This article was downloaded by: [Amber Strong Makaiau]
On: 09 March 2015, At: 12:11
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Studying Teacher Education: A journalof self-study of teacher education
practices
Publication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cste20

Journaling and Self-Study in an
International Research CollectiveaaAmber Strong Makaiau , Lu Leng & Suguru Fukuiab

University of Hawai'i at Manoa, USAb

Hiroshima University, Japan
Published online: 05 Mar 2015.

Click for updates
To cite this article: Amber Strong Makaiau, Lu Leng & Suguru Fukui (2015): Journaling and SelfStudy in an International Research Collective, Studying Teacher Education: A journal of self-study ofteacher education practices, DOI: 10.1080/17425964.2015.1013025
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2015.1013025

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Downloaded by [Amber Strong Makaiau] at 12:11 09 March 2015

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Studying Teacher Education, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2015.1013025

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Journaling and Self-Study in an International Research Collective
Amber Strong Makaiaua*, Lu Lenga and Suguru FukuibaUniversity of Hawai’i at Manoa, USA; bHiroshima University, Japan

Downloaded by [Amber Strong Makaiau] at 12:11 09 March 2015

(Received 23 July 2014; accepted 25 January 2015)
Drawing from the theoretical foundations of reflective teaching, culturally responsive
education, social constructivism, and self-study, this collaborative self-study
investigates the role of an interactive online journal in an international researchcollective. Each from a different country, the authors came together through a common
interest in the “philosophy for children Hawai’i” approach to education and designed
an online platform for journaling together. The overall objectives of the study are to
examine how interactive online journaling influences international collaboration,individual research interests and goals, and personal and professional development.
To analyze their journal the authors use an applied self-study research methodologythat is self-initiated, improvement-aimed, and communicative. The findings reveal how
journaling can create an international commons, deepen inquiry in the research process,and foster a culturally responsive approach to international collaboration. The
discussion explores the impact of the authors’ relationships and roles on their joint
production of knowledge and elaborates the usefulness of collaborative technologies in
reducing face-to-face tensions often experienced in cross-cultural collaboration. The
authors explain how community, philosophical inquiry, and reflection in the context of
online journaling proved to be powerful tools for culturally responsive researchers whowish to construct their own understandings of what it means to be a part of aninternational research collective.
Keywords: journaling; culturally responsive education; international collaboration;philosophy for children

Bitácora y self-study en una investigación colectiva internacional
Considerando como punto de partida los fundamentos teóricos de base respecto de laenseñanza reflexiva, educación culturalmente responsable, constructivismo social yself study, este autoestudio colaborativo indaga el rol de la bitácora interactiva en una
investigación internacional colectiva. Los autores, provenientes de distintos paı́ses,
comparten un interés común por el enfoque educativo del la filosofı́a para niños en
Hawai’i, crean una plataforma online para registrar de manera conjunta sus
experiencias. Los objetivos se orientaron a examinar de qué manera el registro en lı́nea
en una bitácora afecta los processo de colaboracion internacional, los intereses y
propósitos individuales, ası́ como el desarrollo personal y profesional. Para el análisis
de las bitácoras, los autores consideraron las orientaciones propias de la metodologı́adel self-study, es decir, autoiniciado, enfocado a la mejora y comunicado. Los
hallazgos revelan como el registro en una bitácora puede crear un sentido en comúncompartido, profundizar la indagación en el proceso de investigación, ası́ comopromover un enfoque culturalmente sensible a la colaboración internacional. La
discusión explora el impacto de las relaciones y roles de los autores sobre su*Corresponding author. Email: amakaiau@hawaii.edu
q 2015 Taylor & Francis

2

A.S. Makaiau et al.
producción conjunta de conocimiento y explica la utilidad de las tecnologı́ascolaborativas para reducir las tensiones de las relaciones cara a cara frecuentemente
experimentas en la colaboración intercultural. Los autores explican cómo la
comunidad, indagación filosófica y la reflexión en el contexto de una bitácora virtual
demostraron ser herramientas poderosas para investigadores culturalmente responsables que quieren construir su propia compresión acerca de lo que significa ser parte deun colectivo de investigación internacional.
Palabras clave: bitácora; educación culturalmente responsable; colaboracióninternacional; filosofı́a para niños

Downloaded by [Amber Strong Makaiau] at 12:11 09 March 2015

I was wanting a space where I could reflect on the research process in a community of inquiry,
and I am so thankful that I have you two to reflect with. My big question is what are YOU two
most interested in studying? (Amber)Your big question for me is also the biggest question. I am thinking my research questions
during shower, waiting for bus, and sleeping time. Sometimes I feel I am a fly, I don’t know
where I am flying. I want to touch everything. (Lulu)
I am also thinking my research question every time . . . I feel I am in river. I don’t know where
I am floating. I try to don’t be caught in a tree, a bank . . . I don’t want to swim to stay sameplace. Above all I can’t swim. I want to float a stream, although there is obstacle. I am floating
stream already. (Suguru)

