26EMPOWERING GLOBAL P4C
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
THROUGH SELF-STUDY
The Philosophy for Children
Hawai‘i International Journaling
and Self-Study Project
Amber Strong Makaiau, Jessica Ching-Sze Wang,
Karen Ragoonaden and Lu Leng

This chapter explores how four international Philosophy for Children (P4C) researchers use
self-study methodologies (Loughran, 2007) to systematically examine the nuanced roles of ateacher facilitator in a philosophy for children Hawai‘i (p4cHI) community of inquiry. It alsooffers sustainable structures for supporting the professional development of P4C teacher educators,
practitioners, and researchers like us. Respectively from the USA, Taiwan, Canada, and China,
we came together in the spring of 2014 to form the p4cHI International Journaling and SelfStudy Project. Inspired by the findings of a recent study that reported on the positive role ofself-study and online journaling in an international p4cHI research collective (Makaiau, Leng &Fukui, 2015), our group was interested in experimenting further with this new direction andmethod in P4C research. We wanted to:
12
34

Expand the culturally responsive international p4cHI research collective that was initiallycreated by Makaiau, Leng, & Fukui (2015);
Explore the role of a p4cHI teacher/facilitator with international partners;
Reflect on the professional and personal impact of belonging to an international researchcollective;
Disseminate and mobilize knowledge relating to the professional development of P4C
teacher educators, practitioners, and researchers.

In this chapter, we recount how the methods of self-study and interactive online journaling
led us to the discovery of emergent pedagogical tensions in our practice as p4cHI teacher/facilitators.
These tensions revolve around reflections arising from our conceptions of the Scholarshipof Teaching and Learning (SoTL). SoTL engages faculty to reflect upon and initiate positive227

Amber Strong Makaiau, Jessica Ching-Sze Wang, Karen Ragoonaden and Lu Lengchanges to curricula and pedagogical practices (Hubball, Clarke, & Poole, 2010). In our case,scholarly reflections focused on (1) the dichotomy of having a Socratic or Confucian approachto teaching and learning; (2) developing community or fostering inquiry with students;(3) acknowledging or deconstructing the cultural mores of our international contexts; and(4) focusing on technical or creative modes of professional practice. We purposely frame thetensions not as binary opposites, but within a balanced holistic perspective, similar to the yin
and yang. In our conclusion, we share the new knowledge gained from our collaborative
work and we position self-study research methodologies and online journaling as a professional
development model for globalized P4C teacher educators, practitioners, and researchers.

Background and theoretical framework
p4cHI is Thomas Jackson’s (2001) teacher-lead and culturally responsive offshoot of Lipman’s
original P4C movement. It is an innovative approach to education that transforms the schooling experience by engaging learners in the activity of philosophy. p4cHI practitioners set
out to convert traditional classrooms into ‘intellectually safe’ (Jackson, 2001: 460) communities of inquiry where students and teachers co-create and co-construct their abilities to think
for themselves in responsible ways. Defined by both a theoretical framework and actual setof classroom strategies, p4cHI is best characterized as a philosopher’s pedagogy (Makaiau &Miller, 2012) that can be adapted and modeled to fit the needs of students in a wide range ofeducational settings. It is for these reasons that p4cHI practitioners are now found in a numberof locations across the globe, and why researchers like us, who are working to study p4cHI
in a wide range of geo-sociopolitical contexts, need methods that bend to the interests of ourdiverse backgrounds and facilitate a common ground for us to discuss and to reflect together.
Tracing its roots back to teacher inquiry (Dewey, 1938), action research (Loughran, 2004),
and reflective practice (Schön, 1983; Zeichner & Liston, 1996), self-study is a research methodology used by teachers and teacher educators to create structures for ongoing professional
development (Beck, Freese, & Kosnik, 2004; Macintyre & Buck, 2007) in a variety of culturalcontexts. It is a systematic analysis of practice that acknowledges how the integration of ‘selfin research design . . . can contribute to our understanding of teaching and teacher education’(Hamilton, Smith, & Worthington, 2008: 17). Aimed at promoting the development of ‘personal, constructivist, and collaborative’ (Beck et al., 2004) professional communities of inquiry,
self-study is a promising methodology for researchers like us, who are ‘concerned with bothenhanced understanding of teacher education in general and the immediate improvement ofour practice’ (LaBoskey, 2007: 818).
With that said, concerns relating to the validity in the research process of self-study exist.
To address them, self-study researchers systematically and rationally examine their professional
practice in teaching by collecting extensive data, analyzing and processing their instructionalsituations, and reflectively examining critical events throughout their personal and professional lives.
They not only acknowledge the role of the self in research, but also emphasize that the focus
is not on the self but more the relational space between the self and practice.
In this self-study we used an interactive online learning journal (Lee, 2010; Moon, 2006) tocreate the conditions that we needed for reflective practice (Loughran, 1996) in our international research collective. In line with Spalding and Wilson (2002), who examined pedagogicalstrategies for encouraging reflective journal writing, we recognized the importance of using
interactive technologies to facilitate our cross-cultural research collaboration (O’Brien, Alfano, &Magnusson, 2007) and overall journaling process (Makaiau, Leng, & Fukui, 2015). We
hypothesized that, despite our geographic distance, these methods would provide us with
228

