Coteaching: from praxis to theory

Abstract

We evolved coteaching and cogenerative dialoguing to respond to the need of teachers inexperienced in one or another aspect of teaching to learn to teach at the elbow of another. As our praxis of coteaching and cogenerative dialoguing unfolded, we developed a theoretical framework. In this article, we present some core theoretical ideas that go with coteaching and cogenerative dialoguing. These ideas are rooted in our reading of cultural–historical activity theory and critical psychology. The resulting framework is particularly suited for analyzing and theorizing complex practices such as teaching and learning in schools for several reasons. First, it requires us to take a first‐person perspective on the actions of individuals and groups. Second, it theorizes actions available to an individual as concrete cases of a generalized action available at the collective level. Third, we understand all actions to be mediated by the tools (language, curriculum theory), rules, community, and division of labor characteristic of the situation. Fourth, because this approach explicitly theorizes context, it is an excellent tool for articulating and removing structural contradictions. Fifth, the approach assists us in understanding the contradictions within a system in a positive way, namely as opportunities for change and growth. Finally, the framework explicitly focuses on the cultural–historical changes that individuals, their community and tools, and the reigning division of labor and rules undergo.

Notes

* Corresponding author: Lansdowne Professor, Applied Cognitive Science, MacLaurin Building A548, University of Victoria, PO Box 3100 STN CSC, Victoria, BC, Canada V8W 3N4, E‐mail: [email protected]

• In this study, we primarily draw on data collected over a three‐month period in split fourth‐grade and fifth‐grade classroom. Over this period of time, each lesson was videotaped with two cameras; children’s artifacts were photographed and their notebooks photocopied. After each lesson, the two teachers and the principal investigator Michael Roth debriefed the lessons; these debriefing sessions intended to make sense of and plan change to the classroom environment were also videotaped. Two research assistants collected additional data, including interviews with other staff and the principal, and conducted an ethnography of the site. At times, the two teachers analyzed videotapes from their own classrooms in sessions that were also attended by other individuals (e.g. teachers from the same and other schools or university‐based researchers). Detailed information on data collection and interpretation processes may be found in Roth (1998a).

• The first author, Michael Roth, had been teaching with Christine prior to Brigitte’s arrival, as he had done subsequently with other teachers in the same school. However, because ­Brigitte had designed the science curriculum, a decision was made to have her coteach with Christine, whereas Michael was responsible for data collection. The second author, Ken Tobin, was responsible for the teacher training and research at the University of Philadelphia mentioned in this article. Both authors cotaught with teachers in one Philadelphia high school. This research, too, is based on an intensive database including videotapes of classroom and cogenerative‐dialog sessions, ethnographic descriptions, and interviews with students, teachers, and coordinators. For a description of the database and the interpretive methods used see, for example, one of our articles coauthored with a pre‐service teacher, a practicing teacher, and a student (Roth et al., 2002).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Wolff‐Michael Roth *

* Corresponding author: Lansdowne Professor, Applied Cognitive Science, MacLaurin Building A548, University of Victoria, PO Box 3100 STN CSC, Victoria, BC, Canada V8W 3N4, E‐mail: [email protected]