role playing, self efficacy and the at risk reading

Journal of Student Success and Retention Vol. 5, No. 2, May 2019

1

ROLE‐PLAYING,SELF‐EFFICACYANDTHEAT‐RISKREADINGSTUDENT

TiffanyRenaeMillerMiddleTennesseeStateUniversity

[email protected]

DawnMcCormackMiddleTennesseeStateUniversityDawn.mccormack@mtsu.edu

RebeccaCawoodMcIntyre

MiddleTennesseeStateUniversity [email protected]

TimothyNelson

[email protected]

Abstract

Academicallyat‐riskstudentsfacedifficultanduniquechallengesinhighereducation.In

thisstudy,wearguethatReactingtothePastpedagogy,arole‐playinggame,provides

studentstheopportunitytolearneffectively.Thestudyfocusesonapilotprogramrecently

adoptedbyMiddleTennesseeStateUniversity’sReadingHistoryInitiative,acorequisite

programthatlinksreadingenhancementcourseswithrequiredhistorysurveys.The

resultsofthestudysuggestthatrole‐playingandspecificallytheReactingtothePast

pedagogyincreasesacademicself‐efficacyamongat‐riskreadingstudents.Thisincreasein

self‐efficacyleadstoadeeperappreciationoflearningandhigherlevelsofachievement.

ThisstudybridgesanimportantconnectionbetweenReactingtothePastpedagogyandat‐

riskstudents.Ultimately,thisstudyenhancesourunderstandingoftheopportunitiesthat

emerginginstructionalpractices,suchasReactingtothePast,canhaveamong

academicallyat‐riskcommunities.

Keywords:self‐efficacy,ReactingtothePast(RTTP,Reacting),academicallyat‐risk,

learningcommunities,studentsuccess,bestpractices,highimpactpractices,role‐play


2

StatementoftheProblem

Self‐efficacyisanindividual’sbeliefintheabilitytoaccomplishtasks,andacademic

self‐efficacyimpliesthatthetasksmustrelatetoacademicgoals(Vuong,Brown‐Welty,&

Tracz,2010).Astudent’sself‐efficacycontributestoacademicdevelopmentbydetermining

hisorheraspirations,levelofmotivation,andevenacademicaccomplishments(Bandura,

1993).Thereisapositiverelationshipbetweenself‐efficacyandlearningbecausethemore

astudentbelievesheorshecanaccomplishatask,thehighertheperformance(Barry&

Finney,2009).Self‐efficacyisacriticalskilltodevelopforstudentswhocometocollege

underprepared(Hsieh,Sullivan,&Guerra,2007).Thisstudyexaminesacohortofat‐risk

readingstudentsatMiddleTennesseeStateUniversity(MTSU),alargeregionalpublic

universitywithapproximately22,000students.“Atrisk”inthisstudyisstudentswhoscore

belowa19ontheReadingportionoftheACT.Thisprojectbeganasanhonor’sthesisin

Fall2017(Miller,2018).Ourgoalwastodeterminewhetherarole‐playinggamewould

buildself‐efficacyinourstudentpopulation.ReactingtothePast(RTTPorReacting),a

sophisticatedrole‐playinggame,waschosentotestthehypothesisthatthisactivelearning

wouldengagestudentsandbuildtheirabilitytoaccomplishacademicgoals.Reactinghas

beenstudiedintraditionalclassroomsettingsbut,todate,nostudieshaveshownits

impactintheat‐riskcohort.Althoughthiswasasmallpilot,wearguethatrole‐playingand

specificallyRTTPcanhaveaplaceinthedevelopmentalcoursesparticularlybecauseit

buildsacademicself‐efficacy.Inthefollowingsectionswewillgiveanoverviewofthe

relevantliterature,describetheacademicallyat‐riskpopulationatMTSU,andshowhow

thesestudents’needshavebeenaddressed.Thenwewilldescribethemethodsofthe

projectandhowitwasadaptedfortheat‐riskstudentsusingtheIndianaUniversity(IU)

SouthBendstudymeasuringself‐efficacy.Finally,wewilldiscussthefindingsandtheir

significanceforthispopulationandpotentiallyforotherdevelopmentalprogramsinhigher

education.

TheRelationshipbetweenDevelopmentalReadingandSelf‐Efficacy

Highereducationvaluesreadingcomprehension(Tinto,1993).Bythetimea

studentreachesuniversity,heorsheisexpectedtoreadavarietyoftextsandderivedeep


3

meaningsuniquelyfromthosetexts.Whilesomestudentsgainthisreadingproficiency,

othersstruggletoattainthegoal.Thislackofreadingskillsinuniversityagestudentsis

becomingmorepervasive.TheNationalEndowmentfortheArts(2007)reportsthree

alarmingshifts:first,Americansarespendinglesstimereading;second,reading

comprehensionskillsareeroding;andthird,thesedeclineshaveseriouscivic,social,

cultural,andeconomicimplications.

Compoundinglowreadingskillsistheriseinthenumberofstudentswhoenrollin

someformofhighereducation.Betweentheyear2004and2014,collegeenrollment

nationallyincreasedby17%(USDepartmentofEducation,2017).Inthefallof2016,

69.7%ofhighschoolgraduatesenrolledincollege(U.S.DepartmentofLabor,2017)and

manyofthesestudentswereill‐equippedforcollegecoursework.Intheirannualreporton

the"ConditionofCollegeandCareerReadiness,"ACTanalystsreportedonly44%ofthe

classof2016satisfactorilyreachedthebenchmarkinreading(ACT,2016).Theyarenot

aloneintheirfindings;theNationalAssessmentofEducationalProgressreportedthatonly

37%ofstudentsmeetorexceedreadingproficiency(USDepartmentofEducation,2016).

Thesereportsindicatethatuniversitiesareincreasinglyenrollingstudentsunder‐prepared

fortheacademicandprofessionalroadahead.

Studentsindevelopmentalreadingcourseshavealsobeenfoundtohavelowerself‐

efficacyattributesthanpeersintraditionalcollegecourses(Cantrelletal.,2013).Thiscan

haveasignificantimpactonretention.Curriculumindevelopmentalcourseshasthe

potentialtoincreaseself‐efficacy(MacArthur,Philippakos,&Ianetta,2015).Intentionally

choosingcurriculumandpedagogicalmethodsthathavethepotentialtoincreasestudent

self‐efficacyisimportantindevelopmentaleducationbecauseofthepotentialpositive

effectsforincreasingstudentsuccessandretention.Inarecentstudy,Han,Farruggia,and

Moss(2017)investigatedtherelationshipsbetweennon‐cognitive,ormindset,factors

amongfreshmenandstudentsuccess.Mindsetwasfoundtopredictacademicachievement

andretention,andself‐efficacywasthespecificmindsetmost‐closelyassociatedwith

academicsuccess.


