Professional reading circles: Towards a collaborative model for lifelong learning 2000

School of Education, University of Ballarat, Australia.

Keywords: Lifelong learning, lifelong learners, collaborative model, professional reading circle, teaching and learning, tertiary education, Graduate Diploma of Education, pre-service secondary teacher, constructivist pedagogy.

Article style and source: Peer Reviewed. Original ultiBASE publication. Paper originally presented at the Seventh International Literacy and Education Research Network (LERN) Conference on Learning, RMIT University, Melbourne, 5-9 July 2000.

Content

• Abstract
• Introduction
• The Model
• Implicit Aspects of the Model
• Explicit Aspects of the Mode
• Research Process
• Findings
• Looking back and Looking forward
• References

Abstract

In tertiary education, there is much discussion about the best ways to encourage genuine participation in learning, shifting the focus from teaching to learning and developing in students what is needed to become ‘lifelong learners’. This paper explores how one model of reading in a group has promoted student learning in a pre-service secondary teacher education course. It was hoped that the experience of professional reading circles would provide beginning teachers with some insights into reflective practice and a model which supported keeping abreast of contemporary educational issues in a collaborative environment.

The research team of staff and students in the Graduate Diploma of Education course at the University of Ballarat was interested in exploring how far this model provided a situation of learning which was owned and controlled by participants and whether collaborative learning was encouraged and the learners were empowered.

The paper will explore students’ perceptions of the model and describe subsequent implementation of the model in different units. back

Introduction

In their article on constructivism, Doolittle and Camp (1999) define the ‘essential core of constructivism [as] that learners actively construct their own knowledge and meaning from their experiences’ (p. 5).They go on to argue that a constructivist pedagogy would therefore be developed within the following guidelines: ‘learning should take place in authentic and real-world environments’ (p. 9), it ‘should involve social negotiation and mediation’ (p. 9), ‘content and skills should be understood within the framework of the learner’s prior knowledge’ (p. 10), and students ‘should be encouraged to become self-regulatory, self-mediated and self-aware’ (p. 11)

In tertiary education, there is currently much discussion about the best ways to encourage genuine participation in learning, shifting the focus from teaching to learning and developing in students what is needed to become ‘lifelong learners’. Within the Graduate Diploma of Education at the University of Ballarat, we have attempted to develop such ‘genuine participation’ in learning by implementing a model of ‘professional reading circles’. It was hoped that the experience of professional reading circles would challenge beginning teachers to assume ownership of their own learning, and would provide them with some insights into reflective practice and a model which supported keeping abreast of contemporary educational issues in a collaborative environment.Our basic concern in the model of learning that we implemented and researched, and that will be described here, was therefore for students’ ownership of learning within the framework of a constructivist pedagogy. back

The Model

The model of ‘reading circles’ that we developed was based on a number of different earlier models. We had had the experience of working in professional reading groups and ‘journal clubs’. We were also familiar with Paulo Freire’s model of ‘culture circles’ and the enormous success these groups had in using reading as a way of empowering generally disempowered and non-reading communities (for example, Freire, 1970). Harvey Daniels’s model for ‘Literature Circles’ was familiar and based on the fundamental principle of student-centred learning (Daniels, 1994).

We had been asked to design a unit in the Graduate Diploma of Education (Secondary) program called ‘The Development and Nature of Australian Education’.It had previously been taught as a history based unit and while we were happy with the historical focus we felt that we needed to make strong links with contemporary educational developments. We decided to make one of the requirements the participation in a ‘reading circle’. The students were provided with the following information:  

A reading circle is a group that meets to research and discuss particular problems or issues. The idea of reading circles is often credited to Paulo Freire. Freire developed ‘culture circles’ or problem-solving study groups to guide discussion and learning experiences. The original purpose of reading circles was to provide a venue for supporting and promoting literacy. They were also to encourage participants to think about relevant topics or problems and to study and solve them themselves.

Some features of a reading circle:

• Members choose and discuss a subject or article which is based on the real needs of the group.
• Members need access to a good supply of materials on a variety of topics that the group might choose to research.
• The group should have a leader or facilitator to help with understanding and encouraging dialogue.

We developed the idea further to provide a model for a ‘professional reading circle’ which the GDE students will be able to implement in their professional lives if they so desire. back

Implicit Aspects of the Model

The diagram (Fig. 1) demonstrates the different beliefs underpinning the reading circle model. We were interested in exploring the idea of 'ownership of learning' (Nixon et al., 1996). Cook (in Boomer, 1982) suggests that real learning occurs when the learner feels a sense of ownership over what he or she is learning. The idea of giving students the power and opportunity to select their own articles to present in the reading circle was an attempt to provide some sense of ownership.  

