A Comprehensive Review of Cogenerative Dialogue in Science Education

This study comprehensively explores cogenerative dialogue in science education from a sociocultural perspective. Analyzing 120 papers and theses from January 2001 to December 2022 in Korean and English journal s, we examine their objectives, theme s, method s, learner s, educational levels, participant s, researcher role s, coteaching con - nection s


Introduction
Cogenerative dialogue is a method where participants engage in critical reviews and reflections on shared experiences or activities with the goal of enhancing science classes (LaVan, 2004;Roth et al., 2005).This process initiates as participants collaboratively assess and reflect on their shared experiences and activities, working towards problem identification and resolution through discussion (Kim & Lim, 2013).Unlike conventional in-depth interviews, cogenerative dialogue follows specific rules, with students openly sharing their plans and reflecting on past classes alongside teachers (Kim et al., 2016;Martin, 2006).Moreover, it upholds principles of fairness and voluntary participation, ensuring that all individuals can freely express their thoughts while maintaining confidentiality (Kim et al., 2016;Martin, 2006).In the context of science education and science teacher education for marginalized students, this aspect holds particular significance.
Since cogenerative dialogue was first mentioned in a paper (Eldon & Levin, 1991), researchers have increasingly emphasized sociocultural perspectives in the field of science education.Over the past 2 decades, a substantial body of research has accumulated.Notably, as the demand for inclusive science education has grown, researchers have proposed and continually explored cogenerative dialogue as a means to study the interactions between teachers and students in science classrooms (Im & Martin, 2014).Several empirical studies over the past 20 years have demonstrated the effectiveness of cogenerative dialogue in improving students' science learning.It has been shown to activate interactions, resolve emotional conflicts between students and teachers, foster mutual respect and rapport, promote adaptability to other cultures, and enhance efficient communication across differences in age, ethnicity, and ASIA-PACIFIC SCIENCE EDUCATION (2024) 1-50 | 10.1163/23641177-bja10074 gender (Harris et al., 2009;Henderson et al., 2020;Hsu, 2019b;Roth & Tobin, 2005;Tobin, 2006).Cogenerative dialogue has also proven beneficial not only for students but also as an effective approach to enhancing pre-service teacher education programs and improving the professionalism of incumbent teachers (Martin, 2006;Scantlebury et al., 2008;Siry & Martin, 2014).
Cogenerative dialogue holds significance as a practical method to improve science classes and enhance science teacher education and as a research approach in the field of science education.Additionally, it has been gaining prominence as a data collection and analysis method in research concerning social minorities (Im & Martin, 2014).With the numerous advantages of cogenerative dialogue in the field of science education, more than 100 papers globally have been dedicated to this important research topic over the past 2 decades.Various studies have explored its applications in fields such as general education and teacher education (Woodburn-McDonald, 2019).While research utilizing cogenerative dialogue has steadily been conducted over the past 20 years, researchers from various countries have gradually been taking notice.However, no systematic analysis of cogenerative dialogue studies has to date been carried out, leaving a gap in our understanding of the overall research landscape.As an increasing number of researchers have been employing cogenerative dialogue as a powerful tool in educational research from a sociocultural perspective, it becomes crucial to comprehend the research trends surrounding this approach.

What Is a Cogenerative Dialogue?
A cogenerative dialogue is a form of structured discourse in which teachers and students collaborate to help identify and implement positive changes in classroom teaching and learning practices (Martin, 2006).In a cogenerative dialogue, two or more individuals engage in discussions about a shared event or experience (LaVan, 2004).Through cogenerative dialogue, students and teachers can discuss power relationships and the roles of participants (Seiler, 2002) and consider individual and collective activity, goals, roles, equity issues, curriculum, and responsibility (Martin, 2005).Cogenerative dialogues were first used in programs leading to initial certification and ongoing professional development of teachers in coteaching contexts (Tobin, 2006).Cogenerative dialogue is a methodology for exploring how people learn to teach, but they have also been recognized as having value as a pedagogical tool that can transform teaching and learning (Martin & Im, 2013).

3.2
Why Is Cogenerative Dialogue Used in Science Education?The demand for equity in science education has been on the rise.Research groups interested in this field have proposed cogenerative dialogue and have studied the interaction between teachers and students in science classes (Martin & Im, 2013).Based on social constructivism and sociocultural theory, cogenerative dialogue was initially developed as a methodological approach to generate local theory about how people learn to teach science while coteaching (Roth & Tobin, 2002;Martin & Im, 2013).In science education, cogenerative dialogue has proven to be both a practical method for improving science classes and a research method useful for collecting and analyzing data about classroom interactions (Im & Martin, 2014).Cogenerative dialogue is now being actively employed to amplify diverse voices in science classes, particularly those of marginalized groups that have been underrepresented in science education research and practice.This approach aims to incorporate their perspectives into both research and practical applications (Im & Martin, 2014;Lehner, 2007;Jackson & Phillips, 2010).

