Cogenerative Dialogue of Cross-Generation Educators to Improve Chemistry Teaching Quality through Technology

Abstract

This research showed the efforts of educators in improving the quality of the chemistry classroom atmosphere through technology. Cogenerative dialogue involves dialogue between a small number of students, teachers, and researchers. All speak, listen, and learn from each other across boundaries such as age, gender, ethnicity, and rank. This discussion featured an ethnographic case study from coteaching and cogenerative dialogue involving junior lecturers, certified chemistry teachers, pre-service chemistry teachers, and students in the chemistry learning about chemical bonding, chemical elements, and laboratory introduction. This dialogue is guided by questions related to Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). The SWOT analysis was used to provide an overview experienced by educators as well as TPACKing process. The use of a simple application that is a music player, video and camera can be easily used to make the class more enjoyable. Students enjoy a more comfortable classroom atmosphere with song rhythms, funny videos, and selfie activities. Constraints in mastering concepts macroscopically, sub-microscopically, and symbolically are completed by utilising virtual/augmented reality and virtual laboratory. Cogenerative dialogue can inspire among educators to try and learn the technology for teaching chemistry.

Keywords

• Cogenerative dialogue,Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge,Cross-generation educators,Chemistry educators,Chemistry teaching quality

Supporting Institution

Directorate General of Learning and Student Affairs (Direktorat Pembelajaran dan Kemahasiswaan) , the Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia (RISTEK-DIKTI)

Project Number

251/KPA/HK/2019

Thanks

We would like to thank financial support from the Directorate General of Learning and Student Affairs, the Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia (RISTEK-DIKTI) through the Lecturer Assignment Grant in Schools (Penugasan Dosen di Sekolah). Second, we would also like to thank all those who assisted in collecting research data.

References

1. Afreen, R. (2014). Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) in higher education: Opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Emerging Trends & Technology in Computer Science, 3(1), 233–236.
2. Akani, O. (2015). Laboratory Teaching: Implication On Students’ Achievement In Chemistry In Secondary Schools In Ebonyi State Of Nigeria. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(4), 2016–2013.
3. Alkan, F., & Koçak Altundağ, C. (2015). The Role of Technology in Science Teaching Activities: Web Based Teaching Applications. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 3(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.17478/JEGYS.2015213531
4. Arsic, Z., & Milovanovic, B. (2016). Importance of computer technology in realization of cultural and educational tasks of preschool institutions. (IJCRSEE) International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 4(1), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.5937/ijcrsee1601009a
5. Astriani, D., Hadisaputro, S., & Nurhayati, S. (2013). Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Joyfull Learning Berbantuan Media Dox-card pada Materi Pokok Redoks. Chemistry in Education, 2(2252), 1–7.
6. Aubusson, P. J., Harrison, A. G., & Ritchie, S. M. (2006a). Metaphor and Analogy: Serious thought in science education. In Metaphor and Analogy in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3830-5
7. Aubusson, P. J., Harrison, A. G., & Ritchie, S. M. (2006b). Metaphor and Analogy: Serious thought in science education. In P. J. Aubusson, A. G. Harrison, & S. M. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphore and Analogy in Science Education (pp. 1–10). Netherlands: Springer.
8. Bayne, G. U., & Scantlebury, K. (2012). Using Cogenerative Dialogues to Expand and Extend Students’ Learning. In The Handbook of Educational Theories (pp. 237–247). Information Age Publishing.

