High School Students’ and Scientists’ Experiential Descriptions of Cogenerative Dialogs

  • Pei-Ling Hsu


Working with scientists has been suggested as an effective way for high school students to learn science more authentically. However, several challenges hinder partnerships between students and scientists, such as intimidation issues, the complexity of scientific language, and communication barriers. The purpose of this phenomenographic study was to introduce a pedagogical tool, cogenerative dialogs (cogens), to improve student–scientist partnerships and to investigate high school students’ experience of cogens with scientists. The analysis of high school students’ and scientists’ experiences of cogens in this study suggested four positive and two challenging experiences that shed light on the use of cogens by two distinctly different groups of stakeholders. This study demonstrates positive evidence that cogens can help students build a stronger bond with scientists to enhance their science learning. Suggestions to improve cogen practices between students and scientists are provided.


Cogenerative dialogs Experience Phenomenography Student–scientist partnerships 



This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DRL 1322600. Any opinion, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.


  1. Abbott, C., & Swanson, M. (2006). A rewarding partnership: Critical components of a successful collaborative scientist–student project. Science Teacher, 73(4), 32–35.Google Scholar
  2. Abraham, L. M. (2002). What do high school science students gain from field-based research apprenticeship programs? The Clearing House, 75, 229–232. Scholar
  3. Aikenhead, G. S., & Jegede, O. J. (1999). Cross-cultural science education: A cognitive explanation of a cultural phenomenon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(3), 269–287.<269::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-T.
  4. Banerjee, M., Capozzoli, M., McSweeney, L., & Sinha, D. (1999). Beyond kappa: A review of interrater agreement measures. Canadian Journal of Statistics, 27(1), 3–23. Scholar
  5. Barab, S. A., & Hay, K. E. (2001). Doing science at the elbow of experts: Issues related to the science apprenticeship camp. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 70–102.<70::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-L.Google Scholar
  6. Bondi, S. (2013). Using cogenerative dialogues to improve teaching and learning. About Campus, 18(3), 2–8. Scholar
  7. Burgin, S. R., Sadler, T. D., & Koroly, M. (2012). High school student participation in scientific research apprenticeships: Variation in and relationships among student experiences and outcomes. Research in Science Education, 42(3), 439–467. Scholar
  8. Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. (2008). 21st century learning: Research, innovation and policy directions from recent OECD analyses. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, M. R. (1996). A successful university–school-district partnership to help San Francisco’s K–12 students learn about science and medicine. Academic Medicine, 71(9), 950–956. Scholar
  10. Dahlgren, L. O., & Fallsberg, M. (1991). Phenomenography as a qualitative approach in social pharmacy research. Journal of Social and Administration Pharmacy, 8, 150–156.Google Scholar
  11. Davies, S. R. (2009). Doing dialogue: Genre and flexibility in public engagement with science. Science as Culture, 18, 397–416. Scholar
  12. Dolan, E. L., Lally, D. J., Brooks, E., & Tax, F. E. (2008). Prepping students for authentic science. Science Teacher, 75(7), 38–43.Google Scholar
  13. Emdin, C. (2011). Citizenship and social justice in urban science education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 24, 285–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Forbes, A., & Skamp, K. (2013). Knowing and learning about science in primary school “communities of science practice”: The views of participating scientists in the MyScience initiative. Research in Science Education, 43, 1005–1028. Scholar
  15. Forbes, A. & Skamp, K. (2017). You actually feel like you’re actually doing some science: Primary students’ perspectives of their involvement in the MyScience initiative. Research in Science Education, 1–34.
  16. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Gupta, P. (2009). Identity development in pre-service teachers who are explainers in a science center: Dialectically developing theory and praxis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). City University of New York, NY.Google Scholar
  18. Harris, J. B., Freeman, T. L., & Aerni, P. W. (2009). On becoming educational researchers: The importance of cogenerative mentoring. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 17(1), 23–39. Scholar
  19. Hsu, P.-L., & Roth, W.-M. (2010). From a sense of stereotypically foreign to belonging in a science community: Ways of experiential descriptions about a high school students’ science internship. Research in Science Education, 40, 291–311.
  20. Kerr, A., Cunningham-Burley, S., & Tutton, R. (2007). Shifting subject positions: Experts and lay people in public dialogue. Social Studies of Science, 37(3), 385–411. Scholar
  21. LaVan, S., & Beers, J. (2005). The role of cogenerative dialogue in learning to teach and transforming learning environments. In K. Tobin, R. Elmesky, & G. Seiler (Eds.), Improving urban science education: New roles for teachers, students and researchers (pp. 147–164). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  22. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  23. Lin-Siegler, X., Ahn, J. N., Chen, J., Fang, F.-F. A., & Luna-Lucero, M. (2016). Even Einstein struggled: Effects of learning about great scientists’ struggles on high school students’ motivation to learn science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 314–328. Scholar