These quotations are from an interactive online journal (Lee, 2010) kept by the authors.
We are educational researchers based in Hawai’i who are from three different countries
and at different stages in our careers. Amber is a curriculum and research specialist at alarge university in Hawai’i, Lulu is a Ph.D. candidate from China who attends the same
university, and Suguru is a doctoral student from Japan who visited the university for one
year to study (with Amber) the philosophy for children Hawai’i (p4cHI; http://p4chawaii.
org/) approach to education. The p4cHI approach is both a theory of education and a set ofclassroom practices that aim to transform traditional classrooms into intellectually safe
communities of inquiry (Jackson, 2001; Makaiau & Miller, 2012). In each of our homecountries, p4cHI is being explored as a viable means for school improvement (Oakes,
Quartz, Ryan, & Lipton, 2000) and, although it is not the focus of this study, it is important
to note that the three of us were drawn together because of our shared values, common
interest in p4cHI, and mutual commitments to p4cHI research (Kosnik, Samaras, &Freese, 2006).
When we first met, Amber had just begun a longitudinal study to examine the impactof p4cHI on public school students in the Hawaiian Islands and Lulu and Suguru were in
the initial stages of formulating their p4cHI-related dissertation topics. Eager to establish a
p4cHI research community, we easily connected with one another but eventually got
caught between the tension of representing the interests of our diverse backgrounds andhaving a common ground to discuss our p4cHI research. This is how we started thereflective practice (Dewey, 1933; Loughran, 1996; Schön, 1987; Zeichner & Liston, 1987)
of journaling together, and this is when we became interested in studying the role of an
online journal in our international research collective.
In this article, we discuss the collaborative self-study that we conducted as we
systematically wrote in, and analyzed, our online journal. The three goals that guided our
research are as follows:(1) Our primary objective was to examine the role of an online journal in ourinternational p4cHI research community.

Studying Teacher Education

3

Downloaded by [Amber Strong Makaiau] at 12:11 09 March 2015

(2) We wanted to explore the impact of online journaling on our collaboration and our
individual research interests/goals.
(3) We were interested in learning how our online journal supported both our personal
and professional development.
Based on the findings that emerged from the analysis of our data, we explain how
online journaling and self-study helped to create a “systematic and critical examinationof [our] actions and [our] context as a path to develop a more consciously driven modeof professional activity” (Samaras & Freese, 2006, p. 11). We also describe how
journaling and self-study promoted international collaboration (DeZure et al., 2012) bycreating a commons (Walljasper, 2010) where we could deepen our inquiry in the
research process in a culturally responsive way. We conclude with our personalreflections on the importance of online journaling and self-study among educational
researchers who share common interests, and yet who wish to tailor their research tothe contexts of their home countries.

Background and Theoretical Framework
In this article we draw upon the literature of reflective teaching, culturally responsive
pedagogies, social constructivism and self-study to frame the role of journaling in ourinternational research collective. The research literature abounds with studies that discuss
the value of reflection and reflective practice (Dewey, 1929, 1933; Erickson & Gumperz,
1996; Henderson, 2001; Loughran, 1996; Schön, 1987; van Manen, 1991; Zeichner &Liston, 1987). Reflection is an integral part of conscious being, and “professional growth isfound in the ability to always create the conditions for self-reflection, to use narrative andreflective writing to unpack our own thoughts and gain that intellectual distance importantto analyze our daily experience” (Causarano, 2011, p. 553). In this self-study, we used aninteractive online learning journal (Lee, 2010; Moon, 2006) to create the conditions that
we needed for reflective practice (Loughran, 1996) in our international research collective.
We selected the practice of reflective thinking via journal writing because Amber had
experienced the benefits of this approach in her past teaching and research experiences.
Like Spalding and Wilson (2002), she recognized how:
(1) Journals serve as a permanent record of thoughts and experiences; (2) journals provide ameans of establishing and maintaining relationships with others; (3) journals serve as a safe
outlet for personal concerns and frustrations; and (4) journals are an aid to internal dialogue.
(p. 1394)

At the same time, she also recognized that, in the context of self-study research, the often
individualistic, personal, and private act of journal writing can have its limits, especiallywhen the thinking that develops from journaling goes un-shared.
To address this important, yet paradoxical characteristic of self-study research thethree of us worked together to explore new ways of interactive journal writing. Like
Kosnik et al. (2006), we began to think about the benefits of learning how to dialogue in a
virtual community, and how an online journal might provide us with greater opportunities
for “constructing our learning together, probing one another’s ideas, and reviewing andreframing our ideas collaboratively” (p. 153). At the suggestion of Lulu we designed aninteractive journal that we could both self-reflect in and dialogue with each other over theInternet. In this live and shared online journaling platform, our reflective practice wasindividualistic and collective, personal and interpersonal, and private and public (Samaras& Freese, 2006, pp. 48 –53). It was a self-reflective community of inquiry.

