Many college campuses are adopting campus common reading programs. In these programs, first-years, typically, are all encouraged to read the same book and engage with it during classes and programing. Many of these programs select books that discuss a current issue, such as race relations, immigration, or the environment, in an effort to foster dialogue. The books can serve as a common base of knowledge and evidence for these discussions. This study looked at the outcomes of a common reading program, including its impact on environmental attitudes and behavior and whether and how the effects varied by gender.
Many campus reading programs aim to achieve transformative learning. Transformative learning is gaining knowledge, understanding, and awareness about an issue and having belief changes. Transformative learning is a deep form of learning that often requires active engagement with the topics, potentially through discussions. In this case, the program aims for transformative learning regarding environmental citizenship. Environmental citizenship is a person's individual role in efforts to become more sustainable. Prior research suggests that women are more inclined to see the burdens of becoming a more sustainable society as being individualized and feel more responsible to change their behavior. Contrastingly, men typically see it as a more systematic issue and are less likely to take individual action.
This research focused on the campus common reading program at Washington State University in Pullman, Washington. The program chose a book, Garbology: Our Dirty Love Affair with Trash by Edward Humes, regarding the importance of individualization of responsibility of waste-reduction practices. The researchers surveyed 398 undergraduate students, and participants volunteered to take the survey, often for extra credit in a course. Participants included both those taking part in the campus reading program, mostly freshmen, and those outside of the program. In the survey, participants indicated agreement or disagreement on statements, and data were analyzed by comparing averages of self-reported scores.
The results indicated that transformative learning, values of personal responsibility, and waste-reduction behaviors were all higher for participants in the campus reading program than those who did not take part. However, the authors found that waste-reduction behaviors did not differ significantly as a result of the program. Survey participants who indicated greater likelihood to take personal responsibility and individual actions were significantly more likely to report reported waste-reduction behaviors. However, when accounting for waste-related behaviors before the program, post-program waste-related behaviors did not change based on a participant's age or gender or a person's belief in their own responsibility for waste.
This study found that the selected book successfully individualized waste behaviors, but in doing so, placed unequal burden of responsibility on female participants. The data indicated that individualization of responsibility was very feminized, and women were also more likely to report waste-reduction behaviors. The study also found that transformative learning impacted females more strongly than males, and that it was tied with both engagement in the program and taking personal responsibility for waste.
The researchers acknowledged the small sample size and potential sampling bias in their data collection. Their results may have been different with a different group of students. Additionally, their sample was not representative of the wider student body in terms of age and gender. As a result, it is difficult to even generalize the results to the university, let alone a larger population. Self-reported behaviors can be inaccurate as well.
The authors recommend conscientious selection of books for campus reading programs, as well as integrating critical analysis of the book so that students can address any privilege or inequalities that the book brings up. The programs appear to have the capacity to create behavior change, but if done thoughtlessly, these programs could also be damaging.
The Bottom Line
<p>Campus common reading programs can be a powerful tool for transformative knowledge and behavior change. This study showed that engagement in a university common reading program correlated strongly with transformative learning and with belief in individualization of waste-related issues. Given that personal responsibility and individualization were shown to be associated with self-reported waste-reduction behaviors, and that women often take greater responsibility for waste, the reading exacerbated the gender gap in personal responsibility. Campus reading programs should be careful to select books that are productive, rather than contributing into gender gaps or other marginalization of groups of people.</p>
Research Partner