Creating the Recognition of Heterogeneity in Circle Rituals: An Ethnographic Study in a German Primary School

Abstract

This study focuses on “circle time,” an innovative technique to promote classroom organization in primary schools across Germany and the rest of the world. Unlike previous research which primarily emphasizes on the functional and instrumental dimensions of circle time, the current study examines the non-cognitive aspects that emerged “in the middle” of circles. Since 2013, an ethnographic study has been conducted in a progressive pedagogy (Reformpädagogik) primary school in Berlin, Germany. The empirical data from this study contain observations from the ethnographic videotaping of students aged 6 to 9 years old. The findings suggest that three aspects are crucial to generating and handling heterogeneity in a circle: symbolic construction, bodily movement, and ludic interaction. In addition, it is indicated that in a pluralistic, multi-cultural society, a teacher’s authority becomes conditional rather than automatic.

Keywords

circle time ritual and ritualization bodily performance ludic interaction mutual recognition

Introduction

Circle time is one of the most widely applied strategies for classroom organization throughout the world, particularly in early childhood education¹ (Cefai et al., 2014; Lang, 1998; Morek, 2013; Mosley, 2005; Yifat & Zadunaisky-Ehrlich, 2008). Despite the fact that the understanding of circle time varies from country to country because of cultural and historical traditions (Lang, 1998), researchers from various fields have emphasized the overall benefits of circle time (Emilson & Johansson, 2013; Leach & Lewis, 2013; Mary, 2014; Mosley, 1999). It has been argued that gathering groups of children, regardless of age, into a well-structured and purposeful circle enables teachers to deliver their curriculum in a way that encourages personal, social, and emotional development while motivating children to understand universal moral values and practice their problem-solving skills (Mosley, 2005). In a modern society, where the voice of students is being increasingly seen as important (Kern et al., 2015; Leach & Lewis, 2013), the implementation of circle time is believed to be an efficient means for creating egalitarianism, democracy, and solidarity in schools (Heinzel, 2001; Purmann, 2001).

Most academic discussions regarding circle time have been primarily focused on its functional and instrumental dimensions, examining value transmission as well as social and cognitive development (Lown, 2002; Mosley, 1993; Tew, 1998). Research has revealed that circle time is an effective way to improve student engagement, social interaction between teacher and student, and speech ability (Emilson & Johansson, 2013; Kern et al., 2015; Mosley, 1993; Moss & Wilson, 1998; Tew, 1998; Yifat & Zadunaisky-Ehrlich, 2008). However, such approaches have only highlighted certain aspects of homogeneity and harmony in circle time without examining the complexities of what happens “in the middle.” Accordingly, it easily leads to the undesirable effect that people, particularly untrained teachers, merely regard circle time “as a medium for behavior control” (Cefai et al., 2014, p. 117). Based on more recent academic discussion, the focus now has shifted to analyzing what happens “in the middle” of the circle process (Kern et al., 2015). The major assumption of such language-embedded approach is that the acquisition and conveyance of academic knowledge is determined by the development of cognitive and systematic language. This notion of linguistic analysis may produce a considerable misrepresentation of the “rational” side of circle time while also underestimating the irrational bodily engagement of each individual.

Current research has only sporadically considered both the process and the experience of individuals during circle time (Leach & Lewis, 2013). Research shows that children and young people generally have genuine, legitimate rights (e.g., the right to self-expression) in the circle; however, there is also strong tension between the teacher’s power and the students’ voice (Kern et al., 2015), which requires a “research-informed debate” (Leach & Lewis, 2013, p. 51). Viewed in this context, the present discussion focuses on the bodily performance, where tension and heterogeneity emerge “in the middle of” the circle: that is, the dynamic and diverse dimensions of the circle. More specifically, assuming that pedagogical action is determined through a mind-set of recognition and esteem (Wulf et al., 2012), we further examined the tension between the limitation of the teacher’s authority and the children’s potential during their participation in circle time. To gain an in-depth understanding of this idea, we conducted an ethnographic study in Reformpädagogik Schule, a progressive primary school in Berlin, Germany. In short, this study first looks at literature on the practice of circle time in different countries and then explains the methodology and findings of the empirical data analysis. Drawing on contemporary anthropological ritual theory, this article concludes with a discussion of the conjunction and transition created in circle time.

Literature Review: Academic Discourse on Circle Time

Despite the prevalence of circle time in school practices, references to specific theories or methodologies are rarely considered. As Lang (1998) argues, the idea of circle time has been passed from school to school through an almost osmotic process; however, no specific theoretical underpinnings have been developed. A review of the current literature on this matter reveals that serious academic discourse on circle time invoking theoretically informed research began only in the 1980s. McAfee (1985), for instance, highlights the necessity of discussing circle time from a didactic theoretical perspective to ensure that it is systematically planned. This is also to create more opportunities to learn new concepts and theories. Mosley, who “placed emphasis on the dimension of problem solving and decision-making for the circle” (Lown, 2002, p. 95), shares McAfee’s views. In studying the effects of applying circle time to cognitive learning, scholars have developed detailed and extensive training programs along with systematic evaluation approaches to measure results (Cefai et al., 2014; B. Collins, 2013; Lown, 2002; Miller & Moran, 2007; Mosley, 1999; Tew, 1998).