Downloaded by [Amber Strong Makaiau] at 12:11 09 March 2015

4

A.S. Makaiau et al.

We also hypothesized that, given the cross-cultural aims of our international researchcollective, the online setting might prove to be particularly accommodating to our budding
relationships as critical friends and trusted colleagues from different countries. In our
face-to-face meetings we often struggled to communicate with one another effectively.
This was mostly due to our language differences, culturally specific styles ofcommunication (Morita, 2003), and different social norms (Leung & Chan, 1999;
Takemura, 2014; Ting-Toomey, 1997). We thought that a blended environment, in whichsome of our interactions were face-to-face and others were computer-mediated, could
alleviate some of the vulnerability and awkwardness (Zhou, Simpson, & Domizi, 2012).
We liked the idea of having the option to hide behind the screen of our personal computers
and we speculated that this new space would provide us with the necessary scaffoldingthat we needed to make our cross-cultural relationships a success. Similar to the findingsof Kosnik et al. (2006) we imagined that our virtual journaling community would makecorrespondence instantly accessible, and that it would afford us the time we needed tocollect our thoughts, make language translations, and properly situate our inquiry
alongside one another.
To structure the inquiry and writing that we did in this shared online environment, weused self-study methodologies. We started with our questions, doubts, hesitations, andperplexities (Samaras & Freese, 2006). Then, based on our wonderings, we moved“through the act of searching to find material that [would] resolve, clarify, or otherwise
address the doubt” (Spalding & Wilson, 2002, p. 1394). The process was not linear. Our
inquiry took many directions, each of which was important to our individual and collective
interests. We borrowed from the practices of p4cHI and envisioned the journal as a homebase, an intellectually safe (Butnor, 2012; Jackson, 2001; Yos, 2012) resting place where
we could cultivate “further inquiry with others that were like-minded in their commitment
to critical dialogue, [and] transformational inquiry” (Elliott-Johns, Peterson, AllisonRoan, & Ramirez, 2010, p. 81). We saw the journal as “a mutually self-disclosing context”
where we were “free to ask and answer questions, to discuss with others, and to probe fordeeper understanding of complex issues” (p. 81).
We also viewed the journal and this self-study as “a ‘community of practice’ without
geographic boundaries” (Elliott-Johns et al., 2010, p. 81). Recognizing the “essentialnessof collaboration outside one’s university” (Kosnik et al., 2006, p. 155), we looked at thejournal as a place where we could transcend the borders of our nation states in an effort
to “understand each others’ lives and concerns and [to] build [our] relationships”(Lunenberg & Samaras, 2011, p. 844). This type of cross-cultural and international
collaboration was not typical of the work that we did with colleagues in our homecountries, and to help us make sense of this new experience, we drew from the scholarshipof culturally responsive pedagogy (Castagno & Brayboy, 2008; Gay, 2000; Pang, 2005;
Sheets, 2005; Tatum, 2011).
In line with culturally responsive practices, we made sure to include the validation ofeach other’s cultures and languages and the co-construction of knowledge (Castagno &Brayboy, 2008). We incorporated journal entries that asked about each other’s priorexperiences, frames of references and performance styles because we knew that thiscultural knowledge would make our dialogue with one another more relevant and effective(Gay, 2000). We also encouraged each other to write in communication styles that were
culturally familiar (Au & Kawakami, 1994). We peeled back our own frames of reference,
became more open to learning about ourselves, encouraged the questioning of ourpreviously held assumptions, and used our personal stories as teaching texts for one
another (Makaiau & Freese, 2013).

