Reading Circles: Teaching Students to Critically Engage with Research Articles through Collaborative Writing

The activity uses social-interactionist and collaborative pedagogies. It provides students a space for scaffolded learning with their peers in a small community of practice to critically analyze scholarly articles.

Collaborative writing is a key goal of the activity, and it requires students to work as a team to negotiate and articulate their different perspectives through writing. Aiming to challenge traditional and hierarchical forms of assessment conducted exclusively by the instructor, the activity incorporates peer and self-assessment on students' individual and collaborative learning process.

Through this activity, students learn to:

• Orally discuss their viewpoints about research articles to practice critical thinking skills
• Engage in a learning community that supports the exchange of multiple ideas in a constructive way
• Use online shared documents as a medium to develop collaborative written skills by collectively taking notes and writing key takeaways of their oral discussions
• Practice self and peer assessment by thoughtfully reflecting on their peers' and their own contributions to the collaborative learning process

• Provide students with their assigned article(s) ahead of time along with detailed instructions outlining the process of running the Reading Circles.
• Sort students into their assigned groups of four or five for the activity. Then, ensure that students can view their groups in the People section on Canvas.
• Set up collaborative writing documents for each group and distribute the links to each group.
• Set up a Group Assignment on Canvas for the groups to submit their summary paragraphs with the final takeaways of the discussion.

The Reading Circles activity takes place over three in-person class sessions spaced one week apart. Each week, students are assigned a different article and prepare this role in advance and work collaboratively to write the key takeaways of their oral discussion of the scholarly article. The fourth week is used by the instructor to provide feedback on the second Reading Circle and the completion of peer and self-assessment by students.

In their assigned groups, students engage in oral discussion during class time to analyze one of the required readings. Following this, they work collaboratively to write a paragraph with the "key takeaways" of their oral discussion on an online shared document.

Each student takes one of four roles in the discussion: proposing questions for discussion, identifying the key idea of the reading, linking concepts from the reading to other references and ideas, or proposing commentary and critique on the reading. Students must write their contribution on the online shared document 24 hours before the class session where the discussion will take place. Each contribution is expected to be a maximum of 150 words. Students must rotate roles in the three Reading Circles activities.

During the in-class discussions, students take notes together to capture their key ideas using the online platform. All students assist with notetaking, whether they are proposing questions, identifying key points for the reading, linking references to the reading, or providing commentary on the reading.

Following the discussion, group members work collaboratively to write a 250–300-word paragraph summarizing the key takeaways from that day’s class discussion. One group member must upload the final document to Canvas for grading.

Students take part in three separate Reading Circles in successive weeks at the beginning of the term. The first week’s activity is ungraded and used for modeling and practice. It gives students a chance to become familiar with the assignment expectations, work through the collaboration process with group members and receive feedback from the instructor. Groups receive feedback, but the summaries are not graded. For the following two Reading Circle activities, students receive grades on the summary paragraph

After the three Reading Circle activities are finished, students complete a self and peer assessment exercise using PeerScholar to provide feedback on the contributions of their group members and to reflect on their own participation and contributions.

The grade for the Reading Circles activity makes up 10% of the final grade for the course. 90% of the grade for the activity is based on the two group summary paragraphs from the second and third Reading Circles, for which all students receive the same grade. 10% of the grade is based on peer and self-assessment component, which may differ for each student depending on their contributions to the group.

The grading rubric includes the following criteria:

1. Establishment of relevant links with external sources and use of appropriate scholarly discourse and features, including proper attribution of statements to scholars through citations;
2. Demonstration of critical thinking skills and original thoughts
3. Display of logically organized argument and cohesiveness that ensure the flow of ideas.

The rubric scale used ranges from 0 to 5: Exceeds expectations (5); Substantially Meets: Expectations (4); Meets Expectations (3.5); Below Expectations (2): Did not Meet Expectations (0).

Collaborative writing

• Teams/Office 365
• Etherpad

Peer and self-assessment

• PeerScholar

An individual component, such as a reflection activity could be introduced into the larger activity to provide a way to assess individual student learning.

A peer assessment step could be included after each Reading Circle to provide students earlier and more frequent feedback about how their contributions are being perceived by their peers. This would also give the instructor more insight into whether groups are functioning effectively while there is still time for intervention.

I have been using collaborative learning in my sections of the first-year course WRDS 150B (Writing and Research in the Disciplines). They are composed of approximately 30 "non-Arts students", from areas such as science and engineering. Students are introduced to situated scholarly practices and genres as novice scholars. They learn discourse and language features in context to produce academic genres. The course adopts a scaffolded approach and students start by writing an annotated bibliography, then produce a research proposal and presentation and, finally, their own research paper.