Empowering global P4C research and practice through self-study

greater opportunities for ‘constructing our learning together, probing one another’s ideas, andreviewing and reframing our ideas collaboratively’ (Kosnik, Samaras, & Freese, 2006: 153).

Research questions
The following research questions were used to guide this study: What does it mean to be afacilitator in a p4cHI community of inquiry? What is the role of interactive online journaling
and self-study in the development of our practice and understanding of what it means to be
p4cHI facilitators? What is the impact of culture on the role of a p4cHI facilitator?

Data sources
Data came from the interactive online journal that we kept with one another and twoother colleagues, Mitsuyo Toyoda from Japan and Ann Yeh from Tawain. We wrote in thejournal at least once a week for six months (8/28/2014 to 1/8/2015) and we used Google
documents to share our writing with one another in a ‘live’ online setting. ‘The content of
our journals included personal reflections, perceptions and questions’ (Elliott-Johns et al.,
2010: 81).
To get our journal started, we used email to brainstorm a set of working guidelines. They
included: having each participant select a color to write in, making sure to write once a week,
maintaining intellectual safety, asking questions that are important and interesting, engaging inpersonal reflection and dialogue with others, examining both theoretical and practical aspects
of p4cHI, and committing to growing professionally and personally. Then, to launch ouronline community of inquiry, we each wrote an initial journal entry that answered the following questions: What are three things that you would want others to know about you? What
are your previous experiences with teaching/facilitating a p4cHI community of inquiry? What are
the reasons that you want to participate in this international self-study journaling project about
the role of the facilitator in a p4cHI community of inquiry? From there, new wonderings andinsights emerged, and we used those questions and comments to guide further inquiry. This led
to ongoing and continuous dialogue, which was characterized by careful listening, questioning,and openness to different viewpoints. At the end of our data collection period, we had 78 pagesof single-spaced journal entries and written dialogue. Secondary data sources included emails
and analytic memos (Charmaz, 2006; Creswell, 2007).

Data analysis
To analyze our data, we drew from the methods of constant comparison (Glaser & Strauss,1967). This occurred in three phases. In phase one, we worked on our own and engaged in theanalytic process of open coding (Charmaz, 2006). This included placing ‘names’ on the themesthat emerged from our back and forth comparison of the data (Charmaz, 2006: 47–57). Then,in phase two, we came together via Skype and worked as critical friends (Miles & Huberman,
1994). We shared our open codes and collectively refined, collapsed, and organized our individual findings. We used the methods of axial (Charmaz, 2006: 60–63) and theoretical coding(Charmaz, 2006: 63–67) to bring together our initial open codes and created a composite set ofanalytic themes. For each of these themes we specified their ‘properties and dimensions’, andrelated each theme to sub-themes (Charmaz, 2006: 60). This culminated in the developmentof four main themes and three related sub-themes. In phase three, we wrote up our findings
and collaborated further to revise and refine our thinking.
229

Amber Strong Makaiau, Jessica Ching-Sze Wang, Karen Ragoonaden and Lu Leng

Collaborative analysis of our journal produced four major themes. These themes, describedas tensions, were representative of the choices that we struggled with and tried to balance during
our experiences facilitating p4cHI communities of inquiry. They are described in the following sections.

