Page 35 - 2024_Jour_91-1

on a website, in partnership with faculty and library
content experts or even in collaboration with the
author or the publisher (Fargo & White, 2019). Links Through shared
can be provided to sources for additional learning.
• Provide training and ongoing support to faculty and reading experiences,
staff who may be teaching or otherwise working
with the book. Training and support build faculty we can — despite
and staff confidence about the material and potential our differences —
approaches for teaching and working with the
reading material in ways that are significant to develop empathy,
student learning and engagement.
• Evaluate the program based on the goals and critical thinking, and
mission. Both quantitative and qualitative measures
can be used. How many people were involved in communication skills.
the program? Which events or activities were most
engaging and why? What questions or comments are
arising that can be considered to update the next iteration of the program?
• Revise approaches as needed to meet the program goals, address topics of
significance to the learning community, and account for limitations of staff,
budgeting, or administrative oversight.

Summary
In summary, UO’s Common Reading Program is a powerful tool that unites
the university campus, fosters growth, and enhances the educational experience for
students, faculty, and staff. Through shared reading experiences, we can—despite our
differences—develop empathy, critical thinking, and communication skills. Shared
reading programs like the one at UO bring educational communities together to
celebrate the power of shared reading and create a more inclusive and intellectually
stimulating environment on campus. May the model of the UO Common Reading
Program inspire and enliven common reading programs throughout the DKG
international community of women educators.

References
Fabian, S, Nims, J. K., & Stevens, R. (2023). Looking back, moving forward: Determining the
current state of diversity in campus common reads programs. Journal of College Reading
and Learning, 53(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2023.2172628

Fargo, H., & White, R. (2019). Depth of field: Connecting library exhibition space to curriculum
and programming. Aldershot, 29(1-2), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0955749019876

Ferguson, M. (2006). Creating common ground: Common reading and the first year of college.
Peer review: Emerging trends and key debates in undergraduate education, 2006-06, 8(3),
8. https://www.proquest.com/docview/216602900?sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals

Kennedy, E. H., & Boyd, A. (2018). Gendered citizenship and the individualization of
environmental responsibility: Evaluating a campus common reading program.
Environmental Education Research, 2018-02, 24(2), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13504622.2016.1217396

Kimmerer, R. W. (2013). Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge, and the
teaching of plants. Milkweed.

Promoting Professional and Personal Growth of Educators and Excellence in Education 33