Moving beyond cognitive development, some researchers also consider the psychological and social functions of circle time (Lown, 2002). Lang (1998) suggests that circle time can be used with students “to enhance their feelings about their own ability to manipulate their environment thus building their self-esteem” (p. 4). Curry and Bromfield (1998) focus on students’ psychological needs, arguing that the circle encourages children to take risks, enables them to explore feelings, and enhances their self-confidence. Wooster (1988) and Kantor (1989) illustrate that circle time may extend students’ social networks, giving them an opportunity to improve their interpersonal skills. Lown (2002) considers circle time as a means of developing a democratic atmosphere in school, emphasizing the importance of students’ roles and their voices.

In these studies, the circle’s functional and instrumental aspects are of primary concern; as such, the authors have not analyzed circle time’s “middle” elements. Recent studies, particularly those from German academia, show an increased interest in linguistic interactions during circle time. In Germany, the circle is used to effectively improve the quantity and quality of interactions that foster the preschool children’s language abilities and cognitive development (Morek, 2013). Thus, circle activity is recognized, among other names, as “Gesprächekreis” (talking circle) or “Erzählkreis” (story-telling circle) in Germany (Heinzel, 2001; Morek, 2013). Such tendencies toward linguistic interests have increased dramatically with the use of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Program of International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2000. The PISA 2000 revealed Germany’s unfavorable education situation (Ertl, 2006). This investigation found a vast difference in reading competencies of children from upper- and lower-class families, especially those with migration backgrounds. Children from the lower class and those with migration backgrounds were systematically disadvantaged in school. Of all the countries that participated in PISA 2000, Germany showed the most significant differences between its social classes (Ertl, 2006). Consequently, this has generated great interest in empirical research regarding circle time, as it relates to the improvement of academic language practices—for example, scrutinizing conversations in morning circles from a constructivist perspective (Kern et al., 2015; Morek, 2013). Their analysis led the researchers to conclude that circle time is a highly ritualized, interactional routine where language learning mainly takes place in the very context of circle time (Kern et al., 2015).

In general, various types of circles increasingly proliferate worldwide. These are often based on cultural specifics, historical educational traditions, and a society’s needs and goals (Lang, 1998). In the United States, the practice of circle time is tied to a particular psychological approach—one that has since spread to Canada and Israel—whereas Scandinavian countries follow Froebel’s emphasis on playful elements. In Italy, circle time has been applied as an intervention-management tool to show disaffection and to separate problematic students. Germany acknowledges the circle’s theoretical, pedagogic role in school practices, which creates a good daily rhythm for teaching.

Ongoing debate has unquestionably legitimized circle time’s positive effects and has further promoted the development and spread of circle time as a classroom practice. Nevertheless, most studies emphasize only the analytic and cognitive or rational side of circle time, rather than its non-verbal or irrational dimension from an anthropological standpoint. In addition, perhaps because of this pragmatic, functional, and instrumental consideration of circle time, researchers have been discouraged from investing time in studying the process details of circle time. Current research can be summarized into three basic points:

The circle is assumed to be a homogeneous form, and the tensions of heterogeneity (age, gender, race, social position, etc.) “in” the circle have been negated;

The circle’s analytic and rational elements (language) have been highlighted;

The focus is mainly on circle time’s practicality and efficiency, with a lack of substantial understanding of circle time in general.

Ritual as a “Window” to Approach the “Irrational” Dimension of Circle Performance

If we take a look at the history of circle time in schools, we will find an introduction of the circle as a formal pedagogic organizational structure that can be traced back to the beginning of the 20th century when education transitioned from the old order to the modern order (Heinzel, 2001). For example, Friedrich Froebel is considered a key pioneer of the circle, who articulated its significance as an instructional and learning tool. According to Froebel, a circular configuration has a profound symbolic meaning of infinity and communion with God (Reich, 1994) and is closely related to the playing field and physical-movement types of play. By connecting the circle with play, he sought to explain the circle’s individual, specific, and general characteristics, as well as its function in shaping children’s subjectivity in collective social life. A similar idea was further expressed by the Reformpädagogik school (“Reform Education” or “New Education”), represented by Peter Petersen in Germany in the 1930s. Petersen’s Jenaplan explicitly articulated and applied the idea that the circle is crucial to realizing the four basic activities: play, work, celebration, and conversation. In keeping with this idea, he developed different kinds of circle events such as the “Conversation Circle,” “Sitting Circle,” “Morning Circle,” and “Closing Circle” (or Erzählkreis, Stuhlkreis, Morgenkreis, and Schlusskreis, respectively). He argued that the use of the circle is a feature of the New Education that enables children to be interconnected:

The circle requires special detailed treatment. It is presented in all new schools since the beginning, and for the visitors it is the first significant characteristic of a New Education. Its primary purpose or assignment/determination is to help the participator to articulate their general questions about behaviour and demeanour, the interesting things in the world, and the moving experience and observation . . . This is one significant difference in the rules compared to traditional schools. Therefore, it is overall evinced that the circle has an inner dimension which brings the human forces together. (Petersen, 1937, p. 180)²

As mentioned by Petersen, to fully explore the “inner dimension” that unfolds during circle time, we need to apply a more systematic and dynamic perspective. From an anthropological point of view, the features of repetition, symbolized structure, and rigid procedures characterize circle time as a ritualized process. Ritual, as an embodied practice, is crucial to dealing with complexity and uncertainty. Exploring circle time within the framework of ritual staging and performance may considerably broaden our view of its meaning “in the middle.” As Bernstein et al. (1966) also suggested, an examination of rituals in education may offer a window from which to observe the “individual through ritualistic acts to . . . deepen acceptance of the procedures used to maintain continuity, order, and boundary and which control ambivalence toward the social order,” and “the meaning over and beyond the specific situational meanings” (p. 429).