Downloaded by [Amber Strong Makaiau] at 12:11 09 March 2015

Studying Teacher Education

5

We also acknowledged and made transparent the hierarchical relationships that existed
between an American mentor and Chinese and Japanese doctoral students. We identified
and accepted that there were “historical forces and the residual effects of race-based
disenfranchisement” (Tatum, 2011, p. vii) embedded in these relationships. This cautioned
us to pay careful attention to the role of language and the fact that the journaling was being
done in Amber’s native tongue. We openly discussed the micro and macro levels of oursocial relations (Omi & Winant, 1986) and through these complicated conversations did
our best to “avoid making assumptions about what is essential, what will work and what isdesirable. [And] instead work[ed] collaboratively with [each other] to identify what isrelevant, useful and appropriate to context” (DeZure et al., 2012, p. 27).
In sum, we used theories of social constructivism to help us frame our self-study.
We recognized that the knowledge we produced was experience-based and constructedwithin our particular social context (Palincsar, 1998; Schön, 1987; Vygotsky, 1978).
Aligned with the work of Beck, Freese, and Kosnick (2004), we adopted a “personal,
constructivist, and collaborative” approach (p. 1256). It was personal because we started
with ourselves, and reflected on our own research processes and interests. It wasconstructivist because we were “constantly inquiring” about our p4cHI research andourselves, “never content with present ideas, aware that knowledge is always partial andcan always be improved upon” (Beck et al., 2004, p. 1263). And finally, it wascollaborative. We developed a community of inquiry where “the views of individuals”
were “constantly brought into dialogue with the views of others” (p. 1265).
Objectives
Drawing upon research on self-study and reflective practice, our study aimed to capture thecomplexities of conducting educational research with international partners. It also exploredthe possibilities of conducting a self-study with the interactive technology, Google Docs, inan effort to improve cross-cultural collaboration (O’Brien, Alfano, & Magnusson, 2007).
The following research questions were used to guide this study: What is the role ofjournaling in an international research collective? Is there evidence that an interactive online
journal can support both collaboration and individual research interests/goals? In what ways
does journaling with international partners support personal and professional development?
Methods
This self-study applied a research methodology that was self-initiated, improvement aimed,
and interactive (LaBoskey, 2004). Grounded in situated inquiry, we used methods that were
process-oriented, focused on the construction of new knowledge, multifaceted, and often
paradoxical (Samaras & Freese, 2006, pp. 39–54). We were a team of researchers who
worked collaboratively and individually to explore issues that were both collectively
meaningful and self-important (Lunenberg & Samaras, 2011; Samaras & Freese, 2006).
Data
Data came from our interactive online journal that we kept with one another for eightmonths (17/6/2013 –22/1/2014). Initially, we wrote in the journal five times per week, andthen we moved to writing one entry a week. We used Google documents to share ourjournal entries with one another in a “live” online setting. “The content of our journals
included personal reflections, perceptions and questions” (Elliott-Johns et al., 2010, p. 81).

6

A.S. Makaiau et al.

Downloaded by [Amber Strong Makaiau] at 12:11 09 March 2015

For example, we started the journal with a number of questions that we brainstormed in
one of our face-to-face meetings. “Why are you interested in p4cHI? What about p4cHI
are you researching? Where are you in the research process? How will you do yourresearch?” From there, new wonderings and insights emerged, and we used thosequestions and comments to guide further inquiry. This led to ongoing and continuous
dialogue (Freire, 1970), which was characterized by careful listening, questioning, andopenness to different viewpoints (Lunenberg & Samaras, 2011, p. 844). At the end of ourdata collection period, we had 70 pages of single-spaced journal entries and written
dialogue. Secondary data sources included emails, transcripts of audio-recorded
conversations and discussions, and the analytic memos (Charmaz, 2006; Creswell,2007, p. 67) that we each kept throughout the study.
Data Analysis
We drew from the methods of constant comparison (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to conduct anextensive analysis of our journals. This occurred in three phases. In phase one, we
analyzed the journals “early to help us focus further data collection” (p. 508). We started
with the 51 pages of our journal, which we kept from 17 June to 9 August 2013.
Individually, we analyzed these early entries and developed initial open codes; then wecame together and worked as critical friends (Miles & Huberman, 1994). We shared ouropen codes and worked together to develop an initial set of theoretical codes and analytic
themes (Charmaz, 2006). In phase two, after journaling again for three more months, weread through an additional 35 pages of journal entries that were kept from 2 October 2013
to 22 January 2014. Again, on our own we further developed our initial set of theoreticalcodes and analytic themes. Then we came back together, and through dialogue
methodology (Lunenberg & Samaras, 2011, p. 844) we created our final list of analytic
themes. In phase three, we wrote up our findings and collaborated further to revise ourthinking and refine the themes we had developed.
Findings
Collaborative analysis of our journal produced three major themes: an internationalcommons, deepened inquiry in the research process, and culturally responsive practices.
An International Commons
Through the analysis of the data we came to see our interactive online journal as aninternational commons that encompassed everything that is jointly owned by all of us(Walljasper, 2010, p. 1). From the data we learned that the journal became a place that wasours. Our shared interests in p4cHI and the regular time for reflective writing helped us towork through our language barriers and build a safe place for dialoguing about our
intellectual confusion, emotional difficulties and social relationships with one another.
The data also showed how our journal kept us connected and helped us overcome theloneliness and isolation that we had experienced prior to forming our international
research collective.
Throughout the journal the three of us wrote extensively about our passionate interestin a p4cHI approach to education. In one exchange, Amber started by sharing her
excitement for the new p4cHI course that she was developing: “This is the first social
studies class that I have been able to design curriculum for and teach that focuses onthinking!” On the same day, both Lulu and Suguru replied to her post:

