important to link higherlevel thinking skills to the acquisition of vocational skills which necessarily formpart of the outcomes of business courses.

Joan Gubbins 'Matrix of Thinking Skills' cited by Sternberg (1985) was thoughtto have the most appropriate dimensions for the purposes of testing the level ofchallenge in the BSUP programme. Its main advantage is that it is acomprehensive distillation of the ideas expressed in the approaches quoted aboveand articulates the dimensions of critical thinking in a format that is relatively easyto align with the learning outcomes of honours business courses. The maincomponents of the matrix are shown in Appendix 1.

3. The Sample and InterviewsThe methodology employed in this research project was undertaken in a number

of stages as identified below:

(i) the Gubbins model was taken to be the template against which' the questionnairewas developed

(ii) all Level 3 core units (i.e. those which are compulsory for students) on theBusiness School Undergraduate Programme (BSUP) courses were identified. Thecourses to which these relate are:

• BA (Hons) Accountancy & Law• BA (Hons) Business Administration• BA (Hons) Business & Law• BA (Hons) Business Studies

(iii) the unit documentation for each core unit was then considered with particularemphasis on the aims and the objectives identified by each unit author. Each unitwas rated by comparing the declared aims and objectives against the matrix of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

8:15

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14


critical thinking skills identified by Joan Gubbins. A simple ordinal rating wasemployed of +1 for each point identified by a unit and -1 for each point omitted.A final score was then obtained.

(iv) A sample of these units was then selected on the basis of the scoring. It wasdecided to include those units with high positive scores and those with highnegative scores, if any existed. Additionally units rating around zero would beselected in order for the sample to contain a wide spread of alternatives. In fact nounits achieved high negative scores although some did score around zero. In totaleight units were finally selected. These were:

• Business Finance• Constructive Trusts• Corporate Finance• Human Resource Management• Land Law• Management Accounting• Small Business Enterprise• Strategic Management

Although selected essentially on the basis of their scoring the authors also soughtto choose these units so that they would be representative of the three main subjectareas in the Business School i.e. Accountancy, Law and Management.

(v) Eight current unit leaders were then approached with a request that they agreeto be interviewed as to their perception of the honours challenge and how theymight seek to develop this in their units. All were willing to be interviewed andseven of the eight also agreed to having their interview recorded, on the clearunderstanding that it would not be revealed to anyone else and would subsequentlybe wiped.

The rationale for interviewing staff had several underlying motives:

• a belief that although external examiners and internal processes had demon-strated that the honours challenge was being met the unit documentation did notalways explicitly demonstrate this enough.• a desire to explore more fully practices employed by colleagues to meet thehonours challenge, and subsequently to share these with other colleagues througha series of workshops across the Business School.• a need to determine whether the existing Institute format for unit documen-tation was suitable to demonstrate honours worthiness or whether some otherformat such as identifying learning outcomes would be more useful.(vi) since the Gubbins matrix is extensive a series of summarising questions weredeveloped by the authors and are included in Appendix 2. As can be seen thesefocus in particular on several main issues:


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

8:15

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14


• how the unit leader (and hence the unit team where more than one personteaches the unit) distinguish between the honours challenges of the three differentlevels• which skills, both generic and peculiar to the unit, the unit leader seeks todevelop as part of the honours challenge• how particular intellectual skills, identified by the Gubbins matrix, aredeveloped in the unit — skills such as problem solving, decision making anddivergent thinking.

(vii) these were subsequently presented to each interviewee a question at a time sothat s/he could clearly reflect on each question independently of the others. Inter-views were recorded so that the authors could clarify any responses whichsubsequently were not clear during the analysis of these responses.

(viii) the responses were subsequently mapped by the authors against the Gubbinsmatrix. Attention normally focused on the spirit of what people said rather than theprecise words used, although where particularly relevant words were used theseare identified below. In this way it was felt that the evaluation of unit leaders'responses would be more effective in determining the extent to which the honourschallenge is being met. In particular the authors were anxious to distinguish theextent to which the honours challenge was being met commonly across all unitsand the extent to which it was applicable only to specific units.