What Is the Significance of this Work for Korean Science
Education Contexts?This study provides a comprehensive review of research on cogenerative dialogue, offering insights into this field with a wealth of accumulated research findings and potential applications for cogenerative dialogue.Cogenerative dialogue research has primarily taken place in the northeastern United States.This study incorporates Korean research papers to assess the extent of cogenerative dialogue research in the context of Korean science education and to suggest future research directions.Within the landscape of science education in Korea, there has been relatively limited emphasis on sociocultural aspects concerning marginalized learners and the learning process.Cogenerative dialogue, known for its effectiveness in data collection and analysis in studies involving social minority groups, has seen limited application within the context of Korean science education (Im & Martin, 2014).In Korea, there has also been a discernible shift from teacher-centered to learner-centered educational approaches (Kang & Choo, 2009;Ro, 2015).Understanding the learners becomes paramount during this transition.Cogenerative dialogue can be to be a valuable tool in this context.

Search Strategy
In this study, we conducted a thorough search for relevant papers using a range of keywords, including "cogenerative dialogue," "cogen," "generative," and "dialogue."Our search was performed across academic search platforms, such as Google Scholar (scholar.google.co.kr),Seoul National University Central Library (library.snu.ac.kr),RISS (www.riss.kr),Web of Science (webofknowledge.com), and EBSCOhost (www.ebsco.com).Additionally, we explored prominent journals in the field, including Science Education, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Science and Education, International Journal of Science Education, Research in Science Education, and Cultural Studies of Science Education.Since 2001, numerous papers related to cogenerative dialogue in the field of science education have been published.For this study, we focused on analyzing papers published in academic journals and master's and doctoral dissertations in the field of science education spanning from 2001 to 2022.

4.2
Selection of Papers for Analysis We applied specific criteria to determine which papers would be included in our analysis.Papers that mentioned "cogenerative dialogue" in their title, keywords, or content but did not explicitly address it in their research purpose, research question, research method, and results were excluded.Research papers conducted outside of the field of science education were also excluded.We included papers based on master's and doctoral dissertations if they were published in academic journals; however, the dissertations themselves were excluded.If an article was published in a conference proceedings, it was included in the analysis only if it was in the form of a research paper and clearly applied cogenerative dialogue.In the case of book chapters, there were instances where one author wrote several chapters based on the same data.These were excluded, as they did not align with the purpose of our study, which was to understand the overall trends in cogenerative dialogue research.Finally, papers written in languages other than Korean and English were excluded.Korea, as a non-English speaking country, has published the most cogenerative dialogue studies, and a significant number of these have been conducted recently.Cogenerative dialogue has also been featured in master's and doctoral theses with implications for science education in Korea.By applying these criteria, we refined our analysis to a total of 120 papers and dissertations spanning from 2001 to 2022.Each of these sources focused on cogenerative dialogue as a significant research topic and method within the context of science education.

4.3
Analysis Framework The analysis framework used in this study was derived inductively.In line with the objectives of this study, we identified essential research topics, content areas, and subjects while reviewing the selected papers.Based on this initial assessment, we formulated an initial analysis framework.Subsequently, we conducted two pilot analyses, each involving the examination of approximately 10 to 20 papers, using the initial framework.These pilot analyses allowed us to refine the framework by adding or removing specific analysis items and details as necessary.After incorporating these changes, we conducted a third pilot analysis, involving over 80 papers, to further refine the analysis framework.Using the revised analysis framework, we proceeded with the fourth and final analysis, covering the entire set of papers.Throughout this analysis, the framework was continuously reviewed, revised, and supplemented, ultimately resulting in the final version (refer to Table 1 for details).
The study found interrelationships between some categories within the analytical framework, particularly when the research purpose closely aligned with the topic under investigation.For example, numerous studies focused on teacher professionalism with research aims centered on teacher education.
To facilitate the analysis of academic papers, we employed a systematic approach that involved several key steps.

4.3.1
Classification by Publication Year Initially, we categorized the selected papers based on their year of publication.Subsequently, we grouped them into four main categories: "research purpose and topic," "research type," "characteristics of participants," and "how to use cogenerative dialogue in research."Each of these main categories was further ASIA-PACIFIC SCIENCE EDUCATION (2024) 1-50 | 10.1163/23641177-bja10074 divided into 10 subcategories, allowing for a detailed analysis of each aspect.In cases where information was missing in the analysis frame or duplications occurred, we cross-checked and analyzed the primary research items.

4.3.2
Final Analysis and Consistency Check Following the initial analysis, a final review was conducted, involving a cross examination and consensus building among the researchers to ensure accuracy and consistency in the coding process.

Statistical Analysis
The coded data were subjected to statistical analysis using SPSS to uncover significant insights and trends within the dataset.However, if a paper did not address or mention content related to the analysis framework, the item was not included in the coding.Statistical values were rounded to the first decimal place.

