This study focuses on factors increasing the effectiveness of collaborative learning. Results show that challenging, open, and complex group tasks that required the students to create something new and original evoked effective collaboration.

Universities in many countries increasingly value talent, and do so by developing special honors programs for their top students. The selection process for these programs often relies on the students' prior achievements in school. Research has shown, however, that school grades do not sufficiently predict academic success. According to Renzulli's (1986) three-ring model, student characteristics relating to intelligence, motivation and creativity are the most important predictors of excellent achievements in professional life. In this paper, we will investigate whether honors students differ from non-honors students in terms of these characteristics. By means of a questionnaire, more than 1,100 honors and non-honors students at Utrecht University were asked to assess themselves on six characteristics: intelligence, creative thinking, openness to experience, the desire to learn, persistence, and the drive to excel. The results showed that the honors students differed significantly from the non-honors students in terms of the combined variables as well as for the separate variables, with the exception of 'persistence'. The strongest distinguishing factors between honors and non-honors students appeared to be the desire to learn, the drive to excel and creativity, whilst there was little difference in terms of intelligence and persistence. However, the profiles of these differences varied according to the study program. While Law and Humanities honors students differed from their nonhonors peers in terms of their drive to excel, Physics honors students were primarily more eager to learn than their non-honors peers, while the LA&S honors students scored higher on creative thinking than non-honors students.

No abstract

Students need to be challenged to stimulate their learning. Applying challenge in practice however is not straightforward. Challenging students may conflict with other teacher responsibilities, creating potential dilemmas for teachers. This study discloses dilemmas teachers encounter when challenging students as well as the considerations accompanying their actual choices for action when coping with these dilemmas. Based on interviews with teachers, first, a dilemma analysis instrument was developed. Seven main categories of dilemmas were found. One of the main dilemmas encompassed maximizing challenge versus keeping all students on board. University students differ in their ability, confronting teachers with the feeling that choosing to serve one group could be detrimental to the learning of others. The diversity of choices and considerations brought forward by the teachers indicates that it matters who the teacher is, and what he or she stands for and is able to do.

This article reports on a one-semester Advanced Cell Biology course that endeavors to bridge the gap between gaining basic textbook knowledge about cell biology and learning to think and work as a researcher. The key elements of this course are 1) learning to work with primary articles in order to get acquainted with the field of choice, to learn scientific reasoning, and to identify gaps in our current knowledge that represent opportunities for further research; 2) formulating a research project with fellow students; 3) gaining thorough knowledge of relevant methodology and technologies used within the field of cell biology; 4) developing cooperation and leadership skills; and 5) presenting and defending research projects before a jury of experts. The course activities were student centered and focused on designing a genuine research program. Our 5-yr experience with this course demonstrates that 1) undergraduate students are capable of delivering high-quality research designs that meet professional standards, and 2) the authenticity of the learning environment in this course strongly engages students to become self-directed and critical thinkers. We hope to provide colleagues with an example of a course that encourages and stimulates students to develop essential research thinking skills.