In this sense, the term “ritual” is different from its use in religious studies, where the ritual is considered “a book directing the order and manner to be observed in celebrating religious ceremonies, and performing divine service in a particular church, diocese, order, or the like” (Chen, 2016, p. 34). Rather, “ritual” in this sense is used as a key mechanism in the construction of a student’s school life (Goffman, 1967). In terms of the school’s social aspects, ritual refers to a stable set of activities that involve children consistently producing together. By following a relatively rigid pattern of action (practices of greeting, answering, hearing, and sitting) and recreating the past in the present (repetitive staging and performing), circle rituals integrate and transform various school values and norms into internalized and experienced shared values, so the school can be conceived of as a consensual and experienced community by students (Bernstein et al., 1966). During the staging and performing of a circle ritual, participants are bound together and are actively engaged in the construction of shared meaning, which helps facilitate the shaping of an individual’s specific identity as a “student” (Durkheim, 1968). By introducing the ritual as a framework for approaching circle time, we are likely to avoid “reading” the circle time as though it were a straight linear composition (Douglas, 2007). We would also be able to further address the heterogeneity of circle components and the tension among the interactional actors in the practice of circle time.

Methodological Approach

The main goal of this research is to investigate what happens during circle time in everyday school life. However, the research also aims to explore the dynamics and irrational dimensions that may unfold in the middle of the circle; therefore, ethnography was the most appropriate approach. Participants were observed in a Berlin public primary school throughout an entire school year from April 2013 to February 2014. We focused on three cross-age classes, with a total of 72 students at 6 to 9 years old and nine teachers from different subject areas (German, Mathematics, English, Arts, History, and Music). Activities were filmed only during the study’s final period (from December 2013 to February 2014) when researchers were already familiar with the environment. To gain an extensive understanding of circle time interactions, different situations throughout the day were also recorded such as school ceremonies, outdoor play, indoor lessons, and mealtimes. Video recordings from one class constituted this article’s primary source of analysis, whereas field notes and informal interviews were used as secondary sources to support the researchers’ conclusions. In total, about 8 hr of videotaped data relating to circle time were intensively interpreted.

Research ethics were addressed by ensuring the study met the ethnical requirements of Germany and that of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We obtained permission for participant observation from school teachers and its management, as well as from the children’s parents’ written consent forms. Personal information and video recordings have been separated and safely stored.

Qualitative Data Analysis

Our process of analysis is qualitative, primarily describing and interpreting the circle time staging process with refined details based on video recordings. To totally immerse ourselves in the data, the authors transcribed all interviews and video recordings verbatim (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). The transcripts used pseudonyms to ensure confidentiality. Furthermore, to enhance authenticity, the authors and research members participated in peer debriefings throughout the analytic process. Circle time distinguishes itself from common daily learning activities because of its specific organizational structure and relatively rigid pattern of situation-based actions (Yifat & Zadunaisky-Ehrlich, 2008). From an anthropological perspective, the circle’s repetition and unique characteristics closely relate to ritual properties and practices. In light of this, our analysis intends not only to bring the practices into focus but also capture them as “being pedagogical and ritualized practices, including their mimetic and performative aspects” (Wulf et al., 2012, p, 65). The video recordings that emerged through empirical data show us that, unlike adult communication, which takes place primarily through language, young students only partially express themselves verbally. With this understanding, three crucial dimensions comprising symbolic performance, bodily engagement, and ludic interactions among teachers and students emerged in our data interpretation process.

The Setting

This ethnographic study was conducted in an inner-city primary school in southeast Berlin. The school is in a district known for its diverse immigrant population. According to official statistics, 42.1% of the inhabitants in this district come from 147 countries outside Germany (Sozialstrukturatlas, 2013). The school has approximately 36 staff members, 25 of whom are service teachers. Among the 300 students, approximately two-thirds have a migration background, originating from more than 20 different countries. Half of the students are children of Turkish immigrants, and one-third is from Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Asia. Most of the children are second-generation immigrants and can speak German fluently.

The school’s ethos is inspired by the progressive education movement, with a special focus on shaping cultural diversity. Themes such as acceptance, respect, and tolerance are often mentioned in everyday school life. In line with this, the school has a long-standing tradition of grouping children of different ages into one classroom. The students are generally divided into two groups: children from first to third grade (aged 6–9 years) are in one learning group, while students from fourth to sixth grade (aged 9–12 years) form another learning group. Students are taught in small classes comprising 25 students per class. Classrooms are characterized as multi-cultural, and students are of different ages. The school is now a UNESCO-model school and is already part of an international network of schools worldwide (Chen, 2016; Wulf et al., 2012).

Performing a Circle Ritual in the Primary School

Circle (Kreis) is a daily activity in the classroom. Circle time in this school can be divided into two types: formal and informal. Formal circle time includes the Monday and Friday morning circle. This type of circle time does not aim to teach specific content but focuses more on sharing ideas, feelings, and social issues. Informal circle time refers to the unexpected circle, where learning new knowledge, dealing with conflicts, or managing problems take place. Although it occurs irregularly, it often begins with a problem, or specific teaching content, and ends in fulfilling an assignment. Therefore, it is more goal-oriented than a formal circle.