4

MTSUandtheReadingHistoryInitiative

Highereducationadministratorsandfacultyareaddressingtheneedsoftheunder‐

preparedstudentandschoolshaveinstitutedprogramsdesignedtoassistthesestudentsin

developingthenecessaryskillsforasuccessfulacademiccareer.Theseprogramsvaryin

scopeandcomplexity.Currently,auniversityseekingtoimplementaprogramforthe

academicallyat‐riskoftenchoosesfromtwopopularapproaches(Hodges&Agee2009).

Thefirstisthedesignationofprescribedcoursesdesignedtomeetneedsdemonstratedby

assessmentandthesecondconsistsoflearningassistantservicesofferedtotheentire

studentpopulation.MTSUusesablendedapproachwithlinkedclasses.MTSUhasastrong

commitmenttostudentsuccessandhasbeenproactiveinidentifyingpopulationsthat

needadditionalsupporttobesuccessful.Oneoftheprogramstocomeoutofthat

commitmentistheReadingHistoryInitiative.

TheReadingHistoryInitiativebeganinfall2015whenMTSUdirectlylinked(as

corequisites)READ1000ReadingSkillsEnrichment,athree‐hourprescribedreading

coursewithsectionsofHIST2020SurveyofUnitedStatesHistoryII,ageneraleducation

requirement.TheuniversitychoseHIST2020becauseitisa“gatekeeper”course;success

inthiscoursecorrelateshighlywithstudentretention.History2020isalsooneofthemost

challengingrequiredgeneraleducationcourses,particularlyforstudentswhoreadbelow

thecollegelevel.Inthispairing,theREAD1000courseusesthehistoryreadingsas

classroomtexts,employingavarietyofstrategiestoaidstudentcomprehension.The

readinginstructorandthehistoryinstructoralsoworkcloselytomaximizethe

effectivenessofthepairing.

In2017,theReadingHistoryInitiativepilotedanewcoursepairing,thanksinpart

toaTennesseeBoardofRegentsStudentEngagement,Retention,andSuccessGrant.While

preparingforthegrantapplication,theinvestigators(MarvaLucas,DawnMcCormack,

RebeccaMcIntyre,andTimothyNelson)discoveredthatanalarmingnumberofat‐risk

studentswerenotgraduatingbecausetheyfailedtocompleteorevenenrollinHIST2010

SurveyoftheUnitedStatesHistoryI,arequiredcourse.AtMTSU,asatotherpublic

universitiesandcollegesinTennessee,studentsarerequiredtotaketwohistorysurveys.

At‐riskreadingstudentshadtakenthefirstrequiredhistorybutweredelayingornot


5

takingthesecondrequiredhistory.Only35%ofthestudentswhotookdevelopmental

readinginFall2010hadtakenthesecondrequiredhistorywithinsixyears.Thesix‐year

graduationrateforthosestudentswasalso35%.Thefundedprojectgaveat‐riskreading

studentstheincentivetotakethatcrucialsecondhistorycoursebyprovidinganystudent

whosucceededintheREAD1000/HIST2020sequencetheopportunitytotakethesecond

requiredhistorysurveyHIST2010withaonehourpairedreadinglab.Withthislabas

extrasupport,webelievethatmoreat‐riskstudentswillcompletethisgeneraleducation

requirement,allowingthemtopersisttowardgraduation.Thepilotforthegrantwas5

readinglabspairedwith5history2010surveys.Alltheinstructors,bothhistoryand

reading,decidedtoemphasizeactivelearningandemployatleastoneHighImpactPractice

(HIP).Fortwoofthesepairedsections,ReactingtothePastwaschosenasoneoftheHIPs

experiences.

ReactingtothePast

ReactingtothePastisaprograminitiallycreatedbyMarkCarnesatBarnardCollege

(Carnes,2014).TheReactingprogramincludesahostofsimulationsthatallowstudentsto

role‐playdiversehistoricalevents.OneoftheprimarygoalsofReactingistointroduce

studentstothecomplexdecisionsofthepast(Proctor,2011).Typically,thesehistorical

momentsinvolveonetothreekeydecisions.Thegamedemandsthatstudentsplaya

characterwhocaninfluencethosedecisions,notjustre‐enactaneventfromthepastwitha

derivativescript.Studentsaregivenarolesheetthatdelineatestheirparticularagendaand

theirfaction.Theymustpromotetheiragendabyusingprimarysourcematerialsasthe

basisforcraftingarguments,makingspeeches,brokeringdeals,negotiatingbetween

factions,writingpersuasiveletters,andcreatingpublications.Inordertowin,students

mustconductintensiveresearch,collaboratewithpeers,andsharpenkeyrhetoricskills

throughclassdebates.Thesimulationsmaybedesignedtolastanywherefromonedayto

multipleweeks.Eachgameishighlyadaptabletosuittheobjectivessetbytheinstructor.

Thegamesarewidelyresearchedandvettedbyleadingprofessorsinfieldssuchashistory,

anthropology,philosophy,andpoliticalscience(Carnes,2014).Instructorshaveawide

varietyofdevelopedgamebooksfromwhichtochoosethroughtheReactingtothePast

library(https://reacting.barnard.edu/the‐curriculum).FromAthens,Greeceandthe


6

debateoverdemocracytoIndia’spushforindependence,manyofthegamesaresetin

someofthemosthighlycontestedtimesofhistory.Thisgame‐basedpedagogyuses

students’desirestowinasamotivatorforengaginginthecomplexitiesofthepast(Carnes,

2014).

Thegameisactivelearningatitsbestbecauseitrequirescognitiveprocessing

(Hagood,Watson,&Williams,2018).Thegamesemphasizeteamworkandcollaborationby

usingfactions,deal‐making,anddiscussion.Thiscollaborationaddsasocialrequirementor

overtexpectation(Hagoodetal.,2018).Participationismorethansimplytakingnotesor

beingintheclass.Studentsareheldaccountabletotheirpeersforknowingthematerial

andparticipatinginamannerworthyoftheirdesignatedcharacters.Studentsalsoreport

feelingempoweredtolearnthroughthestructureofthegame.Inordertowin,theymust

defendanargument;awell‐constructedargumentconsistsofsupportiveevidencefoundin

theprimarydocuments.Therefore,Reactingemphasizesactivelearningbyencouraging

studentstocollaborateandinternalizethematerial.