Studying Teacher Education

7

I am just as passionate about changing the Chinese education system . . . I wonder how to get
Chinese children more critical? Innovative? How to make them more sympathetic?
Compassionate? How to make them value themselves and have confidence? How to makethem enjoy their learning and engage in school? How to get them to know that their ideas andthinking are cared for and respected by others? (Lulu, 17/6/2013)

Downloaded by [Amber Strong Makaiau] at 12:11 09 March 2015

I am also interested so much in p4cHI because it teaches children to think for themselves.
In Japan, we have many problems in school (e.g., school violence, bullying) . . . . But how tochange? I think p4cHI is a strategy for motivating and promoting children’s learning . . . so thatchildren practice thinking for themselves. (Suguru, 17/6/2013)

As these data demonstrate, our shared values and common enthusiasm for p4cHI brought
us together, but additional quotes from the journal show how our language differences
challenged this bond.
English was the language that we all had in common, however each of ourrelationships with the English language was different. Amber is a native speaker, Lulu wasquite proficient after living in Hawai’i for more than two years, and this was Suguru’s firstexperience communicating exclusively in English. Throughout the journal we wrote about
our differing abilities and how language impacted our communication and relationships
with one another.
Suguru wrote extensively about his struggle with English. Later, Amber responded asfollows:
Hi Suguru – why can’t our journal be a place for you to practice your English? We are very
friendly and forgiving! I loved reading your abstract tonight, and I can’t wait to meet with you
tomorrow and talk about it. I feel like you writing about your research in English gives me awindow into what you are thinking about, and then we can discuss the parts that don’t makesense. (18/11/2013)

Suguru followed up on this entry and Amber’s comments from a previous journal in which
she had expressed guilt and frustration about not knowing Japanese. He wrote:
Yes. I want to improve through this journal. Thank you for reading my English, you two! If
you find that there are wrong English, which I repeat, please tell me. And, Amber, I don’t
think you must feel guilty! I think it is good to study Japanese just a little . . . . I always
appreciate your patience so please don’t feel guilty! (21/11/2013)This dialogue about our language differences was critical in the development of ourinternational research collective. It helped us work through our communication
breakdowns, build a climate of trust (Samaras & Freese, 2006, p. 58), and construct asafe place where we could openly talk through the challenges that we were each facing inour own research initiatives.

A Safe Place
The data also revealed how we incorporated the concept of “intellectual safety” (Jackson,
2001, p. 460), a hallmark of p4cHI, into our online environment. Some of examples of thisare seen in quotes where we honestly share our confusion with one another. At one point
Amber wrote: “Suguru – I am interested in your question about the philosophical inquiry
course, but I’m not sure that I understand your thinking around why you want to know”(27/6/2013). This allowed Suguru to dig deeper into the reasons behind his questions,which provided Amber with an explanation about why he was asking these questions.
Another example of intellectual safety occurred when Suguru interrupted an intense backand forth that Lulu and Amber were having and wrote: “By the way I can’t quite follow
what you two are talking about, sorry. What was research for Philosophical Inquiry courseDownloaded by [Amber Strong Makaiau] at 12:11 09 March 2015

8

A.S. Makaiau et al.

under DOE?” (20/10/2013). In response to Suguru’s inquiry, Amber and Lulu helped toclarify his understanding of the issue, which enabled Suguru to become an active memberof the discussion. This process of maintaining an intellectually safe community of inquiry
was ongoing and required vigilance. We had to remember to not be in a rush and to takethe time to attend to other people’s thinking and feelings. At times this seemed to slow
down the progress of our individual projects, but when we were rewarded with ourcolleagues’ alternative views and insights, it was well worth it.
Our intellectually safe writing environment also helped to foster emotional support.
At one point Lulu wrote: “I feel I am a chicken with head cutting off. I keep running around,but forget where to head for” (6/25/2013). She was discouraged by the change she was goingto have to make to her research methodologies so she began journaling to brainstorm
alternative methodologies with us, her trusted colleagues. This calmed her down and allowed
her to see the previously invisible opportunities that this change in plans had to offer.
Suguru used the journal to overcome the depression he was experiencing as he wastrying to move his dissertation forward while living so far away from his committee
members. In his writing he called out to us, “Tonight, I struggle to write a proposal for mydissertation . . . I can’t proceed with the work. I get depressed. I don’t know what I do andthink” (7/1/2013). That same night, working at home online, Lulu replied, “I have the same
feeling with Suguru. I don’t always know exactly where I am heading for” (7/1/2013). The
two of them continued their exchange well into the night, and at the end of it all Suguru
wrote to Lulu: “Do what you can, with what you have, where you are” (7/6/2013). He had
been comforted by Lulu’s willingness to be vulnerable alongside him; together, through useof the journal, they were able to move each of their research processes forward.
In analyzing the way in which the journal supported our emotional development as
researchers we also found that journaling gave us emotional support in our personal lives.
Amber wrote about her efforts balancing motherhood and a career: “Can I still be a goodmom, and be a successful professional?” (7/12/2013). Suguru described the personal
challenges of living in another country: “I’m very confusing. I feel frustration”(10/10/2013). And Lulu disclosed the great sacrifices that her fiancé and family in China
had to make so that she could complete her degree in the United States:
I don’t want him to sacrifice his time and dream for me for so long time . . . . When I think
about the future direction, I feel very confused. Going back to China, everything is supposed
to be much easier for me . . . I won’t have to bear the guiltiness and heart aching feeling.
(11/16/2013)

