participating in discussion and doing, as well as learning through working on knowledge artefacts (learning through knowledge creation) and through inquiring into authentic problems. Additional many of these leaners were empowered through their development of a learning intervention that, despite not being a requirement, were implemented during or after the course. Learners raised numerous challenges they faced in these courses, but many eventually saw the value of being challenged by questions, the implicit structure of the courses, the need for a paradigm shift, the need to prepare for the lesson, and for CSCL & KB, the need to post notes that are meaningful to others.
5.7. Challenges faced by learners and the educators Learners raised several surprises and challenges they faced in these courses that were designed and taught using a dialogical teaching approach. In both courses, these challenges included: a. The radical departure from the traditional lectures; b. The “lack of structure” of the course; c. The unpredictability and emerging nature of the discourse; d. The sheer amount of work needed, including the readings; e. The different expectations and roles they were expected to undertake; f.
The level of difficulty in identifying and naming a workplace learning problem (WPL&P);
g. The competition to post notes recognised by peers (CSCL & KB); h. The anxiety of waiting for responses in the asynchronous online forum (CSCL & KB) ); and i.
The stress of being assessed on group construction (which is not predictable) (CSCL & KB).
Several reasons could be used to explain these perceptions: (a) the cognitive dissonance of experiencing a new script about doing a formal course; (b) learners’ view about learning (epistemology); (c) their identities as a learner, and (d) their views about the legitimate roles of the educator and learner. These factors are related, for example, how learners view learning is likely related to their views about the roles of educators and learners. Despite these challenges, the above discussion shows that through iterative opportunities of experiencing and knowledge building, most students eventually appreciated the values of such an approach, deepened their knowledge and even changed their identities as learners. Turning our attention to the educators, facilitating dialogic teaching calls for a fine balancing act (see Tan & Ku, 2014), that includes making decisions about:
Being the only ‘voice’ that structures the knowledge, compared to providing iterative opportunities for learners to take on this responsibility;
The degree of scaffolding to provide
Handing over control to and empowering students yet retaining enough control
74