Presentation of Results
To understand research trends, the statistical results were presented in three distinct periods : 2001-2010, 2011-2022, and the entire period.These divisions provided a comprehensive overview of the evolution of research related to cogenerative dialogue.

4.4
Analysis Using Litmap Litmap provides useful insight into developments in the research field and presents visualization data when researching literature (Sulisworo, 2023).Using Litmap's literature database, we can get collections and maps of literature.In this study, we intend to use map-type visualization provided by Litmap to analyze how the authors who conducted research are related and how the research developed over time.

Results
In this section, we present the outcomes of our analysis of 120 selected papers in the field of science education that utilized cogenerative dialogue as a research method from 2001 to 2022.

5.1
Publication Year Three papers meeting the criteria were published in 2001, and the number began to increase steadily from 2004 onwards (see 2001 and 2010 constituted 45% of the total, while those published between 2011 and 2022 accounted for the remaining 55%.This distribution indicates that research on cogenerative dialogue has experienced consistent growth over the years.

5.2
Geographic Region Our analysis revealed that North America played a significant role as the primary region where cogenerative dialogue research initially took root, owing to its pioneering efforts in this area.However, in the second half of our study period, research activities began diversifying across various countries.Specifically, nine studies were conducted in Asia: Seven in Korea, one in Indonesia, and one in Bhutan.Additionally, one study each was conducted in Brazil, New Zealand, and Sweden, and three studies were conducted in Australia.This diversification reflects the global expansion of research in this field (see Table 3).

5.3
Relationships among Articles and Review of Key Articles Litmaps allows for the creation of interactive citation visualizations, known as literature maps, using keywords, authors, or bibliographies (Kaur et al., 2022).Figure 1 displays a map created using the keyword "Cogenerative dialogue," which includes 103 relevant papers related to the search.These 103 papers were selected for visualization to aid in understanding how research papers/studies conducted by authors from various organizations and countries are interconnected.The links between the authors represent their references and citations.
Litmaps offers features for visualizing literature maps containing key articles in desired research areas in various visualization modes.Nodes representing papers with more citations are larger, with the size of the node proportional to the logarithm of the citation count.We set the function so that papers located further to the right represent papers published more recently.
If we arrange the papers within this map based on their citations, we observe the map depicted above in Figure 2. Using Litmaps, we found that the works of Roth et al. (2002a), Tobin (2006), andMartin (2006) emerged as the most prominently cited papers within all the papers related to cogenerative dialogue.The selection of Roth et al. (2002a) as an example in Figure 3 demonstrates how Litmaps can be utilized to track the evolution of research within a specific field of study.It illustrates how Roth et al. (2002a) serves as a central point or "seed" from which other articles are connected or cited, even if they do not directly reference Roth et al. (2002a).This observation suggests the influence or significance of Roth et al. (2002a) in the field and its contribution to the body of literature on the topic.(2024) 1-50 | 10.1163/23641177-bja10074 Figure 3 illustrates that the focal article (depicted at the center with a seed symbol) is conceptually rooted in the framework proposed by Rogoff and Wertsch (1984), even though it is not directly referenced by the researchers.Fraser and Walberg's (1991) study, which examined the impact of classroom environments, new curricula, and teaching methods in educational settings, also notably influenced Roth et al.'s (2002a) paper.This analysis suggests that Roth at al.'s (2002a) study on cogenerative dialogue is grounded in Lev Vygotsky's ideas about the zone of proximal development.It addresses both functional and institutional problems within schools.Roth et al. (2002a) introduces the Coteaching/Cogenerative Dialoguing framework as a paradigm aimed at bridging the gap between teaching theory and research.The theoretical underpinnings and rationale are elaborated on using activity theory and are supplemented with detailed case studies.
Similarly, as mentioned earlier, we designated Tobin's (2006) study as the 'seed' paper.Figure 4 illustrates that Tobin (2006) was influenced by Sewell (1992).Sewell (1992) aimed to develop a theory of structure that restored human agency to social actors by reconciling the dialectic between semiotic and materialist perspectives on structure.In doing so, Sewell argued for the potential transformation of structure and agency.In line with this perspective, Tobin argued that a teacher's schemas constitute only a portion of a classroom's structure; the appropriateness of certain teaching practices depends not only on the teacher but also on the agency and practices of all participants, including the students (Sewell, 1992).
By adopting theoretical lenses from cultural sociology, Tobin (2006) argued that cogenerative dialogue among stakeholders could lead to changes in structures and practices, thereby transforming the classroom even when conducted outside of the teaching environment.This is because the social space in which participants engage in cogenerative dialogue can serve as 'fertile seedbeds' for developing shared schemas and practices that teachers and students can then bring into the classroom, where they can be used to enhance the curriculum and foster an inclusive classroom culture.
We also examined another key article, Martin (2006), as the 'seed' paper.Figure 5 illustrates that Martin (2006) was influenced by Cole and Engeström (1993).Martin (2006) utilized Cole and Engeström's (1993) Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) as a theoretical and methodological framework for cogenerative dialogue.In this paper, Martin (2006) introduces the concept that cogenerative dialogue can serve as both a methodological and theoretical framework for developing inclusive science education classrooms.Additionally, Martin (2006) suggests that cogenerative dialogue provides an opportunity to renegotiate and expand the roles and responsibilities of students and teachers, respectively, offering a pathway for 'science for all.' We then positioned Martin (2009) as a seed to explore the connections and relationships between papers (see Figure 6).An examination of Martin's  (2024) 1-50 | 10.1163/23641177-bja10074 (2009) seed map reveals its reliance on the work of Guba and Lincoln (1989) although the citation is erroneously listed as Guba (2014).Guba and Lincoln (1989) reimagined evaluation methodology within the constructivist paradigm, emphasizing evaluations that judge quality through a constructivist lens.Martin (2009) extended the utility of cogenerative dialogue by employing it as a tool for conducting comprehensive assessments to evaluate the effectiveness of science teacher education programs.This evolution of employing cogenerative dialogue as an evaluative methodology, framed by Guba and Lincoln's (1989) authenticity criteria, was found to hold significant implications for evaluation methods applied to teacher education programs.