TheReactingpedagogyalignswithmanyofthecharacteristicsofHighImpact

Practices.HIPsaredefinedas“…teachingandlearningpractices(that)havebeenwidely

testedandhavebeenshowntobebeneficialforcollegestudentsfrommanybackgrounds”

(Kuh,2008).Thefindingsofhigh‐impactresearchhaveledtheAssociationofAmerican

CollegesandUniversities(AAC&U)toadoptthesepracticesintotheirmovementfor

nationalLiberalEducation(Hagoodetal.,2018).GeorgeKuh,aleadingscholaronHIPs,

believesthatinordertoenhancestudentengagementandincreasestudentsuccesswe

must,“…makeitpossibleforeverystudenttoparticipateinatleasttwohigh‐impact

activitiesduringhisorherundergraduateprogram”(Kuh,2008).


7

Note:High‐ImpactEducationalPractices(2013).Retrievedfrom:www.aacu.org

Reactingfitsintofourhigh‐impactareas:acommonintellectualexperience,

collaborativeassignmentandprojects,undergraduateresearch,andintensiveburstsof

writing.Reactingalsoincludesinvolvementinsociallearningwithahightimecommitment

(takingweeksormonthstocomplete).Theseaspectsallowthestudenttocraftindividual

learningandongoingcriticalthinkinganddecision‐making,bothofwhichcharacterize

HIPs(Hagoodetal.,2018).

Reactingisalsoagoodfitformanystudentsincludingthosefromlow

socioeconomicbackgrounds.InastudyofReactingatMTSU,DawnMcCormackandKaren

Petersen(2018)concludedthat“RTTPcanengagestudentsfromdiversebackgrounds

withouttheoften‐prohibitivecostsassociatedwithothertypesofHIPs,suchasstudy

abroadandinternshipprograms.”Traditionallyunderrepresentedstudentscanstill

benefitfromHIPseveniftheycanonlyparticipateincollegeandtakecoursesthatutilize

Reactingcurricula.

TheReactingpedagogyhasmanypositivebenefits.McCormackandPetersen’sstudy

suggeststhatRTTPisaneffectivepedagogicaltoolforstudentengagement,andthatthe

experiencehelpsstudentsgainimportantskills(McCormack&Petersen,2018).Allofthis,

theyargue,shouldaidinretentionandappreciationforliberalartseducation.Bernstein,

Strasma,Olwell,andHigbee(2018)conductedafollow‐upstudyofstudentsthathad

participatedinReactingcoursestounderstandthelongitudinaleffectsofthepedagogy.

Theyfoundthatstudents’experiencedincreasedempathy,sawmultipleperspectives,and

understoodsimilaritiesamongtheiracademicpursuits.Anothernotablestudythat

examinedReactingconductedbyHagood,Norman,Park,andWilliams(2018)soughtto

Table1.AAC&U'stenhigh‐impactpractices

Highimpactpractices

Firstyearseminarsandexperiences Diversity/GlobalLearning

CommonintellectualExperiences ePortfolios

LearningCommunities ServiceLearning,Community‐Basedlearning

Writing‐IntensiveCourses Internships

CollaborativeAssignmentsandProjects Capstonecoursesandprojects

UndergraduateResearch


8

examinethepedagogyfrombothsidesoftheclassroom:studentsandinstructorsthrough

nation‐widesurveys.Overall,theirrespondentsbelievethatReactingfundamentally

changedhowtheylearnandteach.Theyalsofoundthatthemoreclassesastudenttakes

thegreatertheimpact.

ResearchershaveexaminedeffectsthatReactingcanhaveonstudentself‐efficacy.

Asmentionedearlier,theIUSouthBendstudydelvesintothecomplexrelationshipof

Reactingandself‐efficacy(Schult,Lidinsky,Zwicker,&Dunn,2018).Theresults

demonstratethattherewasanoverallincreaseinstudentefficacywiththelargest

improvementsforwomen.ThestudyalsopointedtoReactingpedagogybeingmost

powerfulforstudentswhofindtraditionalclassroomsleastempowering(Schultetal.,

2018).

However,Reactinghasnotbeenthoroughlystudiedintermsofat‐riskpopulations

orinthedevelopmentalclassroom.Aprimaryaimofthisstudywastodetermineifa

complexrole‐playinggamewouldengagestudentsinthematerialandbolstertheirsense

ofaccomplishment,theiracademicself‐efficacy.Althoughcommonlyconfused,self‐efficacy

isnotthesameasself‐esteemorself‐confidence,whichtendtomeasureanindividual’s

self‐worthorvalue.Eventhemostintellectualofstudentsmaystruggletoexcelinthe

classroom.AsnotedbyBandura(1993,p.119),“Thereisamarkeddifferencebetween

possessingknowledgeandskillsandbeingabletousethemwellundertaxingconditions.”

Bandurasuggeststhattherearetwodominantwaysastudentmayconstrueability.Some

studentsregardabilityasanacquirableskillthatcanbeimprovedthroughknowledge.

Theytendtojudgetheircapabilitiesbasedonpersonalimprovementratherthan

comparisonwithothers.Thisviewhelpsthestudentadvanceandadapttochanging

academicintensities.Otherstudentsseeabilityasaninherentcapacity.Iftheyperform

well,itisbecausetheyhavetheintellectualcapacity;iftheyperformpoorly,theylackthis

intellectualcapacity.Moreover,thelattertendtojudgetheircapabilitiesbasedonothers’

performances,whichcanbelittletheirviewofadvancement.Understandably,thiscanlead

toahighlyfrustratedstudentwithlittleadaptability.

Quantitatively,researchershavefoundthelevelofself‐efficacytobethesingle

strongestpredictorofGPAwhenexaminingacademicsuccessmodels(Faust,2017;Solberg


9

&Villareal,1997).Researchershavealsofoundthatself‐efficacymeasuresareauseful

predictorofcontinuinginachosenfieldofstudyandevengraduation(Vuongetal.,2010).

EducationalPsychologistshavealsoshownthatself‐efficacyplaysanimportantrolein

personaladjustmentstocollegelife,particularlyinthefirstyears(Chemers,Hu,&Garcia,

2001).Ultimately,measuringtheimpactapedagogyhasonstudentself‐efficacycanreveal

muchabouttheeffectivenessofthepractice.

Reactingfitsintothebroadcategoryofnewliteraciesasanalternateandcreative

meansofengagingstudentsinwhatHagood(2008)referredtoas“alternativeidentity

constructions”(p.539).AlthoughReactinggamesdonotcurrentlyincludeonline

components,thereisconsiderablepedagogicaloverlapwithAlternativeRealityGames

(ARGs),whicharegainingattentioninacademiccircles(Moseley,2012).Specifically,

ReactingsharesatleastfourcharacteristicswithARGs:theuseofnarrative,theabilityof

participantstoinfluenceoutcomes,problemsolvinginatime‐limitedformat,and

participationinacommunity.Thealternativerealitysettingcreatedinrole‐playallowsfor

ablendingoffamiliardiscourseswithhistoricalconversationswhereineducatorshopeto

engagestudents.Whilethevoicesthatstudentsbringtothegamesissuretoaffectgame

outcomes,itisplausiblethatengaginginnewdiscoursesinthegamesettingwillaffecthow

studentsparticipateincontemporaryculture.