9. Betoncu, O., & Ozdamli, F. (2019). The Disease of 21 st Century : Digital Disease. TEM Journal, 8(2), 598–603. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM82-
10. Brown, K. K., Gilmore, M. W., Dillihunt, M., & Minor, K. (2018). Utilizing Online Technology to Effectively Teach Chemistry in Secondary Education. Modern Chemistry & Applications, 06(01), 244. https://doi.org/10.4172/2329-6798.1000244
11. Bucat, B., & Mocerino, M. (2009). Learning at the Sub-micro Level: Structural Representations. In J. K. Gilbert & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple Representation in Chemical Education: Models & Modelling in Science Education (pp. 11–29). Dordrecht: Springer.
12. Burton, E. P., Frazier, W., Annetta, L., Lamb, R., Cheng, R., & Chmiel, M. (2011). Modeling augmented reality games with preservice preservice elementary and secondary science teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 19(3), 303–329.
13. Chen, C. H., Liao, C. H., Chen, Y. C., & Lee, C. F. (2011). The integration of synchronous communication technology into service learning for pre-service teachers’ online tutoring of middle school students. Internet and Higher Education, 14(1), 27–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.02.003
14. Christianson, S. A. (1992). Emotional stress and eyewitness memory: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 112(2), 284–309.
15. Cole, R. E. (1991). Participant Observer Research: An Activist Role. In W. F. Whyte (Ed.), Participatory Action Research (pp. 159–166). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
16. Cox, S., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Diagramming TPACK in Practice: Using an Elaborated Model of the TPACK Framework to Amalyze and Depict Teacher Knowledge. TechTrends, 53(5), 60–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-009-0280-z
17. Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1977). Remarks on creativity in language acquisition. In M. Burt, H. Dulay, & M. Finocchiaro (Eds.), Viewpoints on English as a second language. New York: Regents.
18. Education.com. (2014). Technology in the Classroom : Helpful or Harmful ? Retrieved February 27, 2019, from https://www.education.com/magazine/article/effective-technology-teaching-child/
19. Eldon, M., & Levin, M. (1991). Cogenerative Learning: Bringing Participation into Action Research. In W. F. Whyte (Ed.), Participatory Action Research (pp. 127–142). Newbury Park: Newbury Park.
20. Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing First- and Second-Order Barriers to Change : Strategies for Technology Integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02299597
21. Freshney, P. A. (2016). Periodic Table Explorer 1.9 beta. Retrieved February 27, 2019, from Maximum Octopus website: http://periodictableexplorer.com/pc_pte.htm
22. Hadzhikoleva, S., Hadzhikolev, E., & Kasakliev, N. (2019). Using peer assessment to enhance higher order thinking skills. TEM Journal, 8(1), 242–247. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM81-34
23. Harris, J., Grandgenett, N., & Hofer, M. (2012). Testing an instrument using structured interviews to assess experienced teachers’ TPACK. In Book Chapters (Book 8). Retrieved from http://publish.wm.edu/bookchapters/8
24. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Teaching and Learning with Analogies: Friend or Foe? In P. J. Aubusson, A. G. Harrison, & S. M. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphore and Analogy in Science Education (pp. 11–24). Netherlands: Springer.
25. Imaduddin, M. (2018). Analisis Miskonsepsi Submikroskopik Konsep Larutan pada Calon Guru Kimia. Edu Sains: Jurnal Pendidikan Sains & Matematika, 6(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.23971/eds.v6i2.983
26. Imaduddin, M., & Haryani, S. (2019). Lembar Kerja Directed Activities Related to Texts (DARTs) Bermuatan Multipel Level Representasi untuk Meningkatkan Kemampuan Berpikir Kritis Calon Guru Kimia. Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan Kimia, 13(1), 2254–2267.
27. Jasmina Delceva. (2014). Classroom Management. (IJCRSEE) International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 2(1), 51–56. Johnson, A. M., Jacovina, M. E., Russell, D. G., & Soto, C. M. (2016). Challenges and solutions when using technologies in the classroom. In S. A. Crossley & D. S. McNamara (Eds.), Adaptive Educational Technologies for Literacy Instruction (pp. 13–29). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315647500
28. Keith-Lucas, L. (2000). Crocodile Chemistry (Crocodile Clips, Ltd.). Journal of Chemical Education, 77(10), 1284. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed077p1284
29. Kincheloe, J. L. (1998). Critical research in science education. In B. J. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1191–1205). Dordrech, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
30. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The Development of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04302
31. Kohn, A. (2004). Feel-bad education: The cult of rigor and the loss of joy. Education Week, 24(3), 36–44.
32. Krashen, S. (1982). Theory versus practice in language training. In R. W. Blair (Ed.), Innovative approaches to language teaching (pp. 25–27). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
33. Makovec, D. (2018). The teacher’s role and professional development. (IJCRSEE) International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science Engineering and Education, 6(2), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.5937/ijcrsee1802033m
34. Martin, S. (2006). Where practice and theory intersect in the chemistry classroom: Using cogenerative dialogue to identify the critical point in science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1(4), 693–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-006-9031-z