The current study focuses on the formal Monday morning circle, which plays a significant role in transitioning students from family to school. During this time, the classroom is rearranged by moving the tables to the edge of the classroom and positioning the chairs in a circle. According to our observations, students—female students in particular—take on the responsibility of classroom rearrangement voluntarily and spontaneously (Chen, 2016). Students must maintain silence and sit alternately according to gender until the bell rings. Although there are no clear regulations regarding how the circle ritual should be performed, most students share a basic structural procedure: generally, circle time starts at 8:20 a.m. before the first class and lasts until 9:05 a.m., which is the length of a regular instructional lesson. It routinely begins with opening questions such as “How did you spend your weekend?” or “What did you do on the weekend?” or may also begin with “Share with us something interesting that happened over the weekend.” Questions are initiated by the teacher and actively shared among students in groups comprising children aged 6–9 years. However, in such groups (where students are aged 9–12 years), some students are already responsible for circle conversation management.

Explicit and implicit rules and procedures, although unwritten, exist to guarantee that each participant complies with his or her corresponding role. These rules are listed as follows:

Boys and girls should sit alternately (to create gender balance);

If someone wants to speak, they must raise their hand and wait to be nominated by the former speaker;

When someone speaks, everyone must listen;

Everyone has a turn and a chance to speak;

Topics during circle time should revolve around the children’s weekend events, families, and friends.

Findings

The findings are presented as a reflective reconstruction. Field notes and video data will be first represented in the form of a log, and then a reflective interpretation of the selected and differentiated scenes will be provided.

Initial Ritual as Transition: Creating a “Togetherness Circle”

Sitting in a circle is the first step to realizing bodily interaction between individuals. However, physical gathering does not inevitably lead to shaping an individual’s inner experience of togetherness, which is the fundamental aim of a dynamic circle ritual. Obviously, the challenge of turning a formal, visible assembly into invisible group solidarity (R. Collins, 2004) emerges as the primary issue confronted by teachers and children. In practice, various approaches adopted by participants point to this issue, both explicitly and implicitly. To contextualize how this transition is established, a scene relating to the introduction of first-grade newcomers is described as follows: newcomers are summoned to a multi-function room where chairs are placed in circles, each child finds an open seat to sit without consideration of gender differences, and the teacher, Mr. Schneider,³ sits between Mohammad (a boy) and Marie (a girl). Mohammad is a very sensitive, vulnerable boy, who has cried at least twice in his first two days in school. Marie, however, has constantly made trouble and has disturbed the class many times. By sitting between them, Mr. Schneider attempts to balance the students. We paid special attention to how mutually engaged actors arrive at shared definitions of situations—how actors call out responses to others in the current analysis. We also observed how symbolic meanings of togetherness and co-presence were internalized and reinvigorated in individuals through face-to-face interaction.

Vignette 1:

We are all six years old! (12 August 2013)

Mr. Schneider:

How old are you? (Points to Anna.)

Anna:

Six (with a jovial voice and an extended hand to describe six).

Others:

Wow! (Silently, joyfully.)

Mr. Schneider:

I am six years old (with his body turned to Anna).

Anna:

I am six years old (with straight posture and her hands down).

Mr. Schneider:

How old are you? (With his eyes turned to Melissa.)

Melissa:

Six (in a slight voice with a stable body).

Mr. Schneider:

I am six years old.

Melissa:

I am six years old (with a firm voice, swiftly waving her arms in the air, seemingly to show her impatience or excitement).

Others:

Oh! (With joyful voices.)

Mr. Schneider:

How old are you? (With his hand on his thigh, and turn toward Lila.)

Lila:

(pause) I am six years old.

Mohammad:

Yes! All of us are six years old! (With his hands waving in the air and a warm smile in face.)

This situation can be identified as a typical dialogue in “an educational communication situation,” where features of repetition and mimicry characterize the main rhythm of school life (Wulf, 2013). However, when we reframe this sequence by asking why this question was posed, how the process was fulfilled through interactions, and what the teacher expected the student to “know” by asking the question, the implicit meaning becomes clear: instead of using the abstract word “introduce,” Mr. Schneider chose the phrase “how old” to start the dialogue. This seems like a simple, concrete, and routine question for a child—although it may be strange for adults who are already more familiar with “introductions” initiated by asking for one’s name, place of birth, hobbies, or educational experience. By asking the children about their age, the teacher invokes an experience-based communication strategy. Mr. Schneider already knew that the children were of the same age, because according to educational laws in Germany, 6-year-olds must receive compulsory education. Therefore, being 6 years of age marks the transition from an unschooled child to a student in a social dimension. This transition has been affirmed through the staging of turn-taking. According to Bernstein et al. (1966), such an age ritual—as a rite de passage—will “reinforce the class as the basic unit of social organization” (p. 431).

Even more interesting, Mr. Schneider successfully invites the children to focus on their similarities and homogeneous traits—temporally neglecting race, gender, and cultural differences—through sequences of questioning and answering in the circle ritual. The discovery of homogeneity among students in the circle ignited an extremely exciting moment of emotional sympathy, and an instance of collective effervescence among newcomer students. This can be observed in the emotional recollection of Mohammad, an immigrant from an Arab country. According to R. Collins (2004), the group and its shared focus of attention become totemic symbols—with the potential to arouse intense emotions of a moral quality or responsibility. These shared totemic symbols are constantly and repetitively practiced during the “mutually greeting” or “calling the roll” practices in the classroom. Finally, natural togetherness and symbolic co-presence is shaped and reinforced. These symbolic understandings are the “molecules” of the ritual (Turner, 2009), essential to help individuals establish a connection, as well as making communication possible and ongoing. As Elias (1997) points out, the presence of self-control (Selbstzwänge) and voluntary participation substitute external constraints (Fremdzwänge) and form the premise for the process of civilization. This process is not fulfilled by teachers alone, but through the active participation of the students as well.

Being a symbol of “togetherness,” circle time requires a high level of involvement, participation, and engagement throughout the process. Each member must expose themselves unconditionally in the circle to keep the “inner circle” open and transparent. Furthermore, members must distinctively separate themselves from the outside world.