Method

ThisprojectexaminedstudentsintwosectionsoftheMTSUHIST2010course,both

sectionsbeingpairedwithaonehourreadinglab.Thehistorycoursemetforthreehours

perweek,withtheonehourreadinglabfollowingimmediatelyafterthehistorycourse.In

total,thestudyincludes1,090minutes(approximately18hours)ofdirectclass

observations.

Duringthisstudy,thehonorsstudent(Miller)workedcloselywiththehistory

professor(McIntyre),whochosetheRTTPgamePatriots,Loyalists,andRevolutioninNew

YorkCity,1775‐1776becauseitbestfitthelearningobjectivesofthecourse(Offut,2011).

ThisgameintroducesstudentstothepoliticalandsocialchaosofcolonialNewYorkCity.

PatriotsandLoyalistsvieforanadvantageinanundecidedpopulace.Throughthe


10

experience,studentsbegintounderstandthestrengthsandweaknessesofbothsides.They

alsobegintounderstandhowthecolonialenvironment(i.e.economicsystem,social

structure,etc.)shapedtheimpactandpowerofthearguments.Themaindebatecenterson

whethercolonialNewYorkCityshouldpursueapathofreconciliationwiththeBritishor

independence(andpossiblewar)fromthemothercountry.

TheultimategoalofeachstudentistogaincontrolofNewYorkCityattheendof

1776,aswellasachievecertainvictoryobjectivesspecifictohisorherroleand

background.Publicpoliticalpersuasionthrougheffectiveargumentationstrengthensthe

student’schancesofwinning.However,thesearenottheonlyformsofpersuasion.

Studentsmayalsochoosetoengageinprivatepersonaldeals,pamphleteering,swayinga

crowd,andevenbriberywhenappropriate.Thecombinationoftheseovertandcovert

activitiesdeterminesthestudent’svictory.Whetherastudentisvictoriousisbasedupon

hisorhercharacter’srole.

Throughoutthegamethestudentsmustalsounderstandtherichphilosophical

debatesofthetime.Politicalideologiessuchasliberalism,republicanism,anddemocracy

reallybegantofomentduringthecolonialera.Studentsmustderivethecoreoftheir

argumentsfromtheseschoolsofthought.Tohelpstudentsgrapplewiththesedeep

concepts,thedesigneraddedaseriesofprimarysourcestothegamebook.Thesesources

includeextensiveexcerptsfromJohnLocke’sSecondTreatiseofGovernmentandpamphlets

fromSamuelJohnson,ThomasPaine,andJamesChalmers(Offut,2011).

Table2.Patriots,Loyalists,andRevolutioninNewYorkCity,1775‐1776

LearningObjectives

CriticalThinking TeamworkandProblem‐Solving

Writing Making"CitizensoftheWorld"

Speaking BuildingCommunity

Leadership


11

Eachgameisdesignedtobehighlyadaptabletotheobjectivesoftheinstruction.

Therefore,adecisionwasmadetoadaptthegametofittheneedsoftheacademicallyat‐

riskstudents.Forthispilot,MillerandMcIntyrechangedthetimeframefortheReacting

game.Typicallythegameisfourweekslong.Becauseofthenewnessofthegametothe

studentsandtheprogram,theydecidedtocondensethegameintoamorecompressed

schedulethatlastedthreeweeksbecausetheywantedtogiveextratimelayingoutthe

contextofthegame..

Contextsessions,whichoccurpriortogameplay,werecriticallyimportant.These

sessionslastedtwoandonehalfweeksinsteadoftheusualoneweek.Facultymembers

haveobservedthatmanyat‐riskreadingstudentscomewithveryshallowhistorical

knowledge.Thus,MillerandMcIntyrefeltitimportanttohavestudentsunderstandthe

complexbackgroundthatledto1776.Thecontextsessionsweregivenaslectureswith

frequentquizzesinterspersed.Whilethecontextsessionsgaveavalidoverview,theylater

learnedthatthestudentswantedmorecontext,particularlyoneconomicandmilitary

matters.Theyalsoadjustedtherolesheetsbeforegivingthemtothestudents.Manyofthe

rolesheetsincludedmaterialthatwasmorerelevanttotheeliminatedsessions.Theyleft

thebackgroundsandbiographiesofthecharactersintactandaddedsomeillustrationsto

therolesheetssothestudentscouldgetabetterideaofwhattheircharacterswouldhave

lookedanddressedlike.

MillerandMcIntyrealsoadjustedthereadingrequirements.Theydirectedthe

studentstouseThomasPaine’sCommonSenseandJamesChalmers’PlainTruth.Paine’s

Table3.Patriots,Loyalists,andRevolutioninNewYorkCity,1775‐1776

KeyConcepts

Philosophicalbasisofgovernment

Originof,rightsto,andgovernmentalprotectionofproperty

Ruleoflawandtheroleofcourts

Historicalcontingency

Rightofrebellionandrevolutionundercertaincircumstances

Roleandlegitimacyofviolence

Politicallegitimacyofagovernmentandhowitisgained,maintained,andlost


12

CommonSenseaddressesthesharedgrievancesofthePatriots.Althoughalittlelesswell‐

known,ChalmerswrotePlainTruthasarebuttaltoPaine’sargumentandstronglysupports

theLoyalists’cause.Theygavestudentsthetextoftheoriginaldocument.Toadaptthis

gameforthestudents,McIntyrealsocreatedannotatedversionsofbothpiecesandshowed

anin‐classvideoonThomasPaine.

Thegame’soriginaldesignincludesavarietyofassignmentoptions.Forthispilot,

McIntyredecidedtofocusheavilyonparticipation,speeches,andreflection.Participation

involvedmorethanjustshowinguptoclass;studentshadtobeactivelyinvolvedinthe

discussionandhadtodemonstratethattheyunderstoodtheobjectivesoftheirroles.This

wasdeterminedbytheactionstheytookandthewordstheyspokeinclass.Speecheswere

requiredtobesubmittedbeforetheyweredelivered.Thegradeassessedboththewritten

speechandtheoralspeech.Anotheradjustmenttothegamewasafinalreflectionpaper.

Studentswroteandturnedinareflectionontheircharacter,theircharacterdevelopment,

howtheyplayedthegame,andwhattheylearnedfromthegame.

