Cogenerative Dialogue's Communicative Effectiveness in Higher Education Entry-Level College Courses

Cogenerative dialogue is defined as a form of structured discourse in which teachers and students engage in a collaborative effort to help identify and implement positive changes in a classroom’s teaching and learning practices (Martin, 2006, p. 694). For this thesis, cogenerative dialogue will be posited as the pedagogical practice that encourages instructors and students to share the responsibility in an active learning environment, thereby granting students in entry-level higher education courses a voice in their education. Analyzing the research data on cogenerative dialogue primarily in K12 classrooms where significant research has been compiled, as well as focusing on texts regarding first-year college students and literature pertaining to communication sub-theories, I created a model framework using grounded theory to guide instructors in higher education entry-level courses to successfully implement cogenerative dialogue in their classrooms.

. Evolution of dialogue (Isaacs, 1993;  Courses" is a response to the absence of research on cogenerative dialogue between K-12 and higher education. As a pedagogical trend emphasized in this decade, cogenerative dialogue as a framework encourages educators to develop lesson plans that emphasize opportunities for students to speak during the class and help the instructor construct her or his own syllabus. As a graduate instructor of an entry-level course in communication studies at the University of Rhode Island I became interested in cogenerative dialogue as an approach to emphasize students' autonomy in the classroom. While scholarship on cogenerative dialogue in K-12 settings has become prevalent within the past decade, research on this practice in higher education has been limited. Although there might be instructors practicing cogenerative dialogue in higher education, their work might not be recorded in research, which would provide a systematic framework for other instructors. In order to provide a coherent model of cogenerative dialogue that can be utilized in entry-level courses it is helpful to analyze the scholarship in K-12 settings to understand how the practice can inform all instructors interested in encouraging student participation. This thesis will focus primarily on instruction, thinking about important teaching methods that are used to achieve higher student performance in general, which is not limited to one explicit "version" of cogenerative dialogue. It cannot be ignored then, that there are several theories contributing to the success of cogenerative dialogue, such as autonomy, power sharing, meta-cognition, and cooperative group learning. These sub-models will be defined throughout the thesis as they pertain to particular sections of this work as components within the framework that support the application and continued practice of this model. In addition to the sub-components of cogenerative dialogue, I realized the presence of communication techniques already studied and incorporated into cogenerative dialogue scholarship including nonverbal communication (voice qualities, gestures, proxemics, eye contact), as well as identity, self-disclosure, uncertainty reduction, small group and interpersonal communication. These nonverbal components directed my research for entry-level college students, seeking to improve their learning experiences. This thesis uses model building as an inductive approach method to build upon previous research in the field. Rather than ignoring the results of cogenerative dialogue in secondary education settings, this project will use that research as a framework, which could have an impact on college classrooms. This model is intended as a guideline for instructors and may be adjusted as necessary for each unique group of students. Taking into consideration that what we might observe in the research in K-12 settings might not immediately match up with the experience of higher education instructors, grounded theory allows more room for interpretation but also, a creative process of production. The project needs to be innovative, however, it will be borrowing from eclectic sources in order to pull together a concise framework that will be applicable to higher education courses. Instructors can adopt this practice by borrowing sections of this framework that applies directly to their own classroom. CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