5.4
Research Purposes and Topics for Use of Cogenerative Dialogue In this section, results are presented focusing on the research purposes and topics of research where cogenerative dialogue was used.

5.4.1
Research Purpose The purposes of the research were categorized into five groups: student education, pre-and in-service teacher education, research on cogenerative dialogue, enhancement of science classes, and other.Literature review papers or forum papers related to cogenerative dialogue were categorized as "research on cogenerative dialogue."If a study aimed to improve science classes as a whole, without specific focus on either teachers or students, it was categorized as "enhancement of science classes."Cases in which cogenerative dialogues that did not fall into the above four classifications were used as a means of data collection were categorized as "other."The results of these categorizations are presented in Table 4.
Our analysis of the purpose of using cogenerative dialogue revealed that research aimed at pre-and in-service teacher education (37.5%) exhibited the highest activity, followed by research centered on cogenerative dialogue itself (33.3%) and research aimed at student education (25.8%).Notably, research on cogenerative dialogue itself (19.2%) was more prevalent in the first half of our study period, as it sought to introduce and promote this approach.In contrast, the second half witnessed an increase in research focused on pre-and in-service teacher education (20.8%) and student education (16.7%).This shift suggests a growing emphasis on utilizing cogenerative dialogue within educational contexts.
Prominent studies related to the purpose of using cogenerative dialogue include those examining coteaching by Roth et al. (2002a) during the first half.These studies significantly contributed to raising awareness about cogenerative dialogue and establishing its foundation during that period.While some studies concentrated on employing cogenerative dialogue for either student education or pre-and in-service teacher education, certain research demonstrated its effectiveness for both students and teachers through their interactions (Siry & Lang, 2010).Moreover, studies extended the applicability of cogenerative dialogue to principals and pre-service teachers (Damiani, 2012), broadening its scope of application.

5.4.2
Topic Topics were categorized into eight categories: learning-science conceptions and nature of science (NOS), culture and social (relationships), student scientific skills, student competency and agency, student attitude, psychology (emotions), teacher professionalism, and science teaching and learning.Papers that centered on the exploration of science concepts or the nature of science were categorized as "learning-science concepts and NOS" Studies that underscored the sociocultural dimension or the interplay between learners and instructors were classified as "culture and social(relationships)" When the emphasis was on scientific competencies in the context of science education, they were categorized as "student scientific skills."In cases where the focus lay on evaluating the competence and behavior of students, they were classified as "student competence and agency."When the spotlight was on attitudes toward science classes or the learning process, it categorized as "student attitude", with a focus on psychological aspects such as learner emotions, it categorized "psychology(emotions)."Research addressing teacher professionalism was categorized as "teacher professionalism," while those concentrating on science teaching and learning holistically were classified as "science teaching and learning."The results are in Table 5.  (Hsu, 2018b(Hsu, , 2019a;;Martin, 2005), along with notable improvements in communication among students.
The efficacy of collecting input from diverse stakeholders, including students, and integrating their educational needs into the pedagogical process has proven to be a potent strategy for fostering improved relationships among students themselves and between students and their teachers.Remarkably, an emerging trend in the latter half of the 2 decades showed an increasing number of studies highlighting the positive impact of cogenerative dialogue on the overall improvement of classroom dynamics.This trend underscores the significant potential of cogenerative dialogue, particularly its capacity for review and the exchange of opinions regarding classroom experiences, in contributing to the overall enhancement of science classes.