Todetermineself‐efficacy,MillerusedtheIndianaUniversitySouthBendstudythat

measuredtheself‐efficacyofcollegestudentsenrolledineightsectionsoftheirLiterary

andIntellectualTraditionsReactingcoursesfrom2010‐2013(Schultetal.,2018).Apre‐

surveywasadministeredafterthecontextsessionbutbeforethegameplay,andapost‐

surveywasadministeredafterthegameended.Surveyswerethechoseninstrumentto

measurechangesinself‐efficacy,primarilybecauseself‐efficacyisanindividually

perceivedmeasurebestcapturedbysurveys.ThesurveywasadaptedfromtheIUSouth

Bendstudy(Schultetal.,2018),whichusedanadjustedformofBarryandFinney’s(2009)

CollegeSelf‐EfficacySurveyforRTTP.

TheMTSUsurveyaskedquestionsinthreeprimarytaskareas.First,therewere

questionsthatspecificallyrelatedtoReactingtaskssuchasspeeches,identifyingmain

points,andunderstandingdifferentperspectives.Next,therewerequestionsthatevaluated

studentperceptiononacademictaskssuchasresearchingandwritingpapers,

understandingreadings,andmanagingtime.Finally,therewerequestionsthatevaluated

studentperceptiononsocialtaskssuchasmakingfriends,workingwellinagroup,and


13

joiningaclassdiscussion.Becausesomeofthetaskswereessentialtomultipleareas,there

wassomeoverlapinquestions.

WhilethestudyisbasedontheIUSouthBendproject,itisimportanttonotesome

keydifferences.First,thesizeofparticipantpoolfortheIUSouthBendstudywas134,for

theMTSUstudyitwas25.Additionally,theparticipantsoftheIUSouthBendstudywerein

typicalclasssettings;theMTSUstudyincludesparticipantsthatareacademicallyat‐risk.

TheresultsoftheIUSouthBendstudyindicatedthatthestudentswhobenefitedthemost

fromtheReactingpedagogywerethosewhofoundtraditionalformsofinstruction

ineffective,whichprovespromisingfortheMTSUacademicallyat‐riskcommunity.

Theself‐efficacysurveysusedbytheIUSouthBendstudy(Schultetal.,2018)were

adaptedtofittheMTSUstudybyreducingthenumberofquestionsandadjustingthe

wordingoftheopen‐endedresponsequestion.Theprimarythree‐foldlayoutofthesurvey

questionsfocusingonReacting,academic,andsocialskillsremainedthesame.LiketheIU

SouthBendstudy(Schultetal.),studentswereaskedtoindicatetheirconfidenceaboutthe

questionsona1‐10scale.

Thedistributionofsurveysoccurredatdifferenttimesinthetwostudies.TheIU

SouthBendstudy(Schultetal.,2018)gavethepre‐surveyatthebeginningofthesemester

andthepost‐surveyattheend.TheMTSUstudygivesthepre‐surveyandthepost‐survey

only3weeksapart.WebelieveconductingthesurveyscenteredontheReacting

componenthelpedisolatetheeffectsofthisparticularpedagogy,ratherthanthe15‐week

classaswhole.ThiswasparticularlynecessarysincetheMTSUstudydidnotuseacontrol

groupforcomparisonofresults.

Reflectionpapersweretheothermethodusedtodetermineofself‐efficacy.The

reflectionpromptaskedstudentstoassesshowthegamechangedhowtheythoughtof

historyandgameplaying.Theywereencouragedtowriteaboutwhattheyperceivedas

beneficialornotbeneficialaboutthegame.

ResultsandDataAnalysis

Thesurvey’sopen‐endedresponsesprovidemoredetailaboutthestudents’

personalobservationsofgrowthinself‐efficacy.Theresponsescenteredontwoareas.


14

While34outofthe35eligiblestudentsagreedtoparticipate,only25completelyfilledout

thesurveys.Astables4,5,and6illustrate,thestudentsexperiencedanoverallincreasein

self‐efficacy.

Table4.Combined(Class1&2)Pre‐test/post‐testcomparisonsforRTTPtasks

Question Pre‐test Post‐Test MeanDifference

t(25)

M SD M SD

Makeaspeech 5.4 2.12 7.92 1.632.52

1.673E‐05 *

UnderstandDifferentPerspectives 7.4 1.61 8.52 1.00 1.12 0.229 *

Identifymainpoints 7.6 1.66 8.52 1.23 0.92 0.598 *

Reading 6.64 1.96 8.08 1.38 1.44 0.041 *

SupportPOV 7.88 1.74 8.8 1.26 0.92 0.334 *

Note:n=25,*p<0.05

Table5.Combined(Class1&2)Pre‐test/post‐testcomparisonsforacademictasks


t(25)

M SD M SD

ResearchforPaper 6.76 2.13 7.84 1.95 1.08 0.681 *

WritePapers 6.36 2.40 7.76 1.90 1.4 0.008 *

UnderstandReadings 6.84 2.10 8.24 1.59 1.4 0.071 *

ManageTime 7.36 2.46 8.32 1.57 0.96 2.250 *

Note:n=25,*p<0.05


15

Table6.Combined(Class1and2)Pre‐test/post‐testcomparisonsforsocialtasks


t(25)

M SD M SD

MakeFriends 7.28 2.19 8.4 1.87 1.12 0.076 *

WorkWellwithGroup 7.64 1.89 8.44 1.69 0.8 2.198 *

JoinClassDiscussion 7.68 2.01 8.72 1.43 1.04 0.033 *

Note:n=25,*p<0.05

Studentsdemonstratedgrowthinalltwelvetasks.Thelargestgainsweremadein

twoReactingspecifictasks:makeaspeech(+2.52)andreading(+1.44).OtherReacting

specifictasks,suchasidentifyingmainpointsandsupportingpointsofview,alsosaw

significantincreasesinself‐efficacy.Theareawiththethird‐highestgainwastiedbetween

twogeneralacademictasks:writepapers(+1.40)andunderstandreadings(+1.40).Allfour

ofthegeneralacademicskillssawincreasesinself‐efficacy.Therewasanincreaseinthe

socialtasksinallthreeoftheareas:makingfriends,workingwellwithagroup,andjoininga

classdiscussion.

Intheclassspecificanalyses,class1hadthegreatestincreasesintheareasof

makingaspeech(+2.88),researchingforapaper(+1.75),andwritingforapaper(+1.75).

Tenofthetwelvetaskareasindicatedasignificantincrease.Class2alsohadthegreatest

increaseinmakingaspeech,butatamoremodestamount+1.89(versusClass1of+2.88).

Thenextlargestincreasewasinunderstandingdifferentperspectives(+1.44).Sevenofthe

twelveareasindicatedasignificantincreaseinself‐efficacy.Class2hadonly9outofits15

studentscompletebothsurveys—a60%participationrate.Class1had16ofits20

studentssufficientlycompletebothsurveys—an80%participationrate.