DEFINING COGENERATIVE DIALOGUE
Returning to the origin of the practice cogenerative dialogue is pertinent to our understanding why cogenerative dialogue is necessary as a pedagogical practice. The practice began in a different context when David Bohm, an American physicist, conducted research to offer his own model of organizational communication. Bohm proposed a model of communication that would encourage participants to pay attention to the implicit psychological tensions, thoughts, and feelings that occur during a dialogue (Bohm, 1996). Focusing on memory and disembodied communication, Bohm's model encourages participants to consider past experiences in communication with others to think about new modalities of shared experience.
How can the individual reflect on communicative practices in such a way that they are able to determine new modes of creatively expressing themselves to the other while reflecting on the influence the dialogue has upon one's own psychology and interior experience? Bohm believed that if individuals slow down the thought process throughout dialogue it would provide a novel awareness of the participants in speech, making communicators more affective in the future. Bohm believed that this process could be achieved if one paid attention to two modes of thinking while communicating to another person. Those two processes he writes are what he calls suspension and proprioception of thought (1996). Without one element of this model the other would not be possible, without the suspension in speech slowing down the conversation to think about the transaction as it occurs the subsequent aspect of this model proprioception cannot occur. Bohm believes that in order to listen mindfully to yourself and the other person these two terms would enable the participant to approach the conversation in a completely new manner. The participant would be integrally interested in the conversation as well as being attuned to their psychological and physical response to the topic of conversation (Bohm, 1996, p. 25).
Building on Bohm's concept of generative dialogue, William Isaacs built his own model which is described in Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together. Isaacs' theory addresses the strengths and limitations of Bohm's model and re-contextualizes this mode of discourse within a broader series of conversational stages showing the evolution of dialogue (Isaacs, 1996, p. 29). Rather than focusing on the two processes through which Bohm argued communication practices could be improved, Isaacs breaks down his philosophy into four sections. These sections are denoted as instability of the container, instability in the container, inquiry in the container, and creativity in the container (Isaacs, 1996, p. 38), which can be seen in Figure 1.1. In the earlier stages of the conversation the metaphoric aspect of the 'Container' denotes a space that supports participants that might be having trouble communicating. As the conversation makes progress, the participant engages in the process of suspension suggested by Bohm, retarding the process of speech so that the participants can listen and speak more mindfully. This leads individuals to the final stage akin to Bohm's model, however, Isaacs calls this the 'creativity in the container' which is the moment of the conversation when new insights and understandings between the participants arise (Isaacs, 1996, p. 38).  (Isaacs, 1996, p.6).
Cogenerative dialogue has truly been an evolutionary development. There hasn't been one model of cogenerative dialogue that sufficed for the whole project. Rather around the time that these aforementioned authors were discovering their theories of dialogue, Nichol (2005) described how theories of dialogue were heavily contentious theories. When Scharmer decided to take up the challenge of cogenerative dialogue following the ideas of both Bohm and Isaacs, his model of generative dialogue (Scharmer, 2000(Scharmer, , 2003 outlines the movement of conversation. His model moves counterclockwise from "talking nice" which includes mindful listening and reenacting the speech of the other participant. If the person who listens repeats back to the person speaking what they have said, this demonstrates, for Scharmer, an effective listener.
The next focus point of the dialogue is "talking tough," which is the space where the individual can become an assertive speaker. Someone who projects her or his point of view unashamedly is operating in this category of "talking tough" which requires a fair amount of internal decision making at the time of speech, the speaker must decide why what she or he is saying is of value. Next for Scharmer is "reflective dialogue" which is a moment that enables that speaker to change her or his view, shown in figure 1.2. Simultaneously, the listener is considering the perspective of this speaker, this mode of listening would be considered empathic when the listener places their attention upon the perspective of the speaker. The last moment of the dialogue according to this model is "generative dialogue." This consists of being present in the flow of dialogue, when the listener and speaker take time and space into consideration.
There is more attention placed upon how one conducts her or his speech so as to effectively attract the listener to what one is saying. This model appears to be the holistic development of both Bohm's and Isaacs' proposals because this model intends to show how individuals can think and learn together; it is a collective social model that wants to discover how speakers and listeners actually communicate. Scharmer takes advantage of previous research to develop these critical categories, which contribute to our conception of generative dialogue.  (Scharmer, 2003, p.46) The theory of generative dialogue helped insinuate advanced models and characteristics of coteaching and cogenerative dialogue were developed. In "Learning to Teach Through Coteaching and Cogenerative Dialogue," Kenneth Tobin defines cogenerative dialogue as multiple activities in which a small number of students and their coteachers review evidence from a recent class and "cogenerate" collective resolutions regarding new rules for the class, changes in teacher and student roles, and responsibility for accomplishing changes (Tobin, 2006). Coteaching creates an array of practices affording both the student and the instructor the opportunity to learn from one another. Cogenerative dialogues identify and resolve contradictions, creating a consensus among the coteachers and the participating students on how learning environments can be improved. LaVan and Beers (2005) suggest that cogenerative dialogues are democratic discussions that include every participant granting them an equal opportunity to share their ideas. Participating in coteaching discussions also enabled teachers to become aware of explicit and implicit aspects of their own teaching (Tobin, Zurbano, Ford, & Carambo, 2003). The foundational principle of this collective work is co-respect. The instructors who chose to use this model must view all participants as a peer, and each person should have the opportunity to provide valuable insight and knowledge that will improve the group's coteaching process.
Additionally, successful coteaching requires shared responsibility. Shared responsibility occurs when each participant in the classroom, both teacher and student assumes responsibility for all aspects of the classroom: the instruction, other students, and the teaching and learning outcomes.

COMMUNICATION WITH COGENERATIVE DIALOGUE
Communication practices are absolutely essential to guarantee the success of cogenerative dialogues in classrooms. In Learning to Teach Through Coteaching and Cogenerative Dialogue, Kenneth Tobin uses the example of Lisa and Jeannie who are co-teaching key concepts and main ideas of a class. The roles of the students show not only how co-teaching and cogenerative dialogues can be effective, but also how communication aspects play a harmonizing role in co-teaching and cogenerative dialogue.
An example of the application of communication strategies in co-teaching was given in Tobin's article. Tobin writes, Lisa assumes a central role in reviewing key concepts, writing the main ideas on a centrally located chalkboard, and walking students through the daily handout.
Lisa moves among the students and with shrill voice and animated gestures, she asks questions that require students to locate information in the summary handout and call out the answers in a chorus. The activity is lively, noisy, and most students are continuously involved. Jeannie moves around the classroom, refocusing inattentive students and, as necessary, clarifying any of Lisa's explanations and questions before confusion arises. Occasionally Jeannie steps forward to emphasize and elaborate content she regards as important. Jeannie's roles complement Lisa's and together they provide students with access to teaching that is coordinated and mutually enhancing. The request for a turn at teaching is signaled from one co-teacher to the other verbally or non-verbally, often through hand gestures, facial expressions, head nods, and eye contact" (Tobin, 2006, p. 134).
Tobin's example suggests the importance of collaboration throughout the process of cogenerative dialogue. The dialogue does not include only verbal communication, which is of course central to the process, but it also considers how the movement of the instructor around the classroom as well as their gestures and posture influence the work ethic of their students. This is considerably important when we consider how an instructor's motion, gesture, and expression can have an effect on students of diverse backgrounds who might perceive the actions of the instructor differently than their peers. The challenge of using communicative practices such as motion and gesture in the classroom is the challenge presented by accommodating the diverse perspective of students. This is a humbling challenge, but a challenge for instructors that has to be addressed because of its reality within classrooms. Tobin provides evidence to suggest that it should be a priority for instructors to consider the diversity of the students she or he will be working with. Tobin writes, Students, teachers, and other participants that include teacher, educators and researchers learn to talk, listen, and learn from one another across such boundaries as age, gender, ethnicity, and social class (Tobin, 2006, p. 135).
When the instructor recognizes cogenerative dialogue as a practice that could be adapted in their classroom, she or he must be cautious and cognizant of the impact that this practice might have upon her or his students because of their respective gender, age, and ethnicity. Research on cogenerative dialogue in K-12 settings is fruitful because much of this work has been conducted in multi-cultural, low-income classrooms where the population of students is akin to college classrooms rather than homogenized academic spaces. Power stance, for example, is used frequently in cogenerative dialogue. This practice influences whether or not students feel comfortable having a voice and voicing their thoughts without feeling unequal with their instructor. We witness this in the example provided by Tobin of the two teachers who are conscious of their position in relation to the class. Tobin notes, "During this dialogue the teachers are attentive to what the students say and they interact with them as equals. There is no hint of any of the participants having a privileged voice" (2006, p. 135).
The spatiality or proxemics of a classroom affects how the dialogue may be effectively administered. If students are looking at the back of each others' heads and cannot see each other well, or the room is cramped and unorganized it may reflect students' opinions of the classroom as well as their participation in this dialogue. As Tobin observes, "The dialogue among the participants acknowledges that the physical layout of the classroom precludes an easy solution" (2006, p. 140).
Features of communication are heavily relied upon as effective factors that must be regularly practiced by instructors to continuously enhance the role they play in the classroom as well as their student's performance.