4. Analysis of Findings

(i) what unit leaders understand by 'the honours challenge'Regardless of whether the subject has been studied before the commencement ofthe degree course unit leaders saw the honours challenge as essentially falling intofour main areas:

• empowering students to take increasing responsibility for their own(independent) learning, not just during the degree course, important though that is,but also subsequently. In that sense the degree course provides a foundation for lifelong learning skills (Harris & Palmer 1995).

• promoting an ability to conceptualise, and to enable students to criticallyanalyse, appraise and evaluate these concepts. Also to enable students to put thiswithin the framework of knowledge already acquired by building on pastknowledge and identifying links between past and new knowledge.

• challenging students intellectually rather than spoon feeding them or encourag-ing information gathering, but in such a way as to promote enjoyment of thesubject. In Law resorting to primary sources was stressed as particularlyimportant.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

8:15

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14


• encouraging the application of skills to practical/business related situations andproblems. This involves challenging business concepts and behaviour.

(ii) the distinctions between Levels 1, 2 and 3 of an honours degree courseIt should be noted that in Business School courses Level 1 marks do not contributeto the final degree classification. This is normally based on a mix of 30% of marksfrom Level 2 and 70% of marks from Level 3, although the balance might be 40%(Level 2) 60% (Level 3).

• Level 1:This was best described as concerned with 'learning how to be students' (by theManagement Accountancy unit leader). Colleagues perceive the function of Level1 to be essentially the provision of general foundations of knowledge and skills onwhich subsequent levels may be built. It is not concerned with honours which aredeveloped subsequently in Levels 2 and 3. The tutor sees his/her role as providingassistance, support and direction.

• Level 2:In some subject areas Level 2 was still perceived as providing 'building blocks'e.g. for subjects such as marketing which had not been taught previously. In otherareas Level 2 was perceived as building on previous underpinning e.g. Level 2European Business building on Level 1 Economics. In both cases however the roleof the unit was perceived as needing to challenge the student and promote greaterstudent critical awareness than at Level 1. Some independence of research wassought although it was recognised that students would still need some guidance bytutors, even if less than at Level 1.

The issue of law units posed problems since the same unit may be taught atdifferent levels on different courses. As the Constructive Trusts tutor argued 'Level2 is more gentle than Level 3.' It was also argued that although the same unit istaught at different levels students bring different backgrounds and competencies ateach level; this enables a differentiation of the honours challenge between Levels2 and 3.

• Level 3:If Level 2 is perceived as developing the honours challenge then Level 3 is clearlyidentified as the culmination and peak of the honours challenge. The metaphor ofa ladder or building blocks was employed by several tutors interviewed with pro-gression from Level 1 to Level 3, demonstrating increasing difficulty and layers ofcomplexity and increasing interaction of concepts. In other words the deeplearning concept of students creating their own body of knowledge by synthesis isclearly evident here (Gibbs 1992). One tutor emphasised the importance notmerely of quoting authors but also of challenging their arguments and analysis.Terminology such as sophistication, greater rigour, understanding the process of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

8:15

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14


problem solving (the authors' italics), synthesising information and putting it intocontext, and developing a better or strategic overview were used by tutors (thelatter especially by the Human Resource Management tutor). The roles of thestudent as an independent and self motivated learner were also stressed as was theexpectation that his/her research skills should now be fully developed. The greatermaturity of Level 3 students is therefore central to the Level 3 honours challenge.

For tutors teaching on the Business Studies degree, which has a placement year,the reflective aspect of Level 3 was particularly stressed. This is important in thatstudents on Level 3 (Year 4) of this degree have the practical experience againstwhich to critically evaluate theoretical models explored at Level 3.

(iii) Essential prerequisite generic skills which tutors seek to utilise in Level 3unitsAgain it may be useful to group these in a number of broad generic areas sincemuch commonality was identified between different units:

• Research skills: were identified as essential to Level 3. As well as the abilityto gather information the importance of the student working independently wasstrongly emphasised. The tutor's role was clearly seen to be a facilitator; it was thestudent's role to gather relevant information and exercise selection and evaluativeskills in this context to analyse academic worthiness.

• Numeric skills: this involves manipulating data and identifying outcomeswhich can be meaningfully interpreted. It also encompasses the ability to applyfairly complicated techniques and limiting assumptions. Obviously this is ofparticular importance to Accountancy units but was stressed widely in other areassuch as Strategic Management.

