5. Rising Above

In this chapter we summarise the findings and expand on and further abstract (rising above) what we learnt from the findings chapters. Rising above is a reference to improving ideas and abstracting at higher levels, the process we undertake in the second part of this chapter – hence out title for the Chapter.

Findings from the cases discussed in the previous two chapters illustrate similar experiences for learners of the dialogical teaching and learning process, both in terms of challenges they experienced, and of their valuing of the dialogical teaching process.

Overall, learners deeply valued the dialogical teaching approach that afforded them the opportunity to clarify, question, interpret, and work with different kinds of evidence to co-construct knowledge amidst multiple perspectives and voices. Developing deep understanding was facilitated through curriculum design and structure that used authentic issues selected by individual students in the case of WPL&P and selected by groups in the case of CSCL&KB. In addition, entwining the learning process with assessment (summative, formative and sustainable assessment) (Bound, Chia & Karmel, 2016), modelling of processes required, scaffolding, the use of mini lectures to provide initial ways of thinking about concepts and how to marry theory and practice were important in developing deep understanding. Paying attention to emergent and deepening meta-cognitive processes involved in dialogical inquiry and knowledge-co-construction processes was facilitated through the use of tools such as the Map of dialogical inquiry and concept mapping where learners could see changes and growth in their understandings and expansion in their ways of thinking overtime. Importantly the changes in identity as learners is a powerful outcome that positions learners well for facing future, unknown challenges.

Challenges experienced by learners were also similar across both cases, with some being specific to the kinds of spaces being used, and that are part of learning to learn in such spaces. The perceived lack of structure was because the teaching and learning processes were new to learners; they did not ‘see’ the structure because they had not previously experienced it and thus did not recognise it as structure. This suggests it would be useful to make the structures more explicitly visible by pointing out the structural elements; for example, the flow of the curriculum, the knitting together of learning and assessment, the use of space, the collection of primary and / or secondary evidence, the IAM processes and so on. The need to apply theoretical constructs as they worked with their authentic problems was perhaps one of the biggest challenges learners experienced. Explicit scaffolding is required to enable learners to marry theory and practice – something the educators have paid specific attention to subsequent runs of the same courses. However, that this was an issue that learners particularly struggled with, highlights the problem of teaching concepts that students only write about in an academic way without being required to apply these concepts. Similarly, confusion caused by multiple voices and perspectives lays bare their previous experience that they specifically commented on, where the demands of previous courses require a particular kind of reproduction, typical of monologic design and facilitation. Such comments along with comments on the amount of work required, including the readings, suggest a high cognitive and thus emotional load for learners as they grapple with much that is different. Sustained experience of dialogical teaching is likely to reap benefits over time as the cognitive load decreases. This suggests that when programs are planned and designed such approaches need to be deliberately woven through the whole program, rather than in single courses.

Despite the challenges and struggles, students valued this approach. Dialogical inquiry and teaching, be it as a total approach or using the various pedagogical techniques, ranging from for example, , using authentic problems, establishing norms of dialogue, questioning, educator throwing questions