We were also interested in the social dimension of learning.We were keen to explore how learning was enhanced or inhibited by the group members and structure (Reid et al., 1989).  

Students can learn from each other and they can teach each other, explaining, questioning, reminding and imagining, in the language and patterns of interaction with which they are most practised and comfortable...Students can learn to recognise that their own experience and thoughts are of value when they are learning new information. (p. 11)  

The ability to reflect and question is an important skill for learners and teachers to develop (Posner, 1996). It is through questioning and reflecting that understanding can be deepened and assumptions can be challenged. We were interested to explore whether the reading circle was a place where questioning and reflecting could occur. Lifelong learning is a term that has gained prominence in recent years (Candy et al., 1994).We were keen to provide students with a model that could provide structure for continued professional growth. back  

Explicit Aspects of the Model

The reading circle activity was conceptualised within the following parameters:  

• Each reading circle will have four members.
• Each member will be responsible for leading or facilitating one session.
  • This will involve:
  • selecting a fairly recent journal article about an educational issue of interest or concern
  • reading and analysing the article carefully and devising some studyfocus questions
  • organising for all group members to have a copy of the article and the focus questions for at least a week before the reading circle meeting
  • leading the discussion
  • evaluating the discussion
• Each group member is to read the article prior to meeting and to participate in each Reading Circle discussion.
• Students should include reflections on the Reading Circles in their learning portfolio.    

The groups were organised by the lecturers and our aim was to have a mix of age, gender and teaching method in each group. The students were known to us and this did influence our choices. The composition of the groups and the effectiveness of our grouping were things we were particularly interested in exploring.  

The parameters for the choice of article to be presented to the reading circle were very broad. We did not want to confine students as we were interested in them developing their own learning rather than accepting something we imposed.We also wanted to encourage them to familiarise themselves with the enormous range of educational journals available. We wanted students to be aware of the rapidity of change and the need to keep abreast of these changes, so we did ask that articles were not more than two years old.  

Each group member took one turn as leader. Reading circle leaders were asked to read the chosen article actively and to design a series of questions which would require some reflection and depth of personal thinking. Each group member was required to read the chosen article and to respond to the focus questions. It was not a comprehension task but it was one where shared reading and discussion were hoped to encourage a deeper understanding. back

Research Process

We embarked on the reading circle program with a keen interest in understanding how it would affect the students’ learning and how they would evaluate the experience. Consistent with our concern for empowering students to take ownership of their learning, we decided to research the program and to involve students in that research.  

Before discussing the research process, however, we should acknowledge that we embraced this program with a number of beliefs about learning. Our own experience and reflection had led us to adopt a constructivist and collaborative view of learning, one in which language and interaction were of central importance (Nixon et al., 1996). In designing this program, then, we articulated the following set of assumptions:  

• reading is a fundamental way of developing understanding
• people have different learning styles and needs
• working in a group can enhance understanding
• developing reflective skills can deepen understanding
• it is valuable to maintain an active and critical interest in contemporary professional issues
• student teachers need learning models which they can take with them into schools.  

Pursuing the collaborative and interactive view of learning, we decided to invite the students to be an integral part of the research project. Students were asked to volunteer to be part of the project. A group of ten students agreed to take part and meeting times were arranged. The early group discussions focussed on the framework for the project and the methodology that would be employed. From these discussions, some initial research questions emerged:

• How is learning via reading circles different from other learning?
• What are some of the issues about choosing your own article? Is it empowering?
• What about devising questions? Are there difficulties here?
• How do you move people beyond their ‘comfort zone’?
• How does the mixture of people in the group contribute to learning?
• What does ‘empowering learning’ mean in this situation?
• Could students see themselves using this model in a professional situation?  

The methodology of the research was participatory and evaluative. Each student researcher was at once a member of a reading circle and part of the research team; their reflective evaluations were therefore conducted as participant-researcher. To facilitate the distancing and contextualising process, the student researchers agreed to focus on a particular aspect of the research by reviewing relevant literature and gathering data from other participants. They were to work in pairs, with one pair taking responsibility for a review of relevant literature, and the other four pairs electing to focus on one of the following aspects: analysis of the material or content of the articles chosen; group structure and dynamics; learning via reading circles; and issues about devising discussion questions.  

