Essay Writing Service http://HelpWriting.net/Applying-Reacting-To-The-Past-To-Develo 👈

1. 1
APPLYING REACTING TO THE PAST TO DEVELOP AND ENHANCE CRITICAL AND
ANALYTICAL THINKING SKILLS OF POSTSECONDARY HISTORY/SOCIAL STUDIES
STUDENTS
A thesis presented
by
Joseph Frusci
to
The School of Education
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
Dr. Chris Unger
Advisor
College of Professional Studies
Northeastern University
Boston, Massachusetts
March 2019

2. 2
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine how to best develop and enhance critical and analytical
thinking skills amongst college students enrolled in history and/or social studies courses.
Through traditional, lecture style instruction, as well as a cooperative and collaborative learning
pedagogy known as Reacting to the Past, this study was grounded in the theoretical framework
of the Dewey’s constructivist theory, which states that learning is an active process. This study
also incorporated the works of Bruner, Piaget, and Vygotsky, which build upon the constructivist
theory by adding cognitive and social constructivism. In considering the objectives of this
research of enhancing critical and analytical thinking through Reacting to the Past, a cooperative
and collaborative learning pedagogy, the constructivist theory aligns perfectly with this study.
This study answers the following primary question: How can a student driven pedagogy, such as
RTTP, enhance critical and analytical thinking skills amongst higher education history and social
studies students? To answer the primary research question, there are three questions that should
also be address. As such, the study sought to answer the following questions: (1) How might we
be able to use cooperative and collaborative learning to better develop and enhance critical and
analytical thinking skills on Social Studies and/or History students? (2) Is Reacting to the Past an
effective student-driven pedagogy that incorporates cooperative and collaborative learning in
classrooms above and beyond more typical traditional pedagogy? (3) Are students understanding
of historical content greater as a result of Reacting to the Past than the traditional unit? The
findings indicate that RTTP is effective at developing and enhancing the aforementioned skills.
Keywords: RTTP, active learning, cooperative learning, collaborative learning, student-
centered learning, pedagogy, critical thinking, analytical thinking

3. 3
Acknowledgements
It is with my sincerest gratitude and respect that I acknowledge my advisor, Dr. Chris
Unger. From the start of the doctoral thesis courses, he pushed me to think above and beyond,
not only for my own study, but for what I want to do in education as my career progresses.
Without his guidance I do not think I will have made it through this sequence. It is because of
Dr. Unger that I have had the courage and motivation to not only finish my doctoral work, but to
engage as a true scholar-practitioner and consider continuing this type of research beyond the
doctoral thesis. I would also like to thank Dr. Kelly Conn for her feedback and time she
provided me as my second reader. Her recommendations for my study helped me obtain data
and results that exceeded my own assumptions.
I want to acknowledge Dr. Richard Gid Powers of the College of Staten Island, CUNY.
He is one of the creators of the Core program and recommended that I be hired to teach the very
course that was used for this study. He also introduced me to Reacting to the Past, which has
helped define my career thus far as an educator. Under his guidance, I began to consider
doctoral education, as well as sparking my passion for research and writing. He is a true mentor.
One fellow educator and friend I would like to thank is Donna Scimeca. She is the
coordinator of the Core program at the College of Staten Island and has helped guide me
throughout this study. Her guidance not only helped make this study possible but gave me the
confidence to see it all the way through to the end. She jumpstarted my career in education
which helped propel it to where it is today.

4. 4
Table of Contents
Chapter I: Introduction.................................................................................................................... 7
Problem of Practice................................................................................................................... 7
Summary of Literature.............................................................................................................. 8
Statement of Significance ......................................................................................................... 9
Positionality Statement ........................................................................................................... 12
Research Questions................................................................................................................. 17
Theoretical Framework........................................................................................................... 18
Summary................................................................................................................................. 20
Chapter II: A Review of the Literature......................................................................................... 21
Context.................................................................................................................................... 21
Background and Development of CCSS................................................................................. 24
Validating CCSS..................................................................................................................... 26
Active Learning and Student Engagement ............................................................................. 26
Cooperative and Collaborative Learning as Effective Models............................................... 30
Working Backwards................................................................................................................ 31
Assessment.............................................................................................................................. 32
Reacting to the Past Brings It Altogether ............................................................................... 34
A Student-Driven Pedagogy ................................................................................................... 35
Aligned to the CCSS............................................................................................................... 37
Summary................................................................................................................................. 38
Chapter III: Methodology ............................................................................................................ 39
How RTTP Differs From Traditional Teaching Methods ...................................................... 40
Rationale for the Mixed-Method Design ................................................................................ 43
Merriam’s Approach to Case Study........................................................................................ 43
Participants.............................................................................................................................. 45
Data Collection, Storage and Management ............................................................................ 47
Data Analysis.......................................................................................................................... 55
Trustworthiness....................................................................................................................... 56
Protection of Human Subjects ................................................................................................ 57
Chapter IV: Research Findings..................................................................................................... 58

5. 5
Traditional Instruction vs. RTTP............................................................................................ 58
Quantitative Analysis.............................................................................................................. 62
Qualitative Data Collection..................................................................................................... 71
Preassessment ......................................................................................................................... 72
Classroom Observations ......................................................................................................... 73
Focus Groups .......................................................................................................................... 81
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 88
Chapter V: Discussion of the Research Findings ......................................................................... 90
Summary of Key Findings...................................................................................................... 91
Research Findings Relevance to the Theoretical Framework ................................................ 97
Research Findings Relevance to the Literature ...................................................................... 99
Significance of the Study...................................................................................................... 100
Limitations............................................................................................................................ 102
Implications .......................................................................................................................... 103
Future Research .................................................................................................................... 105
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 106
Personal Statements and Reflection...................................................................................... 107
References................................................................................................................................... 109
Appendix A................................................................................................................................. 114
Appendix B................................................................................................................................. 115
Appendix C................................................................................................................................. 116
Appendix D………………………………………………………………………………….….117

6. 6
List of Tables
Table 4.1 Traditional and RTTP Classes and Unit of Instruction................................................ 62
Table 4.2 Pre-Test Mann-Whitney Test for Significance............................................................ 63
Table 4.3 Post-Test Mann-Whitney Test for Significance .......................................................... 64
Table 4.4 Pre to Post Test Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test for Significance.................................. 65
Table 4.5 Pre to Post Test Differences in Gain and Significance................................................ 69
Table 4.6 Focus Group Participation ........................................................................................... 81

7. 7
Chapter I: Introduction
The purpose of this study will assess whether Reacting to the Past assists the
development of students critical and analytical thinking skills of social studies and/or history
students.
Many educators apply teacher driven pedagogies that focus on rote learning with very
little student engagement and interaction in the classroom. The pedagogical framework of
Reacting to the Past is student centered learning, focused on collaborative learning. With the
student body in American schools becoming more and more diverse, to better engage these
students in the content area of Social Studies and History in a way that better supports the
development of their critical and analytical thinking skills needed in the 21st
Century is
collaborative learning, teachers should shift their focus to cooperative and collaborative learning
models that center on student driven instruction
Problem of Practice
As an adjunct lecturer of History for CUNY, I am noticing the lack of appropriate critical
and analytical thinking skills amongst college freshman taking college level History and Civics
classes. In the Post Truth era of alternative facts, it is imperative that we develop and enhance
the aforementioned skills to ensure that our students are able to disseminate fact from fiction, as
well as be more informed citizens. To understand why this is happening and how to properly
address it, one must examine the makeup of the student body coming into college, as well as
understand the methods applied in their previous learning environments. The student body that I
work closely with is very diverse and falls into the model of urban education. According to
Slavin (1991), social studies and history teachers have relied on large group, lecture style
instruction that is centered on independent work and exams from the students in the classroom.