DEFINING AUTONOMY
Reflection on student autonomy in higher education classrooms established an initial bridge, connecting instructor-directed learning with the concept of cogenerative dialogue. Autonomy can be viewed as a student taking control of their own learning.
Autonomy is a key component of cogenerative dialogue and plays a role in its ultimate function and effectiveness. Previous studies explaining autonomy in higher education classrooms provide validation of its importance as a pedagogical strategy. In

Enhancing Students' Engagement by Increasing Teachers' Autonomy Support:
Motivation and Emotion, Autonomy Supportive Instruction (ASI) is described as a pedagogical strategy in which specific teacher behaviors and classroom structures are used to encourage student autonomy, and have been shown to increase engagement (Jang, Reeve, & Deci, 2010), and such engagement enables students to persist throughout a program of study (Clabaugh, 2013).
Establishing a relationship with students has been shown to be of utmost importance to benefitting the learning experience of students. By instructors using autonomy to build a relationship with students, the students may feel a deeper connection and motivation to the course. An instructor's pedagogical method can be described as either supportive of student autonomy or authoritative based on whether the chosen teaching strategies encourage or undermine students' intrinsic motivation (Ryan, & Deci, 2000). As shown by Dionne Clabaugh in "Increasing Community College Basic Skills English Instructors use of Autonomy Supportive Instruction to Impact Students Perceptions of Autonomy and Engagement" studies have shown that when teachers continue to support student autonomy, students were more engaged (Clabaugh, 2013, p. 53). In contrast, controlling teachers appear to rely heavily on external motivators such as rewards, enforced compliance, or pressuring statements, which can reduce students' volition and engagement. Control-orientated instruction was found to hinder engagement because authoritative professionals rely on external motivators (such as extra credit points) and pressure (such as comments that working harder leads to better grades), to control student behavior (Vansteenkiste & Simmons, 2005). ASI leads student to have faith in their own competence and increases their intrinsic motivation to reach their goals and objectives (Clabaugh, 2003) thereby increasing their engagement and fulfilling one aspect of introducing cogenerative dialogue into their classroom.

Similarly, Jeffrey Perrin, in "Features of Engaging and Empowering Experiential
Learning Programs for College Students" speaks about learner autonomy (Perrin, 2014). The research shows that autonomy is developed when students demonstrate perseverance while finding resources and new learning experiences. Ryan and Deci (2000) believe that if students embrace autonomy as a critical practice of scholarship they will have a simpler experience pursuing their interests as well as thinking about why it is important to be an autonomous learner (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Autonomy is connected to cogenerative dialogue through the practice of breaking down topic ideas to provide outside perspectives. If students are intrinsically motivated to learn it seems that they might have more opportunities to connect with their instructor as well as their peers about the material. Perrin demonstrates how "This skill is developed through a guided practice that lets students question, analyze and synthesize information by challenging their understanding of concepts and organizational structures" (Perrin, 2014, p. 6). For students to be completely immersed in the classroom it seems that they have to have this conventional type of support that constantly reflects on the power dynamics within the room, analyzing how students are using their voices to increase participation but primarily, their engagement.
Previous scholarship has indicated how learning environments that support autonomous learning have a connection with students who are more engaged in the content of the course (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987). Research in K-12 settings has demonstrated specifically the effect that teaching practices focusing on student autonomy have upon test scores. Using the research on autonomous teaching practices in the K-12 classroom as a framework to develop perspective for both prospective and veteran instructors, it seems that we can incorporate these strategies into the entrylevel college classroom. As a contingent process that helps students transition from high school to college, this process will reflect the suggestions made by Vansteenkiste, Lens, Sheldon, and Deci (2006), which claims that learning environments supporting an increase of student autonomy will also improve student persistence, depth of processing, and test performance.