Vignette 2:

No secrets in the circle (Video: 16 December 2013)⁴

Mrs. Schmidt claps her hands and says, “Now it’s Katja’s turn. Quiet please, Tom! Joy!” Katja stands up and walks to Mrs. Schmidt. Mrs. Schmidt leans over, Katja whispers in her ear. It seems Katja would like to talk about her weekend, but only to Mrs. Schmidt. Mrs. Schmidt says, “No, please tell all of us.” But Katja insists. Mrs. Schmidt then says, “Ha! Katja went to the cinema over the weekend. Now you can sit down, Katja.” Katja has a satisfied expression on her face. Meanwhile, the other students laugh.

This short scene shows how students’ personal lives are expected to be shared with all members, rather than only with particular individuals. Katja, as a newcomer, tries to reveal her personal life only to Mrs. Schmidt. While Mrs. Schmidt refuses this request, Katja still solely tells the teacher. Instead of turning her down, Mrs. Schmidt shares what Katja told her with the others.

Awareness of Bodily Power

It is impossible to fulfill circle time without student participation. In other words, attendance, or bodily presence, is necessary for effective interactions. While students are assembled in the same place, bodily presence offers the possibility of generating sociable gestures, emotional interaction, and shared values. Finally, such bodily presence allows the interactional flow to be tracked. In schools, emphasis on bodily presence is often presented in the registration phase, greeting phase, and counting off in certain classroom activities.

Vignette 3:

Who is missing? (16 August 2013)

Mrs. Schmidt walked slowly into the circle with a flute in hand. She said to John, who just came into the classroom, “Please close the door.” John closed the door and walked into the circle without knowing where to sit. Mrs. Schmidt told him to “sit between the girls,” pointing to a free seat between Lisa and Sophia. After looking around the circle, Mrs. Schmidt wondered aloud “why are there so few children today? Please number off by turn.” Finding that there were three children missing, she told the other students, “Lily will come, as well as Melissa. Muhammad is ill. He has a stomach, well, intestinal problem.”

Attendance, or bodily presence, is extremely important in this school. The social mobility of students is relatively high, as it is situated within a multi-cultural immigrant community. According to our observations of Mrs. Schmidt’s class, two children left the previous year because their parents gained employment in other cities. Similarly, one new student was transferred to this class because he could not get along with his former classmates in another class. Every 2 weeks, one or two students were absent from school because of health problems or religious festivals. In light of this, parents were asked to sign a commitment letter at the beginning of each semester, which read “An official written letter should be provided if any child wants to ask for leave; the attendance rate of the children will be taken as one of the indices for semester evaluation.” It seems that frequently checking attendance is extremely important for a mobile society, where migrants constitute most of the population. As most teachers believe, by doing so, it helps promote student engagement and creates a safe environment for children who attend their classes. Checking attendance and letting students know who is missing and the reason for their absence can help ease emotions and feelings of uncertainty that may arise among them. In the scene above, Mrs. Schmidt’s behavior revealed her concern for the children’s presence. In addition, her statements confirm that the reason for the student’s absence was due to illness or health reasons.

As they assemble, the students affect one another through bodily movements, eye contact, voice rhythm, and so on. In particular, the narrow, closed form of the circle invites individuals to confront each other face-to-face. They can also observe others, as well as how they are being perceived, as they speak and act. The exchange of micro-expressions among individuals helps shape people’s deference and demeanor, which in turn comprises the basic components of daily communication (Goffman, 1967). School, being a small space, provides students with enhanced awareness of their own body through watching others and their exchange of eye contact.

Based on empirical observation, two types of body awareness can be found in this school. First, the awareness of body as it relates to mimicry and the performance of emotional expressions, gestures, and behavior-adjustment in reference to others. In the circle, through physical proximity and unobstructed view of fellow students (frequency and intensity), an individual may acquire postures (e.g., sitting straight), gestures (raising hands up), and facial expressions (emotional expressions), as well as feedback and micro-details of the experience (R. Collins, 2004). In other words, students will experience a body of resonation and synchronization. Second, body awareness relates to recognition, action, and self-adjustment—understanding the body as symbolic, and at most, a gender and institutionalized body.

Vignette 4:

Am I in right place? (6 January 2014)

In principle, boys and girls must sit alternately in circle. When Jim steps into the circle, he finds there is a seat available beside Fatima. He goes toward the free seat, but realizes George is on the other side; suddenly, he turns away and walks around the margin of the circle. He looks to the seat between Ben and John, changes his mind again, and then heads to the seat between Katja and Melissa. Seeing this, Fatima, who was sitting beside Sophia, changes seats with Levi.

This scene shows how Jim understands his body as being symbolic and therefore he adjusts his behavior accordingly. It also shows how Fatima learns mimetically from Jim to position herself in the right seat. The understanding of the symbolic body is incorporated into every action and decision of the student. In this respect, awareness of the body is based on self-reflection of performance. With time, these events that were experienced during circle time become a part of their background and shared knowledge. This also allows groups to continually re-contextualize their knowledge. By virtue of awareness of the body, an individual can constantly reflect and recognize where his or her potential and boundaries lie. Bodily presence and co-presence, combined with social interaction, make it easier for students to monitor social cues and recognize each other’s emotions.