5.5
Research Design This section presents the analysis results focusing on what research methods were used.

5.5.1
Research Method Research methods were categorized into distinct types, following the commonly employed criteria found in numerous systematic literature studies.The outcomes of this classification are presented in Table 6, which includes quantitative, qualitative, mixed, literature reviews, and other research methods.In the first decade of analysis, a substantial portion of literature reviews were dedicated to introducing and evaluating the effectiveness of cogenerative dialogue.However, as we moved into the second decade of research, there was a noticeable uptick in mixed-method studies that complemented qualitative research.Typical examples of this mixed research approach conducted statistical analyses using t-tests to assess the significance of results before and after the cogenerative dialogue program (Rahmawati, 2015).Others established comparison and experimental groups to showcase the effectiveness of cogenerative dialogue (Jang, 2006).Among these studies were two intriguing outliers that used only quantitative research (Chauhan, 2013;Rodriquez, 2013).In this case, the researchers compared and analyzed curriculum performance and technology usage between a group that participated in cogenerative dialogue and a group that did not and found that cogenerative dialogues not only aided in the comprehension of challenging science concepts but also fostered an environment of inclusivity, respect, and collegiality between instructors and their students (Chauhan, 2013;Rodriguez, 2013).
Within the "other" category, we encountered studies that referred to external papers (Henderson et al., 2020;Tan & Tan, 2020) and publications such as forums and editorials.These alternative research approaches fostered discussions among researchers regarding existing papers, adding an interesting dimension to the methodological landscape.

5.6
Characteristics of Participants This section presents the results of an analysis examining the characteristics of participants in cogenerative dialogues.The analysis shows who the learners were, their school level, and the participants in the cogenerative dialogue.

5.6.1
Learners We analyzed who the learners were in the contexts of the cogenerative dialogues.For example, in the context of pre-service teacher education, the pre-service teachers are the learners.In addition, the overall analysis of the cogenerative dialogue study showed that there were many studies in which cogenerative dialogue was introduced for marginalized learners, so the marginalized students were classified in detail.The results are shown in Table 7.
The analysis of learners in participating in cogenerative dialogues revealed that the majority consisted of students in special groups, including ethnic minority students (59.5%), students from low-income family (35.4%), and students with low achievement (21.5%), while general students (12.7%) were relatively less represented.Interestingly, there was an increase in the proportion of general students during the latter half of the study period, suggesting that cogenerative dialogue was not only applicable to classes with special student populations, but also found utility among general students.There was also a notable surge in research addressing disabled students during the second half of the study, which was lacking in the initial period of research.
Analysis revealed that non-white, ethnic and racial minority students were the primary participants in the majority of studies conducted in North America.Cogenerative dialogue proved to be effective in understanding learners' sociocultural contexts and in fostering better teaching and learning environments.In contrast, the utilization of cogenerative dialogue to understand various social and cultural contexts in Korea has been limited.Our analysis revealed only seven studies that applied cogenerative dialogue in the context of Korean science education, all with the primary goal of enhancing education.
Among these studies, multicultural students were involved in two: Nam (2019) conducted cogenerative dialogue between the researcher and the homeroom teacher, excluding students from direct participation.In contrast, Park and Martin (2018) facilitated cogenerative dialogue between grade 5 students and teachers, leading to the creation of a more inclusive learning environment during science activities that notably improved science teaching and learning.
It is important to note that in Korean legal and policy contexts, the term 'multicultural students' and 'multicultural families' traditionally referred specifically to children resulting from marriages between Korean nationals and non-Korean immigrants.However, the concept of multicultural families has been gradually expanding to include a wider spectrum of backgrounds.This evolution acknowledges the presence of children from families of non-Korean immigrants, as well as North Korean refugees and their families, within Korean society.While legally the term 'multicultural' has connotations primarily for policy supporting children of Korean and non-Korean immigrant marriages, its scope is gradually broadening to incorporate a more diverse range of experiences and backgrounds.

5.6.2
School Level School level, which refers to the level in which the cogenerative dialogue was performed, was categorized as elementary, middle, high school, university, or graduate school.The results are shown in Table 8.The analysis of participants' school levels revealed that high schools (57.0%) constituted the majority, with universities (15.2%) next.It is worth noting that several studies involved high school students engaged in internships at universities, hence their classification as high school participants.While none were found in the first half of the study period, in the latter half, there were a few studies conducted at graduate schools (5.1%), primarily due to the application of cogenerative dialogue in teacher education.

5.6.3
Participants in Cogenerative Dialogue Those who participated in cogenerative dialogue were classified as teacher, student, or researcher, and the combination of all participants was analyzed.Teachers playing the role of researcher were classified separately as "teacher as researcher."The analysis results are shown in Table 9.
Out of the nine cogenerative dialogue participant classification categories (see teachers or graduate researchers who are also positioned as students in the context of the study.Notably, "teacher-student-researcher" emerged as the most common classification, with its proportion being greater in the second half (32.5%) than the first half (17.5%).Researchers' involvement in cogenerative dialogue stemmed from the need for skilled individuals to effectively implement cogenerative dialogue in alignment with its intended purpose.Some studies featured researchers in the role of cogenerative dialogue mediators (Hsu & Liao, 2018).A cogenerative dialogue mediator is a research assistant who receives training in strategies for mediating cogenerative dialogue discussions and then facilitates dialogues by adhering to specific rules (Hsu & Liao, 2018).
There were also many studies (12.5%) in which "teacher as researcher-student" participation was observed.Additionally, instances were found where both researchers and teachers (6.3%) were involved.In these studies, cogenerative dialogue served as a tool for teacher-researchers to diagnose, reflect on, and enhance teaching and learning environments, engaging various stakeholders in the process.