DEFINING POWERSHARING
Many students in higher education classrooms seem to be disempowered. They have little to no choice in classroom decisions such as the following: assignment choices, classroom policies, and assessments. Mary Ellen Weimer's Sharing Power in the Classroom is a testament to the idea of students being repressed in educational settings. Weimer writes, "Teacher authority in educational contexts has become the expectation, creating both dependent, unmotivated learners as well as teacher who are unaware of the extent of control they exert in the classroom" (Weimer, 2002, p. 8).
Weimer's explanation of the negligence of one's power as an instructor is of practical importance because if it is emphasized instructors might begin to take time to reflect upon their control of the course, and therefore, of their students' opinions and performance. There is a degree of testability with cogenerative dialogue, one that allows instructors to try different methods within the frame of cogenerative work to see which model works most effectively for their students as opposed to others.
Participating instructors might discover that "cogenerative dialogue is based on the understanding and ideology that one needs to articulate and explain personal experiences through collective understanding and activities and identify and review practices that are unintended and unconscious, while discussing the power relationships and the roles of the participants" (Gallo-Fox, Scantlebury, Wassell, Juck, & Gleason, 2005, pp. 27-29).
This research demonstrates how power sharing in the classroom creates a culture centered around students wherein the instructor becomes a mediator. Classroom lessons, assignments, policies, and assessments are guided by the pupil's input, which has been shown to encourage student motivation and engagement (Emdin, 2006).

DEFINING METACOGNITION
Classrooms that chose to implement cogenerative dialogue often become concerned with the phenomenon of metacognition (Flavell, 1976). Flavell defined metacognition in 1976 as "Knowledge concerning one's own cognitive processes and products or anything related to them" (p. 232). Metacognition as a reflective practice appears to influence both student and teacher satisfaction in the class (Flavell, 1976, p. 232). In the classroom setting, metacognitive reflection requires "Students (to) develop a plan for learning and content, monitor their learning process through reflection, and adjust their plan accordingly ("self-regulate") in order to ensure deeper, more durable, and more transferable learning" (Wardeska, McGuire, & Cook, 2014, p. 48). (2009) consulted with students to understand why metacognition is crucial for improvement in student satisfaction with their courses.

Hoffman and McGuire
The authors suggest, "It is crucial to introduce them to metacognitive learning strategies thereby giving them the opportunity to self-regulate" (p. 1204). This model not only aspires to encourage students to adapt metacognition as a tool for their own reflective process, this process also involves the instructor. If both the students and the instructor apply metacognition in the context of the classroom, this could provide ample opportunity for curriculum development, as well as overall satisfaction with the course and learning, in general. When both students and instructors think collectively about the strategies implemented in the classroom they produce tangible evidence regarding the success of the class. They also can point out challenges that made it harder to learn. Using metacognition as an analytical strategy to assess student and instructor performance as well as deciding how the course could be amended in the future might help reconstruct the classroom to avoid these challenges in subsequent classrooms and provide students with more opportunities t thrive. If communication between student and instructor is absent at the end of the semester, the instructor might not have the opportunity to provide valuable reconstructions of the syllabus for the future.

DEFINING COOPERATIVE GROUP LEARNING
Rather than emphasizing the instructor's role as a teacher, that is, someone who transposes knowledge upon someone else with less experience or time in school, Johnson and Johnson (1994) suggest that faculty members might begin to think about teaching strategies in a radically different way. The authors believe that if the instructor desires techniques through which they could reform their syllabus, they might consider stepping back from their role as pedagogue and considering how to design more articulate learning experiments that could encourage their students to be present in the classroom and receptive to the material. Such experiments can be found in the critical work discovered under the umbrella term cooperative learning. Johnson and Johnson believe, Cooperative learning is the instructional use of small groups so that students work together to maximize their own and each other's learning. It may be contrasted with competitive (students work against each other to achieve san academic goal such as a grade of "A" that only one or a few students can attain) and individualism (students work by themselves to accomplish learning goals unrelated to those of the other students) learning (Johnson & Johnson, 2013, p. 3).
Highly structured cooperative learning allows students to develop their own understanding of key concepts in the classroom while encouraging and assisting others (Johnson & Johnson, 2013, pp. 3-4). This research demonstrates how the benefits of cooperative learning in college classrooms fall into two categories: academic benefits and social-emotional benefits.
Academic benefits and social-emotional benefits are both achieved through actual performance in the classroom. Students would have to make connections with other students and an instructor to have the experience of gaining social and emotional values. Jones (2008) suggests that individuals are more likely to learn if they are given the opportunity to perform tasks. Throughout the process of the task, the student is required to think critically about the material they are working with and to absorb this knowledge so it might be generalized in real-life scenarios. In a cooperative learning environment, students simultaneously present their understanding of the work to their peers while their peers can provider immediate feedback.
As  also describe in their work, promotive face-to-face interaction is a foundational component to cooperative learning. The result of positive interdependence, promotive face-to-face interaction occurs when students are given time in class to discuss, ask questions, and support each other in the completion of their task. Students must understand that it is not only the final product that matters in cooperative learning but also the ongoing dialogue process that is a critical part of their success. Promotive interaction is an essential part of establishing cooperative learning because face-to-face interaction provides the critical verbal and non-verbal feedback needed for group success .