The research team met every week for the eight-week period during which the reading circles were running. After exploring survey-type data-gathering instruments, they eventually decided that, in order to elicit the sort of thoughtful responses they were looking for, it would be better to design some brief questions and to interview GDE students who were not part of the research team. To structure this activity, the whole team worked together to devise the following questions:  

Learning

• How is learning via a reading circle different from other learning processes?
• What sorts of challenges do you face when learning through a reading circle?  

Material/Content

• What is the effect of choosing your own material to present to the reading circle?
• What problems/issues arose from the choice of articles?  

Questions/ Assumptions

• What was the effect of designing your own questions?
• How do the questions (asking and answering) move you beyond your ‘comfort zone’?

Groups   

• How does the size, structure, mix of groups affect or contribute to the learning?
• Evaluate the effect of the group on learning.
  
  Each pair was also to address these two overarching questions:  
• What does empowering learning mean in this situation? ·       
• How could students see themselves using this model in their professional career?  

Each group then conducted their own investigations into the questions. Most groups chose to interview a small number of people in an effort to establish more detailed responses. The pair then wrote up their finding. back

Findings

We provide here a set of quotations from the students’ research reports. They are grouped under the four headings indicated above.  

Learning

• Reading circles encourage people to take responsibility for their role in the group. The main benefit is that they provide the opportunity to share views and ideas with peers. It exposes individuals to a myriad of views and ideas that may not otherwise be accessible. They provide the opportunity to have your personal ideas and values challenged and/or affirmed by others, and promote self-reflection of pre-conceived notions and beliefs.
• We found that in most instances the reading circle was a useful technique in facilitating learning. It gave people an opportunity to share opinions and use others as a sounding board for their own ideas. It forced reflection of existing beliefs and values and initiated reflection of issues raised within articles. Its informal nature meant that people could read the article at their own pace and take time to formulate their own responses to the questions. The small group environment promotes discussion and is less intimidating than a whole class discussion where some people may not have the confidence to espouse their views.
• I believe their [the groups’] effectiveness is dependent on their members. This is a strength and a weakness. The technique itself is a good one - enabling/forcing participants to be self-aware in a way not encountered in other arenas. Self-sufficiency and accountability combine with shared experience and knowledge to produce an environment conducive to learning. In that atmosphere different perspectives and ideological positions interact to produce outcomes difficult to achieve by individuals. 

Materials and content

• The questions people asked themselves were reported to be concerned with the following issues: ‘Would it be interesting/understandable to the other members of the reading circle because of the different KLA [Key Learning Area] backgrounds?’   
• There were difficulties experienced in developing questions. Individuals did not want to impose their views on others. People did not want to move out of their comfort zones.
• They felt empowered as learners in the situation by 'gaining strength in new knowledge'; for example they were exposed to a wide range of articles that they might otherwise not have chosen to read themselves.  

Effect of designing and answering questions

• Questions often arose naturally out of the article chosen. Some people devised questions that did not involve dissecting the article itself, but extended issues beyond the article. The article acted as a springboard for more theoretical discussion. Leaders devised open ended questions in an effort to be non-manipulative and then devised questions away from themselves in an attempt not to appear too dominant. None of the people devising questions felt expert enough to move people beyond their comfort zones.
• There was generally a heightened sense of accountability on the part of the leader in devising questions around an article, often with feelings of having to be able to answer the questions they themselves had posed.

Groups

• The group size of four seemed to suit most people; ... if the group is any bigger there might not be time to hear everyone and people who are most reserved might cop out and not say anything. Groups of four gave everyone the opportunity to express themselves confidently.
• Students met people they might not talk to otherwise (due to different method areas, etc). This was one of the biggest perceived benefits of the groups.
• The whole thing breaks down when a weak link in the chain is exposed. No amount of sharing and caring will cover up a lazy effort. When this occurs it is frustrating and disappointing for those who try harder, not just for themselves but for the other group members. back

Looking back and Looking forward

As we think back on our observations of this experience and reflect on the students’ words, it is clear that they found the reading circle experience different from other learning processes.They valued the sense of responsibility it afforded, and accepted the challenge to become self-sufficient as well as accountable in their learning.Their knowledge of and respect for each other, developed over the course of the previous semester, acted as a powerful invitation to select and present worthwhile readings and to contribute ideas that would develop them and their peers as professionals.

