3 . Different groups read different books .
4 . Groups meet on a regular , predictable schedule to discuss their reading .
5 . Students use written or drawn notes to guide both their reading and discussion .
6 . Discussion topics come from students .
7 . Discussion meetings aim to be open , natural conversations about books , so personal connections , digressions , and open-ended questions are welcome .
8 . The teacher serves as a facilitator , not a group member or instructor .
9 . Evaluation is by teacher observation and student self-evaluation .
10 . A spirit of playfulness and fun pervades the room .
11 . When books are finished , readers share with their classmates and then new groups form around new reading choices .
In the fields of language teaching , content-based provision and English for Academic Purposes ( EAP ), however , reading circles have been used with varying degrees of learner autonomy , especially when it comes to choice of text / genre of text , group make-up or follow-up activities . Practitioners have highlighted the potential for more tutor intervention when considering the appropriacy of the reading text ( s ) vis-àvis learners ’ language and content needs ( Furr , 2004 ; Shelton-Strong , 2012 ; Seburn , 2015 ), reading circles membership and its impact on learner motivation ( Furr , 2004 ), as well as the range of follow-up reading , speaking , writing or feedback activities and their link to the learners ’ academic development and performance ( Gore- Loyd , 2015 ; Schoonmaker , 2014 ; Seburn , 2015 ). Nonetheless , reading circles have been seen as “ democratic ” and enabling spaces ( Williams , 2007 , p . 42 ) that allow for contributions from each member at a pace , level of complexity and depth of engagement that they are comfortable with .
In terms of the degree of tutor participation in reading circles , it is most prominent in the support provided in the preparatory stage , although facilitating discussions and follow-up activities is also important . The reading support , which usually involves role assignment , scaffolds learners ’ communicative competence by providing them with an interpretative lens through which to approach the text and shape their contributions in the peer-led discussion . The number and scope of possible roles vary among practitioners ; however , as can be seen in Table 1 , the range used in literature circles ( LCs ), content-based reading circles ( CBRCs ) and academic reading circles ( ARCs ) covers the full spectrum of reading skills , i . e ., decoding / bottom-up linguistic processing ( e . g ., “ Word wizard ”, “ Literary luminary ”/“ Highlighter ”), global text comprehension / top-down interpretation ( e . g ., “ Discussion leader ”, “ Summariser ”), and ability to integrate text ( s ) into existing knowledge ( e . g ., “ Connector ”, “ Investigator ”/“ Contextualiser ”). Moreover , irrespective of which roles are selected for a reading circle , it is worth noting that they should address the key cognitive and metacognitive processes involved in reading comprehension and monitoring as outlined in Palinscar and Brown ’ s reciprocal reading model ( 1984 ), i . e ., summarising , clarifying , questioning and predicting . In this way , reading circles not only aim to enhance learners ’ reading comprehension , but also develop metacognitive strategies that can help overcome comprehension failures , improve retention and support long-term study .
Our experience of Academic Reading Circles
We have used Seburn ’ s adaptation of ARCs in foundation ( FY ), undergraduate ( UG ) and postgraduate ( PGT ) programmes which prepare students for academic study in Arts and Humanities and Social Sciences . As these pre-sessional and in-sessional programmes are often based on content which has been carefully chosen to develop students ’ language and academic literacy skills in a specific discipline , the texts we use for the ARCs tend to be chosen by us rather than by the students , for
18