METHODOLOGY/JUSTIFICATION OF STUDY
Based on the teaching practice of cogenerative dialogue outlined in chapter 2, I propose that this model could increase effective communication that will reconstruct syllabi in entry-level courses. To achieve this objective, model building framework was an appropriate methodological approach for this project. This inductive method required a careful analysis of previous scholarship in the field that scholars might build upon to construct a new model, This study will focus on literature from K-12 settings on cogenerative dialogue, research previously conducted on cogenerative dialogue in higher education, first-year college students, and components of thinking and communication in the classroom such as: metacognition, cooperative group learning, power sharing, and autonomy. My argument is that cogenerative dialogue could be an effective method of instruction in entry-level higher education courses based on previous results supported in literature. I also would like to open the field to consider the importance of investigations regarding the utilization of cogenerative dialogue in higher education settings.
Using existing literature, I will create, discover, and contribute a preliminary framework for higher education instructors to implement within their classrooms. The focal text for this thesis, Teaching First-Year College Students, by Bette Erickson, Calvin Peters, and Diane Strommer (2006) creates a link between previous literature on cogenerative dialogue and first-year college students in entry-level courses. This chapter specifically focuses on how bridging theories like meta-cognition, cooperative group learning, power sharing, autonomy, and aspects of instructor and student communication can enable a certain type of productivity within entry level courses.
Through grounded theory, this project will use components of this text to support a new model of cogenerative dialogue that would be the most effective for students.
I used this inductive approach as a collective research method; one that examines previous scholarship in a particular field in order to productively combine this literature and produce a new framework. Using an inductive approach, I collected and analyzed data to create a focused model of cogenerative dialogue in higher education entry-level college courses opening the field to further research. An inductive approach was utilized because of the lack of literature currently in the academic archive regarding cogenerative dialogue in higher education courses. To resolve this issue, I created a framework for higher education instructors to follow for implementation in their courses. The model is based on trial and error procedures, which encourage instructors to use the model as a base and to test multiple aspects of cogenerative dialogue to understand which aspects will be most effective for their mutable classroom dynamics. Since the model will be a preliminary, it is open to changes tailored to the specific subject matter and instructor and students needs.
Therefore, I will be examining the positive results of a cogenerative dialogue model from K-12 literature and others previously mentioned to contribute a novel framework of cogenerative dialogue in higher education courses.

JUSTIFFICATION OF STUDY
Few, if any, studies can be found referencing cogenerative dialogue in higher education's entry-level courses. There is significant research, however, in K-12 settings, and that research reveals positive results of improved learning and student satisfaction, especially in secondary education settings. If studies demonstrate the effectiveness of cogenerative dialogue in high school classrooms, then it should be appropriate to examine these practices on the level of instruction to think about how carrying this process over for students from high school to entry level college courses will be effective to maintain a contingency in student performance. Rather than disrupting a contingency that places much stress on the transitioning high school student, this model will also effectively combat that tension to produce positive effects on students' reception to and performance in entry-level courses. Erickson et al. conducted research on the rigorous control and pace of the college course and the experience of the entry-level student, noting, The conduct and pace of a typical college course is something with which we are intimately familiar, and so it is difficult for us to recall any longer how stark the contrast is between the routinized curriculum of the secondary school and the more idiosyncratic character of the college classroom. But students notice it right away. Their courses are larger and seem less personal; the structure is looser and the support less evident; expectations seem less clear and evaluation less frequent. Given the abruptness of these changes-it is important to remember that there is no real transition from high school to college, only a stopping and a starting it is not surprising that many first-year students' initial concerns revolve around the course load and the work it entrails (Erickson, et al., 2006, p. 8).
Based on literature in the field, researchers and teachers have suggested that students are encountering active learning strategies more often in high school settings. This means that more students will typically expect the same type or a relative type of instruction in college settings to increase their performativity and role in the classroom. Erickson et al. claim, The accumulation of lecture after lecture in course after course often leaves students at a loss to understand how class time contributes anything to their learning except more notes to master before the next exam (Erickson, et al., 2006, p. 10).
Examining the major journals in the field suggests there has only been minimal research in higher education supporting cogenerative dialogue as a form of pedagogy.
Rather than ignoring instruction that according to research has been exceedingly productive in secondary educational settings, bringing this method of teaching into the field of higher education will be valuable for teacher and student success in learning specifically in entry-level courses for students entering from high school (Emdin, 2006). Making material available that would encourage instructors to consider expanding their classroom experience, including a collaborative framework such as cogenerative dialogue might improve their relationship with students as well as increase their students' overall happiness in the classroom. Erickson et al., encourage teachers to manage their time effectively, suggesting that, Institutions and their faculties could devote to easing the abrupt change from high school to college, working to hone in study skills, investigating resources to reduce the alienation of large classes, and nurturing sound curricular design and effective instructional practice.
Many institutions are, in fact, doing precisely these things with an eye toward enhancing student success and, not incidentally, reaping the rewards of the higher retention sure to follow (Erickson, et al., 2006, p. 11) The productivity of the cogenerative dialogue relies heavily on communication aspects such as, nonverbal communication (voice qualities, gestures, eye contact, proxemics), identify, self-disclosure, uncertainty reduction, small group, interpersonal communication, gender, ethics, and more. Although literature is available regarding cogenerative dialogue in college, there is no significant research in higher education, specifically entry-level college courses and students. There is also no model framework of cogenerative dialogue for higher education instructors to follow or study in order to implement in their courses. More specifically, there is currently no higher education cogenerative dialogue model telling instructors ideas and suggestions starting from preparation of the course, the first day, all the way through to the last day of classes. first-year college students, which are strikingly similar to the basis of cogenerative dialogue. To further advance the analysis pertaining to cogenerative dialogue in higher education, sub-theories were analyzed such as autonomy, power sharing, metacognition, and cooperative group learning. In this chapter I will show how each subtheory is a link to bridge the theory of cogenerative dialogue in higher education as a whole for first year students.