Theme 1: Socratic or Confucian?
The first theme to emerge from the analysis of the data relates to the tensions we experienced
as we struggled to identify with a generalized approach to teaching and learning. From the data
we found that the defining features of a p4cHI facilitator are not static. In our roles as facilitators we were constantly changing, and these adjustments depended on factors like ‘the maturityof community, the framework of classes (whether you are teaching a specific content or not),[and] the flow of dialogue’ (Mitsuyo, 10/10/14). We also learned how we compared ourselvesto personas like Socrates and Confucius help us sort through this tension. This comparison first
appeared in a journal entry from Jessica:
In p4cHI, I often find myself playing two roles at the same time: that of Socrates andof Confucius. The Socrates in me is like a midwife who, by asking questions, tries tohelp students express and consolidate their inchoate ideas. The Confucius in me is likea mentor who, by sharing and connecting dots of insights, tries to help students enlarge
their hearts and minds with powerful ideas and meaningful discoveries. (9/27/14)
In response to her entry Amber extended the inquiry by adding, ‘the Socrates and Confucius
metaphor is very powerful/helpful . . . where we fall on the scale definitely changes . . . depending how much we feel we ‘know’ about any given topic’ (10/2/14). Further analysis of the data
revealed how many of our additional journal entries revisited this idea of a Socrates-Confucius
paradigm. In these entries, we described ourselves as being caught between the tensions ofwanting to maintain a beginner’s mind (Suzuki, 2010) full of questions, or wanting to impartknowledge. This initial rumination culminated in a search for the distinction between a p4cHI
facilitator being more like a teacher or student?

Teacher or student?
In our struggle to clarify the differences between teachers and students, many of us wrote about
the contradiction between our own educational experiences and the type of p4cHI facilitatorthat we wanted to be. For example, Lulu explained the divergence between her childhood
experiences and her current efforts to practice p4cHI in China.
My personal education history furnishes me with a mental model of teaching . . . course
objectives, develop students’ activities and plan for assessment . . . but in p4cHI, I needto break the chains and learn to ask myself: is my role to transmit knowledge or nurture independent and critical thinkers? Can I really show respect to every student’s
ideas? Am I here to learn from my students? Am I flexible enough to allow students toguide their own learning process? Am I sensible enough to respond to students’ needs
and interests? (9/21/14)
This entry stimulated Amber’s and Jessica’s thinking. Amber responded ‘we can’t assume that
we will always be capable of being the teacher under every circumstance in the classroom,
230

Empowering global P4C research and practice through self-study

we have to be open to the role reversing’. Jessica embraced this openness but offered a reminder:‘to say that children can teach us something is not the same as saying that they are teachers’(9/9/14). As the dialogue continued we reached a consensus that there was a crucial difference
between being a teacher and student: the teacher ‘should model the ideal participant’ (Amber,
12/8/14; Jessica, 1/18/15). This led us to an inquiry about when and where to intervene during
a community of philosophical inquiry.

Intervening too much or intervening too little?
Questions about good reasons for intervening were prevalent in our journal entries. We
thought together about whether or not to enter into the inquiry, or make ‘a suggestion to movein a direction that [the facilitator] believes to be more educationally worthwhile to pursue atthat particular point’ (Jessica, 9/14/14). As we explored what we meant by ‘educationallyworthwhile’ we recognized that there was an even larger tension at play. This tension related
to the decisions we made about whether to focus on the social and emotional needs of ourcommunity, or the development of our students’ capacity for inquiry and intellectual growth.

Theme 2: Community or inquiry?
The second major theme to emerge from the analysis of the data captured our shared struggle
to maintain both an intellectually safe and academically challenging classroom community ofinquiry. It is illustrated in a journal entry of Amber’s in which she describes a decision that she
made while facilitating a p4cHI inquiry with university students.
At the end of their inquiry I could sense that a couple of students were beginning to‘attack’ particular claims that were being made by other students, and I jumped inbecause I thought it would be a good time to intervene and neutralize the intensityof the inquiry . . . the classroom should be intellectually challenging, but I want it to
be done in a pono (Lee, 2006) community where everyone is thoughtful, caring, andthinking about working towards a greater good. (11/7/14)
This sentiment was echoed by Jessica who believed that ‘bringing everyone together in a circle
facing each other sets up a moral imperative for everyone—namely, the need to learn to be
responsible for themselves and for each other’ (11/3/14). This remark led the group to consider whether we should see p4cHI community as ‘a moral community first and a thinking
community second,’ (Jessica, 11/3/14) or whether the two are actually ‘so interconnected anddependent on one another’ (Amber, 11/3/2014).