Another feature that emerges from a reading of the students’ words is the importance they attach to the feeling dimension of learning (Boler, 1999).From a diffident ‘Can I do it?’ they moved to a place where they felt their ideas challenged and affirmed, and experienced a sense of comfort in a situation of shared reflection.On the other hand, the importance of feeling accepted in the group may have overridden their willingness to challenge their peers’ viewpoints, to ‘move out of their comfort zone’ and to make that additional effort that would have benefited the discussion for all concerned.

The students seemed to generally agree that the experience was empowering for them.The invitation to take responsibility for the form and focus of their learning, to express their own views without feeling judged by an authority figure, to share opinions with peers freely, and to feel a new strength from the sense of developing knowledge - all of these factors were valued by the students.The questions they were asking were theirs.As one pair of students commented:

The articles...were all different and provoked stimulating, often intellectual, conversation. We are all different people, presented different comments and sometimes did not see to 'eye to eye', but it worked because we all respected each other's abilities as teachers/students enough to present an article logically and with forethought.

For us as teacher eductors, the research into professional reading circles raised some important issues.The experience as co-learners with our student research team gave us an interesting insight into how our students were learning as we shared some of their fears and successes.The fears they expressed related to how to find the ‘right’ article; how to ask ‘appropriate’ questions; and how to move their peers ‘beyond their comfort zones’.These are pedagogical and curriculum issues that all teachers face.Clearly there is some value in us pursuing the question of ‘comfort zone’;given the rate of change in education it would seem that our profession is constantly being asked to push past the ‘comfort zone’.There are metaphorical echoes here of Vygotsky’s ‘zone of proximal development’, something we intend to explore further (see, for example, Forman et al., 1993).

The successes expressed by the students related to the value of shared learning and the possibility of discussion enhancing learning.Both these features have been consciously built into subsequent unit planning.Respecting diverse opinions and being open to having views challenged seemed important skills for beginning teachers to develop - important attributes for teachers to have if schools are really going to operate as collaborative, effective learning environments.

It seemed to us that the research process itself was empowering for students.They were involved in an exercise which established research as an important way of learning.They thought about framing questions, seeking responses and they explored how we construct our own meaning from those responses.We are building research approaches into our subsequent work.

Many further questions were raised for us as teacher educators.What opportunities do we provide for students to really direct their own learning?What is the place of specific models in teacher professional development?This research had opened the door to further exploration of learning, reading and building understanding within a collaborative model. back

References

Boler, M. (1999).  Feeling power:  Emotions and education.   New York:Routledge.

Boomer, G. (Ed.). (1982).  Negotiating the curriculum: A teacher-student partnership. Sydney:  Ashton Scholastic.  

Cook, J. (1982).  Negotiating the curriculum:  Programming for learning. In G. Boomer (Ed.), Negotiating the curriculum: A teacher-student partnership (pp. 15-31).Sydney:  Ashton Scholastic.

Daniels,  H. (1994).  Literature circles:  Voice and choice in the student-centered  classroom.    York, ME:  Stenhouse Publishers.

Delors, J. (Chair). (1996).  Learning:  The treasure within (Report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century).  Paris:  UNESCO.

Doolittle, P.E.  & Camp, W.G. (1999).  Constructivism:  The career and technical education perspective. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 16(1).[Online journal] Available:  http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JVTE/v16n1/doolittle.html

Elbaz, F. (1990). Knowledge and discourse:  The evolution of research on teacher thinking.  In C. Day, M. Pope & P. Denicolo (Eds.), Insights into teachers’ thinking and practice (pp. 15-42).  London:  The Falmer Press.

Forman, E.A., Minick, N., & Addison Stone, C. (1993).  Contexts for learning:  Sociocultural dynamics in children’s development.  New York:  Oxford University Press.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth, UK:  Penguin  Books Ltd.  

Freire, P. & Macedo, D.P. (1996).  A dialogue:  Culture, language, and race.  In P. Leistyna, A. Woodrum & S.A.Sherblom (Eds.), Breaking free: The transformative power of critical pedagogy (pp. 199-228). Cambridge, MA: Harvard College.  

Nixon, J., Martin, J., McKeown, P. & Ranson, S. (1996).  Encouraging learning:  Towards a theory of the learning school.   Buckingham, UK: Open University  Press.  

Posner, G.J. (1996).  Field experience:  A guide to reflective teaching (4^th ed.).  New York:  Longman.  

Reid, J., Forrestal, P. & Cook, J. (1989).  Small group learning in the classroom. Scarborough, WA: Chalkface Press. back

About the author

Ms Maryann Brown and Dr. Helen Hayes

School of Education
University of Ballarat
Ballarat, Vic 3353
Australia