• Application of theory to practice: this skill was seen to be of crucial impor-tance across all Level 3 units. It includes the critical evaluation of competingtheories, recognising their limitations and exercising choice between them, andevaluating them against practical cases.

• Problem solving skills: linked to the above might be problem solving skillssince theoretical models are the tools students will employ. These will includepresenting a logical rationale, setting clear objectives and knowing how to meetthem, and working within resource and time constraints.

• Transferable skills: cover a wide range of areas including demonstrating highlevel professional spoken and written communication skills; presentational skillssuch as the ability to produce professional OHPs; time management and planningskills; group working skills e.g. teamwork, allocating tasks and leadership. Againmuch emphasis was placed in the interviews on the need for these to be studentcentred. The importance of the student questioning the status quo of the tutor-student relationship is a key point which was stressed.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

8:15

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14


One tutor raised the importance of imagination in the context of Small BusinessEnterprise students creating future strategies for example by the use of brain-storming learned elsewhere. The authors regard this as of fundamental importancesince above all else it frees the student from the intellectual constraints imposedby the tutor, whether consciously or subconsciously. It also truly enables thestudent to move beyond accepted knowledge to the research degree stage of newknowledge. It is interesting that the Gubbins matrix fails explicitly to identifyimagination as a critical thinking skill, unless this is taken indirectly underdivergent thinking skills as generating unique ideas (originality).

(iv) Specific skills peculiar to a unitThese of course vary considerably from unit to unit and so are briefly reviewedhere on an individual basis. Where answers identify generic skills addressed else-where the unit has not been included here.

• Constructive Trusts: for this unit the key skill is the ability to deal withcomplexities and not be daunted by dense texts. The other key specific skill is theability to deal with problems of logic and lack of logic. Of interest is the fact thatsince the unit deals with the frontiers of knowledge there are no clear cut answers,often only uncertainty. This very important point has been discussed earlier.

• Strategic Management: this stresses, not surprisingly, the need for students toacquire the skill of standing back and taking a strategic overview rather than anoperational view of a business. The ability to synthesise was also stressed.

• Human Resource Management (HRM): the tutor made the comment that,unlike other units, HRM has its roots in social science — hence there are nocorrect answers. Much emphasis is placed on inter-personal and analytical skills.Additionally questioning, behavioural, negotiation, presentation, job analysis andtraining process skills are core to this Level 3 unit.

• Management Accounting: in this unit the tutor stressed the need for commonsense to be exercised by students. She also stressed the importance of imaginationto be demonstrated by students. Interestingly in both cases where imagination wasstressed as an intellectual skill the tutor was a woman!

(v) Examples of the development of Gubbins' critical thinking skillsThis section of the questionnaire was based specifically on Gubbins' matrix and assuch this might suggest that the greatest space and depth of analysis in this papershould be devoted to it. In fact this was intended as a safety net question to pickup issues not responded to in previous questions. The authors have thereforedecided to focus only on selected issues rather than on every item identified by theunit tutors.

• Law: one argument advanced was that any Level 3 Honours worthy unit shoulddevelop all of these critical thinking skills, particularly through the assessment


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

8:15

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14


process. Law tutors stressed the value of moots to develop these skills but stressedthe constraints imposed on this developmental process by the use of semesters.The use of open ended questions was seen as particularly important in promotinginferential thinking.

• Small Business Enterprise: the tutor stressed the importance of creativity, anadjunct of imagination which was discussed above. Since the Gubbins' matrixrelates specifically to critical thinking skills it of course precludes other skills suchas those termed transferable. The tutor emphasised the importance in group workof negotiation as a necessary skill if group evaluation of alternative strategies is tobe undertaken. This reinforcement of critical- thinking skills by transferable skillsis clearly an important part of the honours challenge on which the authors of thispaper place considerable emphasis.

• Strategic Management: there was much emphasis on the analysis of casestudies to enable groups of students to decide how to change the strategic directionof a company, and the ethical implications of decision making. The former clearlyencompasses all aspects of critical thinking including problem solving, decisionmaking, divergent and evaluative thinking skills. The latter clearly illustratesinferential thinking.