Theme 3: Acknowledging or deconstructing culture
It also became apparent during the analysis of the data that, despite our collective belief inthe power of p4cHI to promote humane and socially just classroom experiences in diverse
settings, we often struggled to reconcile tensions between acknowledging or deconstructing
cultural differences in our daily practice. Take for example Mitsuyo’s entry about eye contact.
She described how her student asked if ‘it was inappropriate to look eye directly in Japan’,
which runs counter to her belief that ‘facial expression and eye contact help us to feel safe’(10/15/14). Mitsuyo wondered if she should have challenged her own view of communication. Karen also shared her thought about this intercultural tension: ‘In Canadian Aboriginal231

Amber Strong Makaiau, Jessica Ching-Sze Wang, Karen Ragoonaden and Lu Leng

cultures, it is considered rude to maintain eye contact, whereas the dominant discourse in
Canadian education is that a person who does not maintain eye contact is lacking integrity andhonesty’ (11/3/14). Amber responded with more questions,
When you look someone in the eye does that mean that we are more safe with one
another? Could there be other ways of physical communication or body language thatare akin to looking at someone in the eye? Or is there something so special about eye
contact that makes it in the biggest indicator of safe relationships? (11/17/14)
In her encounter with children in Taiwan, Jessica shared that they did not maintain eye contact.
She decided to openly discuss the issue with the children. They admitted feeling shy mostly but
agreed that they would concentrate and understand better with proper eye contact. Jessica felt
assured to help them develop ‘a new habit, a new way of being with oneself and the other, anda new way of encountering the world’ (10/26/14). Through transcontinental dialogue like this,we learned that deliberations about the impact of culture on our teaching and on our decisions
to acknowledge and deconstruct the value-laden mores of each international context are ongoing and necessary considerations when thinking about the role of a p4cHI teacher/facilitator.

Security or risk?
Directly linked to the cultural contexts of our practice were feelings of security or risk. In ourgroup, this was especially pertinent to Lulu as she attempted to practice p4cHI in China. In anumber of entries, she described feeling powerless in her ability to practice the true spirit of
p4cHI—‘the spirit in fostering wonder and inquiry, the spirit of cultivating student-teacher
learner, and the spirit of advocating democracy in China . . . but when people can THINK,
that is too dangerous, as it may challenge government’s role’ (10/2/14). Coming from a similar cultural context, Jessica and Lulu both saw that p4cHI facilitation can be ‘risk-taking formany teachers’ (Lulu, 9/21/14) because ‘teachers do not know what do with the voices of
their students if they happen to fall out of the normal trajectories of the good, right answers’(Jessica, 12/16/14).
In one of Mitsuyo’s journal entries, this fear of uncertainty was also expressed as the tension
between self-assurance and self-doubt.
I often feel scared to sit in a circle because I worry that I might miss interesting points
embedded in what students say . . . then I hear Dr. J saying, ‘relax and just pay attention to children’s voices. You have to enjoy the dialogue.’ I think that is definitely
right. If the teacher feels pressured and does not feel safe, she cannot contribute to the
dialogue. (10/15/14)
With reference to her mentor, Mitsuyo’s candid sharing demonstrates how the support of international partners helps to increase the security and self-assurance that teacher/facilitators needwhen they are experimenting with p4cHI in new spaces.

Theme 4: Technical or creative?
The final theme to emerge from the analysis of the data was the tension between needing
to adhere to mainstream technocratic approaches to school reform and our collective desire
to experience our facilitative roles as creative enterprises. In each of our home countries,
232

Empowering global P4C research and practice through self-study

the educational environment did not seem to ‘put much of a premium on imagination, on
personal spirit, or creative thinking’ (Karen, 9/11/14), and we struggled between meetingprescriptive external demands and exercising personal judgement. Amber wrote, ‘I guess myquestion is whether there really are set learning goals that we are striving for when we facilitatea p4cHI style inquiry or is it truly an ‘in the moment’ experience’ (9/10/15). Mitsuyo believedthat it should be more creative and open ended. She disagreed with Japanese teachers ‘preparing questions before hand and [guiding] the dialogue, in accordance with their lesson plan’(10/15/14). In her opinion, this was not p4cHI. Jessica agreed with Mitsuyo and described the
p4cHI approach as ‘an art of democracy.’[This art] is one that cannot be reproduced, that always renews itself and rejoices overitself. Even if P4C classes don’t always present bright pictures, the dark moments willremain the background shadows that can make the brightness shine through. If there
are no dark moments, how could there be beautiful creation? . . . No tolerance fordigression or failures leads to no growth of the human person (not just the student, butalso the teacher). (9/10/14)
With this in mind, we rested on the idea that ‘inquiry and social constructivism’, both of which
are inherent in a p4cHI approach to education, can effectively be used to ‘teach the standards’(Lulu, 9/21/14). This was an important take-away for our group of teacher educators who, in
their day-to-day interactions with teachers, struggle to maintain the art and craft of philosophical inquiry that is so needed in our profession.