8. 8
The goal of this type of instruction has always been driven by a standardized exam or assessment
that lumps all students together. Unfortunately, all students have different learning styles, and
this method is highly ineffective since for all students as we progress into 21st
Century. This
problem of practice has brought me to this space and enabled me to better understand the
significance of this approach to classroom instruction, as well as the implications of it.
With the student makeup in the CUNY environment being extremely diverse, these
students come from various, ethnic, religious, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Therefore, their
learning styles, academic abilities, interests, and motivations fall on a wide spectrum (Lazarowitz
1995). This presents a challenge for many educators in the classroom today of adapting proper
scholarly texts, articles, and instructional methods to best meet the academic needs of their
students to maximize their learning and success.
Summary of Literature
Collaborative learning in History and Social Studies classrooms have been the focus of
many studies, which provides insight to a large array of literature (Hendrix, 1999). Throughout
the early and middle parts of the 1900’s, researchers were investigating the impact that numerous
types of conditions on human behavior. Most importantly, these conditions were individualistic,
competitive, and cooperative (Deutsch, 1949). In furthering examining these conditions, Morton
Deutsch developed a theory of social interdependence (Hendrix, 1999). Deutsch noted that
interdependence could be either positive or negative. If interdependence was positive, it resulted
in cooperation. On the flip side of that, if it was negative, it resulted in competition (Deutsch,
1949)
Slavin (1991) defined the idea of collaborative learning as an instruction technique that is
both structured and systematic. According to Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec (1990), having

9. 9
small groups work together to achieve a common goal, it has great potential for activities to
teach specific content, and ensure active cognitive processing of information during a lecture, as
well as provide long term support for academic progress (Hendrix, 1999). In an urban education
environment, this can prove to be highly effective when applied in History and Social Studies
classrooms.
However, with Reacting to the Past being a recent addition to college classrooms, but still
grounded in collaborative learning, the literature on this is not as abundant as other forms of
collaborative learning strategies in History and Social Studies classrooms. According to Powers
and Carnes (2010), Reacting to the Past is a radically different way of engaging and interacting
with students through the usage of large questions. They are immersed in historical roles and
that entrenches them in elaborate games that seek to understand crises of great importance in
historical ideas. In addition to this, students are constructing their arguments from the same
sources their characters would have used (Powers and Carnes, 2010).
Although the creators of each and every Reacting to the Past game, do call it a “game”,
according to a survey in April 2009, all instructors agreed that Reacting to the Past provides a
very high and intense level of academic challenge. They very students that found History and
Social Studies boring and dry have become highly interested in the ideas presented in these
classis texts being used in their respective Reacting to the Past games (Powers and Carnes,
2010).
Statement of Significance
A significant issue I am seeing in History and Social Studies curriculum is the lack of
instruction designed to develop and enhance critical and analytical thinking skills. As these
students are of voting age, I am finding that they do not have the appropriate skills to be well

10. 10
informed and educated voters on social and historical issues. The student body of higher
education is extremely diverse in race, ethnicity, religion, and socioeconomic status. Therefore, I
am always faced with how to implement aforementioned skills into my classroom instruction and
curriculum that all will benefit from.
To address this, a student driven pedagogy, such as Reacting to the Past (RTTP), can
engage all learners in heterogeneously grouped History and Social Studies classrooms. In
addition to this, the design of RTTP is grounded in cooperative and collaborative learning, which
allows for instructors to become facilitators and enables students to drive the instruction in
cooperative learning groups. Successful application of this makes it an excellent student driven
pedagogy to engage all students and produce positive learning outcomes.
Most instructors are uncomfortable with releasing control of the heterogeneous classroom
and becoming facilitators, since they are unsure how to effectively teach such a diverse group of
students (Jupp & Slattery, 2012). As a strong believer in cooperative and collaborative learning
environments, RTTP is not only based on each pedagogy, but also heavily utilizes them. This
approach follows a growing trend known as of gamification, which is implementing instruction
and learning in carefully crafted educational games (Powers & Carnes, 2010). The
psychological impact this can have on students can be very positive, as it motivates students in a
way that traditional classroom instructional strategies do not.
I started my teaching experience in college level History classes, because of my BA and
MA in History, prior to entering a secondary education Social Studies classroom. I found that
many students, who seemed to come from the same middle-class upbringing, as well as
economic, cultural, and educational background, were not interested in the study of History, and
are just taking the classes due to them either being required, or just a quick elective. I started to

11. 11
do some research on how to better engage the students in the classroom, as well as take more of
an interest in the historical instruction I was providing in the class. I spoke with other professors
in the History department and they introduced me to RTTP.
Since implementing it into my own college level classrooms, it has been highly
successful by students demonstrating a level of interest in the instruction that has RTTP attached
to it, rather than the instruction that did not. In addition to this, the students understood the
reading better, because they were able to discuss and debate it with each other, as it pushed them
to examine history through a different lens. When grading their writing assignments, I found
their research was well written and better supported with primary and secondary sources. The
reading and writing skills demonstrated by the students in their RTTP assignments highly
reflected the enrichment of critical and analytical thinking skills. Therefore, I believe this
pedagogy can help educators implement a pedagogy aimed at enhancing the aforementioned
thinking skills into their curriculum and classrooms.
According to Marc Carnes, the creator of RTTP, it is a heterogeneous student-driven
pedagogy that consists of comprehensive games, set in the historical past, in which students are
assigned roles from that period that are well-versed by classic texts of the historical event being
acted out. Classroom instruction is guided exclusively by students; instructors advise and direct
students, as well as grade their oral and written assessments that are outlined in the game book. It
attempts to bring students into the past, promote student engagement with big ideas, and improve
intellectual and academic skills through primary and secondary research, discussion, as well as
student debating (Powers & Carnes, 2010). It is designed to take a differentiated approach
towards instruction that is meant to apply to all types of learners, which is a highly effective
method at enhancing critical and analytical thinking skills in an urban education environment.

12. 12
Positionality Statement
As this study examined how heterogeneously grouped students are developing their own
understanding of the material, as well as developing their own ideas and opinions by working
collaboratively, I must be mindful and understand my own biases and perceptions as the
researcher. I was fortunate enough to be provided with an excellent education from outstanding
schools, but that might not be the case will all students in my classroom. Understanding my own
perceptions and attitudes will allow me to better facilitate learning in my classroom. By doing
so, I will minimize influences that could manipulate my research and study in a negative way.
Beliefs, biases, and opinions. Since a student-driven pedagogy, such as RTTP, is
designed to intellectually bring together all students in the inclusive classroom, which dominates
CUNY schools. Since I teach higher education at CUNY and secondary education at a New
York City public high school, I bring a unique perspective and multiple points of view to my
classroom that are not shared by many educators on how to better teach the inclusive classroom
and prepare students. However, when writing my own RTTP game a couple years back, I
brought a large bias to it in the sense that I was targeting the audience that I remember being in
school with, who were mostly white middle-class Americans, in mind as the game developed.
The argument can be made that my assessment would have been positive when due to this
homogeneous group of students all coming from the same cultural, socioeconomic, and
educational background, I was designing this for. As stated by Carlton Parsons (2008), this
perspective expressed the views outlined in the deficit perspective, as it is based on the idea that
all Americans have identical socioeconomic backgrounds, regardless of other factors such as
race, religion, gender and economic. As Machi and McEvoy (2008) stated, by understanding the

13. 13
personal viewpoint through self-reflection, we begin to recognize our own bias and opinions.
Although they are unescapable, they must be controlled to avoid interfering with research.
Predisposition to certain conclusions. As an up and coming scholar-practitioner, it is
imperative that I consider the type of research I am doing by understanding those that are
participating in the study. If I am trying to modify this pedagogy for an urban education
inclusive college classroom, I must mitigate the effects of this bias by looking through the lens of
the difference perspective, which concludes that that various spheres of life in the United State
do have different statuses in American society (Parsons, 2008). As a result of these dissimilar
statuses, it must be understood that a portion of these students, which might come from low
income families or neighborhoods, will perform differently in the classroom, due to not having
the same socioeconomic, cultural and/or educational resources that are available to white middle-
class Americans (Briscoe, 2005). By taking a differentiated approach in designing and
implementing RTTP in my classroom, it will help me overcome a bias I previously held in my
research.
Identifying and isolating personal bias. By starting out my teaching career as an
adjunct lecturer for CUNY, I did not have any formal training on how to teach. After completing
all necessary education courses required to become a New York City Department of Education
teacher in Secondary Education Social Studies, I realized that just lecturing to students was not
effectively teaching all the students in my classroom. When first entering the secondary
education classroom, I was applying instruction the same way I did when teaching at the college
level, which was making it lecture based and teacher driven. I failed to understand student
differences that existed in the classroom, known as discursive contexts, which seems to be the

14. 14
case for many teachers when trying to implement the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) into
their curriculum and classrooms (Jupp & Slattery, 2012).
Many students entering CUNY do come from schools that are part of the New York City
public school system. Since New York State is one of the 45 states to adopt the CCSS, these
incoming freshmen have gone through their secondary education curriculum and instruction built
on the CCSS. The CCSS represents the initial attempt at establishing uniformity of learning
standards across the United States, which are designed to make students ready for college and/or
a future career (Core Standards, 2011). It is anticipated that this large undertaking will add to the
level of quality in education in numerous ways, but most importantly in thinking skills. As these
standards are structured, there is a large emphasis on critical thinking, as well as their ability to
utilize these skills across various content areas. In addition to this, many of these standards seem
are developed around the methods of cooperative and collaborative learning.
In order to be an effective teacher in the inclusive classroom, whether it is secondary or
higher education, it is imperative to first understand the culture and dynamic of the classroom
you have. When understanding that student differences do exist in the classroom, it makes it
easier to develop a differentiated approach to education.
Although I come from a white middle-class upbringing, my experiences in inclusive
higher and secondary education classrooms have helped me acknowledge the bias that exists in
my own research and application of instruction. As a result, to mitigate the effects of my own
bias, by implementing more heterogeneous groups for cooperative learning, and student-driven
pedagogies, such as RTTP, I can better integrate various types of learners from different
socioeconomic, cultural, and education backgrounds to provide effective instruction that builds
off of the learning strategies in their prior academic careers.

15. 15
Relation to others. The participants in this study will be students. They will come from
various education, race, ethnic, religious, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Therefore, my study
will be students grouped heterogeneously, which will allow me to gather my research and prove
RTTP will develop and enhance critical and analytical thinking skills amongst college history
students.
This will also allow me the opportunity to put aside any bias I might have and just focus
on the pedagogy and student driven instruction. Although my love of lecturing and wanting to
be involved in the classroom might force me to step in and take control to guide the students
from time to time, I must understand that my position in the classroom is a facilitator. My
position as a facilitator in the classroom will reinforce this pedagogy and allow the students to
take ownership and lead the way in the classroom. One of the sections I teach at the College of
Staten Island, CUNY, is CORE 100: U.S. Issues, Ideas, and Institutions. This course is designed
to introduce first and second year college students to some of the major issues the United States
faces, in relation to government, society, and the market economy. It does this through using
American History as the backdrop to address the following questions and place them in historical
context:
1. What is a constitutional democracy, and how does it function in the United States?
Specifically, what is the structure and philosophy of the Constitution of the United
States?
2. What are the historical causes of racial inequality in the United States, and how has
American democracy tried to achieve racial justice? Specifically, how have
American ideas on race changed from slavery to the civil rights movement, and how

16. 16
have these ideas expanded to include other forms of social injustice involving women
and other minorities?
3. What is a market economy, and how have American tried to achieve a balance
between government regulation of the economy and the freedom of individuals to
make their own economic decisions? Specifically, trace the controversy over
government intervention in the economy from the New Deal through to the present.
In examining how to better engage college students in a more inclusive college setting
and to better develop the aforementioned skills, I am seeking to implement RTTP, a student
driven role-playing game, centered on historical simulation to better engage students. RTTP is
an excellent approach towards history education, as well as civic engagement, especially in
working students that are rarely engaged in classroom instruction. It creates heterogeneous
groups that enable the students to work together. By working together, they are learning more
about each other, their cultures and backgrounds, which will allow them to better understand one
another. This will make for a more inclusive and effective learning environment on so many
different levels, as well as enhance critical and thinking abilities by have different perspectives
being evaluated by each student.
Clearly, I face some of my own challenges in turning over control of my classroom to my
students, both personal and professional, as a scholar-practitioner. However, these challenges
are motivating me in ensuring that I conduct this study correctly, gather my research, but above
all, provide the best learning experience for my students. Identifying these biases allows for me
to effectively address them, which will allow for an accurate and effective study that could help
revolutionize the historical instruction of college students.

17. 17
Research Questions
The goal of supporting students to develop the aforementioned thinking skills should be
to ensure that our students are taking ownership in the classroom, getting the most out of their
college education, going off into the real world with these skills and being actively involved in
society. Since these thinking skills are conceptual and apply to various careers, it is my hope
that they will not only excel in their chosen careers paths but will informed citizens in the Post
Truth Era of alternative facts that will not allow our society to go down a dangerous path.
This study will seek to answer the following question: How can a student driven
pedagogy, such as RTTP, enhance critical and analytical thinking skills amongst higher
education history and social studies students? To answer the primary question, the questions
guiding this study are as follows:
1. How might we be able to use cooperative and collaborative learning to better develop
and enhance critical and analytical thinking skills on Social Studies and/or History
students?
2. Is Reacting to the Past an effective student-driven pedagogy that incorporates
cooperative and collaborative learning in classrooms above and beyond more typical
traditional pedagogy?
3. Are students understanding of historical content greater as a result of Reacting to the
Past than the traditional unit?
The following focus questions will provide focus and direction for the researcher and
participants of this study.
1. What was your experience taking history/social studies classes in secondary
education and how is it similar or different than this experience in higher education?

18. 18
2. What features of RTTP did you find to be the most effective?
3. What features of heterogeneous grouping were helpful in discussing, debating, and
researching?
4. In conducting research for RTTP, as well as discussing and debating with students in
the class, how do you feel the process of RTTP made this effective for you?
5. How does your experience with the RTTP game you played shape your perception of
the historical events, as well as influence your own beliefs and decision making?
Theoretical Framework
This study will be grounded in the theoretical framework of the Dewey’s constructivist
theory, which states that learning is an active process. This study will also incorporate the works
of Bruner, Piaget, and Vygotsky, which build upon the constructivist theory by adding cognitive
and social constructivism. In considering the objectives of this research of enhancing critical and
analytical thinking through Reacting to the Past, a cooperative and collaborative learning
pedagogy, the constructivist theory aligns perfectly with this study.
According to Dewey (1933), schools should not focus on rote learning and memorization.
Instead, he proposed a method of “directed living” in which students would take part in
workshops that would highlight their knowledge and focus on creativity through collaboration.
Dewey (1933) stated that education should be built on real experience and suggested that to
better understand how learning happens, one should engage in sustained inquiry, which follows
the process of study, ponder, consider alternative possibilities and arrive at your belief grounded
in evidence.
One fundamental idea of the constructivist theory is that students actively construct their
knowledge, rather than absorbing ideas lectured to them by teachers (Fosnot, 2006; Phillips,

19. 19
2000; Larochelle, 2010). This theory assumes that learners will construct their own knowledge,
both individually and collaboratively. This process enables learners to construct genuine ideas or
concepts, which are derived from their current and/or past knowledge. As the learner obtains
new information, a hypothesis is constructed, decisions are made which rely on a cognitive
structure to do so (Bruner, 1960).
By following these principals, the responsibility falls on the students to build their own
learning within an atmosphere designed for learning. Here teachers will value and encourage
student thinking, create lessons that build cooperative learning, offer opportunities for students to
be taking part in an interdisciplinary curriculum, facilitate learning grounded in primary sources,
and build effective assessment of student understanding (Lunenburg, 2011).
By comparing and contrasting the traditional and constructivist classrooms, one can
understand see collaborative learning and student engagement differs. In the constructivist
classroom curriculum is designed around large ideas that encourage and facilitate student’s
questions. Instead of just textbooks in class, students are provided with primary sources in
which teachers have an open dialogue with students to encourage the constructing of their own
knowledge. In addition to this, the teacher’s role is more interactive, as it relates to dialogue
with students. Assessments are centered on student observations and points of view, which
points to them constructing their own perception based on their past knowledge, as well as what
they’ve learned in this classroom. Finally, rather than working alone as they would in a
traditional classroom, students are working in groups, which centers on cooperative and
collaborative learning.
By grounding my own research on this theoretical framework, I will demonstrate the
effectiveness of RTTP as a means of developing and enhancing critical and analytical thinking

20. 20
skills amongst history and social studies students in higher education. In addition to this, my
research will also demonstrate how this student driven pedagogy can be highly effective amongst
heterogeneous groups made up of different race, gender, religion, ethnicities, and socioeconomic
backgrounds. in the classroom.
Summary
Cooperative and collaborative learning pedagogies have proven to be highly effective in
elementary and secondary education, but rarely applied in higher education classrooms (Carnes
2010). Since many states have aligned their education standards to the CCSS, teachers have
applied these pedagogies throughout those grade levels, which set the standard for how students
are accustomed to learning in the classroom. Since most instruction in higher education centers
on lectures and teacher driven pedagogies, those aforementioned thinking skills are not being
developed as they were prior to entering college.
With a continued emphasis on cooperative and collaborative learning by using RTTP in
college level history courses, students will transition easier into college level instruction, as well
as continue to develop their critical and analytical thinking skills. Promoting this will help
ensure that they will be prepared for the duration of their college education, career readiness, and
civic engagement.

21. 21
Chapter II: Literature Review
This chapter will review the literature from various researchers on numerous topics that
have been introduced in the previous topic. The purpose of this literature review will be to
outline how the study and research on the topics of the CCSS, constructivism, active learning,
cooperative and collaborative learning, as well as RTTP have evolved and applied to the college
level history/social studies students.
Context
As a student progresses through secondary education, middle and high school, they take
each major content area as a separate subject. In the matter of history courses, they are divided
up into different histories of the world, which include, Asian, European, and American. In
addition to this, by the end of their secondary education careers, they will also have taken
government and economics. These courses, as well as the ways in which they are taught by
teachers, used the CCSS as their framework for creating curriculum and methods of instruction.
By using the CCSS as the framework, the methods of instruction are meant to be more
cooperative and collaborative in nature, which is designed to enhance critical and analytical
thinking (Lunenburg, 2011). In addition to the development of the aforementioned thinking
skills, the CCSS was adopted to better prepare students for college and/or career readiness.
One of the more frequently researched areas in classroom instruction, cooperative
learning is a learning method that will put two or more students together to complete a task or
assignment (Siegal, 2005). According to Johnson & Johnson (1989), by integrating cooperative
learning strategies into the classroom, it has proven to be an effective method at increasing
student learning outcomes across many content areas and grade levels. One of the more debated
issues of cooperative learning is trying to figure out which cooperative learning strategies work

22. 22
most effective to increase content literacy and student achievement. Many college level
educators center their instruction on lecture style, teacher centered methods of instruction due to
their lack of training in classroom instruction. Many college level educators receive a Doctor of
Philosophy degree in the field of study of their choice, where many of these programs rarely
include coursework on classroom instruction in favor on the courses most aligned to the field of
study. Therefore, many college students receive more lecture style, teacher centered methods of
instruction.
Regardless on the content area that students are taking courses in, literacy is a key
component to understanding each and every topic taught in a classroom, regardless of the content
area. This is most apparent in the study of history and social studies, which makes the educator
the most crucial part to effective literacy development (Key, Bradley, & Bradley, 2010).
Comprised of four main areas known as Key Ideas and Details, Craft and Structure,
Integration of Knowledge and Ideas, and Range of Reading and Level of Text Complexity; the
CCSS are designed to encourage more critical and analytical thinking, reading, writing and
discussions in the classroom. Under the Common Core Social Studies Standard.ELA-
Literacy.RH.6-8.1, students will cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and
secondary sources (Core Standards, 2014). This standard will help teachers enable students to
use portions of the primary or secondary sources they are analyzing, which will allow them to
substantiate their thesis or what they understand to be defined by the primary or secondary
source.
A second standard, known as the Common Core Social Studies Standard.ELA-
Literacy.RH.6-8.2, means students will determine the central ideas or information of a primary
or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of the source distinct from prior knowledge

23. 23
or opinions (Core Standards, 2014). This will assist students needing to understand the main
idea of the primary or secondary source. Then, it will have them explain why their viewpoints
may have changed about a situation in history after analyzing the primary or secondary source. It
is always important for students to understand that reading for knowledge is different from
reading for pleasure.
Identified as Common Core Social Studies Standard.ELA-Literacy.RH.6-8.4, students
will determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary
specific to domains related to history/social studies (Core Standards, 2014). This will help
students craft their content area literacy skills, which are essential for furthering and enhancing
their research skills, as these are needed in developing higher critical and analytical thinking
abilities.
A fourth standard designed to assist students at distinguishing primary and secondary
sources is known as Common Core Social Studies Standard.ELA-Literacy.RH.6-8.9, which will
enable students to “analyze the relationship between a primary and secondary source on the same
topic (Core Standards, 2014). By having students understand the relationship between two types
of sources on any particular topic, they are better suited to make educated debates in the
classroom, as well as defend their claims through the understanding of the relationship between
primary and secondary sources.
In many cases, students will be working in groups to complete tasks and assignments that
are designed to have them apply these skills outlined in the CCSS. Therefore, by students
working together and discussing their work, they are exchanging knowledge and ideas, which
will help bring this approach to learning full circle. For groups that are heterogeneously put

24. 24
together, this approach will help enhance the abilities of different learners by having different
skills come together with each complimenting the other.
Background and Development of CCSS
Led by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School
Officers (CCSSO), the CCSS is an initiative that establishes a set of standards for grades K-12 in
the content areas of English and Math. When compared to standards that have been previously
developed, the CCSS are more advanced, but also more concise (Smith & Teasley, 2014).
Although there are fewer education standards in the CCSS when compared to previous models,
they are developed with a focus on critical and analytical thinking, as those skills are universal
across all content areas.
Researchers and supporters of the CCSS, Kari Smith and Martell Teasley (2014), argue
that having a common set of standards will guide society towards a better and clearer
understanding of what students are expected to know at the end of each grade, as well as high
school graduation. These standards should also lead to a uniform approach to professional
development for educators, which will provide opportunities to share what works best in all
different types of classroom across the nation. In addition to sharing the best practices, there will
also be a common approach towards assessment, which is designed to ensure that all students are
meeting the standards, regardless of where they go to school. By having common assessments,
this means having resources and material that are aligned to one set of standards.
As the standards were being comprised, the developers needed to define what college
and/or career readiness meant, as this was going be the foundation of the standards. Therefore,
after reviewing college level instruction, textbooks, interviewing higher education faculty and
administration, it was found that critical and analytical thinking skills were the foundation

25. 25
needed to succeed (Smith & Teasley, 2014). Thus, the CCSS were designed to close the gaps
that might exist between high school and college instruction. In addition to this, review of the
development process showed that higher education played a significant role in in drafting both
the ELA and Mathematics standards.
Another concern of the developers of the CCSS was the complexity and critical analysis
within education that is sacrificed in order to cover vast amounts of material that will be on the
state and regents examinations. According to David Pearson (2013), the practice of teaching
towards a test that represents rote learning does not truly demonstrate effective learning and
furthering of the skills that are required for college level instruction, such as critical and
analytical thinking.
A recent study by Miranda Brady and Mina Tsay (2010) suggests that rote learning has
done an injustice to students over the last 15 years, as the number of high school graduates has
dropped by nearly 25%. In addition to this, a separate study has found more college students
dropping out or having to leave college for academic reasons. The findings from both of these
studies show that through traditional methods of teaching and assessment, many students are not
graduating high school, as well as not being able to maintain their status in higher education. By
developing standards that guide standards towards critical and analytical thinking, they are being
offered a variety of opportunities to work with different texts and sources, as well as solving
problems through several methods. By doing so, they are developing the skills used in a college
classroom, which could lead to a rise in retention rates for high schools and colleges throughout
the United States.

26. 26
Validating CCSS
After the CCSS had been drafted, a committee was put together to validate the standards
by determining if they reflect the skills and knowledge required to generate students that are
ready for college instruction, precise and clear for everyone to understand, as well as based in
research. In examining the makeup of this committee, it was found that most were college level
instructors in the content areas of ELA and Mathematics. Also, leading the committee was
David Conley, a well-established expert on the necessary knowledge and skills for college
readiness (Smith & Teasley, 2014). Not only in the development process was there a string
presence of higher education, but also in the validation committee a large presence of high
education faculty and assessment skills specialists was present.
Based on the focus groups that were conducted, part of the validation process was to
compare and contrast the newly drafted standards to international academic standards, as well as
the most demanding and rigorous standards from specific states, which were Massachusetts and
Texas. Based on the review of the focus groups, these studies are still being conducted as states
are beginning to adopt them. The reason for this is to see how well assessment that are aligned
to the CCSS hold up when compared to assessments based on other state and international
standards. Therefore, we do not a full picture as to the effectiveness of the CCSS. However,
vast amounts of research do exist on the effective teaching methods that the CCSS are built
around.
Active Learning for Student Engagement
Traditional practices of teaching models have always encouraged students to sit in straight
rows, listen to lectures, fill out worksheets, and read from texts under the watchful eye of the
teacher (Peterson & Hittie, 2003). However, this method of teaching is no longer met by the

27. 27
diverse needs of today’s students. Educators like John Dewey contested this model back in the
early 1900’s. He believed that rote study promoted shallow thinking and a dislike for learning
(Peterson & Hittie, 2003) and argued that students were actually learning all the time. Dewey also
believed that learning was inherently social (Powell & Kalina, 2009). I believe this statement does
not only apply to student learning, nonetheless, it is equally appropriate in speaking of terms of
teacher learning, as well. Teachers not only learn the curriculum they are teaching, but they also
learn from their students and the experiences they collectively share, together on a daily basis.
In the early 1900’s John Dewey maintained that education must be experience based,
centering on principles such as open-mindedness and discipline in aim-based activity (Glassman
& Whaley, 2000). He believed these aim-based activities could be done using long-term projects,
or project-based learning that grew out of a child’s interest. He also saw learning as a continuous
fluid process so as one aim was achieved it set the groundwork for the next aim. Dewey, a
constructivist theorist, contended that we must teach children how to engage with the world on a
practical level and trust them to construct their own knowledge through engagement in activities
of a lifetime (Glassman et al, 2000).
Based on the analysis of the literature regarding the CCSS, they are developed around the
practice of active learning. According to Dewey (1933), active learning is the idea that students
will begin to learn as they are actively engaged and processing information to build solutions to
the problems they are presented. By examining the statement, active learning is also developing
critical thinking skills through the solving of problems presented to them. According to Dewey,
these problems that are presented to students will evoke their natural curiosity which kindles
both critical thought and learning. This is also considered to be cognitive theory, which is an
offshoot of Constructivism and the discovery theory, said to have begun by Dewey (1933).

28. 28
In the mid and later Twentieth Century, Bruner and Piaget were leading the constructivist
subset of cognitive theory. According to Bruner (1973), by engaging in discovery, this is the
foundation in which one will become a constructivist. By engaging in the processing of that
information from the problem that had been presented, it spurs learning in the problem solver, as
he or she is actively involved and engaged in finding a solution. By this theory, learning is
taking place as the solution is thought out and discovered. This method of learning takes into
account that certain facts, most likely the fundamentals, are already understood. However, the
discovery that takes place through this process will lead to new insights and make connections
from facts already known to new information that is discovered.
Although the ideas that are the foundation for the constructivist theories were built with
child development in mind, the principles of the constructivist theory have been applied by
recent trendsetters in education. The ideologies of using discovery for learning are infused with
active learning (Harris and Johnson, 2002), aspects of learner-centered learning (McCombs and
Whisler, 1997), and action-learning (Marquardt, 2004). Another manifestation of constructivist
principles is integrating inquiry into both teaching and learning, otherwise known as inquiry
based learning (Audet, 2005).
Inquiry-based learning is a relatively new term used by people around the world, but it
conjures up as many different meanings, visions, ideas and ideals as the number of people studying
it. This has created confusion for educators who are seeking a different way of helping their
students learn. Educators today need to be reflecting on their practice as they face the responsibility
of the diversity they see in their classrooms. In classrooms today, teachers are presented with
students who speak English as a second language, new immigrant families, children with specific

29. 29
physical and emotional needs, a wide-variety of mental handicaps, as well as experience varying
degrees of acceptance of an inquiry approach amongst their colleagues/peers.
Perhaps the inquiry process is unique each and every time it is used in a classroom so it
cannot be defined one way. Still, if educators grounded their beliefs in a particular paradigm like
social constructivism it may help them ground their practice in a set of beliefs associated with the
paradigm. Having a clear understanding of the roles of both teacher and student within the chosen
paradigm could help clarify the inquiry process for educators. If you believed that a socially
constructed classroom was the best environment for students, you would do everything you could
to create that environment and look for an approach that fit the paradigm.
Vygotsky believed that an inquiry-based approach or cooperative learning was the only
way students learn. Being able to clearly articulate the framework of the two roles might help
educators determine how to operate within the roles within the classroom setting. If educators had
a clear vision of roles it would impact how they implement inquiry. The data and literature point
to many different ways of implementing inquiry. This in itself is not a problem but when it is being
implemented without clear understanding of the why and how, it will not be effective.
Reflective Teaching and Inquiry Based Learning has a number of advantages in a
History/Social Studies classroom. It is also highly student centered and relevant to the students,
with a focus on making connections to the real world and real life and encouraging students to use
resources outside of the classroom and school, which leads to civic engagement. An inquiry model
enhances instruction and brings in that third dimension of thinking and learning. It can be
integrated from the very beginning into a conceptual unit as a component of instruction.
Ultimately, the goal of History/Social Studies learning is engaging students in investigating
significant themes and questions, with people, their values, and choices as central focus (Barton

30. 30
and Levstik, 2004) and active citizenship and learning (Meyerson and Secules, 2001). Both
teaching methods engages students in deeper learning, so the shift from gathering concrete facts
to investigating complex and abstract ideas and relationships promotes inquiry.
Cooperative and Collaborative Learning as Effective Models
To understand how cooperative and collaborative learning are effective at developing and
enhancing critical and analytical thinking skills, it must first be defined before it can be applied.
As stated by Carlsmith and Cooper (2002), collaborative learning consists of students coming
together in an organized manner to effectively and efficiently solve a problem. This is regarded
as having common goals, a balanced structure, open communication and negotiation amongst
students. By students interacting, it is establishing detailed discussions and the exchanging of
ideas, as well as furthering the understanding of them, which is highly regarded as improving
learning and understanding.
In examining the theoretical perspective, Dillenbourg (1999) states that collaborative
learning situations must be organized by instructors, as they are establishing the framework and
boundaries. By structuring the setting, instructors become facilitators that guide the students
through the collaborative learning process. In addition to this, interaction between students
effectively triggers the learning process. It is the practice of coming together and developing
shared meanings amongst the learners. Based on the research of Dillenbourg (1999), each
student reaches the developmental stage as they are immersed in the sharing of knowledge.
This perspective also fits in with the gradual release model of responsibility. According
to Dr. Douglas Fisher (2008), the gradual release of responsibility model calls for teachers to
focus lessons through guided instruction, as teachers are providing the structure. Through
guided instruction, teachers lead students through tasks that are designed to increase their

31. 31
understanding of the content area. Once this is complete, the teacher will create critical thinking
questions that need to be addressed through collaborative learning. Now that students have the
content knowledge, they are to work together and apply the learning as they openly interact with
each other. This is the open exchange of knowledge and ideas to come to a solution for the
questions that have been provided by the instructor.
According to Van Boxtel, et al. (2000), students are allowed, through collaborative and
cooperative learning activities, to provide in depth explanations of their understanding on the
ideas that are being shared. When examining the CCSS, it reflects the collaboration as the
communication skill that allows students to enhance the critical and analytical thinking skills
needed for college and employment. Also, the social interactions from this collaboration also
encourage the development of conceptual thinking by students through relating the material and
ideas to other experiences of individuals in the group. Therefore, once students are able to
conceptually understand the material, as it has been done through a verbal exchange, they can
come to a mutual understanding of the learning objectives set forth by the instructor.
Working backwards
Although there should be an emphasis on the setup and organization of collaborative
learning, instructors must first examine the intended learning outcomes first, then work their way
back in developing the structure of the collaborative learning lesson. This is known as the
“effect” paradigm, highlighted by Emily Lai (2011), which examines the outcomes of
collaboration, not the process itself. Based on the study conducted by Brady and Tsay (2010),
students successfully understood the arguments between Federalists and Anti-Federalists during
the ratification of the Constitution of the United States through the collaborative and cooperative
learning models. The intended learning outcomes were for students to understand why the both

32. 32
groups were debating over the necessity of the Bill of Rights, as well as how they argued their
points. The instructor broke the students into 4 groups of 7 students for two days. Each group
was to analyze primary sources, including specific Federalist Papers, and discuss and debate
their findings with the participants of that group, but had to stay within the limits of the questions
structured by the instructor, which were aligned to Bloom’s Taxonomy. In addition to this, the
questions included content area literacy as a means of developing literacy skills through the
process.
Assessment
Assessing the students consisted of having students answer three essay questions, where
they had to refer back to the documents to support their claims. All 24 students were able to
clearly articulate their responses in well-developed and succinct essays. The rest of the class,
which consisted of another 10 students did not perform as well, when it came down to clearly
organization, articulation, and hitting all of the main points. The remaining 10 students were not
part of the collaborative and cooperative learning process. Not only were the learning outcomes
met, but most of the students wanted to engage in further collaborative learning groups for
upcoming instruction, as they enjoyed the process of discussing the documents and sharing ideas.
This feedback should then be taken by the instructor and applied to the development of
additional collaborative learning models.
In addition to getting students ready for collaboration through instructors providing the
structured questions, teachers should develop and organize tasks that are meant to support
collaboration (Dillenbourg, 1999). It is suggested that establishing and assigning roles for all
students within tasks. Based on the students’ knowledge and skillset, instructors should assign
those roles as a means of dividing the labor, as well as enhancing the skills that might need

33. 33
development. Although they will have individual roles within the group, they are still working
together once all of their data has been gathered, which means they will be assisting one another
as they work to achieve the learning outcomes.
According to C.E. Nelson (1994), students that were lacking in the area of content
literacy, were assigned the role of creating bullet point summarizations of the texts that were read
and discussed in the group. As they were assessed, 64% of students showed an enhancement of
content area literacy through the assessments given by the teachers. Based on these results, it
can be argued that collaborative learning, when structured with effective tasks and learning
outcomes, can enhance literacy skills of those students that seem to be lacking in that area. This
shows positive support for being an effective pedagogy for the CCSS implementation, as all of
the standards revolve around literacy skills in addition to critical and analytical thinking.
As we go deeper into understanding assessing collaboration, we must first understand
how students are currently assessed. In New York State, all secondary education students are
given the Regents exam, which is a standard multiple-choice test with an essay to write at the
end. According to M.G. Hennessey (1999), assessment through multiple choice is not a true
measure of understanding. Based on a study conducted by Hennessey (1997), 45% percent of
students that scored a 90 or above on the Global Studies Regents exam were unable to clearly
and succinctly articulate their answers on an assessment that was made up of all essay questions.
Out of that 45%, only 65% of students failed the assessment. From these results, it is clear that
multiple choice exams are not an accurate measure of critical thinking.
To properly assess critical thinking, as it relates to collaborative learning, it must first be
understood that individual scores amongst group members tend to be higher than those students
that were not part of the collaborative learning groups (Saner et al., 1994). Through the

34. 34
assigning of tasks and establishing a division of labor within groups, this will help prevent the
higher learners of the group from doing all of the work, which will lead to skewed results.
Therefore, assessment must be structured around the notion of an individual students’ ability to
learn from collaboration, which is done through a mixed approach towards assessment. This
mixed approach consists of elements from both individual and group assessment components,
which includes comparing and contrasting primary documents in the form of an essay, while
giving short answers based on statistical data and charts. In addition to this, there is a place for
some multiple-choice questions, but only in relation to primary sources and/or visual aids, such
as pictures and maps. These are assessments that measure critical thinking through comparing
and contrasting, as well as analytical thinking through examining statistical data and charts,
which are both highlighted in the CCSS.
Reacting to the Past Brings It Altogether
In examining CCSS, it is understood that they are structured on literacy instruction to
better develop and enhance critical and analytical skills of students. In addition to this, by
examining constructivism, active learning, cooperative and collaborative learning, it is clear that
these are proven methods that improve critical and analytical thinking skills of students that are
learning through this model. Therefore, this pedagogy was developed at Barnard College, which
is affiliated with Columbia University, and it is a profoundly different way of engaging students
with critical and analytical thinking questions in higher education. According to Dr. Richard Gid
Powers it casts students in historical roles and immerses them in elaborate games that explore
crises of great import in the history of ideas. They construct their arguments from the same
intellectual sources their characters would have used, and they have to support their positions
through reasoned, sometimes impassioned writing and speeches (Powers, et al., 2010).

35. 35
A Student-driven Pedagogy
The games that students are immersed in are set around key historical events that involve
a problem that needs to be addressed. These games are, but not limited to the Constitutional
Convention of 1787, The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, FDR’s 100 Days or the 2008
Bailout. Once students are assigned their roles, which reflects the division of labor that was
previously addressed, they are to research them and write a biography of their historical figures.
Prior to the start of the game, Dr. Mark Carnes (2010) states that teachers provide structure and
guidance on the issues, as well as the historical context on which the game will turn. Therefore,
RTTP allows teachers to apply the gradual release of responsibility model by providing
classroom instruction, then slowly pulling back and becoming facilitators as students begin to
drive the lesson and instruction by playing the game and engaging in discussions, as well as
debates over the course of a few classes.
In all games, students are divided into factions based on their characters. By doing this,
students are actually split into groups to work together on their victory objectives. While in their
groups, they are reading sources, both primary and secondary, as well as crafting their views and
positions based on their characters and factions, as part of a team. According to Dr. Carnes
(2010), persuasion is the heart of the game. While in the roles they are assigned, students must
persuade and convince others that “their” views and ideas make more sense than those of their
opponents. These views and ideas will be derived from the primary and secondary sources
assigned by the teacher, which is a way for the teacher to carefully structure the collaborative
learning model. This approach is having students read through sources to draft and support their
argument to the other side; all of which supports various components in the CCSS.

36. 36
As stated by Gorton and Havercroft (2012), although they are crafting their views and
engaging in the art of persuasion through interacting with other students, they are doing so with
the vocabulary used in the assigned primary and secondary sources. By doing so, students are
enhancing their content area literacy skills through the usage of words used within a specific
content area. Since these games are set in historical events, the content area literacy skills of
Social Studies will be expanded.
While students were participating in an RTTP game centered on the formation of the
League of Nations after World War I, 75% of students demonstrated in depth talking points that
were aligned to the primary sources provided by the instructor (Kelly, 2009). The remaining
25% were highly active in attempting to persuade each side to vote with them. Students were
assessed after playing the game and the results were very favorable. In regard to the writing
assignment that was given after the exam, 100% of the college freshman were able to fully
answer each part of the essay question, which was broken up into three sections, which
represented a scaffold approach, as the preceding section built to the following section. This
represents that an assessment based on critical thinking. In addition to this, 85% of students
correctly used vocabulary words from the primary sources they were assigned to read (Kelly,
2009), which represents a development and enhancement of content area literacy skills.
As the class is open for students to debate with each other, specific students have
predetermined speaking roles for which they are to get up in class and make a speech supporting
their positions. These speeches are to be derived from the primary and secondary sources
assigned, as well as work done with their factions. This is another method of having students
properly analyze sources to support their positions. After each session of gameplay, Dr. Powers
(2010) states that students are given key writing assignments that demonstrate their abilities in

37. 37
content area literacy, analyzing and citing from primary and secondary sources as it applies to
their thesis, which will help sharpen their critical thinking skills.
RTTP is a major player in the world of gamification, which is teaching instruction
through games that are designed to have students driven by competing with one another (Hamari,
et al., 2014). Studies conducted in classrooms and the workplace that have implemented
gamification models to determine if they were effective in furthering learning have demonstrated
that gamification is effective, as long as it is properly aligned to the highlighted content. In
addition to this, students participating in gamification have also exhibited specific behavior that
suggests that they are competing with one another (Decker, et al., 2013).
Studies into gamification have showed that it brings out the competitive nature in many
students. As a result, many students will go that extra mile to ensure that they will win (Decker,
et al., 2013). A psychological study conducted by Raymond Miller and Jon Nichols (1994)
suggests that the competitive nature attached to gamification in a cooperative and collaborative
learning environment will motivate students in a unique way depending upon the outlines set by
the instructor. As a result, it is up to the instructor to properly structure the learning environment
which will have a direct impact on the gameplay and student motivation (Kapp, 2010).
Aligned to the CCSS
Since RTTP focuses on active student driven instruction that is structured on
collaboration through the sharing of ideas and knowledge, which is an effective model for
developing and enhancing critical and analytical thinking skills, as well as content area literacy,
RTTP brings together all of the components needed to have students meet the CCSS. Therefore,
it can be argued that RTTP is an effective student driven pedagogy that can be used in secondary
education classroom to better prepare students for college level instruction and the workplace.

38. 38
With the CCSS having a strong influence of higher education instructors contributing to the
development and validation of them, RTTP is an excellent fit as it was developed and still
utilized in higher education.
Summary
Typical instruction of history usually focuses on teacher driven lectures as a means of
classroom instruction. In addition to this, there is little time to higher order thinking questions to
be asked of the students. As a result, there is very little being on in this type of classroom that
will develop critical thinking skills. As stated by Ross (2017), The main design of classroom
social studies pedagogy is pigeonholed as text-oriented, whole group, teacher-centered
instruction with an emphasis on memorizing names, dates, events and facts. This approach to
instruction is branded as "traditional social studies instruction" (TSSI) by Leming (2003), has
continued in social studies classrooms throughout the last century due to the burden of the
organizational setting and school culture, even though teachers, educators and researchers have
offered alternative methods of instruction.
Since the purpose of social studies is to build a better citizen through classroom
instruction, educators should be giving it that purpose through inquiry based learning. Teaching
from this position means concentrating on results and consequences that matter, instead of
standardized test results, as well as cross-examining intellectual concepts, such as democracy, for
more meaningful understandings. In this method, learning is understood as equivalent to inquiry
into problems faced by real people in their everyday life, according to Ross (2017). The goal of
citizenship education then is not to place students into capitalist democracy. Instead, it should be
designed to help students question, understand, and test the authenticity of the social world
which we reside in.

39. 39
Chapter III: Methodology
This mixed methods study was designed to gain a better understanding how to better
prepare students for civics understanding and engagement through their education in college
history/social studies courses and the application of critical citizenship. The focus applied RTTP
to better enhance students critical and analytical thinking skills. RTTP was developed on
collaborative learning but is also grounded in the constructivist theory based on how students
learn through social interaction.
According to Creswell (2013), it is appropriate to conduct qualitative research to have
individuals feel empowered and want to share their stories, as well as have their voices heard and
minimize the gap between them and the researcher. Ponterroto (2005) states that the purpose of
qualitative research is to have the experiences of the research participants described and
interpreted in a way that allows the researcher to understand how this is shaping their
perspectives. Therefore, the qualitative research is designed to describe and interpret the
experiences of the participants. In this research, a description and interpretation of student’s
experiences related to historical instruction through role playing of civic engagement was
explored.
Since I did a mixed-methods case study, Yin (2009) suggests that it is important to design
case studies that bring into line the components of the study itself. This includes the research
questions, theoretical framework, investigation and findings from the data, which are used to
support the answers to the research questions put forth for this study.
Most applications of the social constructivist theory tend to focus more on and address
the way in which students learn through the practice of social interaction. According to Nyikos
and Hashimoto (2006), these theoretical tenets are applied to adolescent and adult learners in

40. 40
general education with more successful outcomes of critical thinking skills. To look deeper into
this, we must also look at the few variables of the constructivist theory that are looked at in
collaborative learning. Other variables of the constructivist theory include self-regulation, use of
language, problem solving, scaffolding and application of critical thinking skills (Nyikos &
Hashimoto, 2006).
Three research questions explored in this qualitative study:
RQ1: How might we be able to use cooperative and collaborative learning to better develop and
enhance critical and analytical thinking skills on Social Studies and/or History students?
RQ2: Is Reacting to the Past an effective student-driven pedagogy that incorporates cooperative
and collaborative learning in classrooms above and beyond more typical traditional pedagogy?
RQ3: Are students understanding of historical content greater as a result of Reacting to the Past
than the traditional unit?
The research questions were addressed through collaborative learning and Reacting to the
Past, which will be the focus of this study. The first question focused on how collaborative
learning impacts learning outcomes for students. The second question focused on the methods of
RTTP and how that is implementing collaborative learning. The third question examined the
development of student’s critical thinking after participating in RTTP versus participation in the
pedagogy of a more traditional and typical history class.
How RTTP Differs from Traditional Teaching Methods
Education is extremely important to the stride of the social, political and economic
development of any nation, which means that effective teaching is crucial to meeting this.
Effective teaching is vital since teaching is based on assisting students’ progress from one level
to another in a more gregarious interactive environment and to get the approach right to get

41. 41
students to be independent learners, as well as informed citizens (Muijus and Reynolds, 2005).
Effectiveness does not equate to being perfect or giving the best performance. Instead it means
students having the best brought out in students.
The traditional method of teaching usually consists of teachers standing in front of the
classroom of many students. While in the front of the classroom, teachers are usually lecturing
and writing notes on the board, while students are seated individually in rows. As this is
happening, there is very little questioning, checking for understanding of students, as well as
students not engaging with one another. In addition to this, the traditional method usually relies
on textbooks that are quickly outdated and not frequently replaced due to school budget
restraints. All of this translates to a classroom that is teacher driven with very little, if any,
student engagement. As a result, student interest levels drop off amongst most students in the
classroom, which usually means student learning outcomes cannot be effectively met, (Gerlach,
1994).
Collaborative learning greatly differs from the traditional method of teaching and
learning as it involves groups of students working together to solve a problem and complete a
task while teachers facilitate this type of learning environment. As stated by Gerlach (1994)
collaborative learning is structured on the idea that learning is a naturally social act where the
participants talk among themselves and work together. It is through these social interactions
where learning occurs.
The pedagogy of RTTP builds on the collaborative learning model through structured
role-playing games built around historical events. For students, learning happens when they are
taking on their roles, informed by classic texts, in elaborate games set in the past. According to
Carnes “they learn skills—speaking, writing, critical thinking, problem solving, leadership, and

42. 42
teamwork—in order to prevail in difficult and complicated situations. That is because Reacting
roles, unlike those in a play, do not have a fixed script and outcome. While students will be
obliged to adhere to the philosophical and intellectual beliefs of the historical figures they have
been assigned to play, they must devise their own means of expressing those ideas persuasively,
in papers, speeches or other public presentations; and students must also pursue a course of
action they think will help them win the game” (Carnes, 2010).
By applying the Reacting to the Past methodology to specific units of instruction in all
classes, as well as assessing student work prior to and after participation in the RTTP class
versus the more typical classroom pedagogy, I was able to determine whether there was an
outcome evident in student work pre-to-post that is significantly different between the two
pedagogies. In the RTTP class I engaged students in activities regarding civic engagement
through historical role playing, as these games are designed around major historical events.
Employing these RTTP games over their first semester or two of college has shown to foster
many important skills. According to Bok (2006), there has been in improvement in writing,
reasoning and expression, based on the collaborative learning push, as well as the social
interactions that Reacting provides.
RTTP games do vary in length and difficulty. Many of the games take about two to four
weeks of class time to complete with all the class time being occupied while the games are in
session. Before students play the games as their characters, there are a few classes that are
designed to setup and prepare the students. This includes going through the game booklet, a
couple of introductory lectures or lessons provided by the instructor of the historical context,
assignment of the roles and the game rules, (Higbee, 2008).

43. 43
While classes doing RTTP instruction used these games, the classes doing traditional
instruction was structured to mimic more lecture style pedagogy, inclusive of the same texts,
documents, and articles. The classes doing RTTP instruction focused on student centered
instruction and learning, while the traditional class focused on teacher driven instruction, which
centered on my lecture as the driver of instruction.
Rationale for the Mixed-Method Design
Doing a mixed-methods case study involves the process of a case-based research
approach along with the collection of data that can test hypotheses. The purpose of this is to
examine a single case or numerous cases at great lengths to gain a deeper understanding. As
stated by Edwards (1998), the researcher goes in depth to gain an understanding into their
participant’s perspective of their experiences, as well as to track the results of your study. In
most cases, which I believe my research falls into, case studies are also used when the researcher
is trying to understand the process of their research, which involves monitoring and having a
conversation with their participants during and after their study. There are three main influential
authors on the topic of case studies, which highlight diverse approaches. The author that I
identify most with regarding this methodology is Merriam.
Merriam’s Approach to Case Study
According to Merriam (1998), case studies can be designed to examine and understand
specific situations. In examining this, it is solely designed for a constructivist and qualitative
approach to research. The purpose, which is mostly aligned to my purpose, is to gain a deeper
understanding. In the case of my research, although the outcomes mean a lot, I want to
understand how the process of inquiry is best suited to better enhance the critical and analytical

44. 44
thinking skills of history students. If the outcome matches my desired results, I am more
interested in the process of how the results were reached.
There are three types of case studies that Merriam focuses on, which are particularistic,
heuristic, and descriptive. Particularistic focuses on the case itself, heuristic focuses on gaining a
better understanding of the experience and gaining new knowledge, and descriptive focuses on
describing the phenomena within the case itself. By understanding the case itself, it allows for
the reader to have a much better understanding, not only of this situation, but also situations that
might be different, as well as problems. By doing so, the reader will have a deeper insight, but
may also be able to add to their knowledge of this issue and process (Merriam, 1998).
A mixed method approach of quantitative and qualitative was the research design of this
study. According to Merriam (2009), qualitative research is built on discovering the meaning of
a phenomenon for those involved in the study and research. However, Edwards (1998) suggests
that having quantitative data to reference back to as a baseline will help support the phenomenon
for those involved in the study and research. The purpose is for researchers to understand how
others interpret their experiences, as well as how that information and social interactions are
constructing their perspectives and what meaning they are ascribing to them. Qualitative
research will enable individuals to develop subjective meanings of their experiences, which are
formed through the interactions they have with others, as well as the norms of society (Creswell,
2012).
It is appropriate for this study to be grounded in qualitative research since the purpose of
it is to develop a better understanding of student’s perspectives regarding historical research,
critical and analytical thinking, and civic engagement. Educators play a crucial role as
facilitators that will create this environment for students. As a result, the individual experiences

45. 45
and growth, as they relate to critical and analytical thinking skills, as well as civic engagement
through collaborative learning will be investigated through qualitative research. For this study,
using Reacting to the Past to enhance critical and analytical thinking skills, as well as having
student’s role play in games designed for civic engagement and reflect on their experiences will
be the goals.
To effectively achieve these goals, I will be using a case study that will be a holistic and
qualitative research approach. According to Merriam (1985), a case study will also enable the
discovery of social issues that have numerous variables involved. The strategy of research
conducted through a case study, as stated by Yin (1989), is providing a phenomenon is a
contemporary context with numerous sources of evidence being used and evaluated. Case study
research can be utilized as a qualitative approach, as it must include various sources of
information, such as real-life experience and exploration, bounded systems, as well as an
effective data collection that is utilizing and examining the various sources of information
(Creswell, 2012).
Participants
The case study focused on four college level classes, titled CORE 100: U.S. Issues, Ideas
and Institutions, immersed in civic engagement at the College of Staten Island, part of the City
University of New York, and be broken up by Class A, B, C, D. Students that signed up for this
required general education class were told that Reacting to the Past is part of the curriculum
should instructors want to use it since the college fully embraces academic freedom. Each class
will have data collected from four major content areas. These content areas are The Constitution
of the United States, Slavery, Reconstruction, and Society, The Great Depression, and the 2008
Financial Crisis. The RTTP games that will be administered to cover the aforementioned content

46. 46
areas will be The Constitutional Convention, The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, FDR’s 100
Days, and the 2008 Bailout
Class A received RTTP for The Constitutional Convention and the FDR’s 100 Days, but
will receive traditional, lecture style, teacher driven pedagogy for the Impeachment of Andrew
Johnson and the 2008 Bailout. Class B received RTTP for the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson
and the 2008 Bailout, but will also receive traditional, lecture style, teacher driven pedagogy for
The Constitutional Convention and FDR’s 100 days. Class C followed the same layout as Class
A, while Class D followed the same layout as Class B. The second class was the same content
area, but was only taught through a traditional, lecture style, teacher driven pedagogy. While
being immersed in the Reacting to the Past experience, each student was assigned the role of a
historical figure from event. They researched, discussed, debated, and wrote as the character for
each game, which lasted about 3-4 classes per game. They were presented with a contemporary
phenomenon placed in its real-life context (Yin, 1989). By looking at Creswell (2012), this case
study is within a bounded system of collaborative learning, historical study and civic engagement
to enhance critical and analytical thinking skills being the bounded phenomenon, time and place.
Although there is a vast amount of literature on research design through a case study, Yin
(2009) claims there is a fair amount of criticism towards this type of research design. According
to Creswell (2012), there has been criticism for this type of research to be biased, as well as its
credibility lacking. In addition to this, quantitative researchers accuse this type of approach for
not being generalizable enough. The counter argument towards this accusation is that this
qualitative research approach, the case study is not focusing on a large population but will be
contained to two classrooms of nearly 40 students per class. In addition to this, these findings

47. 47
can be transferable to other schools attempting to implement collaborative learning into their
history/social studies curriculum.
According to Yin (2009), a case study can be categorized as descriptive, instructive, and
exploratory. This type of research can also be considered to be collective, intrinsic and
instrumental to students and educators together. For this study, I facilitated the students engaged
in the collaborative learning model and student driven pedagogy of Reacting to the Past. Their
results on written responses, as well pre-and post-discussions were compared and contrasted with
the students in the traditional, lecture style classroom.
Data Collection, Storage and Management
When conducting a case study, the data collection strategy should include the use of
various types of data collection. According to Yin (1989), focus groups, observations, and
documentation are the various types of data that is collected in a case study. As the researcher, I
extensively utilized these methods in my case study. The various sources of information that
will be collected will include three separate phases:
For the writing component of each unit of instruction for the data collection, students
read two primary source documents. Upon reading these documents, they answered two
document-based questions in essay format and 30 multiple choice questions. A document-based
question is designed to see how well students relate their writing back to the primary document.
Another purpose of the writing component was to assess how students were using the content
knowledge they’ve developed through classroom instruction, both traditional and RTTP, and
apply it to the written essays and determine how well their critical and analytical thinking skills
have developed as a result of the classroom instruction.

48. 48
An example of a document used was John Locke’s Concerning Civil Government,
Second Essay 1688. Since the foundation for American Democracy comes from Enlightenment
thinkers, such as John Locke, this was a great document for them to read and relate to civic
engagement in American Society as it attempts to understand human organizations such as
economic, political, and social systems. Enlightenment thinkers, such as Locke, could challenge
the ignorance and superstition that led to imperfect social arrangements, as well as misery.
In this document, Locke is exploring the origins of government and society. By starting
with man in his original state of nature, enjoying absolute freedom, but little security, Locke
attempted to show that governments originate from man’s desire for order and security. He
concluded that these origins are the result of a social contract whereby man obtains some social
protection through the exchange of some personal liberty.
According to Locke, legitimate authority was to derive the consent of the people and
would protect people’s life liberty and property. Upon this initial consent being granted by the
people, authority was to be understood and acknowledged, even if some found themselves in the
minority on a decision or action. In the event the government rules against the interests of the
ruled, the people had a right to resist and overthrow it. This discourse on civil government by
Locke provided much of the intellectual reasoning used by our Founding Fathers during the
American Revolution and becomes a major part of the foundation for American constitutional
democracy and representation.
After reading this short document, students wrote an interpretive and reflection essay on
it. In their essay, they explained what problems occur in a state of nature, why governments are
established, under what conditions that people have a right to resist governments authority, as
well as how this is reflected in American society and government. In understanding and citing

49. 49
the content, students effectively demonstrated their critical and analytical thinking skills through
the writing of this essay.
Another example of a document used was the signing statement by President George W.
Bush on the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. This act created the Troubled
Asset Relief Program (TARP) for the 2008 Financial Crisis. Arguably, this act prevented a total
meltdown of America’s financial system, as well as the global economy. On October 3, 2008
TARP was signed into law with the intent of having the United States government purchase toxic
assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector, which was spiraling
out of control and already saw a few large banks already fail. In addition to this, the United
States government would inject capital into these financial institutions to unfreeze credit and
make cash available to them so they can begin lending money and trading, which will keep cash
and credit flowing.
In order to understand how this aligned with a civics discussion and debate, as well as
reflective of a civilian government, it must be put in historical context. On September 29, 2008,
this bill that would become the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 failed to pass the
House of Representatives due to Congress believing that this would be too much of a financial
burden on the American taxpayers to bailout financial institutions. Millions of Americans
reached out to their Congressional representatives and strongly opposed this bill that was
designed to give a bailout to banks that engaged in too risky and too speculative behavior.
Therefore, there were not enough votes to pass the bill in the House of Representatives. As a
result, the stock market crashed on September 29, 2008. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell
777.68 points, which was the largest point drop in any single day in history.

50. 50
On October 1, 2008, The US Senate took the bill and added the clause of capital
injections into it, which was designed to inject these financial institutions with capital for the
purpose of freeing credit markets and making cash available to them. The revised bill passed the
US Senate and was signed into law on October 3, 2008. This lays the foundations and provides
the framework for the Federal Reserve’s Quantitative Easing program of buying billions of
dollars’ worth of treasury bonds every month for the next few years to come. The reason for this
program was to inject more cash and make it available to people and businesses in the United
States. By doing so, people would be spending more money and using credit, which keeps that
flowing in a way that would stave off a second great depression. This was the total opposite of
what the federal government and Federal Reserve did during the Great Depression.
After reading this signing statement, students answered a DBQ question in essay format.
In their response, they explained what problems might occur in an economy that causes this, how
the government sets the rules by which the market economy functions, how the people have a
say in these rules since the United States government’s power comes from its people, as well as
the implications of these actions on American society and government. In understanding and
citing the content, students effectively demonstrated their critical and analytical thinking skills
through the writing of this essay.
At the beginning of the semester, students participating in this study were all assigned a
number that was given to them by the coordinator of the Core program for them to use on
assignment in place of their name. I was not made aware of which student had which number
until final grades were posted. The data collection for each class consisted of a pre and post
assessment for each unit of instruction. This was made up with 30 multiple choice questions and
two document-based questions. The purpose of this was to track the development of their critical

51. 51
and analytical thinking skills before and after traditional and RTTP instruction of each unit of
instruction.
At the end of the RTTP game for the collaborative learning class, I also reached the end
of my lecture and classroom instruction of the same historical event in the traditional classroom.
At that time, they received their post assessment for that unit which consisted of 30 multiple
choice questions and two document-based questions. This assisted me in tracking the
development of their critical and analytical thinking skills. My theory was that the RTTP class
showed more growth of those skills than the traditional class. In addition to tracking the growth
of these skills through the examination, I held a post mortem discussion with these groups to try
and understand how these students understood, perceived and interpreted the content in which
they learned, both in the RTTP sessions and traditional setting.
To effectively track the growth of critical and analytical thinking skills, I examined how
students were using their content area literacy and knowledge to interpret and reflect upon the
documents given to them, as well as how well they answer the questions provided with each
document. In addition to this, I also checked to see how well students connected the primary
source documents to their essay formatted answers to the document-based questions. This will
also demonstrate growth of critical and analytical thinking skills, as well as their understanding
of content area literacy and knowledge.
Phase 1 – Primary sources, documents, and writing. CORE 100 has a specific set of
primary sources and documents that I can use, and add to, to create the themes and focus of
history, social studies, and civic engagement. All of these documents pertain to constitutional
democracy, civil rights and social issues, as well as government and the market economy. The
major theme of Core 100 is to understand society and civic engagement in a constitutional