As this evidence shows, the journal helped to strengthen both our professional andpersonal relationships with one another.
We also observed that we wrote online with one another when we had challenges
relating to one another in person. An interesting example of this appeared mid-way
through the data collection process. Amber and Suguru got into a heated discussion with
one another during one of their face-to-face meetings, and instead of debriefing theiruncomfortable exchange with one another in person, they used the journal to talk to eachother. Suguru wrote:
In this week, I had some discussion about my research with Amber. I didn’t tell about myinterest well. I irritated myself. But I can grow only step-by-step. I can do only what I can do.
Thank you for your patience. (10/28/2013)

Amber wrote back:I’m sorry I got a bit frustrated too. I was having a bad day . . . I also can’t imagine trying tocommunicate my complex thinking in another language. Both you and Lulu are so courageousStudying Teacher Education9

to be doing your studies in another country and another language. As I reflect I realize that I
need to be a bit more patient. I really want to understand what you are thinking. (10/29/2013)

Downloaded by [Amber Strong Makaiau] at 12:11 09 March 2015

In this case the journal was a mediator and a facilitator of the professional and personal
relationships that we were working to develop in our international research collective.
Through journaling we learned how to be open and honest with one another. We built aclimate of trust, and in this safe environment we learned how to navigate themisinterpretations and misunderstandings commonly experienced in cross-cultural
collaboration. Our journal was the glue that held our international research collective
together.
Kept Us Connected
The journal played an important role in keeping us together. On 17 January 2014, Amberwrote: “this is a busy life, and through journaling we remain connected to each other’sthoughts, feelings, struggles, and celebrations.” Quite often there were large gaps in time
when Amber, Lulu, and Suguru wouldn’t see one another. The business of our own life andphysical distance separated us, and we would use the journal to communicate with one
another and stay connected.
In our communications we would share what we were working on and we would give
each other important updates about the areas of our research that we were collaborating on.
This included exchanging information about the theoretical arguments that we weremaking, reports we were writing, and various methodological decisions that we had tocoordinate. At one point in the study, while Suguru was in Japan, he almost quit theinternational research collective because of a misunderstanding about US research policies,
but because we had our journal to work things out in, Amber and Lulu were able to give him
the encouragement and information that he needed to move his research forward.
Prior to the start of our journaling project, we had experienced frustrations like
Suguru’s, but without our connection to one another we felt alone, isolated, andoverwhelmed. As Lulu put it in one entry, “I even questioned what is the meaning for me
to do the research . . . . I felt like I deserted my mom and dad to come to the U.S. to suffer”(6/20/2013). However, once we started journaling with one another things changed.
Amber wrote: “now I feel like I am working with a team of people who can collaborate
with one another as we each pursue our own interests” (6/17/2013). “When I forget to readour journal I think that I’m the only one thinking about p4c Hawai’i research, and then I
read the journal and I’m reminded that you two are thinking about this research all the timetoo” (1/3/2014).
Through constant connections and encouragement the journal became a place ofinspiration and a source of motivation. As Lulu put it:
I cannot imagine what my situation if Amber or Suguru were gone. Many times, I feel I cannot
find my way, many times, I feel frustrated. I read this journal, I know I am not alone. I get
courage to do this research again. (7/16/2013)

As this quote exemplifies, the journal helped us create a safe and productive researchcommunity, and as a result, we became a community of researchers who were better
prepared to navigate the complexities of our individual research interests.
Deepened Inquiry in the Research Process
The second major theme that emerged from the analysis of the data highlights the ways inwhich the journal helped us deepen our inquiry and incorporate the activity of philosophy

Downloaded by [Amber Strong Makaiau] at 12:11 09 March 2015

10

A.S. Makaiau et al.