FIRST YEAR STUDENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
First year students are more complex than one may expect. While an instructor may believe students are a nuisance for asking what seems like many obvious questions, or not seeming like they read, it may be due to the fact that they were never properly taught to do so. An essential fraction of cogenerative dialogue is opening up such conversations to understand what students are confident in doing, and where they may need more guidance. However, that is only a piece of cogenerative dialogue and first year students. We find that first year students have more of an issue adjusting to college than we may presume when they enter our class. George D. Kuh argues in

Student Engagement in the First Year of College that the strangeness of college and
university life to the uninitiated causes first year students to underestimate the challenged they will confront, both in and out of the classroom, and to overestimate their capacity to bring plans and practices in line with the new environment they confront (Kuh, 2005). An instructor of entry-level courses might have students who have never taken a college class before. Focusing on entry-level courses and instruction can be a foundation to how students will learn in their collegiate careers. It is setting a tone motivation, self-reflection, and perspectives that can be transferred with them through the remainder of their academic courses. By implementing this form of dialogue early on in entry-level courses, students will already be prepared for their more targeted and advanced courses in terms of learning success and dialogue. Though it might be frustrating both for the instructor and students who are new to teaching and learning in a completely novel setting, entry-level instruction appears to have an lasting effect upon the rest of the student's success in higher education. The American Diploma Project (2004) claims that it is actually crucial to "hold postsecondary institutions accountable for the academic success of the student they admit-including learning, persistence and degree completion…" (American Diploma Project, 2004, p. 7).
It is evident then, that instructors should be focused primarily on how they execute their pedagogy to increase the amount of entry-level students satisfaction, grade performance, and learning acquisition that follows the student throughout their time in higher education. Erickson et al., suggest, What we think makes most sense is for those who teach first year students to try to devise some means to meet them where they are, academically, intellectually, and emotionally, without abandoning reasonable rigor and appropriately high standards (Erickson, et al., 2006, p. 7).
First year students should feel that the classroom is a space where their needs are attended to, where their opinions are heard, and they are understood despite of the different levels of ability one might notice in a college classroom. This practice, which would be the result of an instructor carefully regulating her or his instruction, is referred to as autonomy of the student and of the instructor. In addition, this method would mediate the power dynamic in the classroom between instructor and students.
The power dynamic in this context is understood as the allowance of students to have a voice that will actually be heard and matter. The next link to autonomy as a practice would be observed when an instructor provides opportunities for students to reflect on their own performance as well as their satisfaction with the class. Students, especially novice students with limited college experience, need to reflect on how they are purporting themselves in the class because they might be pressured academically, intellectually, and emotionally. The students will have to do this type of self-reflection and self-responsibility throughout the semester to guarantee they are being fair to themselves, instructor, and fellow classmates. The instructor equally must be reflective of themselves as an instructor of first year students.
When linking cooperative group learning, this is where it expands on the further bridging to the concept of cogenerative dialogue. Cooperative group learning is the concept of "sink or swim" together as a class. The students help each other accomplish goals, assignments, content, and so on. Incorporated with cogenerative dialogue this sub-theory will also allow students a voice in the assignment, goals, content together, As stated in Teaching First-Year College Students, "although this does not fully meet faculty expectations, it does indicate a significant change in attitude and willingness to try to engage the alien nature of academe on its own terms" (Erickson, et al., 2006, p. 9).

Kenneth Tobin's article "Learning to Teach Through Coteaching and
Cogenerative Dialogue" argues that coteaching is an effective method for implementing cogenerative dialogue within classrooms. The study showed students Lisa and Jeannie co-teaching a chemistry class. Lisa was very enthusiastic, creating lively discussion, a lot of eye contact and hand gestures, examples, and activities.
Whereas Jeannie would come in to clarify areas that students may have questions on, write on the board for notes of what Lisa was saying, and when Lisa was done, review what she felt was most important. Their co-teaching started with co-planning on the lesson and was so fluid that it took small verbal and non-verbal gestures to switch from presenter to presenter. In this instance, the instructor will not interrupt in the lesson unless something vital must be addressed and will wait until after the presenters are done to contribute.
There is also the suggestion for solo-teaching a class. One student will lead the class discussion similar to the co-teaching suggestion, but in this case it is only one student presenting. Again, the student will be responsible for the lesson planning and the instructor will stand or sit to the side and not contribute unless vital at the moment or at the end of the lesson (Gallo-Fox, Scantlebury, Wassell, Juck, & Gleason, 2005).

Janet Moore and Olen Gunnlaugson, in Dialogue Education in the Post-Secondary Classroom: Reflecting on Dialogue Processes From Two Higher
Education Settings in North America (2009), show that teaching students what cogenerative dialogue is from the beginning of the semester and what is expected of them to fulfill the guidelines of cogenerative dialogue. Not only did the researchers teach their students what cogenerative dialogue is, but they also had them ultimately teach the course themselves. The instructors had the students bring in outside speakers that they felt would be relevant to the topic being discussed in class. The students would schedule those speakers, dates, and times they felt relevant on their own. The instructors also stressed the reflective process of learning throughout the semester.
Students and instructors conducted reflections, but they also had students coach one Cogenerative dialogue is truly a collective practice that develops holistically rather than individually, a point that must be stressed in any research claiming to be interested in this model (Martin & Scantlebury, 2009 (Roth & Tobin, 2004).). This model stresses the necessity of collective qualities in the classroom such as respect and rapport between participants both students and instructors. Roth and Tobin also offer techniques or practices to develop stronger communicative practices between student and instructor such as collective discussions, empathic listening, initiation of dialogue, posing critical questions, and evaluating ideas and practices that would ensure academic success. Not only would students who follow this model improve academically in terms of their grade, they might also show developing signs of social-emotional skills that would contribute to the effectiveness of the dialogue within the classroom.