My use of collaborative learning evolved over time because my pedagogy has always included not only lectures, but also small group activities in which students would cooperate to "do things". For example, they would critically discuss and analyze language features of scholarly discourse and learn with and from each other. I would walk around during class time to monitor what they were doing, offer help, etc. However, in July and August 2020, I started preparing to teach in an online setting in September. I realized I had to redesign the activities because group work would require putting students in breakout rooms. This wouldn't allow me to fully understand different groups' collaborative work and learning. So, in addition to having oral discussions via Zoom, students would use an online shared document to allow them to work together synchronously and asynchronously throughout the course (usually weeks 2 to 11). My goal was to have oral discussions and collaborative writing to give students the opportunity to both "collaborate to learn and learn to collaborate". As I was doing that on my own, I was approached to UBC Arts ISIT to join the broader UBC TLEF project on Collaborative Peer Learning Activities.

In September 2021, UBC returned to full in-person teaching and, based on student feedback that I had received, I decided that most of the small collaborative activities would be done during class time. Yet, I kept a collaborative writing component in one of the course key assignments, a group activity focused on three of the course required readings in which students would be assigned different roles. One student would be the "person who identifies the key idea", the other the "commentator", the other the "linker of ideas,” and finally, one student would be the “note-taker". For example, the "linker of ideas” was asked to connect the reading to any other scholarly work, including the course readings, and popularized reliable sources.

 For example, the "linker of ideas” was asked to connect the reading to any other scholarly work, including the course readings, and popularized reliable sources.

Each student would prepare and write the contribution for their role in advance on an online collaborative document. They could read their peers' work in advance to get ready for the in-person oral discussion. During class time, right before starting the discussion, students would go over the collaborative document and each one would orally explain their contribution to their peers in more detail. Students were then asked to engage in a critical discussion and analysis around the article and collaborate to write up a final paragraph with the key takeaways of this discussion, which would be submitted for grading.  The activity took place at the beginning of the term, over three weeks, with groups engaging in a Reading Circle activity around a different article each week.

I noticed that the written component of the collaborative learning assignment made it easier for me to understand how students articulated their thoughts and to assess the process of their work, not only the final product. Of course, I still wanted to keep the oral component of the activity, but I found it fascinating how the written element offered me opportunities to better visualize students’ learning process and the way students make connections and build their arguments in writing. This is a first-year course and students are not familiar with reading and discussing scholarly work.

The Reading Circles activity provided them with a supported environment to begin learning how to engage in academic discourse conversations. It also made them experience different aspects of collaborative work, such as time management, dividing tasks, and negotiating different perspectives and ideas and other things like that.

Students reported that they enjoyed the Reading Circles because the activity builds onto the major assignments to be completed later in the term, which also require collaboration. Their feedback made it clear that the activity offered them relevant scaffolding opportunities. I think the knowledge and skills gained by collaborating can sometimes be underestimated by students, but the surveys and focus groups results from different terms showed that the great majority of students understood the value of learning in a collaborative environment. Most of them also mentioned that working in small groups allowed them to build connections with other students. They valued the relationships that came out of group work and even the friends they made.

Regarding the written component of the Reading Circles and collaborative writing, at the beginning of the term, students told me that they did not enjoy writing in general and did not value group work. They were very honest about it. After completing the Reading Circles, students said that the activity helped them understand different aspects of the research articles and they mentioned the value of collaboration, making it a unique experience. In all midterm reflections and final reflections, as well as in the project surveys and focus groups, students said that this activity was, by far, the one they enjoyed the most during the entire course.

There were two main changes I made based on the feedback received from students. One of them was making the very first Reading Circle ungraded to allow students an "ungraded" opportunity to practice working together on critically analyzing research articles and to receive feedback on their work. Students said this practice allowed them to better understand their roles in the activity and that the feedback received made them more confident to complete the following graded Reading Circles.

A second change I made was adding a peer and self-assessment component to the activity. When I first started the Reading Circles during remote teaching, there were TA resources available. TAs helped me give detailed feedback on each student's individual contribution to the online shared document. When going back to in-person classes, I did not have this support anymore and it became challenging to manage the workload on my own. This is when I started thinking about which pedagogical changes could be made and how they would impact the goals of the Reading Circles. To make the activity possible, I decided to provide constructive and detailed feedback only on the paragraph of the key takeaways of the oral discussion written by each group of students. To assess individual work, and ensure students were held accountable for their individual participation and contributions to the group, I designed, along with Arts ISIT, peer and self-assessment through PeerScholar as part of students' final grade for the activity. So, reducing the instructor's workload made the Reading Circles viable.