The Ludic Moment in Circle Time: Conditional Authority and Mutual Recognition

In a modern and pluralistic society, there is growing understanding of the practices of teaching and learning as a part of the individual’s development process. In line with this, many scholars have sought to relocate and reconstruct a teacher’s authority in practice (Jergus & Thompson, 2017; Werner et al., 2007). In our exploration of bodily performance within a circle ritual, we are surprised to discover how a teacher’s authority has been legitimatized in the contextual, meaning-making process through playful and ludic activities in a diverse culture. To closely examine the ludic aspects of a teacher’s authority in practice, we should reframe the circle. For instance, circle time usually begins as a form of playfulness, representative of an arena where a spatial setting is arranged and physical performance is observed. In our study, both teachers and students free themselves from school assignments, but each individual “is obliged to come into play upon entering the situation and to stay in play while in situation, sustaining this diffuse orientation” (Goffman, 1963). The negotiated, mediated process often appears during the ludic portion.

Vignette 5:

Singing with tempo (Video: 8 December 2013)

It is just shortly after the New Year holiday. With a guitar in hand, Mr. Schneider says, “There is a song that fits this moment (a traditional German song for New Year).” Some of the students laugh. When Mr. Schneider plays the prelude, one child says “Sad,” and some others follow. “What a sad song!” Upon hearing this, Mr. Schneider doesn’t stop playing this traditional song, but says, “Let’s sing slowly and clearly.” Students sing along with the melody in a lazy voice. After singing one verse, Mr. Schneider says to the children, “Now, quickly!” Then he speeds up his guitar rhythm, and the children raise their voices into a quick and joyful tempo. Mr. Schneider plays faster and faster until the children can’t follow. Finally, all the students break into laughter.

Modern schools now have high participation activities to encourage the students to speak out. In the scene above, although Mr. Schneider thought the song fit the moment, the students expressed their dissatisfaction by commenting “sad” to challenge Mr. Schneider’s statement. Even after hearing the complaints and expressions of resistance, Mr. Schneider did not respond to the students directly; rather, he proceeded in a roundabout manner. First, he continued playing what he had planned, with the instruction to the students to sing “slowly and clearly.” By doing so, he took a firm stand in continuing, while successfully easing the students’ discomfort. At the same time, he attempted to satisfy what the children had asked of him, that is, to adjust his teaching method. He sped up in playing the guitar and let the students chase after him, creating an experience for the students to “play together” with him.

What makes this scene more interesting is how the teacher implicitly and tacitly handled the tension between the teacher and the students in a mediated way, without falling into conflict. During this process, the teacher did not take his authority for granted and impose orders directly on the children; instead, he urged them through indirect communication. He left enough leeway for students to be heard until they were eventually happy. As Bernstein et al. (1966) articulate, “the changes in age relations (authority relations) are likely to make the authority of the teacher in expressive spheres conditional rather than automatic” (p. 432).

Playful and ludic morning circle activities entail that students must have the chance to realize, albeit temporarily, equal dialogue with the teacher and play with intensive emotional participation. The operation of a morning circle is an interactional, productive, and unfinished process where the teacher and students can easily overcome institutional, stipulated roles and boundaries (teacher as knowledge-owner, students as knowledge-receivers). The following vignette provides such an example:

Vignette 6:

It’s Edeka! (Video: 6 January 2014)

Tim:

I went to EDEKA.

Mr. Schneider:

To “I-de-ka.”(With his eyes slyly glance at other students)

Tim:

No, EDEKA!

Mr. Schneider:

To EDEKA! (Well)

Others:

Hahaha . . . (Laughing very loudly.)

Tim:

Went to EDEKA! Not to—well, I was with my mother . . . (All others are laughing hysterically.)

Traditionally, the authority of the teacher has been considered unquestionable and unchallengeable. The teacher is believed to be the one who dictates the interactions between the teacher and his or her students. However, with the development of modern pedagogy, authority in the educational field cannot be considered the privilege of a single person; rather, it is embedded in the recognition of the interactional subjects, where the stipulated rule and defined power are not yet regulated (Jergus & Thompson, 2017). In the scene above, Tim, as a newcomer student, intended to describe his weekend shopping in Edeka, one of the most popular German supermarkets. When he pronounced the “E” sound, Mr. Schneider repeated and emphasized the letter “E” as an “I,” intentionally, to remind the other students (with his eyes scanning the circle, revealing his intention) that the letter “E” is different from the letter “I” in German. Here, he acted as though he did not know how to pronounce the common letter “E” so that Tim would have the opportunity to correct him. It is interesting to observe how Mr. Schneider “assigned his authority” to the younger generation, and how Tim used the opportunity to establish his position in the class by temporarily correcting the pronunciation of Mr. Schneider.

Notably, this does not mean that the authority of the teacher had been totally relinquished from the class. As Werner et al. (2007) also acknowledged, in a diverse society, even the teacher does not represent unquestioning and monopolistic knowledge. Even with a lack of absolute authority, the relationship between the teacher and his or her students is still strongly shaped by “structure authority.” The core value of such authority lies in its embodiment, which produces interdependent and mutual recognition through the practice of a ludic morning circle.