• Corporate Finance: this unit was interesting in emphasising the need forstudents to draw on a wide range of different subject areas, not just accountancybased ones. This determination of relevant information by inferential thinking isan important illustration of a key Level 3 critical thinking skill.

• HRM: stressed the importance of original or creative thinking (yet anotherwoman tutor!) focused within the context of the course. This might be achievedthrough the vehicle of role play or games. In the context of philosophy andreasoning the tutor emphasised the importance of the unit broadening eachstudent's personal philosophy through the promotion of abstract thinking, a returnto the concept of life-long learning identified earlier. The need for students toquestion their acceptance of the status quo was seen to be of fundamental impor-tance in this respect.

• Management Accounting: raised the interesting issue that students find itdifficult to conceptualise different ways to solve a problem, and in particular theconcept that it may be better to do nothing rather than something, especially if thevalidity of analytical techniques is dubious. Certainly this process encompasses allaspects of the Gubbins matrix and, importantly, enables the examiner todiscriminate between good honours students and those less capable.

(vi) Anticipated outcomes from studying the unitThese vary of course from unit to unit, and a number of points were subjectspecific. To save listing all units again however the most common ones areabstracted from all the unit leaders interviewed.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

8:15

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14


The importance of the subject content in terms of the concepts it embodies andhow to think like a lawyer, human resource manager, financial manager etc. werestrongly stressed.

Emphasis was placed on the need not to prejudge knowledge since informationwill change more and more quickly. The challenge of coping with hard work andthe sense of achievement in completing this were also linked to the above.

The ability of students to distinguish between different theoretical models, toapply them to practical situations or case studies, and then be able to evaluatebetween alternatives was seen as crucial. In essence the limitations of theory andthe fact that there may well be no correct solution, or that doing nothing may bebetter than doing something were perceived to be crucial to individual intellectualdevelopment. The use of transferable as well as intellectual skills was seen to beof major importance here.

A number of tutors looked forward to the employability of the students they taughtas an important consequence of the learning outcomes they sought to achieve.

6. Conclusions: The Way ForwardThis paper has clearly distinguished the developmental intellectual challenge

posed by an honours degree during the progression from Levels 1 to 3. At South-ampton Business School the honours challenge is clearly identified by tutorswithin the units surveyed and tutors wish to seek actively to develop it. Theintellectual skills being developed match clearly against the Gubbins model usedas a template.

Where the developmental process needs to be improved, in the view of theauthors, is in terms of Level 1 — the first year experience. Since it does not con-tribute to the final exit award it is perceived to be largely an introduction. Yetintellectual skills of crucial importance to student intellectual development areintroduced in units almost in passing — and this is typical of many other institu-tions as well.

What is clearly needed is some form of introduction in Level 1 which willprovide students with a wide range of concepts and skills which can then beutilised and built on in Levels 2 and 3, to enable students better to meet thehonours challenge.

It can clearly be seen from this paper that all of the above are essential facets ofan honours challenge — yet the assumption is almost that students acquire themby osmosis. Although the Institute does provide thinking skills learning packs tostudents little is done beyond this. The ongoing research of the authors regardingthe honours challenge will be focusing on a number of areas. These are comparingand evaluating the use of learning outcomes as opposed to aims and objectives asthe focus for unit documentation. The area of assessment has not been consideredin any meaningful way here as part of the honours challenge — this also needs to


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

8:15

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14


be reviewed. Most importantly however they will be focusing on the need tointegrate the first year experience much more fully into the honours challenge byproposing the provision of some form of thinking and learning skills unit intoLevel 1 of undergraduate programmes.

The context of critical thinking is also an important issue. Educationally basedprogrammes have been criticised for being too academic and for not encouraginglearning transfer (Sternberg 1985 p.63). Stemberg's view that students needpractice in the techniques of critical thinking, as well as practice at solvingproblems, is confirmed.

The authors are therefore aware that caution has to be exercised in derivingsimplistic and generalised approaches to preparation for the honours challenge thatapply to all subject disciplines. Critical thinking and intellectual processes will bederived and demonstrated differently in arts, humanities and science. It is thereforethe authors' contention that the first year should address the generic skills requiredto succeed on honours programmes and provide practice in problem solving in thecontext of first year students' field of study.