COGENERATIVE DIALOGUE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
With the link of the sub-theories autonomy, power sharing, meta-cognition, cooperative group learning, nonverbal communication, and the definition of cogenerative dialogue, a model of cogenerative dialogue for higher education emerged. Understanding first year college students was a vital component of constructing this model to fit the criteria of higher education.
The model can be set up and constructed through steps of logical order from preparation of the course to the actual course construction based on research from first year college students and K-12 cogenerative dialogue literature. As pictured in Figure   1.3, the model includes the steps to generate cogenerative dialogue in entry-level higher education courses starting from the preparation of the course, to the first day of class, implementing cogenerative dialogue in the classroom, and the process of reflection throughout the semester all noting areas of the sub-theories; autonomy, power sharing, metacognition, cooperative group learning, and nonverbal communication. Before an instructor can enter an entry level course in higher education, she or he must consider the implications of their role. It would seem to be highly problematic for an instructor to walk into the classroom without a plan for their pedagogy. Creating a pedagogical philosophy at the outset of a new course would encourage instructors to develop critical habits that would benefit prospective students. Instructors might begin the process by constructing the syllabus in a way that invites students to participate in dialogue with the instructor and peers. Many students might expect to pass a course if they simply fulfill the fundamental requirements: to come to class, listen to a lecture, outline the section, and take notes for a quiz or test. Ohmer Milton's work, Will That Be On The Final? concludes that undergraduate tests are based primarily on the student's ability to grasp factual information rather than their ability to understand, apply, or evaluate course material (Milton, 1982).
Entry level college students might anticipate sitting down on the first day of classes and receiving a syllabus informing them of what is expected for the semester with rules, guidelines, grading, and assignments for lessons and homework. Students enrolled in entry-level courses are more likely required to take these courses for the general education program at their University. The instructor might increase the students' interest in being in the classroom by asking the students to speak about what they value such as their major, interests, social activities, university clubs, etc., making the course appear more relevant for the students. By making obvious the fact that this course will encompass the student's passions, the students who are already enrolled in the course might become curious about the course material.
Within the syllabus an instructor will also want to state the course goals and objectives-including cogenerative dialogue and its practices within such objectives.
According to Teaching First-Year College Students, statements of course goals should do the following: state what the students will be able to do, not what they course will do; indicate the behavior expected, not the state of mind the students will be in; identify the outcomes of instruction, not the process we employ (Erickson, Peters, & Strommer, 2006, p. 71). By doing these few adjustments to the syllabus, instructors are showing the students that they care for their learning in the class and that their voice in the education matters.
Course outlines, "in most courses, a week-by-week schedule of topics establishes the structure students need while allowing some flexibility for responding to their needs and interest," (Erickson, et al., 2006, p. 76). By responding to students needs, interests, and challenged they may currently be facing academically, an instructor is showing students that their course works with them and for them, not just for the instructor and the university, creating a key part of establishing a relationship within cogenerative dialogue.
The initial assessment of the class is collected after the first meeting of the course. Erickson et al., suggest, "A student's experience of a first class is powerful. A first session that sets an appropriate tone and engages students in the sort of activity that will typify classroom practice can go a long way towards getting a course off on the right foot," (Erickson, et al., 2006, p. 77). The text also suggests that there are practical tips for instructors to start their first day on a better note. The research suggests that instructors should collect information regarding the students' backgrounds to demonstrate an interest in the students. This early preparation for a class can encourage both instructors and students to feel more autonomous. Erickson et al., suggest that by matching students and asking them to interview one another the students begin to empathize with one another and develop the framework for a class that encourages student's opinions (Erickson, et al., 2006, p. 79). Asking questions directly related to their personal interest in correlation with the course can aid in encouraging students to become more engaged in their personal investment of the development of the curriculum in class after the first day. This activity reinforces the student's idea of a welcoming classroom, one that would accept students where they are, including their desire for an appropriate education as they see fit. If the student considers the context of the class in this way, this can lead to metacognitive practices, which Erickson et al., show as having a positive impact on student's performance and satisfaction with the course.

DIALOGUE
When meeting the class on the first day it is also vital to pay attention to the style and tone of preparing the syllabus when addressing it to the class. A syllabus introduces the subject matter, gives a rationale for learning what is to be taught, and motivates students to do their best work. It lays out an organizational framework that indicates major topics, suggests the relationships among them, and reviews the order in which they will be explored. It describes how class meetings are conducted and what students need to do by way of preparation. It spells out how student progress is measured, notes the date when work is due or a test is scheduled, and indicated how final grades are assigned.
An applicable feature of cogenerative dialogue to higher education classrooms is allowing students to have a voice in deciding what they want to see in the classroom content, as well as assignments, due dates, projects, etc. Instructors are allowing them to power share in the course, however there is an extent to which the power is shared where instructors and students do not cross the line of bargaining. As a class this practices the theory of cooperative group learning in cogenerative dialogue. "Once the bargain is struck the opportunity to bridge the gap between first year students and their instructors' expectations with creative instruction, sufficient practice, and appropriate support is squandered" (Erickson, et al., 2006, p. 13).