35. Mcglynn-stewart, M. (2015). From student to beginning teacher : Learning strengths and teaching challenges. Cogent Education, 2(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2015.1053182
36. Niess, M. L., Ronau, R. N., Shafer, K. G., Driskell, S. O., Harper, S. R., Johnston, C., … Kersaint, G. (2009). Mathematics Teacher TPACK Standards and Development Model. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 4–24.
37. Nissen, M. (1998). Theory and practice: Happy marriage or passionate love affair? Nordiske Udkast, 26(2), 79–84.
38. Obradović, B. P. (2013). Pedagogical practice way of connecting pedagogical theory and practice. (IJCRSEE) International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 1(2), 152–163. Retrieved from http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4909354&info=resumen&idioma=ENG
39. Olofson, M. W., Swallow, M. J. C., & Neumann, M. D. (2016). TPACKing: A constructivist framing of TPACK to analyze teachers’ construction of knowledge. In Computers and Education (Vol. 95). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.12.010
40. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student needs. Computers and Education, 55(3), 1321–1335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.002
41. Pangestika, R. R., Wijayati, N., & Widodo, A. T. (2017). Peningkatan Hasil Belajar Siswa melalui Pendekatan Joyfull Learning pada Pembelajaran Kimia. Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan Kimia, 11(1), 1849–1861.
42. Plata, D. H., & Muñoz, J. C. (2017). RApp Chemistry. Retrieved February 27, 2019, from https://abstracts.societyforscience.org/Home/PrintPdf/5093
43. Price, S., Davies, P., Farr, W., Jewitt, C., Roussos, G., & Sin, G. (2014). Fostering geospatial thinking in science education through a customisable smartphone application. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(1), 160–170.
44. Putranta, H., & Jumadi. (2019). Physics teacher efforts of Islamic high school in Yogyakarta to minimize students’ anxiety when facing the assessment of physics learning outcomes. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 7(2), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.17478/JEGYS.552091
45. Ricoeur, P., & Kearney, R. (2007). From Text to Action: Essays in Hermeneutics, Ii. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
46. Rizov, T., & Rizova, E. (2015). Augmented Reality As a Teaching Tool in Higher Education. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 3(1), 7–16.
47. Roth, W., & Tobin, K. (2001). The Implications of Coteaching/Cogenerative Dialogue for Teacher Evaluation : Learning from Multiple Perspectives of Everyday Practice. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 15(1), 7–29.
48. Salve, S., Khapare, A., & Barve, R. (2017). Chemistry in Augmented Reality. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer and Communication Engineering, 6(3), 645–647. https://doi.org/10.17148/IJARCCE.2017.63151
49. Scantlebury, K., Gallo-Fox, J., & Wassell, B. (2008). Coteaching as a model for preservice secondary science teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(4), 967–981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.10.008
50. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
51. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
52. Soysal, F., Çallı, B. A., & Coşkun, E. (2019). Intra and Intergenerational Digital Divide through ICT Literacy , Information Acquisition Skills , and Internet Utilization Purposes : An Analysis of Gen Z. TEM Journal, 8(1), 264–274. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM81-37
53. Stith, I., & Roth, W.-M. (2008). Students in action: Cogenerative dialogue from secondary to elementary schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publisher.
54. Sung, B. (2007). Ways of Support for Beginning Teacher Induction in Elementary School. Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education, 19(2), 310–322.
55. Szeto, E., & Cheng, A. Y. N. (2017). Pedagogies Across Subjects: What Are Preservice Teachers’ TPACK Patterns of Integrating Technology in Practice? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 0(0), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116667370
56. Szeto, E., Cheng, A. Y. N., & Hong, J. C. (2015). Learning with Social Media: How do Preservice Teachers Integrate YouTube and Social Media in Teaching? Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-015-0230-9
57. Tobin, Kenneth. (2006). Learning to teach through coteaching and cogenerative dialogue. Teaching Education, 17(2), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210600680358
58. Tobin, Kenneth. (2007). The culture of science education. In K. Tobin & W.-M. Roth (Eds.), The changing faces of research in science education: A personal journey. Netherlands: Sense Publisher.
59. Tobin, Kenneth. (2014). Twenty Questions about Cogenerative Dialogues. In Kenneth Tobin & A. Shady (Eds.), Transforming Urban Education: Urban Teachers and Students Working Collaboratively (pp. 181–190). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-563-2
60. Tobin, Kenneth, Zurbano, R., Ford, A., & Carambo, C. (2003). Learning to teach through coteaching and cogenerative dialogue. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 10(2), 51–73.
61. Tømte, C., Enochsson, A. B., Buskqvist, U., & Kårstein, A. (2015). Educating online student teachers to master professional digital competence: The TPACK-framework goes online. Computers & Education, 84, 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.01.005
62. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2012). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00487.x
63. Xhemajli, A. (2016). The Role of The Teacher in Interactive Teaching. (IJCRSEE) International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 4(1), 31–38. https://doi.org/10.5937/IJCRSEE1601031X