Using Cogenerative Dialogues to Transform Contradictions in Project-Based Learning
Pei-Ling Hsu 1  
More details
Hide details
University of Texas at El Paso, USA
Online publish date: 2018-09-13
Publish date: 2018-09-13
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2018;14(12):em1623
Project-based learning (PBL) has been suggested as an effective way to engage students meaningfully in science learning. However, there are many challenges when implementing PBL in teaching and learning (e.g., difficulty of assessing learning, students’ hesitation to seek help). This qualitative study investigated how cogenerative dialogues (cogens) can serve as a pedagogical tool to enhance the quality of teaching and learning in a PBL-styled student-scientist partnership program. Data sources included video recording of the internship and cogen activities, field notes, pictures, student journals, and individual interviews. Drawing on cultural-historical activity theory, we identified contradictions tangled with the complex interactions in activities that promoted changes and new developments in teaching and learning. Our analysis of two case studies suggests that cogens help students transform the contradictions in their activity systems into opportunities for becoming active learners, critical thinkers, and collaborative researchers. For transformation to occur, the contradictions must be recognized, reflected, and acted upon. The purposeful discussion about various contradictions in cogens allows participants to deeply reflect on their understandings about learning, teaching, and scientific practice and to disrupt their existing paradigms in order to negotiate new meanings and understandings to support students’ science learning.
1. 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.
2. Amory, A. (2010). Education technology and hidden ideological contradictions. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(1), 69–79. Retrieved from
3. Babco, E. L. (2004). Skills for the innovation economy: What the 21st century workforce needs and how to provide it. Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology.
4. Brown, S. L., & Melear, C. T. (2006). Investigation of secondary science teachers’ beliefs and practices after authentic inquiry-based experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(9), 938–962.
5. Buxton, C. A. (2006). Creating contextually authentic science in a “low-performing” urban elementary school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(7), 695–721.
6. Cardoso, C., Eriş, Ö., Badke-Schaub, P., & Aurisicchio, M. (2014). Question asking in design reviews: How does inquiry facilitate the learning interaction? In Design Thinking Research Symposium. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.
7. Chinowsky, P. S., Brown, H., Szajnman, A., & Realph, A. (2006). Developing knowledge landscapes through project-based learning. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 132(2), 118–124.
8. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
9. Emdin, C. (2011). Citizenship and social justice in urban science education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 24(3), 285–301.
10. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
11. Engeström, Y. (1996). Developmental work research as educational research: Looking ten years back and into the zone of proximal development. Nordisk Pedagogik: Journal of Nordic Educational Research, 15(5), 131–143.
12. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.
13. Engeström, Y. (2008). From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14. Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research.
15. Farrar, C. H. (2016). Teachers’ instructional goals for science practice: Identifying knowledge gaps using cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) (Doctoral dissertation), Columbia University. Retrieved from
16. Fayer, S., Lacey, A., & Watson, A. (2017). STEM occupations: Past, present, and future. Spotlight on Statistics. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.o....
17. Feldman, A., & Pirog, K. (2011). Authentic science research in elementary school after-school science clubs. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(5), 494–507.
18. Foot, K. A. (2014). Cultural-Historical activity theory: Exploring a theory to inform practice and research. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 24(3), 329–347.
19. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
20. Hao, Q., Branch, R. M., & Jensen, L. (2016). The effect of precommitment on student achievement within a technology-rich project-based learning environment. TechTrends, 60(5), 442–448.
21. Hsu, P.-L. (2018). Strategies to mediate cogenerative dialogues between scientists and high school students. Paper archived in the 2018 AERA Online Paper Repository.
22. Hsu, P.-L., & Espinoza, P. (2018). Cultivating constructivist science internships for high school students through a community of practice with cogenerative dialogues. Learning Environments Research, 21(2), 267-283.
23. Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317–334). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
24. Krajcik, J. S., & Czerniak, C. M. (2014). Teaching science in elementary and middle school: A project-based approach (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
25. Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 17–44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26. Lee, H.-S., & Butler, N. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 923–948.
27. Leont’ev, A. N. (1974). The problem of activity in psychology. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 13(2), 4–33.
28. Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
29. Markham, T., Larmer, J., & Ravitz, J. (2003). Project-based learning handbook: A guide to standards-focused project-based learning (2nd ed.). Novato, CA: Buck Institute for Education.
30. Meyer, D. K., Turner, J. C., & Spencer, C. A. (1997). Challenge in a mathematics classroom: Students’ motivation and strategies in project-based learning. The Elementary School Journal, 97(5), 501–521.
31. Murphy, C., & Carlisle, K. (2008). Situating relational ontology and transformative activist stance within the ‘everyday’ practice of coteaching and cogenerative dialogue. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3(2), 493–506.
32. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
33. Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 177–196.
34. Patchen, T., & Smithenry, D. W. (2014). Diversifying instruction and shifting authority: A cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) analysis of classroom participant structures. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(5), 606–634.
35. Peters, H. P. (2013). Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 110, 14102–14109.
36. Radinsky, J., Bouillion, L., Lento, E. M., & Gomez, L. M. (2001). Mutual benefit partnership: A curricular design for authenticity. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(4), 405–430.
37. Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (2002a). Redesigning an” urban” teacher education program: An activity theory perspective. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(2), 108–131.
38. Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (2002b). At the elbow of another: Learning to teach by coteaching. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
39. Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (2004). Coteaching: from praxis to theory. Teachers and Teaching, 10(2), 161–179.
40. Roth, W.-M., Lee, Y. J., & Hsu, P.-L. (2009). A tool for changing the world: Possibilities of cultural-historical activity theory to reinvigorate science education. Studies in Science Education, 45, 131–167.
41. Roth, W.-M., Tobin, K., & Zimmermann, A. (2002). Coteaching/cogenerative dialoguing: Learning environments research as classroom praxis. Learning Environments Research, 5(1), 1–28.
42. Sadler, T. D., Burgin, S., McKinney, L., & Ponjuan, L. (2010). Learning science through research apprenticeships: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 235–256.
43. Savin-Baden, M. (2007). Challenging models and perspectives of problem-based learning. In E. De Graaff & A. Kolmos (Eds.), Management of change: Implementation of problem-based and project-based learning in engineering (pp. 9–30). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
44. Stefanou, C., Stolk, J. D., Prince, M., Chen, J. C., & Lord, S. M. (2013). Self-regulation and autonomy in problem- and project-based learning environments. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(2), 109–122.
45. Stith, I., & Roth, W.-M. (2010). Teaching as mediation: The cogenerative dialogue and ethical understandings. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 363–370.
46. Tobin, K., & Alexakos, K. (2013). Coteaching heuristics (I|Other). New York, NY: The City University of New York.
47. Tseng, K.-H., Chang, C.-C., Lou, S.-J., & Chen, W.-P. (2013). Attitudes towards science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in a project-based learning (PjBL) environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(1), 87–102.
48. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
49. Worsham, E., Clevenger, A., & Whealan-George, K. (2016). STEM education discrepancy in the United States and Singapore. Beyond: Undergraduate Research Journal, 1(1). Retrieved from
50. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2007). Confronting analytical dilemmas for understanding complex human interactions in design-based research from a cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) framework. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 451–484.
51. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2010). Understanding cultural historical activity theory. In Activity systems analysis methods: Understanding complex learning environments (pp. 13–26). Boston, MA: Springer.
52. Zydney, J. M., deNoyelles, A., & Seo, K. K. J. (2012). Creating a community of inquiry in online environments: An exploratory study on the effect of a protocol on interactions within asynchronous discussions. Computers & Education, 58(1), 77–87.