5.7
Composition and Method of Cogenerative Dialogue In this section, the composition and formation of the cogenerative dialogue group, the role of teacher, the relationship with coteaching, and the duration of the cogenerative dialogue participation were analyzed.This was to provide clues to understanding the composition and method of cogenerative dialogue.After analyzing the composition of the cogenerative dialogues, we discovered that small groups (75.0%) constituted the largest category, followed by small groups and whole class (7.5%), whole class (5.0%), and one on one and small group (5.0%).The limited presence of one-on-one studies can be attributed to cogenerative dialogue's primary goal, which is to capture the voices of diverse stakeholders in the context of classrooms or education and to uncover and address contradictions.
The small group category encompasses a mix of stakeholders, including teachers, students (including student researchers), mediators, prospective teachers, and coaching teachers, typically ranging from three to ten participants.The preference for small-group arrangements stems from the necessity of ensuring that all participants have the opportunity to express their views, whereas larger groups might lead to inefficiencies.
Research encompassing whole classes (all group members) has been relatively uncommon.In this study, cases where only specific participants were selected were categorized as "whole class."Even when considering all members, the participant count was not significantly higher than that of small groups.For instance, Chauhan's (2013) study fell under the "whole class" category, with the majority of participants being the 17 students (89.4%).
Various participant group sizes have been observed in different studies.In Shady (2008)  dialogue sessions that included teachers-students-researchers-administrators were also conducted.In LaVan ( 2004), two student researchers initially participated, and then the number of student participants gradually continued to expand until eventually the entire class was engaging in whole class cogenerative dialogues.

5.7.2
Role of Teacher The role of the teacher refers to the teacher's role during the cogenerative dialogue: The teacher may have only served as an observer in the cogenerative dialogue or may have served as a teacher or teacher-researcher who was at the same time an observer.The analysis results are shown in Table 11.The analysis of the role of the teacher in a cogenerative dialogue revealed that more were observer and participant as researcher (45.0%) than were observer and participant as both teacher and teacher-researcher (42.5%).This active involvement of researchers persisted throughout both decades of research, representing more than 80% of the cases.
In certain instances, researchers did not directly engage in cogenerative dialogue but exclusively took part in the subsequent data analysis phase.This research approach was slightly more common during the 2nd decade than the 1st.These studies (Hale, 2015;Lehner, 2016) merit attention as they have the potential to expand the application methods and domains of cogenerative dialogue in the future.

5.7.3
Cogenerative Dialogue and Coteaching Initially, cogenerative dialogue was introduced in a coteaching context.In order to confirm the change in the relationship between cogenerative dialogue and coteaching, cases where only cogenerative dialogue was performed and cases where both coteaching and cogenerative dialogue were performed at the same time were analyzed (See Table 12).
In the first 10 years, there were more studies involving cogenerative dialogues and coteaching (27.5%).However, during the second 10 years, more studies (41.3%) with only cogenerative dialogues were conducted.Initially, cogenerative dialogue primarily served as a tool within the context of coteaching, and research predominantly focused on coteaching.However, in the last decade, cogenerative dialogue gradually found application in various research contexts, leading to diversified usage patterns.
The inception of coteaching and cogenerative dialogue in the field of science education can be attributed to Roth and Tobin's (2001) pioneering work at in a science methods course taught at the University of Pennsylvania in the United States.Roth et al. (2002a) emphasized the value of coteaching between pre-service and veteran teachers, arguing that pre-service teachers should work "at the elbow of another" (Roth et al., 2002a, p. 17) to adopt strategies necessary for effectively teaching science in urban classrooms.During this period, cogenerative dialogue served as a communication method between teachers to enhance their practice.Subsequently, Roth et al. (2002a) placed a significant emphasis on a model that paired coteaching and cogenerative dialogue.Further research by Roth and Tobin (2002) and Tobin and Roth (2005) explored the utility and rationale of coteaching and cogenerative dialogue in science teacher education.In the second decade of cogenerative dialogue research, Bayne (2013) also highlighted cases where student researchers taught each other as a form of coteaching, underscoring the diversification of coteaching contexts.