Discussion

As one of the most widely practiced school activities, circle time has a long-standing tradition not only in German schools but also in schools around the world. In a pluralistic, industrialized modern society, school culture is mainly characterized by an increasing number of students of a heterogeneous milieu (sex, family background, ethnicity), where incompatible interactional alternatives, discontinuity, and dysfunction regularly arise. In light of this, establishing one central value in the educational field through an oppressive method seems to be ambiguous and short-sighted. By gathering in a circle, students can implicitly express and share their acquiescence of—and resistance to—existing school rules and practices through a highly emotional engagement. The character of circle time, which demands participants to be physically present as one, enables students with heterogeneous backgrounds to create a community of “togetherness.” At the same time, by way of “togetherness,” the newcomer student successfully shifts from being an outsider to feeling fully integrated into the school. In a time when children are being challenged with following standardized “correct” answers, circle time creates an alternative strategy, enhancing students’ voices while cultivating their social and critical thinking skills. As performance is mainly accomplished through gestural metaphors and rhythms, “which are swollen with meaning and which are [e]nfolded in the musculature” (McLaren, 1993), students can become highly aware of their bodily power in this process. In light of this, we argued that participants in circle rituals are processes of “verbings” rather than frozen accounts (McLaren, 1993). This dynamic aspect of the circle ritual is represented by the contrast of “schooling as a culture of pain” and “youth cultures as potentially positive,” along with the resistance of one to the other.

The potential of students’ power during circle time is particularly visible when we relate it to the teacher’s implementation of authority in a modern school. In the past century, there has been a dramatic shift in schools from being an adult-imposed and regulated ritual to a more student-generated and regulated ritual—that is, from rituals celebrating dominance to rituals encouraging participation (Salmi & Kumpulainen, 2017; Wulf et al., 2007). In this German school, teachers did not impose their power directly on the students; rather, the tension between the teachers’ authority and the students’ subjectivity was often dialogued and mediated through revival of meta-communicative understanding, corporeal interaction, and playful mimetic learning. Such changes, therefore, require us to re-examine schools as communication systems and investigate how participants in circle rituals construct their own lives through bodily performance (Bernstein et al., 1966). Such bodily and extra-verbal manners are extremely important to facilitate the transmission and internalization of the school culture and revitalize the social order within the individual.

Conclusion

This article has revealed that traditional approaches to circle time’s functional, instrumental, and rational dimensions may legitimize its position within classroom instruction and management. However, such considerations have also misled research into pragmatism and simplicity. In a pluralistic, multi-cultural, and democratized society, we must not ignore the heterogeneity and complexity that exists and emerges during circle time. Therefore, our main interest in this study is to examine how differences in age, gender, and social position were handled to maintain the circle’s continuity and dynamism. The first result presented here clearly shows that circle time is largely characterized as a transitional phase from family life to an institutionalized school situation or ritual event. As it helps raise the teacher’s awareness regarding the tacit meaning of school routines, it is essential for stimulating the school culture among students (Williams, 2001).

Understanding circle time as a ritual performance provides us with a starting point to scrutinize the details of structure and anti-structure that may arise throughout the process (Turner, 1977). According to our ethnographic study, three significant aspects make up a considerable part of school social life: symbolic meaning, bodily movement, and ludic interaction. The inherent feature of the circle, as a closed ritual, endows it with symbolic togetherness—ultimately orienting the interactions between the teacher and his or her students, as well as the interactions among the students. Bodily movement serves as the primary medium, with the meaning expressed and generalized through ritual grammar. In contrast to verbal language expression, awareness of the body creates a culture of recognition of gender and cultural heterogeneity. Furthermore, in ludic ritual chains, students can challenge the teacher’s authority—although the teacher must regain his or her reputation by negotiating with the students. Through theatrical staging, performing, and repetitive practice, circle time builds a society that not only maintains traditional cultures but also results in creative changes. If we choose to ignore the ritualistic dimensions of circle time, we can only observe these tensions and their underlying dynamics.

Drawing on Peter Petersen’s (1937) idea of Jenaplan, we found that circle time epitomizes the basic features of modern European education, emphasizing democracy, egalitarianism, inclusiveness, tolerance, and solidarity. However, circle rituals—when created using a specific form—embody ambivalence and flexibility. With the homogeneity of one, there is always the heterogeneity of another.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Peak Discipline Construction Project of Education at East China Normal University and National Education Sciences Planning Project for “13th Five-Year Plan” (Grant No. CHA180265).

ORCID iD

Hongyan Chen

Notes

Author Biographies

Hongyan Chen is an associate professor at the institute of International and Comparative Education at the East China Normal University, China. She obtained her PhD degree in Pedagogical Anthropology from the Free University of Berlin. Her research fields include: intercultural education (including international education), globalization, urbanization and educational reforms in elementary school, videography and picture interpretation as qualitative method.

Qingdan Zeng recieved her PhD degree in Pedagogical Anthropology from the Free University of Berlin. Her research fields include: educational anthropology, citizenship education, and comparative education.

Zhengmei Peng is director of Institute of International and Comparative Education. His research interests mainly focus on philosophies of education, especially on Chinese traditional philosophies of education and philosophies of education (Allgemeine Paedagogik) in Germany; and the global education reforms in primary and secondary education.

References

Bernstein

Elvin

H. L.

Peters

R. S.

(1966). Ritual in education. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 251(772), 429–436.

Cefai

Ferrario

Cavioni

Carter

Grech

(2014). Circle time for social and emotional learning in primary school. Pastoral Care in Education, 32(2), 116–130.

Chen

(2016). Dynamics in circle rituals: Daily life at a German reform pedagogic school. Waxmann.

Collins

(2013). Empowerment of children through circle time: Myth or reality? Irish Educational Studies, 32(4), 421–436.

Collins

(2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton University Press.

Curry

Bromfield

(1998). Circle-time. Nasen.

Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S. E.

(2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.). Sage.

Douglas

(2007). Thinking in circles: An essay on ring composition. Yale University Press.

Durkheim

(1968). The elementary forms of the religious life. Free Press.

10.

Elias

. (1997). über den Prozeß der Zivilisation [On the process of civilisation]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

11.

