Emphasizing collaborative practices in learning to teach: coteaching and cogenerative dialogue in a field‐based methods course

Abstract

This manuscript details a field-based methods course for preservice teachers that has been designed to integrate shared teaching experiences in elementary classrooms with ongoing critical dialogues with a focus on highlighting the complexities of teaching. I describe the structure of the course and explore the use of coteaching and cogenerative dialogue as approaches to learning how to teach. Vignettes that typify experiences in this course are analyzed, and two main findings explored. First, coteaching provided critical support to preservice teachers as they taught their first lessons to children. Second, cogenerative dialogues mediated reflexive dialogue around the complexities of teaching, and provided for participants a foundation to examine their epistemological assumptions. It is argued that at a time of increasing segmentation of teacher education, teacher educators need to support dialogic, multi-perspectival approaches that emphasize the complex nature of teaching and learning in elementary classrooms.

Enabling classroom change by infusing cogen and coteaching in participatory action research

“…A study by Siry (2011) demonstrated another feature of PAR: the continuous shaping and reshaping of the participants' roles as they engaged in cogen and coteaching. Siry conducted a study with six preservice teachers and 25 children in third grade with their science teacher.…”

Introducing Co-Teaching and Co-Generative Dialogues in a Pre-Service Teaching Practicum: Stepping in and Remaining Contradictions

“…Several studies have reported on implementing Roth and Tobin's (2002) model of co-teaching (Salles El Kadri & Roth, 2013;Siry & Lang, 2010;Siry, 2011). For example, Siry (2011) explains that while collaborative teaching practices allow novices to engage in the actual activities of teaching at the elbow of more expert educators, co-generative dialogues facilitate the co-teachers' reflections on their shared experiences in the classroom and their deconstruction and planning of alternative instructional activities designed to maximize student learning in the future. Siry (2011) also found that by the end of the teaching practicum the novices were particularly appreciative of the support received from more than one teacher as they co-taught their lessons.…”

“…Teacher mentoring is an important issue in much recent research in the context of general teacher education (Bradbury, 2010;Orland-Barak, 2010;Siry, 2011;Wang & Odell, 2007). A number of early research studies on teacher mentoring clearly show that a mentor can play an important role in the development of a pre-service teacher's teaching expertise during a field-based practicum experience (Guyton & McIntyre, 1990).…”

“…In addition, this model engages co-teachers and a small number of students from the class in co-generative after-class dialogues, during which all the participants refer to direct evidence from a recent class in the form of videos and student work and on this basis collaborate on generating possible solutions to instructional problems that anyone of the participants experienced during the class (Tobin, 2006). Several studies have reported on implementing Roth and Tobin's (2002) model of co-teaching (Salles El Kadri & Roth, 2013;Siry & Lang, 2010;Siry, 2011). For example, Siry (2011) explains that while collaborative teaching practices allow novices to engage in the actual activities of teaching at the elbow of more expert educators, co-generative dialogues facilitate the co-teachers' reflections on their shared experiences in the classroom and their deconstruction and planning of alternative instructional activities designed to maximize student learning in the future.…”

Co-planning among science and special education teachers: How do different conceptual lenses help to make sense of the process?

“…Within the specific field of science education, co-teaching has been suggested as a way to improve instructional practices among preservice (Siry 2011) and practicing (Martin and Scantlebury 2009) teachers. While co-planning again has been viewed as an important aspect of these co-teaching relationships (see Tobin, Roth and Zimmermann 2001, for heuristic), the process has not been examined in detail.…”