  24. Martin, S. (2006). Where practice and theory intersect in the chemistry classroom: Using cogenerative dialogue to identify the critical points in science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1, 693–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martin, S., & Scantlebury, K. (2009). More than a conversation: Using cogenerative dialogues in the professional development of high school chemistry teachers. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(2), 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography: Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10(2), 177–200. Scholar
  27. Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography: A research approach investigating different understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21, 28–49.Google Scholar
  28. Marx, J. G., Honeycutt, K. A., Clayton, S., & Moreno, N. P. (2006). The Elizabeth towns incident: An inquiry-based approach to learning anatomy developed through high school-university collaboration. American Biology Teacher, 68(3), 140–147.;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Masson, A. L., Klop, T., & Osseweijer, P. (2016). An analysis of the impact of student–scientist interaction in a technology design activity using the expectancy-value model of achievement related choice. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(1), 81–104. Scholar
  30. Mumba, F., Mejia, W. F., Chabalengula, V. M., & Mbewe, S. (2010). Resident scientists’ instructional practices and their perceived benefits and difficulties of inquiry in schools. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 9, 187–195.Google Scholar
  31. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  32. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  33. Parker, A. (2005). Making a difference: Mentoring school biology students. Bioscience, 55(7), 559.;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pegg, J. M., Schmoock, H. I., & Gummer, E. S. (2010). Scientists and science educators mentoring secondary science teachers. School Science & Mathematics, 110(2), 98–109. Scholar
  35. Ritchie, S. M., Tobin, K., Roth, W., & Carambo, C. (2007). Transforming an academy through the enactment of collective curriculum leadership. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(2), 151–175. Scholar
  36. Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (2005). Implementing coteaching and cogenerative dialoguing in urban science education. School Science and Mathematics, 105(6), 313–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roth, W.-M., Tobin, K., Elmesky, R., Carambo, C., McKnight, Y., & Beers, J. (2004). Re/making identities in the praxis of urban schooling: A cultural historical perspective. Mind, Culture, & Activity, 11, 48–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Roth, W.-M., Tobin, K., & Zimmerman, A. (2002). Coteaching/cogenerative dialoguing: Learning environments research as classroom praxis. Learning Environments Research, 5(1), 1–28. Scholar
  39. Scantlebury, K., Gallo-Fox, J., & Wassell, B. (2008). Coteaching as a model for preservice secondary science teacher education. Teaching & Teacher Education, 24(4), 967–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Seraphin, K. (2010). A partnership approach to improving student attitudes about sharks and scientists. School Science & Mathematics, 110(4), 203–219. Scholar
  41. Shein, P. P., & Tsai, C. Y. (2015). Impact of a scientist–teacher collaborative model on students, teachers, and scientists. International Journal of Science Education, 37(13), 2147–2169. Scholar
  42. Shell, D. F., Snow, G. R., & Claes, D. R. (2011). The cosmic ray Observatory project: Results of a summer high-school student, teacher, university scientist partnership using a capstone research experience. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 20(2), 161–177. Scholar
  43. Siegel, M. A., Mlynarczyk-Evans, S., Brenner, T. J., & Nielsen, K. M. (2005). A natural selection. Science Teacher, 72(7), 42–45.Google Scholar
  44. Sin, S. (2010). Considerations of quality in phenomenographic research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 9(4), 305–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sjöström, B., & Dahlgren, L. O. (2002). Applying phenomenography in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 40, 339–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stith, I., & Roth, W.-M. (2008). Students in action: Cogenerative dialogues from secondary to elementary schools. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  47. Tobin, K. (2006). Learning to teach through coteaching and cogenerative dialogue. Teaching Education, 17(2), 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tobin, K. (2008). Fostering science learning in diverse urban settings. In C. Henderson, M. Sabella, & L. Hsu (Eds.), 2008 physics education research conference (pp. 50–52). Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics.Google Scholar
  49. Tobin, K., & Alexakos, K. (2013). Coteaching heuristic (I|other). New York: City University of New York.Google Scholar
  50. Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education engaging students in science for Australia’s future. Australian Education Review, 51, 1–77.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Teacher Education, College of EducationUniversity of Texas at El PasoEl PasoUSA

Personalised recommendations