16

Table8.Pre‐test/post‐testcomparisonsforClass2


t(9)

M SD M SD

Makeaspeech 5.33 2.74 7.22 1.86 1.89 0.800 *

UnderstandDifferentPerspectives 6.89 1.76 8.33 0.71 1.44 0.499 *

Identifymainpoints 7.33 1.73 7.89 1.27 0.56 30.156

Reading 6.78 1.39 7.78 1.39 1.00 3.997 *

SupportPOV 7.89 1.76 8.56 1.33 0.67 11.143

ResearchforPaper 7.44 2.01 7.33 2.24 ‐0.11 82.430

WritePapers 7.00 2.29 7.78 2.28 0.78 4.311 *


ManageTime 7.67 1.80 7.89 1.62 0.22 59.426

MakeFriends 7.11 2.62 7.67 2.45 0.56 21.446

WorkWellwithGroup 7.11 2.15 8.44 1.24 1.33 2.220 *


Note:n=9,*p<0.05

Thereflectionpapersdemonstratedthatstudentsinbothclassesgainedthemost

confidenceinmakingspeeches.Onestudentstated,“Ihavealwayshadaproblemwith

introducingaspeechbeforeacrowd.Thisprojectreallyhelpedme.Iwouldn’tsayIhave

Table7.Pre‐test/post‐testcomparisonsforClass1


t(16)

M SD M SD

Makeaspeech 5.44 1.79 8.31 1.40 2.88 0.001 *

UnderstandDifferentPerspectives 7.69 1.49 8.63 1.15 0.94 6.440

Identifymainpoints 7.75 1.65 8.88 1.09 1.13 1.067 *

Reading 6.56 2.25 8.25 1.39 1.69 0.403 *

SupportPOV 7.88 1.78 8.94 1.24 1.06 1.619 *

ResearchforPaper 6.38 2.16 8.13 1.78 1.75 0.088 *

WritePapers 6.00 2.45 7.75 1.73 1.75 0.058 *


ManageTime 7.19 2.81 8.56 1.55 1.38 2.547 *

MakeFriends 7.38 2.00 8.81 1.38 1.44 0.166 *

WorkWellwithGroup 7.94 1.73 8.44 1.93 0.50 26.114


Note:n=16,*p<0.05


17

fullyovercomespeakinginfrontofpeople,butwhenImademyspeech,andIgotan

applause,IfeltlikeIreallydidsomething.”Thestudentrecognizedaweakskillthatcould

beimprovedwithexperience.Thestudentalsoindicatedthatpeerfeedbacksuchas

applausehelpedtoboostandstrengthenbeliefsaboutabilities.Anotherstudentfoundthe

powerofwordsreallyimpactful,“IbelieveIgainedthemostconfidenceinforminga

speech.Particularlyaspeechtomakeacertainpointortotryandgetpeopletothinka

certainwayorvoteonacertainthing.”Forthisstudent,speakingwhileparticipatingin

Reactingwasnotjustanotherassignment,itwasanopportunitytotakeastandfor

somethingimportant.

Thesecondareathatmoststudentschosetodiscusswasthepeer‐to‐peer

interaction.Formany,theopportunitytointeractwithotherschallengedthemtogo

beyond.Onestudentstated,“Workingwithotherstudentshelpedmecomeoutofmy

comfortzoneandlearnaboutdifferentcharactersinthegame.”Adifferentstudent

understoodtheimportanceofworkingwithothersinthepursuitofsomethingbigger.The

studentstated,“IbelieveIgainedthemostconfidenceinengagingwithclassmatesin

physicalclassactivities.Ifeelmorecomfortableworkingwithotherpeopletocompleteone

goal.”

Inboththesurveyandthereflection,thelargestincreaseinself‐efficacyacrossthe

boardwasinmakingaspeech.Thissupportspreviousliterature,particularlytheIUSouth

Bendstudy.Webelievethatthesestudentshavehadlimitedpracticewithpublicspeaking

uptothispoint,andtheopportunitytopracticehelpedthemfeelliketheycoulddoit

betterormoreofteninthefuture.AlsothecollaborativeatmospherecreatedbyReacting

encouragedstudentstostepoutinthisarea.

Wealsobelievethattherewasanincreaseinreading.Theseweredifficulttextsthat

studentsweregrapplingwith,butitwasobviousthroughtheirspeechesthatthey

understoodthe18thcenturyprose.Thisfindingisparticularlyimportantforthisgroupof

students.Muchofthereadingoccurredoutsidetheclassroom,whichmeansveryfewin‐

classobservationscouldhelpidentifygrowth.Forfutureresearch,werecommendusing

aninstrumentthatcanmoreaccuratelydeterminethegrowthoflearningforout‐of‐class

activities.


18

Ofinterestishowthisgameplayingpedagogyworkedwellintwoclassesthathad

verydifferentclassroomcultures.Fromthebeginning,thedifferencesbetweentheclasses

wereevidentandsharp.Behaviorally,Class1adoptedahighlyvocalandengagedapproach

tothenewmaterial.Incontrast,Class2adoptedaquietandreservedapproachtothenew

material.Despitethesedifferences,theReactingpedagogyachievedanincreaseinself‐

efficacyinthemajorityoftaskareasforbothclasses.Logically,oneofthemarksofan

effectivepedagogyisitsadaptabilitytoavarietyofcontexts,andthisprovestruefor

Reacting.

Intermsofpeer‐to‐peerinteraction,thestudentstendedtoworkwellwitheach

otherasindicatedbythesocialtasksectiononthesurveysandthein‐classobservations.

Interestingly,basedonthepre‐surveyscores,studentsexpressedthegreatestconfidence

inthesocialareatasks.So,fromthebeginning,thestudentsgenerallyfeltconfidentin

collaboratingandworkingwiththeirpeers.Thisfindingbodeswellforstudent‐centered

curriculum.Studentshavealottolearnfromeachother,andasindicatedbythesurveys

andobservations,theyareeagertodoso.

LimitationsandImplicationsforFutureResearch

Whilethisproject’sfindingscouldprovebeneficialtotheacademiccommunity,itis

limitedinitssize.Thisprojectwasnotoriginallyintendedforpublicationoutsideofan

honorsthesis,however,thesuccessoftheprogramwassuchthatseveralmembers

believeditdeservedawideraudience.Eventhoughitisdifficulttoprojectthesefindingsas

comprehensiveforat‐riskstudentsnationwide,itsuggeststhatReactingisbeneficialtoat‐

riskstudents.

Mucheducationresearchfocusesonthestandardstudent,andevenReacting

researchuntilrecentlyhasprimarilyfocusedonitsimpactintraditionalclassrooms.