into the research process. As “critical friends” and “trusted colleagues” we validated eachother’s research and gave each other new perspectives that helped us reframe ourinterpretations (Lunenberg & Samaras, 2011, p. 843). We used the journal to ask
questions, reflect on our field experiences, and to probe each other about the theories or
methodologies that we were developing.
Quite often, as is the nature of most philosophical inquiries, the asking of questions did
not lead to immediate answers. To respond to this we started to think through possible
answers to the questions in our journal, and then we made appointments to meet with eachother in person. At our face-to-face meetings we would use the thinking that we had
developed in the journal to further explore questions that we were still interested in, which
ultimately deepened our inquiry. In the analysis of the data we learned that this process
afforded us the time to reveal what we were confused about, uncovered the complexity of the
topics that we were researching, and it supported us in developing possible answers to ourquestions.
Research is “Up and Down”
Through our journal we also learned how to become more comfortable with our confusion andthe many uncertainties embedded in the research process in general. This was most clearly
illustrated in an exchange between Amber and Suguru. In response to a journal entry of
Lulu’s, Suguru wrote, “I think, research is up and down . . . our inquiry have many
directions . . . and sometimes I think I’m off track” (6/25/2013). This prompted Amber to
respond:
All of your comments remind me that research is not a linear path. We think that we know thedirection that we are going, and that we are designing the path that our research will take, but
so many variables outside of our control impact the work that we do. We have to remain
flexible as researchers . . . it is a lot like life. (12/15/2013)

Through exchanges like this, we learned to lean on one another, become morephilosophical, and view our research as a continual work in progress.
We also learned about the important role that our critical friendships played indeveloping our philosophical inquiry. As we listened to the questions and thoughts ofothers we learned to turn our own thinking upside down. In one entry Amber wrote:“Lulu’s questions made me realize that I will need to go back to my research questions thatI developed a couple of months ago and revise them in light of the progress we have madewith the curriculum and with our own thinking” (10/22/2013). We were constantly
learning with and learning from one another. We used philosophical questions, reflection
and dialogue to cultivate a reciprocal mentoring relationship that not only helped tosupport the research we were producing, but the knowledge that we were constructing
about other people, places, cultures, and ourselves.
Culturally Responsive Practices
The final theme to emerge from the analysis of the data revealed how journaling createdculturally responsive practices (Castagno & Brayboy, 2008; Gay, 2000; Pang, 2005;
Sheets, 2005; Tatum, 2011) in both our research and our relationships with one another.
We reflected on our home countries and cultures, and through sharing became more awareof others’ countries and cultures. We learned to situate and tailor our research to theuniqueness of our home countries, and we developed new perspectives on the purpose of
our research.

Studying Teacher Education

11

For Lulu and Suguru, the journal played an important role in helping them reflect on
their own schooling experience. For example, Lulu wrote this entry after visiting a local
school in Hawai’i:
I lived in a boarding school, I got up between 5:00 to 5:30 am, and then recited English words
or text, historical facts, and Chinese texts with our classmates in a very organized classroom.
I don’t remember much time for eating and playing sports, what I only can do is study, study,
study, the boring and challenging study whole day until the late night 11 pm . . . But after that,some classmates still worked hard on their homework or reading, so influenced by them,
I began to pick up the book again. (10/07/2014)

Downloaded by [Amber Strong Makaiau] at 12:11 09 March 2015

This caused Suguru to think of his schooling experience as well. He replied:
It was so different from Lulu’s experience. I was in private school that allows students toadvance from one stage to the next, without taking entrance exams. We call a school like that
“escalator school”. In “escalator school” I didn’t study at all . . . And then I noticed I like tothink about something, so I started to study and thought about, how can I go to graduate
school. (10/07/2014)

Lulu and Suguru used the journal to reflect on their experiences in the United Statesand gain insights into their past. They also used the journal to think about the future,and how they would apply what they learned when they returned home. For example,
Lulu wrote:
This morning, I am wondering why I always want to change the Chinese education system?
Each country has their own culture and educational context. I cannot just transplant the whole
U.S. model to the Chinese educational system . . . I need to consider seriously what aspects of
p4cHI I want to use in Chinese classroom. I need to find out what Chinese education reallyneeds, and then I can choose what elements in p4c fit the Chinese education themost . . . instead just transplanting a good organ, I need to make sure it fits the body’s
condition. (7/2/2013)This type of personal reflection helped Lulu and Suguru increase their understanding of
how the research they were doing in the United States would translate to their work at
home. It also created excellent opportunities for cross-cultural sharing.
We got to learn about our differences and find commonalities between our cultures.
This enhanced our professional growth, and it also gave us cross-cultural perspectives on
personal lives. For example, in response to Amber writing about her struggles balancing
her family and professional life, Lulu wrote the following journal entry:
According to Confucius: cultivate a good personality and be a good person, raise and regulate
a decent family, then the states will be well governed, and the whole world will be a better
place. I feel it makes sense. If the family has problem, you will be very distracted and uneasy
doing the other things. (11/11/2013)

Amber replied to Lulu: “I love the Confucius quote Lulu – it is very meaningful for me,
and I’m so thankful for your understanding” (11/13/2013).
Our cross-cultural sharing, listening, and reflecting also provided us with theopportunity to gain multiple perspectives on the researchers that we were each becoming.
As younger scholars, Suguru and Lulu thought about their dissertation. Suguru wrote:
Scholars in U.S. frequently say a dissertation is like driver license. Scholars in Japan also say
so, and sometimes they say a Ph.D. dissertation is like “sending smoke signal” . . . it isdeclaration of position in knowledge world. I want to have license to drive research in thisworld, to do movement of changing schooling, and to let everybody know my position.
(6/20/2013)

Deeply entrenched in the dissertation process, this quote shows how Suguru came to a
deeper understanding of why he was invested in his research.