5.7.4
Duration of Cogenerative Dialogue Participation The duration of participation in cogenerative dialogues ranges from as short as 1-2 weeks to over 1 year or more.Dialogues were conducted irregularly or regularly within the duration.Table 13 shows the results of an analysis of the duration over which cogenerative dialogues were conducted.
The analysis of cogenerative dialogue participation duration revealed that studies extending beyond 1 year (34.2%) were the most prevalent, followed by those lasting 4-6 months (27.6%), and 7-12 months (25.0%).In the first decade of research, a significant number of studies had program durations exceeding 1 year (19.7%), while in the second half, studies with program durations of 4-6 months became more common (19.7%).Interestingly, throughout both the decades, cogenerative dialogue durations consistently ran for extended periods, with those lasting less than 2 weeks (2.6%) being almost negligible.This observation underscores the fact that a substantial number of studies were conducted with cogenerative dialogues lasting at least 2-3 months.This trend aligns with cogenerative dialogue's research focus, which primarily seeks to explore more enduring educational effects rather than short-term impacts.

Current Research and Implications
In this study, our primary objective was to conduct a comprehensive analysis of publications utilizing cogenerative dialogue in both English and Korean from 2001 to 2022.Our aim was to discern the evolving trends in science education research over this 22-year period and to draw meaningful conclusions and insights.

Prolonged Research Engagement with Limited Reach
Our findings suggest a consistent trajectory of research employing cogenerative dialogue spanning over 2 decades.However, it is noteworthy that its utilization has remained somewhat confined, both in terms of geographical reach and the pool of researchers involved.Furthermore, despite studies highlighting cogenerative dialogue's efficacy in enhancing classroom practices (Beltramo, 2021;Hsu & Liao, 2018;LaVan, 2004), its application has predominantly been limited to use by university-based researchers and teachers as researchers, with limited penetration into elementary and secondary educational settings.The potential for broader adoption exists, and it can be achieved by developing models that enhance classroom execution through cogenerative dialogue in K-12 school contexts.Pre-service teacher education and education policy design represent key avenues for the dissemination of such models.

Focus on Teacher Education to an Expanding Horizon
The majority of studies, including pioneering works such as Roth et al. (2002a) initially concentrated on pre-service science teacher education.Early on, cogenerative dialogue was integrated with coteaching within these contexts, aimed at supporting teacher practices and enhancing their professionalism throughout pre-service teacher training.Nevertheless, the research in the last decade unveiled a pronounced shift towards research involving students.This expansion underscores cogenerative dialogue's adaptability and the potential for further research on students in the future.

6.3
Cogenerative Dialogue as a Versatile Qualitative Research Tool Cogenerative dialogue has predominantly been employed as a qualitative research method, underscoring its efficacy as a powerful tool from a sociocultural perspective.In the study by Nam (2019), its role was extended to fostering engagement between researchers and research participants in the qualitative research process.During the second decade examined in this study, we noted instances where cogenerative dialogue was strategically employed in conjunction with other teaching methods to enhance learning outcomes.For example, Hsu (2020) effectively harnessed cogenerative dialogue to address issues arising from project-based learning, showing its possibility to enrich the student experience within a learner-centered, authentic learning environment such as project-based learning.While qualitative research methods align seamlessly with cogenerative dialogue, our findings underscore the growing need for heightened engagement with quantitative and mixed research approaches.Quantitative studies provide a concrete basis for gauging the impact of cogenerative dialogue on teaching and learning outcomes, thereby expanding the methodological repertoire for cogenerative dialogue research.

6.4
Inclusivity and Impact on Marginalized Learners One of the most striking findings of our review of the literature was our recognition of cogenerative dialogue's potential to amplify the voices of Downloaded from Brill.com 06/18/2024 05:39:09AM via Open Access.This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 license.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/marginalized learners and to drive improvements in science learning environments.Extensive research has been conducted concerning special education needs (SEN) students and other marginalized student populations, demonstrating the benefits of cogenerative dialogue with these students.However, our analysis revealed an increase in research involving general education students in the last decade, indicating that cogenerative dialogue's efficacy can be extended beyond underprivileged students to encompass general education and even elementary school students.Cogenerative dialogue emerges as a powerful tool, not only in terms of research methodologies but also in dismantling the traditional subject-object asymmetry, thus bringing forth the perspectives of all stakeholders previously overlooked in conventional educational research.It stands as a potent means for embracing marginalized learners within the sphere of science education.Its applicability extends beyond the United States, where much of the research has been conducted, to a global context.

6.5
Diverse Participation and Varied Program Durations Our analysis highlighted that cogenerative dialogue participants most often consisted of teachers, students, and researchers (including teacher-researchers) across most studies, while group sizes varied depending on the research context, permitting diverse participant combinations.Moreover, our investigation revealed that the majority of cogenerative dialogue research projects used cogenerative dialogue for extensive periods, a characteristic shared with many qualitative research studies.Given that cogenerative dialogue serves as an intervention within the sociocultural context of instructors and learners, it is understandable that many studies opted for prolonged cogenerative dialogue implementations.This aligns with cogenerative dialogue's overarching objectives, which encompass changes in the educational environment and the exploration and resolution of contradictions (Hsu & Liao, 2018;Roth et al., 2002b;Roth et al., 2004;Roth & Tobin, 2002).

