Advertisement

Playing with Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: How Does Reacting to the Past Empower Students and Faculty?

  • Thomas Chase Hagood
  • Naomi J. Norman
  • Hyeri Park
  • Brittany M. Williams
Chapter

Abstract

Given Reacting to the Past’s (RTTP’s) tremendous growth since its earliest iteration in the mid-1990s, students and faculty alike have come to view RTTP as a transformative experience. This chapter assesses both sides of the RTTP classroom by presenting the results of two national surveys. The surveys illuminate students’ and faculty’s perceptions of both the pedagogy and its high-impact elements. Through the lenses of social cohesion theory and the relationship-driven teaching model, the authors evaluate students’ views of the impact(s) of RTTP on their learning within RTTP course(s), as well as how the pedagogy influenced their study habits, appreciation of course content, and sense of autonomy as learners. Additionally, the faculty survey provides key insights into how RTTP implementation, its successes and challenges, influences faculty decisions on teaching and instruction beyond their RTTP-based classes and how they perceive improvements in student performance when compared to non-RTTP courses.

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors thank Dr. Colleen M. Kuusinen, Assistant Director for the Scholarship for Teaching and Learning at the University of Georgia for her early assistance in crafting the most seamless expression of the survey instruments found in the Appendix. Her suggested revisions and willingness to review our work were crucial to the development of this project.

References

  1. Association of American Colleges & Universities. (2007). College learning for the new global century: A report from the national leadership council for liberal education & America’s promise. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges & Universities.Google Scholar
  2. Beaty-O’Ferrall, M. E., Green, A., & Hanna, F. (2010). Classroom management strategies for difficult students: Promoting change through relationships. Middle School Journal, 41(4), 4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bishop, C. F., Caston, M. I., & King, C. A. (2014). Learner-centered environments: Creating effective strategies based on student attitudes and faculty reflection. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 14(3), 46–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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. Teagle foundation white paper report. New York: Barnard College.Google Scholar
  5. Carnes, M. C. (2004). Being there: The liminal classroom. Chronicle Review. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Liminal-Classroom/9659
  6. Carnes, M. C. (2014). Minds on fire: How role-immersion games transform college. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carpenter, R., Morin, C., Sweet, C., & Blythe, H. (2017). Editorial: The role of faculty development in teaching and learning through high-impact educational practices. The Journal of Faculty Development, 31(1), 7–12.Google Scholar
  8. Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(1), 3–7.Google Scholar
  9. Cook, K. S., Cheshire, C., Rice, E. R. W., & Nakagawa, S. (2013). Social exchange theory. In J. Delamater (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 61–88). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fenty, J. (1997). Knowing your students better: A key to involving first-year students. Center for Research on Learning and Teaching Occasional Papers, 9, 1–7.Google Scholar
  11. Friedkin, N. E. (2004). Social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 409–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hodges, L. C. (2006). Preparing faculty for pedagogical change: Helping faculty deal with fear. In S. Chadwick-Blossey & D. R. Robertson (Eds.), To improve the academy, resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development. Bolton: Anker Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Inside Higher Education. (2015). Going through the motions? The 2015 survey of faculty workplace engagement. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/survey/going-through-motions-2015-survey-faculty-workplace-engagement
  14. Kuh, G. D. (2008). Excerpt from high-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.Google Scholar
  15. Kuh, G. D., & Hu, S. (2001). The effects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s. Review of Higher Education, 24(3), 309–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kuh, G. D., O’Donnell, K., & Reed, S. (2013). Ensuring quality and taking high-impact practices to scale. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.Google Scholar
  17. Lackritz, J. (2004). Exploring burnout among university faculty: Incidence, performance, and demographic issues. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(7), 713–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lamport, M. A. (1993). Student-faculty informal interaction and the effect on college student outcomes: A review of the literature. Adolescence, 28, 971–990.Google Scholar
  19. Malesic, J. (2016). The 40-year-old burnout. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/article/The-40-Year-Old-Burnout/237979
  20. National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Race/ethnicity of college faculty. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=61
  21. Proctor, N. W. (2011). Reacting to the Past game designer’s handbook. New York: Barnard College.Google Scholar
  22. Rogers, S., & Renard, L. (1999). Relationship-driven teaching. Educational Leadership, 57, 34–37.Google Scholar
  23. Slater, L. (2004). Relationship-driven teaching cultivates collaboration and inclusion. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 40(2), 58–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Smith, D. G. (2015). Diversity’s promise for higher education: Making it work. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  25. 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 undergraduates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Swaner, L., & Brownell, J. (2008). Outcomes of high-impact practices for underserved students: A review of the literature. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.Google Scholar
  27. Vygotsky, L. S., Cole, M., Stein, S., & Sekula, A. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Webb, J., & Engar, A. (2016). Exploring classroom community: A social network study of Reacting to the Past. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 4(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Chase Hagood
    • 1
  • Naomi J. Norman
    • 1
  • Hyeri Park
    • 1
  • Brittany M. Williams
    • 1
  1. 1.University of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations