Teaching the Reluctant Learner:
Creating a "Common Ground of
Intellectual Commitment” in Required
Second-Level Writing Courses
Dr. Courtney Bates
Dr. Elkie Burnside
Dr. Nicole Diederich
Dr. Sarah Fedirka
The 6th Annual SoTL Conference
The University of Findlay, May 18-19, 2015
What a teacher does matters.
Great teachers “create a common ground
of intellectual commitment. They stimulate
active, not passive, learning and encourage
students to be critical, creative thinkers,
with the capacity to go on learning after
their college days are over.” (Boyer, 1990, p.
24)
What a teacher knows matters.
“As a scholarly enterprise, teaching begins
with what the teacher knows.” (Boyer, 1990,
p. 23)
A teacher must know his or her
students.
“An essential component of facilitating
learning is understanding learners.”
(Oblinger, 2013, p. 37)
Boyer’s students were Gen-X.
 The Berlin Wall fell
 AIDS and the Web emerged
 The Chernobyl nuclear accident occurred
 The Exxon Valdez caused an oil spill
 The Challenger space shuttle exploded
 The first computer disk was sold (Oblinger, 2013, p.
38)
Our students are Millennials.
 Ads for prescription drugs, noting their disturbing
side effects, have always flooded the airwaves
 One route to pregnancy has always been through
frozen eggs
 “Press pound” on the phone is now translated as
“hit hashtag”
 Celebrity “selfies” are far cooler than autographs
(Neif and McBride, 2014)
How Millennials experience the
world shapes how they learn.
 “Computers aren’t technology”
 “The Internet is better than TV”
 “Reality is no longer real”
 “Doing is more important than knowing”
 ”Multitasking is a way of life”
 “Staying connected is essential”
 “Consumer and creator are blurring” (Oblinger, 2013,
p. 40-41)
Five shared learning outcomes for
second writing courses:
 analyze, critique, and respond to texts and/or
rhetorical situations
 apply theoretical and critical concepts in a variety
of composing spaces
 conceptualize, plan, draft, and revise texts
 conduct appropriate academic/professional
research
 use correctly at least one formal method of
documentation.
How Millennials experience college
shapes the future of higher
education.
 62% of Net-Gen students say their undergraduate
education has “paid off” (DeSilver, 2014)
 “30% of 2013 graduates say on balance they
would be better off not having gone to college”
(Bourneuf, 2014)
 “22.9% of entering students at four-year institutions
think there is either ‘some’ or a ‘very good’ chance
they will transfer to another institution” (Eagan, K.,
Stolzenberg, E. B., Ramirez, J. J., Aragon, M. C., Suchard,
M. R., & Hurtado, S., 2014, p. 6)
What a teacher does matters.
“Student engagement is generally
acknowledged as a key factor in student
retention, and enhancing student
engagement is a fundamental strategy for
improving student retention, success and
outcomes.” (Crosling, G., Heagney, M., and Thomas, L.,
2009, p. 10)
 “Students benefit from collaborative learning
situations, where learning is active and interactive
between students and their peers in and outside
the classroom, as well as with the teachers.
Formative assessment is crucial, providing
immediate and relevant information for students’
academic development needs at the particular
point in time.”
 “There is a body of evidence from the US (and
increasingly in other countries) that the more
students interact with other students and staff, the
more likely they are to persist.” (Crosling, G., Heagney,
M., and Thomas, L., 2009, p. 11-12)
What a teacher knows matters.
“Teaching is also a dynamic endeavor
involving all the analogies, metaphors, and
images that build bridges between the
teacher’s understanding and the student’s
understanding.” (Boyer, 1990, p.23)
References
Albers, C. (2008, June). Improving pedagogy through action
learning and scholarship of teaching and learning.
Teaching Sociology, 36 (1), 79-86. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20058630
Boyer, E. L. (1990) Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the
Professoriate. The Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching. Retrieved from
https://depts.washington.edu/gs630/Spring/Boyer.pdf
Bourneuf, J. (2014) The 2014 retention imperative: a white
paper. Retrieved from
http://www.askonline.net/2014/02/1774/
Crosling, G., Heagney, M., and Thomas, L. (2009) Improving
student retention in higher education: improving teaching
and learning. Australian Universities’ Review 51(2), pp. 918. Retrieved from
http://www.universityworldnews.com/filemgmt_data/files/A
UR_51-02_Crosling.pdf
DeSilver, Drew. (2014) 5 facts about today’s college graduates.
FactTank: News in the Numbers. Pew Research Centers
Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2014/05/30/5-facts-about-todays-college-graduates/
Eagan, K., Stolzenberg, E. B., Ramirez, J. J., Aragon, M. C.,
Suchard, M. R., & Hurtado, S. (2014). The American
freshman: National norms fall 2014. Los Angeles: Higher
Education Research Institute, UCLA. Retrieved from
http://www.heri.ucla.edu/monographs/theamericanfreshma
n2014.pdf
Kreber, C. & Cranton, P. A. (2000, July-Aug). Exploring the
scholarship of teaching. The Journal of Higher Education,
71 (4), 476-495. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2649149
Lau, L. (2003). Institutional factors affecting student retention.
Education, 124 (1), 126-136. Retrieved from
http://www.uccs.edu/Documents/retention/2003%20Instituti
onal%20Factors%20Affecting%20Student%20Retention.pd
f
Oblinger, D. (2003) Boomers, Gen-Xers, and Millennials:
understanding the new students. Educause Review.
Retrieved from
https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0342.pdf
Neif, R. and McBride, T. (2014) Beloit College 2018 list.
Retrieved from http://www.beloit.edu/mindset/2018/
Skiba, D. J. & Barton, A. J. (2006, May). Adapting your
teaching to accommodate the net generation of learners.
OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 11 (2),
manuscript 4. doi: 10.3912/OJIN.Vol11No02Man04
Spelt, E.J.H., Biemans, H.J.A., Tobi, H. Luning, P. A., &
Mulder, M. (2009, December). Teaching and learning in
interdisciplinary higher education: A systematic review.
Educational Psychology Review 21 (4), 365-378. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23361570