Yes. The number one lesson I learned is that "less is more". During the pandemic, when I first started implementing collaborative activities that had writing as a major component, I asked students to work together on online shared documents for several activities across different course topics. From their feedback, and my own perception, students were feeling overwhelmed by so many collaborative learning assignments. As a result, I decided to reduce the number of this kind of activity, keeping just the essential ones.

A second suggestion is to try to make the grading of group work as accountable, transparent, and fair as possible. I think this is something an instructor who would like to do something similar would have to pay attention to. Taking into consideration not only the "final product" of a collaborative activity but also the process is the most time-consuming part. Instructors should be prepared to manage those groups that face challenges and reinforce the entire time how students should work directly on the online document instead of working somewhere else and just copying and pasting on it because seeing how they collaborate on the document is key in this activity. Collaboration is an important part of the activity's learning goals and assessment.

Another recommendation is to have clear roles for each group member, with very detailed instructions explaining what is expected for each role. Having examples of each role's contribution from previous Reading Circles available in advance is extremely useful.

Also, it is crucial to provide students with timely feedback because the Reading Circles are a weekly activity. Instructors need to be ready because they will have to give feedback in one day and a half so students can access it and learn from it before engaging in the following Reading Circle.

When I look at the development of the Reading Circles activity and the results of the surveys (January 2021 to January 2023; 4 terms) and the two focus groups (September 2022 and January 2023 terms; 2 terms), I realize how much I’ve learned from the feedback and how the activity has improved over time.

I see a big jump in the quality of the design of the activity from when I first started compared to when I engaged in the TLEF project. The support I received from Arts ISIT to collect, analyze, and reflect on the data helped me to make informed decisions. I see clear improvements in different aspects, such as the instructions, the expectations for each role, the guidance and gains from students' collaboration, individual accountability, and types of assessment.

As a new instructor, back in 2019, I would design the activity based on the pedagogies I had experience with. But once I started reflecting on the teaching and learning experience and now that I have the data informing my decisions, I feel much more confident about what I am doing. My decisions now resonate more with my principles of teaching. Sometimes, looking at your own teaching approaches and questioning non what you do can be a difficult thing. It's much easier to change when you can look at what students are saying and then realize “you know what, this is true.” My involvement in this entire project has given me a unique opportunity to view my teaching from somebody else's eyes. I was able to see things that on my own I would not have seen.

The Reading Circles activity were part of an Arts ISIT TLEF project, Strategies for the Effective Design and Implementation of Collaborative Peer Learning Activities. Dr. Baumvol evaluated the activity across four terms of WRDS 150B to collect students’ feedback about their experience with the activity through surveys and focus groups.

Overall, student responses collected through the evaluation were positive, while offering useful feedback to help Dr. Baumvol understand what elements of the activity students valued the most along with potential areas for enhancement. Across all terms, there was strong indication that students felt the Reading Circles activity was beneficial to their learning. Feedback also showed that students believed the activity helped them develop their individual reading and writing skills and transferable skills in collaborative writing and group decision making. Survey responses regarding student perceptions of learning outcomes were generally positive, as seen in the following results that show the aggregate responses across four terms:

Q12_6: Collaborating with other students in this group activity was beneficial to my learning in the course.

Using the feedback from students from the January 2021 and September 2021 terms, Dr. Baumvol engaged in a redesign of the Reading Circles activity in the summer of 2022. Further evaluation of the activity was then conducted in the September 2022 and January 2023 terms to evaluate the impact of these changes.

Project timeline

The evaluation report provides a comprehensive view on the iterations of the Reading Circles activity along with analysis and findings from the student feedback that was collected from the September 2022 and January 2023 terms.

The design and evaluation summary tells the story of how Dr. Baumvol adapted the design of the activity over this time period in response to the student feedback.

This assignment would not have been possible without previous group activities designed by Dr. Jaclyn Rea and Dr. Laila Ferreira that they kindly shared with me.

I would also like to thank the undergraduate academic assistant, Neve Eilam; Arts ISIT Learning Designer, Meena Kahlon; and CTLT/Arts ISIT Faculty Liaison, Jason Myers, for their support in the design and evaluation of the activity.

Thanks to graduate academic assistant, Michael Jerowsky, for his support in the development of the teaching story.