CLASSROOM
Aside from the importance of how to construct a syllabus and setting the tone, assignments are just as important. An essential part of cogenerative dialogue is open and active discussion involvement in the class. Active engagement in a class is not exactly welcoming to many students who are timid to participate in front of others or may be there just to pass the course. Many students would also rather be told what to write down their notes than discuss a subject and not know exactly what will be on the test. Describing how a typical class will be conducted is an indication for students to participate after the first day and what exactly is expected of them.
A successful practice in cogenerative dialogue is not only the discussion that is integrated but also co-teaching. Co-teaching and co-planning are a way to implement cogenerative dialogue in the classroom and keep it active. Having students co-teach a lesson plan, reading, or chapter with another classmate allows for the students to feel they are empowered and have control of the way the lesson is constructed, taught, and the context it is explained in. This allows students to feel they are connecting it in a way that will make sense to them and their peers in terms of relevancy in their lives outside of the classroom. A way to implement this is to allow students to sign up for a reading, chapter, or lesson that is on the syllabus to co-teach with a partner. This way they are not only becoming comfortable with another student in the class but also with feelings as they are an expert in an area of the class to feel they can have power and a voice. Once they sign up, make sure them and their partner know the dates of the coteaching, the content, and exchange contact information. Part of the process is to co-plan the lesson together smoothly and effectively. For the first few classes however, the instructor should teach, giving the students an example of what to do and how a lesson plan could be set up using various techniques. Giving students a worksheet providing helpful hints and tops for lesson planning, choosing important information, and how to give a lecture for students to understand and take notes can be useful for students, especially since most, if any, have ever co-taught a class before.
Another strategy to promote cogenerative dialogue is to conduct small group sessions during a class time, whether at the start, middle, or end. Grouping students together to discuss issues, ideas, and perspectives on the class, chapter, and even content can help feedback with one another using cooperative group learning, After a few minutes of pair and share with small groups, have the students move to a full class setting to discuss what each group addressed and what they feel is important to cover and ask questions about. This opens the floor to discussion between students again using cooperative group learning, but they are also reflecting on what they know, might not know, and need to know. During the small group pair and share, instructors should also sit level with students so that students do not feel uncomfortable with the looming hierarchy over them. Sitting in a chair, at a desk, incorporated within the class and not at the front of the classroom allows students to feel they are of equal power with the instructor when discussing issues, perspectives, ideas, examples, etc., allowing them to feel their voice was heard.
Allowing students to find outside speakers, guests, and events that are on campus or in the community during the discussion time that they feel is relevant to the subject matter being taught is an example of allowing students to have a voice in what they feel is important in the class to them and giving them a voice in their education. dialogue, evaluating instructors and students throughout the semester would allow researchers to understand the difference between the students and instructor's perspective from the initial class. When students reflect on their work throughout the semester, this practice can keep them aware of their own learning process, needs, and challenges. Not only should the students be reflecting on themselves, but the instructor should also be reflecting on what worked and what was challenging at the end of every class. After reflecting, the instructor should allow students to share what they reflected on if they feel it is important and then create a class discussion addressing these reflections. The instructors should always collect the reflection to review and address notable patterns they may see for the next class.
In the following appendices B through I, reflective models are provided for instructor's use. These models can be adapted for particular classrooms due to the variation of student and instructor experience in higher education. Appendices B, D, F, H, and I are for instructors and models C, E, and G can be used for students.

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION
My findings revealed that there is much more to the area of cogenerative dialogue that can stretch much further than this thesis may contain. For this specific paper however, I looked into components I felt were reoccurring patterns and ideas that were incorporated into cogenerative dialogue. There was also the realization that there needed to be more of an understanding of first-year college students; who they are, what they're like, what they know, how they learn. There was an abundance of positive results from cogenerative dialogue being implemented in K-12 settings, especially within high school classrooms where students will transition next into entry-level college courses. Due to the lack of literature on cogenerative dialogue in higher education, this thesis allowed for a new perspective on cogenerative dialogue in the field of higher education entry-level courses. To easily follow and implement cogenerative dialogue, a model was constructed to help guide higher education instructors from preparing for the class all the way until the last day, showing emphasis to areas they should be aware of. Through my analysis, there was an evident lack of information on autonomy in higher education. Another limitation was that despite an abundance of literature on K-12 cogenerative dialogue, they were mainly science related courses.
The model created from this thesis for higher education professionals is one based on research done in specific areas of cogenerative dialogue and sub-theories.
completely applicable for all instructors, courses or professors and can be adjusted to fit the specific needs and criteria for instructor and class. For the future, the prospect of an expanded model of cogenerative dialogue in higher education for not just entrylevel courses, but all levels also, is one that seems promising. There is the hopefulness that this preliminary, adjustable model will be the starting point of future data that can be elaborated from qualitative literature analysis to studies done within higher education classrooms qualitatively and quantitatively. 13. What could have been more productive in class today?
14. What aspect of your instruction do you think was beneficial for the class?
15. Think about class you taught today. 12. Did your instructor display non-verbal behaviors and teaching styles that did not make you feel welcome, or able to voice your opinion and ideas towards the material?
13. Do you feel you can genuinely connect the material and course to your personal and academic life/career?