As action research this project was concerned with obtaining more preciseknowledge of the honours challenge for Southampton Institute's particular situa-tion and purposes. It is conceded that the methodology is not by its naturescientific because of its specificality. However, within the timescale available forthe project more effort has been made to establish a clearer understanding of whatconstitutes the honours challenge and how it is represented in SouthamptonBusiness School undergraduate courses.

ReferencesBiggs, J.B. & Collis, K.F. (1982).Evaluating the Quality of Learning: the SOLO Taxonomy.

Academic Press.Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (1990). Research Methods in Education (3rd Edition). Routledge.Gibbs, G. (1992). Improving the Quality of Student Learning. Technical and Education Service

Ltd.Gubbins, J. (1985). Matrix of Thinking Skills (unpublished document). Hartford, Conn: State

Department of Education.Handy, C. (1989). The Age of Unreason. Arrow Books.Harris, N.G. & Palmer, A. (1995). Improving the Quality of the First Year Experience on Business

Undergraduate Courses in the Context of a Diminishing Resource Base. Journal of Furtherand Higher Education, Vol. 19.3, Autumn.

Heywood, J. (1989). Assessment in Higher Education. 2nd edition. Wiley.Knowles, M. (1978). The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species (2nd edition). Guest.Sternberg, R.J. (1985). Critical Thinking: Its Nature, Measurement, and Improvement. In Essays

on the Intellect. Edited by Frances R. Link. ASCD Publications.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

8:15

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14


APPENDIX 1GUBBINS' MATRIX OF THINKING SKILLS(CITED BY STERNBERG 1985)I. Problem Solving

A. Identifying general problemB. Clarifying problemC. Formulating hypothesisD. Formulating appropriate questionsE. Generating related ideasF. Formulating alternative solutionsG. Choosing best solutionH. Applying the solutionI. Monitoring acceptance of the solutionJ. Drawing conclusions

II. Decision Making

A. Stating desired goal/conditionB. Stating obstacles to goal/conditionC Identifying alternativesD. Examining alternativesE. Ranking alternativesF. Choosing best alternativeG. Evaluating actions

III. Inferences

A. Inductive thinking skills1. Determining cause and effect2. Analysing open-ended problems3. Reasoning by analogy4. Making inferences5. Determining relevant information6. Recognising relationships7. Solving insight problems

B. Deductive thinking skills1. Using logic2. Spotting contradictory statements3. Analysing syllogisms4. Solving spatial problems

IV. Divergent Thinking Skills

A. Listing attributes of objects/situationsB. Generating multiple ideas (fluency)C. Generating different ideas (flexibility)D. Generating unique ideas (originality)E. Generating detailed ideas (elaboration)F. Synthesizing information

V. Evaluative Thinking Skills

A. Distinguishing between facts and opinionsB. Judging credibility of a sourceC. Observing and judging observation reportsD. Identifying central issues and problemsE. Recognising underlying assumptionsF. Detecting bias, stereotypes, clichesG. Recognising loaded languageH. Evaluating hypothesesI. Classifying dataJ. Predicting consequencesK. Demonstrating sequential synthesis of

informationL. Planning alternative strategiesM. Recognising inconsistencies in informationN. Identifying stated and unstated reasonsO. Comparing similarities and differencesP. Evaluating arguments

VI. Philosophy and Reasoning

A. Using dialogical/dialectical approaches


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

8:15

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14


APPENDIX 2THE HONOURS CHALLENGE IN THE BUSINESS SCHOOL

1. In your own words explain what you understand by 'the honours challenge'

2. How does Level 3 honours work differ from Level 1 honours work?

3. How does Level 3 honours work differ from Level 2 honours work?

4. What skills are you seeking to develop in a Level 3 honours unit programme?

5. What specific skills, peculiar to your subject, are you seeking to develop as part of thehonours challenge?

6. Give examples from your unit of how the following are developed in contact hours withyour students:

(a) problem solving

(b) decision making

(c) inferences — inductive

— deductive

(d) divergent thinking

(e) evaluative thinking

(f) philosophy and reasoning

7. What outcomes would you expect students to achieve, having studied your unit


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

8:15

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Documents

Preparing Students for the Honours Challenge