Towards an Expanding Research Landscape
While our study focused on cogenerative dialogue research within the field of science education, it is important to recognize its potential applicability in other educational domains.This potential arises from the prevailing qualitative approach in recent educational research and the adaptability of the sociocultural perspective.Cogenerative dialogue has proven to be a potent tool for qualitative research, offering an essential perspective and a versatile instrument capable of accommodating various learners and stakeholders within diverse educational contexts.Our systematic literature review serves as a valuable resource for researchers as they navigate the expanding landscape of cogenerative dialogue research in the field of science education, reaffirming that related research continues to accumulate steadily.
Research using cogenerative dialogue in the context of science education within the Asia-Pacific region has been relatively limited, with only a few countries, including Korea, having undertaken such studies.Consequently, there is a clear need for further research across a range of Asian countries.
Cogenerative dialogue has the potential to serve as an effective tool for establishing a new educational paradigm in the field.Korea's national curriculum and educational policies are gradually shifting towards a learner-centered educational paradigm.However, these policies often lack explicit guidelines on how to transition from instructor-centered to learner-centered science classes.As demonstrated in this study, cogenerative dialogue offers a valuable means to transcend the subject-object relationship of traditional teacher-student relationship in science education.Consequently, further studies should be conducted to validate its effectiveness, starting from the pre-service teacher training and teacher education program in Korea.Building upon these studies, the integration of cogenerative dialogue can be more systematically incorporated into educational policy design and teacher training program.
According to statistics from the Ministry of Education, the number of multicultural students in Korea has shown a consistent increase of over 10,000 annually in the past five years, largely due to rising rates of international marriages and foreign families (Ministry of Education, 2022).While the trend of multiculturalism is global, policies regarding multicultural education in Korea have traditionally focused on children resulting from marriages between Korean nationals and non-Korean immigrants, reflecting the country's historical emphasis on a singular racial identity (Kim, 2017).However, as noted earlier, there is a growing recognition that the concept of multicultural families is expanding to encompass a broader spectrum, including children from families of non-Korean immigrants, as well as North Korean refugees and their families.Consequently, various policies have been advocated to ensure the educational rights of multicultural students (Park & Lee, 2023).Additionally, research on multicultural students and multicultural education within the field of education has seen a general increase.
As demonstrated in this study, sociocultural tools such as cogenerative dialogue can offer valuable support for teachers serving the needs of a growing population of multicultural students in Korea experienced by various racial, cultural, and linguistic minority groups in the U S , where the majority of cogenerative dialogue research has been conducted.Multicultural students remain a minority within the Korean educational landscape, and their learning experiences are likely different from those of Korean students as revealed in existing studies (see Kang & Martin, 2018;Ahn, et al., 2016).Therefore, practical methodologies such as cogenerative dialogue should be widely implemented to comprehend the sociocultural backgrounds and challenges faced by multicultural students in science learning, thereby fostering an inclusive learning environment to prevent their disengagement from science education.
Taking cues from cogenerative dialogue studies conducted in North America, cogenerative dialogue holds promise for instigating positive changes in the field of science education in Korea and the broader Asia-Pacific region, thereby contributing to the realization of inclusive science education for all.

Ethical Consideration
The data reported in this study does not require human subjects' approval.

About the Authors
Seong Heui Baek is a researcher at the Center for Educational Research at Seoul National University in Seoul, Republic of Korea.She holds a doctoral degree in Environmental Education from Seoul National University.Currently, she is also working as an elementary school teacher.Her research focuses on various themes, including climate change education, action competence, the development of environmental education programs, and STEAM education programs.
Yoon Hee Ha is a science teacher at a secondary school in Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.She is a researcher at the Center for Educational Research at Seoul National University in Seoul, Republic of Korea.She holds a bachelor's degree in science education from Ewha Womans University and a master's degree and a doctorate in science education from Seoul National University.Her research focuses on climate change education, the practice of science teachers, and the applicability of theories in science and technology studies such as Actor-Network Theory to science education.
10.1163/23641177-bja10074 | ASIA-PACIFIC SCIENCE EDUCATION (2024) 1-50 dialogue research over the period from 2001 to 2022, and what factors may have contributed to these changes?3. What are the implications of the observed trends and diversity in cogenerative dialogue research that have been identified in this study for the advancement of science education research within the Korean context and more broadly in the Asia-Pacific region?

Figure 2
Figure 2 Key articles with active connections

Table 2 )
. The peak in publications, totaling 12 papers, was observed in 2007.Papers published between

Table 9
Studies by participants in cogenerative dialogue Group Formation for Cogenerative DialogueThe composition of a cogenerative dialogue group describes the number of participants during the cogenerative dialogue.The results are presented in Table10.