Emilson

Johansson

(2013). Participation and gender in circle-time situations in preschool. International Journal of Early Years Education, 21(1), 56–69.

12.

Ertl

(2006). Educational standards and the changing discourse on education: The reception and consequences of the PISA study in Germany. Oxford Review of Education, 32(5), 619–634.

13.

Goffman

(1963). Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. Free Press of Glencoe.

14.

Goffman

(1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. Aldine.

15.

Heinzel

(2001). Kinder im Kreis: Kreisgespräche in der Grundschule als Soziali-sationssituation [Children in the circle: Circle conversation in the primary school as socialized situation]. Habilitationsschrift.

16.

Jergus

Thompson

(2017). Autorisierungen des pädagogischen Selbst–Einleitung [The authorization of pedagogical self: Introduction]. In Jergus

Thompson

(Eds.), Autorisierungen des pädagogischen Selbst: Studien zu Adressierungen der Bildungskindheit [The Authorization of pedagogical self: Study on the Bildung-childhood] (pp. 1–45). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.

17.

Kantor

(1989). First the look and then the sound: Creating conversations at circle time. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 4(4), 433–448.

18.

Kern

Lingnau

Paul

(2015). The construction of “academic language” in German classrooms: Communicative practices and linguistic norms in “morning circles.” Linguistics and Education, 31, 207–220.

19.

Lang

(1998). Getting round to clarity: What do we mean by circle time? Pastoral Care in Education, 16(3), 3–10.

20.

Leach

Lewis

(2013). Children’s experiences during circle-time: A call for research-informed debate. Pastoral Care in Education, 31(1), 43–52.

21.

Lown

(2002). Circle time: The perceptions of teachers and pupils. Educational Psychology in Practice, 18(2), 93–102.

22.

Mary

(2014). Fostering positive peer relations in the primary classroom through circle time and co-operative games. Education 3-13, 42(2), 125–137.

23.

McAfee

O. D.

(1985). Circle time: Getting past “two little pumpkins.” Young Children, 40(6), 24–29.

24.

McLaren

(1993). Schooling as a ritual performance: Towards a political economy of educational symbols and gestures. Routledge.

25.

Miller

Moran

(2007). Theory and practice in self-esteem enhancement: Circle-time and efficacy-based approaches—A controlled evaluation. Teachers and Teaching, 13(6), 601–615.

26.

Morek

(2013). Erzählkreise: Narrativ eingebettete Erklärsequenzen als authentische Gesprächsanlässe im Unterricht [Talk circle: Narrative embedded explaining-sequences in classroom as authentic inducement of conversation]. In Becker

Wieler

(Eds.), Erzählforschung und Erzähldidaktik heute: Entwicklungslinien, Konzepte, Perspektiven [Narrative study and narrative didactics today: Development, concept and perspective]. (pp. 73–95). Stauffenburg Deutschdidaktik.

27.

Mosley

(1993). Turn your school round. Learning Development Aids.

28.

Mosley

(1999, June). Podium: A virtuous circle for our schools. The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/podium-a-virtuous-circle-for-our-schools-1097902.html

29.

Mosley

(2005). Circle time for young children. Routledge.

30.

Moss

Wilson

(1998). Circle time: Improving social interaction in a year 6 classroom. Pastoral Care in Education, 16(3), 11–17.

31.

Petersen

(1937). Führungslehre des Unterrichts [The management theory of classroom]. Beltz.

32.

Purmann

(2001). Morgenkreis und Schulanfang. Das Beispiel der altersgemischten Eingangsstufe der Schule Vollmarshausen [Morning circle and school beginning: An example of the age-mixed transition stage of Vollmarshausen school]. Kassel University Press.

33.

Reich

L. R.

(1994). Circle time in preschool: An analysis of educational praxis. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 2(1), 51–59.

34.

Salmi

Kumpulainen

(2017). Children’s experiencing of their transition from preschool to first grade: A visual narrative study. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 20, 58–67.

35.

Sozialstrukturatlas. (2013). Handlungsorientierter Sozialstrukturatlas Berlin [Action orientated social structural atlas of Berlin]. https://www.berlin.de/sen/archiv/gessoz-2011-2016/2014/pressemitteilung.150851.php

36.

Tew

(1998). Circle time: A much-neglected resource in secondary schools? Pastoral Care in Education, 16(3), 18–27.

37.

Turner

(1977). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Cornell University Press.

38.

Turner

(2009). Vom Ritual zum Theater: Der Ernst des menschlichen Spiels [From Ritual to Theatre: The Human Seriousness of Play]. Campus Verlag.

39.

Werner

Heiner

Bernhard

Davina

Gunther

Dana

(2007). Autorität und Schule [Authority and school]. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

40.

Williams

(2001). Preschool routines, peer learning and participation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45(4), 317–339.

41.

Wooster

(1988). Social skills training in the primary school. In Lang

(Ed.), Thinking about personal and social education in the primary school. Basil Blackwell.

42.

Wulf

(2013). Mimesis, appropriating the world through. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 16(2), 15–25.

43.

Wulf

Althans

Blaschke

Ferrin

(2007). Lernkulturen im Umbruch: Rituelle Praktiken in Schule, Medien, Familie und Jugend [Learning culture in changes: Ritual practice in school, media, family and youth]. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

44.

Wulf

Bittner

Clemens

Kellermann

(2012). Unpacking recognition and esteem in school pedagogies. Ethnography and Education, 7(1), 59–75.

45.

Yifat

Zadunaisky-Ehrlich

(2008). Teachers’ talk in preschools during circle time: The case of revoicing. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 23(2), 211–226.