However,wepositthattheacademicallyat‐riskcommunitiesinuniversitiesandcolleges

aroundthecountrytodayareripeformoreresearch.Ashighereducationbeginstofocus

moreondegreecompletion,ratherthansimplyhighenrollmentnumbers,thiscommunity

shouldgainattention.Thediversityofthesestudentsuniquelyteststhedurabilityand

functionalityofeducationalpractices.Wesuggestconductingadditionalstudiesthatfocus


19

onacademicallyat‐riskcommunities,Reacting,andgameplaying.Thesestudiescanhelp

identifytheuniquedifferencesofthesestudentsandthewaythattheylearn.

Duetolimitationsinclassaccess,thisstudylackedhavingacontrolgroupfor

comparison.Asaresult,itisnotpossibletoascertainthedegreethatperceptionofgrowth

wasbasedonparticipationinReactingasopposedtootherfactors.Thislimitationwas

partiallyaddressedinthecloseproximityofthesurveystothegame.Thedesignandthe

wordingofquestionsapparentlytiedstudentperceptionofgrowthtoparticipation.The

degreetowhichthisperceptionwillbesustainedorwilltranslatetobetteracademic

performance,however,isunknown.

Forfutureresearch,wesuggestsimilarstudieswithlargersamplesizesthatusea

scientificorquasi‐scientificdesign.Collaborationamonguniversitiesandcollegeswould

beverybeneficialandtheimplicationsfar‐reaching.Additionalresearchinthisfieldcould

beconductedwithdifferentadjustmentstothegameweusedoradifferentgameentirely.

Dosomeadjustmentshelpthestudentslearnmoreeffectively?Whatdegreeshouldthese

adjustmentsbemade,ifany?DosomeReactinggamesworkbetterthanothers?What

gamesdothesestudentspreferorlearnthemostfrom?Researcherscouldalsoexamine

theuseofthispedagogyinrelationtoothereducationalpractices,suchasconcept‐

mappingorreadingmanagement.Ifaninstructorwantedtointroduceconceptsfrom

Reactinginasmallerway,heorshecouldincorporatecharacterroles.Forexample,

McIntyreintroducedcharacterrolesinalimitedwayinanearlierassignmentwhere

studentsresearchedahistoricalfigureandwhenpromptedinclasstoldtheirpeersabout

thatcharacter.Theythenhadtofigureoutwhatothercharacterrolesassignedintheclass

wouldhaveaconnectiontotheircharacter.Thissmallforayintoroleplayingwas

extremelybeneficialtostudentsasevidencedbytheirreflectionpapersandthetestresults

onidentifyingandunderstandingthesignificanceofthesehistoricalfigures.

Finally,wesuggestconductinglongitudinalstudiestoexaminethefullandlong‐

termimpactofReactingforat‐riskstudents.Thereareseveralquestionsthatshouldbe

answeredinordertovalidatetheeffectivenessoftheReactingpedagogy:Whatdifference

doesReactingmakeonreadingcomprehensionorotherskill‐basedtests?Dostudents

seekoutadditionalReactingclasses?Arethesestudentsretainedathigherratesthan


20

peersinsimilarcourses?DostudentswhoparticipateincoursesthatincludeReacting

achievehigherGPAsthanpeerswhodonot?Dothesestudentsshowgreaterinterestin

history,perhapstotheextentthatsomeselecthistoryasamajor?Dothesestudents

completetheirdegreeprogramsatcomparablyhigherrates?Howdostudentsremember

andutilizethelessonstheylearnedfromReacting?

Conclusion

ThisprojectexaminedtheimpactofReactingpedagogyontheself‐efficacyof

academicallyat‐riskstudents.Thestudyincludedsurveys,free‐responses,reflectionsand

in‐classobservationstodeterminegrowth.Thefindingssuggestthatthispedagogymaybe

ausefulpracticetoincreaseself‐efficacyamongat‐riskstudents,particularlythosewho

strugglewithreading.Asresearcherscontinuetostudyeffectivepedagogiesthatengage

at‐riskstudents,wesuggestthatReactingtothePastisworthyoffurtherconsiderationfor

effectiveinstructioninhistory.


21

References

ACT(2016).Theconditionofcollegeandcareerreadiness.Retrievedfrom

https://www.act.org/content/act/en/research/condition-of-college-and-career-readiness-

2016.html

Bandura,A.(1986).Socialfoundationsofthoughtandaction:Asocialcognitivetheory.

EnglewoodCliffs,NJ,US:Prentice‐Hall,Inc.

Bandura,A.(1993).Perceivedself‐efficacyincognitivedevelopmentand

functioning.EducationalPsychologist,28(2),117‐148.

Barry,C.L.,&Finney,S.J.(2009).Canwefeelconfidentinhowwemeasurecollege

confidence?ApsychometricinvestigationoftheCollegeSelf‐Efficacy

Inventory.MeasurementandEvaluationinCounselingandDevelopment,42(3),197‐

222.

Bernstein,J.L.,Strasma,M.G.,Olwell,R.,&Higbee,M.D.(2018).Whathappensafter

reacting?Afollow‐upstudyofpastRTTPparticipantsatapublicregionaluniversity.

InC.E.Watson&T.CHagood(Eds.),PlayingtolearnwithReactingtothePast(pp.

141‐157).NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,Cham.

Cantrell,S.C.,Correll,P.,Clouse,J.,Creech,K.,Bridges,S.,&Owens,D.(2013).Patternsof

self‐efficacyamongcollegestudentsindevelopmentalreading.JournalofCollege

ReadingandLearning,44(1),8‐34.

Carnes,M.C.(2014).Mindsonfire:Howrole‐immersiongamestransformcollege.

Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Chemers,M.M.,Hu,L.T.,&Garcia,B.F.(2001).Academicself‐efficacyandfirstyearcollege

studentperformanceandadjustment.JournalofEducationalPsychology,93(1),55.

Faust,L.E.(2017).Astudyofgritandself‐efficacyinstudentsindevelopmentalplacements

(Doctoraldissertation).Retrievedfromhttps://knowledge.library.iup.edu/etd

Hagood,T.C.,Watson,C.E.,&Williams,B.M.(2018).ReactingtothePast:Anintroduction

toitsscholarlyfoundation.InC.E.Watson&T.C.Hagood(Eds.),Playingtolearnwith

ReactingtothePast(pp.1‐16).NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,Cham.


22

Hagood,T.C.(2008).Intersectionsofpopularculture,identities,andnewliteracies

research.InJ.Coiro,M.Knobel,C.Lankshear,&D.J.Leu(Eds.)HandbookofResearch

onNewLiteracies(pp.531‐551).NewYork:Taylor&FrancisGroup.

Hagood,T.C.,Norman,N.J.,Park,H.,&Williams,B.M.(2018).Playingwithlearningand

teachinginhighereducation:HowdoesReactingtothePastempowerstudentsand

faculty?InC.E.Watson&T.C.Hagood(Eds.),PlayingtolearnwithReactingtothe

Past(pp.159‐192).NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,Cham.

