A major factor affecting engagement is learners’ perception of the ARC relevance to their studies. Thus, giving learners the freedom to choose a reading text, self-nominate for a role, or personalise reading roles to their own needs can improve learner motivation and promote ownership and monitoring of own learning. Daniels( 2002) and Shelton-Strong( 2012) have suggested that adherence to reading roles guidance might sometimes lead to unnatural peer-led discussions, lacking flow and spontaneous interaction, hence they’ ve recommended the use of reading logs instead. To signal the link between academic reading texts and real-world tasks / problems beyond the instrumentality of academia( Allen, 2011), use of perspective-taking activities such as Eduard de Bono’ s“ thinking hats”( 1971) to scaffold the“ Discussion leader” questions might be useful. In terms of roles, it is also important to recognise that some might be underutilised, misunderstood or less relevant in different disciplines; for instance, the“ Highlighter” in STEM or the“ Visualiser” in Medicine and Healthcare might require additional guidance; alternatively, merging roles such as the“ Connector” and the“ Contextualiser” in certain contexts( e. g., when students have limited prior knowledge of the subject) might be appropriate( Williams, 2007). Conclusion This paper has demonstrated the use and adaptability of Academic Reading Circles as an innovative and inclusive reading practice in developing students’ criticality. By offering flexibility of form and means and removing metacognitive and socialisation barriers to learning, teachers can adapt the reading text and their delivery of this in order to support students in creative ways of analysing and interpreting content. As a result, students are given agency in taking ownership of their learning and building an understanding of how knowledge is co-constructed. 20
for Learning( UDL) guidelines developed by the Center for Applied Special Technology( CAST, 2020). As with any area of inclusivity, providing diverse and flexible means of engaging with knowledge so that as many learners can participate in the teaching and learning activities is a core principle with ARCs as well. In Table 2, the main UDL guidelines are grouped in three categories, which in turn are mapped onto ARC-related activities as follows: 1) knowledge representation, which will be reflected in the selection of appropriate, accessible and relevant ARC reading texts; 2) knowledge expression, which will be reflected in a range of flexible, accessible and scaffolded to ARC activities; and 3) knowledge, which will be reflected in the availability of contextualised and accessible instructional support and scaffolding.
In terms of means of representation and expression, it might be useful to consider a range of formats of the reading text( e. g., mp3 files) and flexibility in the output of roles such as the“ Visualiser”( e. g., using Lego builds, diagrams, or scrolls). The former will allow learners with SpLDs, users of screen readers, or those with caring commitments to engage with a reading text without the print medium / page or screen being an obstacle; whereas the latter will enable students with different learning styles or those struggling with different levels of motor control to take on the“ Visualiser” role.
Other than the medium, the length, complexity and cultural situatedness of a reading text might be a barrier for some learners. To accommodate a range of needs, it might be useful to consider“ slow” timing and embedding extensive reading( Rhead, 2019; Soliman, 2012), or negotiating the length of required reading( Shelton-Strong, 2012), so that learners can engage critically and holistically with reading texts without feeling the pressure to process it cognitively within a tight timeframe. Alternatively, given timetable constraints, it might be a better option to break down the reading text into shorter sections with guiding questions provided in advance( Seburn, 2015), use jigsaw reading activities or text maps / scrolls( Abegglen et al., 2020) to support learners into reconstructing the whole reading text together.
A major factor affecting engagement is learners’ perception of the ARC relevance to their studies. Thus, giving learners the freedom to choose a reading text, self-nominate for a role, or personalise reading roles to their own needs can improve learner motivation and promote ownership and monitoring of own learning. Daniels( 2002) and Shelton-Strong( 2012) have suggested that adherence to reading roles guidance might sometimes lead to unnatural peer-led discussions, lacking flow and spontaneous interaction, hence they’ ve recommended the use of reading logs instead. To signal the link between academic reading texts and real-world tasks / problems beyond the instrumentality of academia( Allen, 2011), use of perspective-taking activities such as Eduard de Bono’ s“ thinking hats”( 1971) to scaffold the“ Discussion leader” questions might be useful. In terms of roles, it is also important to recognise that some might be underutilised, misunderstood or less relevant in different disciplines; for instance, the“ Highlighter” in STEM or the“ Visualiser” in Medicine and Healthcare might require additional guidance; alternatively, merging roles such as the“ Connector” and the“ Contextualiser” in certain contexts( e. g., when students have limited prior knowledge of the subject) might be appropriate( Williams, 2007). Conclusion This paper has demonstrated the use and adaptability of Academic Reading Circles as an innovative and inclusive reading practice in developing students’ criticality. By offering flexibility of form and means and removing metacognitive and socialisation barriers to learning, teachers can adapt the reading text and their delivery of this in order to support students in creative ways of analysing and interpreting content. As a result, students are given agency in taking ownership of their learning and building an understanding of how knowledge is co-constructed. 20