Advertisement

What Happens After Reacting? A Follow-Up Study of Past RTTP Participants at a Public Regional University

  • Jeffrey L. Bernstein
  • Mary Grace Strasma
  • Russ Olwell
  • Mark D. Higbee
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter’s authors conducted an online survey of two matched groups of Eastern Michigan University (EMU) students and former students. Surveying a cohort of Reacting to the Past (RTTP)-experienced students and EMU students with no RTTP exposure produced findings on student engagement with learning, civic engagement, choice of major, career preparation, and in the case of the RTTP group, information about the class taken, depth of learning, and which elements of RTTP students considered most valuable. The authors report surprising results regarding the comparisons on student performance, retention, and disruption of students’ perceptions of success.

References

  1. Burney, J. M., Powers, R. G., & Carnes, M. C. (2010). Reacting to the past: A new approach to student engagement and to enhancing general education. A white paper for the Teagle Foundation. Retrieved from https://reacting.barnard.edu/about/special-initiatives/fresh-thinking
  2. Carnes, M. C. (2005). Inciting speech. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 37(2), 6–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carnes, M. C. (2014). Minds on fire: How role-immersion games transform college. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Finley, A., & Rhodes, T. (2013). Using the VALUE rubrics for improvement of learning and authentic assessment. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.Google Scholar
  5. Higbee, M. D. (2008). How Reacting to the Past games “made me want to come to class and learn”: An assessment of the reacting pedagogy at EMU, 2007–2008. The scholarship of teaching and learning at EMU, 2(4), 1–34. Retrieved from http://commons.emich.edu/sotl/vol2/iss1/4/
  6. Huber, M. T., & Hutchings, P. (2004). Integrative learning: Mapping the terrain. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.Google Scholar
  7. Kuh, G. D. (2008). High impact practices: What are they, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.Google Scholar
  8. Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 540–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lightcap, T. (2009). Creating political order: Maintaining student engagement through “Reacting to the Past”. PS: Political Science and Politics, 42(1), 175–179.Google Scholar
  10. Olwell, R., & Stevens, A. (2015). “I had to double-check my thoughts”: How the Reacting to the Past methodology impacts first year college student engagement, retention and historical thinking. The History Teacher, 48(3), 561–572.Google Scholar
  11. Stroessner, S. J., Beckerman, L. S., & Whittaker, A. (2009). All the world’s a stage? Consequences of a role-playing pedagogy on psychological factors and writing and rhetorical skill in college. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 605–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Tinto, V. (1999). Taking student retention seriously: Rethinking the first year of college. National Academic Advising Association Journal, 19(2), 5–9.Google Scholar
  14. Wineburg, S. (1999). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(7), 488–499.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey L. Bernstein
    • 1
  • Mary Grace Strasma
    • 1
  • Russ Olwell
    • 2
  • Mark D. Higbee
    • 1
  1. 1.Eastern Michigan UniversityYpsilantiUSA
  2. 2.Merrimack CollegeNorth AndoverUSA

Personalised recommendations