Professional development: What did we learn?
As the self-study came to a natural conclusion, we turned our attention to this reflective,
inquiry-based process by revisiting our commitment to the improvement of individual practice and teacher education in general. With new understandings about the nuanced roles ofa teacher facilitator in a p4cHI community of inquiry, we found ourselves better prepared tocommunicate the normalcy of uncertainty and confusion in the experiences of teachers who
are aiming to convert traditional classrooms into intellectually safe communities of inquiry.
More keenly attuned to the impact of place-based cultural contexts on our practice in Hawai‘i,
Taiwan, Canada, China, and Japan, we also strengthened our resolve to model and engage
in a p4cHI pedagogy that is imbued with a moral ethos of a time and place. Commensuratewith SoTL, we realized that the strength of our international research collective was rooted inour connections to and deep understanding of contexts, experiential approaches supported bya robust critical framework, and the pursuit of positive change in educational environments.
More aware of the tensions surrounding culture, pedagogical stance, creativity, criticality,and history, we learned how to see the ongoing development of teachers as occurring along
a continuum, which can be facilitated through the exploration of reflective practices (Sheets,2005) in an online journal (Lee, 2010). We also became inspired to cultivate future projects in
our research collective, including an investigation into the relationship between p4cHI, criticalfriendship, and mindfulness.

Connections to P4C literature
The role of the facilitator in a P4C community of inquiry is not a new research topic. For
example, a number of previous scholars have questioned the kind of education, training,233

Amber Strong Makaiau, Jessica Ching-Sze Wang, Karen Ragoonaden and Lu Lengor qualifications needed for effective P4C facilitation: whether it be basic familiarity with academic philosophy and training in philosophical inquiry itself (Murris, 2000); goals for novice
facilitators (Gardner, 2015); the cultivation of philosophical sensitivity (Gardner, 2015; Lone &Israeloff, 2012); or even an epistemological ‘paradigm shift’ (Haynes & Murris, 2011). Other
scholars have looked into some of the themes or sub-themes we identified in our findings.
Take the tension between inquiry and community as an example. P4C scholars have argued
for the need to ‘push for depth’ (Gardner, 2015: 82) or to pursue ‘epistemic progress’ in inquiry(Golding, 2012), while others have called attention to the ‘the emotional life’ in a community(Burgh & Yorshansky, 2011: 445) and a systematic pedagogical approach to educating empathy(Schertz, 2007). While much of this scholarship resonates with the findings from our research,it does not offer sustainable structures for supporting the professional development of international P4C teacher educators, practitioners, and researchers like us.

Significance to future research in P4C
To ensure that the worldwide P4C movement continues to grow in responsible ways, P4C
teacher educators, practitioners, and researchers from across the globe will need to work
together to create culturally responsive professional development models that engage P4C
teacher facilitators in inquiry as a means of promoting shifts in practice (Macintyre & Buck,2007). In this chapter, self-study research methodologies, online journaling, and international
faculty partnerships are presented as promising approaches for achieving this goal. Designed togive structure to the ongoing professional development of P4C teacher facilitators, who workin a wide range of cultural contexts and educational settings, self-study and online journaling
empower P4C teacher educators, practitioners, and researchers like us, who are interested
in self-reflection, dialogue, professional and personal growth, and learning about the crosscultural relationships and connections that can be made between international colleagues.

Acknowledgement
Jessica Wang would like to acknowledge her gratitude to the Ministry of Science andTechnology in Taiwan for supporting this international project (MOST103-2633-H-415-001).

References
Beck, C., Freese, A., & Kosnik, C. (2004). The preservice practicum: Learning through self-study in a
professional setting. In Loughran, J., Hamilton, M.L., LaBoskey, V.K., & Russell, T. (Eds). International
handbook self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 1259–1293). Kluwer, Netherlands:
Dordrecht.
Burgh, G. & Yorshansky, M. (2011). Communities of inquiry: Politics, power and group dynamics.
Educational Philosophy and Theory 43(5): 436–452.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Los Angeles,
CA: Sage.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.
Elliott-Johns, S., Peterson, S., Allison-Roan, V., & Ramirez, L. (2010). A cross-continent collaboration:
Seeking community to support critical inquiry in teacher education. In Erickson, L.B., Young, J.R., &Pinnegar, S. (eds.). Navigating the public and private: Negotiating the diverse landscape of teacher education(pp. 81–84). Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.
Gardner, S. (2015). Inquiry is no mere conversation (or discussion or dialogue): Facilitation is hard work.
Journal of Philosophy in Schools 2(1): 75–90.

