Learning Environments Research

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 1–28

Coteaching/Cogenerative Dialoguing: Learning Environments Research as Classroom Praxis

  • Wolff-Michael Roth
  • Kenneth Robin
  • Andrea Zimmermann
Article

Abstract

Critical educators have leveled a methodological critique against traditional forms of classroom research because they both objectify teachers and students and lead to results that do not enhance praxis. Over the past decade, we have developed coteaching as a context for learning to teach and supervising teaching, on the one hand and, on the other, as a method for doing research on and evaluating teaching. Coteaching involves an equitable inquiry into teaching and learning processes in which all members (or representatives thereof) of a classroom community participate – including students, teachers, student teachers, researchers, and supervisors. In this article, we articulate coteaching in terms of activity theory and the associated first-person methodology for doing research on learning environments that is relevant to praxis because it constitutes an integral part of praxis. A detailed case study exemplifies coteaching and the associated research on learning environments.

activity theory coteaching democratic participation first-person methodology hermeneutic phenomenology participatory action research 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Becker, H. S. (1972). A school is a lousy place to learn anything in. American Behavioral Scientist, 16, 85-105.Google Scholar
  2. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bourdieu, P. (1992). The practice of reflexive sociology (The Paris workshop). In P. Bourdieu & L. J. D. Wacquant (Eds.), An invitation to reflexive sociology (pp. 216-260). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Boykin, A. W. (1986). The triple quandary and the schooling of Afro-American children. In U. Neisser (Ed.), The school achievement of minority children: New perspectives (pp. 57-92). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Cole, R. E. (1991). Participant observer research: An activist role. In W. F. Whyte (Ed.), Participatory action research (pp. 159-166). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Dreier, O. (1991). Client interests and possibilities in psychotherapy. In C. W. Tolman & W. Maiers (Eds.), Critical psychology: Contributions to an historical science of the subject (pp. 196-211). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Ehn, P. (1992). Scandinavian design: On participation and skill. In P. S. Adler & T. A. Winograd (Eds.), Usability: Turning technologies into tools (pp. 96-132). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Eldon, M., & Levin, M. (1991). Cogenerative learning: Bringing participation into action research. In W. F. Whyte (Ed.), Participative action research (pp. 127-142). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
  10. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fraser, B. J. (1998). Science learning environments: Assessment, effects and determinants. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 527-564). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  12. Fraser, B. J., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (1991). Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences. London: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  13. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
  14. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. New York: International Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Haertel, G. D., Walberg, H. J., & Haertel, E. H. (1981). Socio-psychological environments and learning: A quantitative synthesis. British Educational Research Journal, 7, 27-36.Google Scholar
  16. Holzkamp, K. (1983a). Der Mensch als Subjekt wissenschaftlicher Methodik [Man as subject of scientific method]. In K.-H. Braun, W. Hollitscher, K. Holzkamp, & K. Wetzel (Eds.), Karl Marx und die Wissenschaft vom Individuum [Karl Marx and the science of the individual] (pp. 120-166). Marburg, Germany: Verlag Arbeiterbewegung und Gesellschaftswissenschaften.Google Scholar
  17. Holzkamp, K. (1983b). Grundlegung der Psychologie [Foundations of psychology]. Frankfurt, Germany: Campus.Google Scholar
  18. Holzkamp, K. (1984). Zum Verhältnis zwischen gesamtgesellschaftlichem Prozeß und individuellem Lebensprozeß [On the relation between societal process and individual life process]. Konsequent, 6, 29-40.Google Scholar
  19. Holzkamp, K. (1991a). Experience of self and scientific objectivity. In C. W. Tolman & W. Maiers (Eds.), Critical psychology: Contributions to an historical science of the subject (pp. 65-80). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Holzkamp, K. (1991b). Societal and individual life processes. In C. W. Tolman & W. Maiers (Eds), Critical psychology: Contributions to an historical science of the subject (pp. 50-64). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Il'enkov, E. V. (1977). Dialectical logic: Essays in its history and theory. Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar
  22. Il'enkov, E. V. (1982). Dialectics of the abstract and the concrete in Marx's Capital (Sergei Kuzyakov, Trans.). Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar
  23. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kuutti, K. (1999). Activity theory, transformation of work, and information systems design. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 360-376). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Leont'ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality. Englewood Cliffs, CA: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Markard, M. (1984). SUFKI-theoretische Grundlage und methodische Entwicklung [SUFKI-Theoretical foundations and methodological developments]. Forum Kritische Psychologie, 14, 56-81.Google Scholar
  29. Markard, M. (1993). Kann es in einer Psychologie vom Standpunkt des Subjekts verallgemeinerbare Aussagen geben? [Can there be generalizations in a subject-centered psychology?] Forum Kritische Psychologie, 31, 29-51.Google Scholar
  30. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1970). The German ideology (C. J. Arthur, Ed.; W. Lough, C. Dutt, & C. P. Magill, Trans.). New York: International.Google Scholar
  31. McRobbie, C. J., Roth, W.-M., & Lucas, K. B. (1997). Multiple learning environments in a physics classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 333-342.Google Scholar
  32. Newman, F., & Holzman, L. (1996). Unscientific psychology: A cultural-performative approach to understanding human life. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  33. Nissen, M. (1998). Ideologies and development in practical dealings with addiction. In B. Fried, C. Kaindl, M. Markard, & G. Wolf (Eds.), Erkenntnis und Parteilichkeit. Kritische Psychologie als marxistische Subjektwissenschaft [Knowledge and partiality: Critical psychology as Marxist science of the individual] (pp. 229-240 ). Berlin/Hamburg, Germany: Argument.Google Scholar
  34. Onstenk, J. (1999, February). Enhancing the self-directed learning potential of jobs. Paper presented at the European Conference 'Lifelong Learning-Inside and Outside Schools', Bremen, Germany.Google Scholar
  35. Ricoeur, P. (1991). From text to action: Essays in hermeneutics, II. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Roth, W.-M. (1993). Metaphors and conversational analysis as tools in reflection on teaching practice: Two perspectives on teacher-student interactions in open-inquiry science. Science Education, 77, 351-373.Google Scholar
  37. Roth, W.-M. (1998a). Science teaching as knowledgeability: A case study of knowing and learning during coteaching. Science Education, 82, 357-377.Google Scholar
  38. Roth, W.-M. (1998b). Teaching and learning as everyday activity. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 169-181). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  39. Roth, W.-M. (2000). Learning environments research, lifeworld analysis, and solidarity in practice. Learning Environments Research, 2, 225-247.Google Scholar
  40. Roth, W.-M., & Boyd, N. (1999). Coteaching, as colearning, in practice. Research in Science Education, 29, 51-67.Google Scholar
  41. Roth, W.-M., Lawless, D., & Masciotra, D. (2001). Spielraum and teaching. Curriculum Inquiry, 31(2), 183-207.Google Scholar
  42. Roth, W.-M., Lawless, D., & Tobin, K. (2000). Time to teach: Towards a praxeology of teaching. Canadian Journal of Education, 25, 1-15.Google Scholar
  43. Roth, W.-M., Masciotra, D., & Boyd, N. (1999). Becoming-in-the-classroom: A case study of teacher development through coteaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 771-784.Google Scholar
  44. Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (2001). Learning to teach science as praxis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 741-762.Google Scholar
  45. Tobin, K., & Fraser, B. J. (1998). Qualitative and quantitative landscapes of classroom learning environments. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 623-640). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  46. Tobin, K., Seiler, G., & Walls, E. (1999). Reproduction of social class in the teaching and learning of science in urban high schools. Research in Science Education, 29, 171-187.Google Scholar
  47. Tolman, C. W. (1994). Psychology, society, and subjectivity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Wertsch, J. V. (1984). The zone of proximal development: Some conceptual issues. In B. Rogoff & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), Children's learning in the 'zone of proximal development' (pp. 7-18). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolff-Michael Roth
    • 1
  • Kenneth Robin
    • 2
  • Andrea Zimmermann
    • 2
  1. 1.Applied Cognitive ScienceUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada
  2. 2.University of PennsylvaniaUSA

Personalised recommendations