Han,C.,&Farruggia,S.P.,&Moss,T.P.(2017).Effectsofacademicmindsetsoncollege

students’achievementandretention.JournalofCollegeStudentDevelopment,58(8),

1119‐1134.

Higbee,M.D.(2009).“HowReactingtothePastgamesmademewanttocometoclassand

learn":AnassessmentoftheReactingPedagogyatEMU,2007‐2008.Thescholarship

ofteachingandlearningatEMU,2(1),4.

Hodges,R.,&Agee,K.(2009).Programmanagement.InR.F.Flippo&D.C.Caverly(Eds.),

Handbookofcollegereadingandstudystrategyresearch(pp.351‐378).NewYork:

Routledge.

Hsieh,P.,Sullivan,J.R.,&Guerra,N.S.(2007).Acloserlookatcollegestudents:Self‐efficacy

andgoalorientation.JournalofAdvancedAcademics,18(3),454‐476.

Kuh,G.D.(2008).High‐impacteducationalpractices:Abriefoverview.Retrievedfrom

http://www.aacu.org/leap/hips

MacArthur,C.A.,Philippakos,Z.A.,&Ianetta,M.(2015).Self‐regulatedstrategyinstruction

incollegedevelopmentalwriting.JournalofEducationalPsychology,107(3),855.

Martin,K.,Goldwasser,M.,&Harris,E.(2017).Developmentaleducation’simpacton

students’academicself‐conceptandself‐efficacy.JournalofCollegeStudent

Retention:Research,Theory&Practice,18(4),401‐414.

McCormack,D.,&Petersen,K.K.(2018).Impactandperception:ReactingtothePastat

MiddleTennesseeStateUniversity.InC.EWatson&T.C.Hagood(Eds.),Playingto

learnwithReactingtothePast(pp.17‐39).NewYork:Palgrave.

Miller,T.R.(2018)Battleforthemind:TheuseofReactingtothePastintheacademicallyat‐

riskclassroom(Honorsthesis).Retrievedfromhttps://jewlscholar.mtsu.edu


23

Moseley,A.(2012).Analternativerealityforeducation?Lessonslearnedfromonline

immersivegames.InternationalJournalofGame‐BasedLearning2(3).

http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/ijgbl.2012070103

NationalEndowmentfortheArts(2007).Toreadornottoread:Aquestionofnational

consequence.Washington,DC:NationalEndowmentfortheArts.

Offut,B.(2011).Patriots,Loyalists,andRevolutioninNewYorkCity,1775‐1776.Upper

SaddleRiver,NJ:PrenticeHall.

Proctor,N.W.(2011).ReactingtothePast:Thegamedesigner’shandbook.CreateSpace

IndependentPublishingPlatform.

Schult,C.A.,Lidinsky,A.,Zwicker,L.F.,&Dunn,E.E.(2018).Strengtheningstudents’self‐

efficacythroughReactingtothePast.InC.E.Watson&T.C.Hagood,(Eds.),Playingto

learnwithReactingtothePast(pp.75‐89).NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,Cham.

Solberg,V.S.,&Villareal,P.(1997).Examinationofself‐efficacy,socialsupport,andstress

aspredictorsofpsychologicalandphysicaldistressamongHispaniccollege

students.HispanicJournalofBehavioralSciences,19,182‐102

Tinto,V.(1993).Leavingcollege:Rethinkingthecausesandcuresofstudentattrition.2nd

ed.UniversityofChicagoPress.

U.S.DepartmentofLabor,BureauofLaborStatistics(2017).Collegeenrollmentandwork

activityof2016highschoolgraduates.Retrievedfrom

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/hsgec.nr0.htm

U.S.DepartmentofEducation,InstituteofEducationSciences,NationalCenterfor

EducationStatistics,NationalAssessmentofEducationalProgress(2016).Howdid

USstudentsperformonthemostrecentassessment?Retrievedfrom

https://www.nationsreportcard.gov

U.S.DepartmentofEducation,InstituteofEducationSciences,NationalCenterfor

EducationalStatistics(2017).Fastfacts:Enrollment.Retrievedfrom

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98

Vuong,M.Brown‐Welty,S.&Tracz,S.(2010.Theeffectsofself‐efficacyonacademic

successoffirst‐generationcollegesophomorestudents.JournalofCollegeStudent

Development51(1),50‐64.


24

APPENDIXA:SURVEYS

Self‐EfficacyRTTPSurvey(Pre‐test)

SCALE:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Notatallconfident ExtremelyConfident

Indicateyourconfidencetothefollowingstatements:

RTTPQuestions

1. Ifeel_________inmakingaspeech.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2. Ifeel_________inunderstandingdifferentperspectives.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3. Ifeel_________inidentifyingimportantpoints.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4. Ifeel_________inreading.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5. Ifeel_________inusingevidencetosupportapointofview.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

AcademicQuestions:

1. Ifeel_________inresearchingforapaper.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2. Ifeel_________inwritingpapers.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3. Ifeel_________inunderstandingreadings.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4. Ifeel_________inmanagingtime.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


25

SocialQuestions

1. Ifeel_________inmakingfriends.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2. Ifeel_________inworkingwellinagroup.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3. Ifeel_________injoiningaclassdiscussion.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Adaptedfrom“StrengtheningStudents’Self‐EfficacyThroughReactingtothePast.”ByCarolynA.Schult,April

Lidinsky,LisaFetheringillZwicker,andElizabethDunn

Self‐EfficacyRTTPSurvey(Post‐test)

SCALE:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Notatallconfident ExtremelyConfident

Indicateyourconfidencetothefollowingstatements:

RTTPQuestions

6. Ifeel_________inmakingaspeech.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

7. Ifeel_________inunderstandingdifferentperspectives.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

8. Ifeel_________inidentifyingimportantpoints.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

9. Ifeel_________inreading.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

10. Ifeel_________inusingevidencetosupportapointofview.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

AcademicQuestions:

5. Ifeel_________inresearchingforapaper.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


26

6. Ifeel_________inwritingpapers.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

7. Ifeel_________inunderstandingreadings.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

8. Ifeel_________inmanagingtime.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

SocialQuestions

4. Ifeel_________inmakingfriends.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5. Ifeel_________inworkingwellinagroup.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

6. Ifeel_________injoiningaclassdiscussion.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Open‐endedResponse:

InwhatareaorskilldoyoubelieveyouhavegainedthemostconfidencethroughyourexperiencewithReactingtothePast?

Adaptedfrom“StrengtheningStudents’Self‐EfficacyThroughReactingtothePast.”ByCarolynA.Schult,April

Lidinsky,LisaFetheringillZwicker,andElizabethDunn

role playing, self efficacy and the at risk reading

Documents