234

Empowering global P4C research and practice through self-study
Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago,
IL: Aldine.
Golding, C. (2012). Epistemic progress: A construct for understanding and evaluating inquiry. Educational
Theory 62(6): 677–693.
Hamilton, M.L., Smith, L., & Worthington, K. (2008). Fitting the methodology with the research: An
exploration of narrative, self-study and auto-ethnography. Studying Teacher Education 4(1): 17–28.
Haynes, J. & Murris, K. (2011). The provocation of an epistemological shift in teacher education throughPhilosophy with Children. Journal of Philosophy of Education 45(2): 285–303.
Hubball, H., Clarke, A., & Poole, G. (2010) Ten-year reflections on mentoring SoTL research in a
research-intensive university. International Journal for Academic Development 15(2): 117–129.
Jackson, T. (2001). The art and craft of ‘gently Socratic’ inquiry. In Costa, A.L. (Ed.) Developing minds:
A resource book for teaching thinking (3rd edition). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development.
Kosnik, C., Samaras, A.P., & Fressse, A.R. (2006). Beginning with trusted friends: Venturing out to work
collaboratively in our institutions. In Fitzgerald, L., Heston, M., & Tidwell, D. (Eds) 6th International
Conference on S-STEP: Collaboration and Community: Pushing Boundaries (pp. 152–156). Cedar Falls, IA:
University of Northern Iowa.
LaBoskey, V.K. (2007). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In Loughran, J.,
Hamilton, M.L., LaBoskey, V.K., & Russell, T. (Eds). International handbook self-study of teaching andteacher education practices (pp. 817–869). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Lee, O. (2010). Facilitating preservice teachers’ reflection through interactive online journal writing.
Physical Educator 67: 128–139.
Lee, P.J. (2006). Ho‘oponopono: The Hawaiian way to put things back into balance. Mountain View, HI: I.M.
Publishing.
Lone, J.M. & Israeloff, R. (Eds) (2012). Teaching precollege philosophy: The cultivation of philosophical sensibility. In Philosophy and education: Introducing philosophy to young people. Cambridge Scholars
Publishing: Newcastle, UK.
Loughran, J. (1996). Developing reflective practice: Learning about teaching and learning through modeling. London:
Falmer Press.
Loughran, J. (2004). A history and context of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices. In
Loughran, J., Hamilton, M.L., LaBoskey, V.K., & Russell, T.L. (Eds). International handbook of self-studyof teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 7–39). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Loughran, J. (2007). Researching teacher education practices: Responding to the challenges, demands, andexpectations of self-study. Journal of Teacher Education 58(1): 12–20.
Macintyre, L. & Buck, L. (2007). Professional development risks and opportunities embodied within selfstudy. Studying Teacher Education. 3(2): 189–205.
Makaiau, A.S., Leng, L., & Fukui, S. (2015). Journaling and self-study in an international research collective. Studying Teacher Education 11(1): 64–80.
Makaiau, A.S. & Millar, C. (2012). The philosopher’s pedagogy. Educational Perspectives. 44(1–2): 8–19.
Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moon, J. (2006). Learning journals: A handbook for reflective practice and professional development. London:
Routledge.
Murris, K. (2000). The role of the facilitator in philosophical enquiry. Thinking 15(2): 40–47.
O’Brien, A.J., Alfano, C. & Magnusson, E. (2007). Improving cross-cultural communication throughcollaborative technologies. In De court, Y., Ijsselsteijn, W. Midden, C., Eggen, B., & Fogg, B.J. (Eds)
Persuasive technology. London: Springer.
Schertz, M. (2007). Avoiding ‘passive empathy’ with Philosophy for Children. Journal of Moral Education
36(2): 185–198.
Sheets, R.H. (2005). Diversity pedagogy: Examining the role of culture in the teaching learning process. Boston,
MA: Pearson.
Spalding, E. & Wilson, A. (2002). Demystifying reflection: A study of pedagogical strategies that encourage
reflective journal writing. Teachers College Record 104(7): 1393–1421.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Suzuki, S. (2010). Zen mind: Beginner’s mind. Boulder, CO: Shambhala Publications.
Zeichner K.M. & Liston, D.P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

235