Research Article Analysis
Research Article Analysis
Rahmawati, Yuli; Koul, Rekha; Fisher, Darrell
“Teacher-student dialogue: transforming teacher interpersonal behaviour and pedagogical praxis through co-teaching and co-generative dialogue.”
Learning Environments Research
v18 n3 p393-408 Oct 2015. 16 pp.
Molly Sofranko
4/10/2016
This research took place in Australia in 2010 to explore how co-teaching (described as two or more teachers working with a group of students) and co-generative dialogue (reflective open discourse between students and teacher) changed the behavior and between teacher and student. The researchers used empirically based experimental research techniques such as the reliable and verified QTI (questionnaire on teacher interactions created by Wubbles, 1988) investigating teacher behavior from a system perspective to gather information about their student’s perceptions of their interactions with their teachers. The research also drew from various historical studies focusing on how the learning environment affects student learning.
The researchers added to these lines of research by adding the elements of co-teaching and co-generative dialogue into teacher’s instructional practices. Drawing from the work of Roth and Tobin (p. 393) the researchers implemented a training program on co-generative dialogue and co-teaching for three teachers in three different schools. All three schools differed in the experience and background of the teachers, the engagement level and interest of the students and the teaching styles that the teachers implemented. The case study sites were all similar in that each class was a 9th grade science class and that most teachers had more or less a teacher centered classroom environment with opportunities for different types of learning activates.
The methods of data collection included observation, pre and post research questionnaires, students’ reflective journal entries, student and teacher co-generative dialogue sessions mediated by the researchers and student interviews. The purpose of this study was to improve teacher’s pedagogical practices through reflection and improve student learning by involving students in co-generative dialogue, which helps them engage in their own learning. The scope of the major findings conclude that “Co-teaching and co-generative dialogue helped in transforming teacher interpersonal behavior and teachers’ pedagogical praxis. This process also had implications for improving students’ engagement, achievement and behavior.” (p. 393).
The historical framework draws from many different fields of educational research. In 2006 Tobin, describes that through co-teaching and co-generative dialogue students experienced “an expanded agency and associated opportunities for learning and creating new identities.”(p. 394).
Previous studies, which use the QTI suggest that “higher cognitive achievement is positively associated with leadership, helpful/friendly and understanding teacher behaviors. Conversely, admonishing, dissatisfied and uncertain teacher behaviours are negatively associated with student’s cognitive achievements (Fisher and Rickards 1998; Koul and Fisher 2003; Wubbels and Levy 1993) (p. 397).
The timeline and the format of the study was as follows. During the first phase of the research the researchers re-validated the QTI. Then three schools were chosen, and three science teachers from each of the schools were chosen. The researchers then observed all of those teachers 9th grade classes. The researchers asked for participants from each class, and based on the numbers as well as other unknown factors the teacher chose which class the researchers would focus on.
From observations the researchers got a feel for the general class culture of each classroom. Over all the research was done with a total of 265 9th grade students, 51% female, 49% male from 13 different high schools over the span of 1 year.
School 1
Public school, 9th grade science class, 25 students in a classroom, teacher centered style, well behaved academic extension class.
30 year old teacher with 5 years of experience.
Teacher centered style
Students already highly achieving.
School 2
High achievement public school, 9th grade environmental science class. Passionate teacher who models environmentally friendly behavior. Teacher-centered classroom with hands-on relevant learning activities.
40 year old teacher with 21 years of experience. Not highly motivated students.
Project based learning/ Real world hands on activities
Environmental education class as opposed to general science
School 3
Private religious school
Multicultural environment. Fewer science resources. Over 40 year old teacher 23 years of teaching. Not highly engaged students.
Majority ELL students- immigrants
Teacher centered-students had less agency in their own learning
(information on the schools taken from different parts of the paper.)
All students took a pre-research implementation QTI using a digital survey program. Co-teaching and co-generative dialogue were integrated into science classrooms for transforming teacher interpersonal behavior and pedagogical studies. Three students every two weeks were identified to provide reflections on the teaching practices of their science classroom. Researchers engaged students in the conversation, made teachers aware of the feedback and highlighted teaching practices of which teachers could be unaware. This feedback allowed teachers to incorporate changes in teaching. This resulted in not only the transforming of teacher interpersonal behavior and pedagogical praxis, but also student learning.
The research method of using questionnaires as the major quantitative method does fit the question of whether implementing co-generative dialogue increases positive perceptions of student teacher relationships. Both the teacher and student feedback concerning the process of mediated reflective co-generative dialogue was positive and journal entries and interviews suggested positive academic and interpersonal results and the informal conversational format led to deeper conversation.
For the most part the research paper was easy to follow, and most research practices seemed sound. During some parts of the research, however, protocols varied from school to school. During the 1st part of the study in school 1 the teacher separated the participating students from the non-participating students and had both groups do separate different activities. In school 2 the researcher taught along with the teacher during the first part of the study. The independent and dependent variables seemed to change from school to school.
The methods used to analyze the quantitative data collected by the QTI was easy to read. There were pi-charts, inconsistency scales and interscale correlations. The researchers used tools that I am unfamiliar with such as a likert scale with scores, Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient and pearson’s correlation to analyze the scales.
The qualitative analysis consisted of observations focused on insights of the learning environment, and data collected from the interviews and co-generative dialogue sessions that the researchers mediated. The data from the qualitative research revealed that collaboration allows teachers to play off of each other’s strengths and suggests that reflective teaching encourages teachers to improvise and change their teaching styles to accommodate for student learning.
The significance for this research had the most validitiy concerning the value of open dialogue between student and teacher which reflects on the teacher’s instruction. Most of the positive outcomes seem to be more about mediated open discussion about the teaching style and communication of teacher student interaction. One student says, “I think that, since you have come to our classroom, our interactions with the teacher have improved a lot. We also ask questions if we don’t understand something.” Student interview, September 23 2010) (p. 404)
The collaboration between researcher and teacher provided opportunity for teachers to reflect on their pedagogical practice. Their focus changed from the technical content “to put more emphasis on practical (student’s understanding), and emancipatory (student’s empowerment) interest which strengthened student’s engagement during the lessons and possibly influenced the students’ future lives.” (p. 405). The research did not talk about how the researcher co-taught outside of being physically present in the room during observations. The researcher also co-created lesson plans and helped to facilitate co-generative reflective conversations between teacher and student. The evidence on the effect of co-teaching was lacking.
The article concluded by saying that both student achievement and behavior had both improved, though the data was lacking for both of those claims. The article went on to say that the next step in the project was do develop a professional development program and implement it with a larger number of schools, teachers and students. The article did not specify what kind of co-teaching stage two of their research was going to implement, whether the researchers would continue to be integral parts of the process, or if two teachers would work together. I also have questions whether an open safe space where reflective co-generative dialogue would work the same way without an outsider mediating the dialogue.