12

A.S. Makaiau et al.
Lulu, on the other hand, had more practical reflections about her research. She wrote:
Our dissertation is an important predictor for what kind of job we will find, in this case, we
also need to take our career goal into consideration while writing a dissertation. We need tofulfill our passion, but most importantly we need to survive. (6/20/2013)

Lulu’s focus was more directed towards how her research aspirations could support her
economic survival.
In response to their writing, Amber, who is at a different stage of her career, wrote:

Downloaded by [Amber Strong Makaiau] at 12:11 09 March 2015

That is such an interesting inquiry . . . it seems like we all need to ask right now – who is ourresearch for? Can we stay true to ourselves and find a form of research that resonates with who
we are? Will this pay off in the long run? . . . I think we need to constantly ask ourselves -whyare we doing what we are doing? Is this meaningful? And the intention is that we will continue
to ask these questions as we move forward. (6/23/2013)

By asking and answering of questions like these, entries in our self-study journal helped usreflect and frame, and reframe our thinking.
What Did We Learn?
While analyzing our journal, we recognized that we each had unique roles in thisinternational research collective, and that there were multiple “learning zones” (Samaras& Freese, 2006, p. 51) at play during our interactions with one another. Amber’s role as aprofessional and experienced researcher expanded Lulu’s and Suguru’s thinking. They
used Amber’s questions and suggestions to organize their thoughts, refine their researchquestions, plan out their research methodology and guide their reflective practice (Dewey,
1929, 1933; Erickson & Gumperz, 1996; Henderson, 2001; Loughran, 1996; Schön, 1987;
van Manen, 1991; Zeichner & Liston, 1987). Similarly, Lulu and Suguru’s questions
pushed Amber to better explain her thinking through critical dialogue (Palincsar, 1998),
frame and reframe her research questions (Samaras & Freese, 2006), and ultimately lookat p4cHI with new eyes. Collectively, we learned how critical journaling and self-study
were in ensuring that “the knowledge that we produced was distributed and constructedwith various areas of expertise in a collaborative enterprise” (Samaras & Freese, 2006,
pp. 50 –51).
Like Kosnik et al. (2006), we also learned that “collaboration does not mean harmony”(p. 152). As we stepped into this project we each knew that collaborative reflection isessential to self-study, but we had no previous experiences with the challenges of crosscultural collaboration. Through the journaling and self-study process we learned how to
overcome language barriers, work through miscommunications, and how to use ourjournal as a tool for facilitating our confusing face-to-face interactions. All of this taught
us “the importance of cultivating a culture that encourages and supports personal andprofessional development” (Kosnik et al., 2006, p. 155). Through open sharing about our
backgrounds, home lives, and personal struggles we built an intellectually safe andemotionally supportive research community that helped to advance our individual
research goals and create meaningful international partnerships. In addition to thesecollective insights, we each had personal lessons learned.
The American Researcher’s Perspective
This was Amber’s first time in a position of research mentorship. Motivated by theloneliness and isolation of her post at the university, she used this self-study to push herself
out of her comfort zone and take on the role of mentor for Lulu and Suguru. At theStudying Teacher Education

13

Downloaded by [Amber Strong Makaiau] at 12:11 09 March 2015

beginning of this new experience she found herself thinking, “Why are they asking me
about their research methods? I’m no expert.” However, as she engaged in dialogue with
Lulu and Suguru she came to see that she did not have to be an expert. She realized that a
research mentor could be a co-inquirer, in the same way that she was a co-inquirer
alongside her students in the classroom (Freire, 1970; Jackson, 2001). She was reminded“that learning takes place best in joint productive activity, that is, when experts andnovices work together for a common product or goal and during the activity haveopportunities to converse about it” (Tharp, Estrada, Dalton, & Yamauchi, 2000, p. 21).
This lesson was transformative for Amber. In her first ever international partnership, notonly did she learn how to think and reflect alongside people from different countries, butalso she came into her identity as research mentor.
The Chinese Researcher’s Perspective
The journal taught Lulu how writing could be a method of inquiry (Richardson, 1994).
Through journaling she learned how to think deeply, to actively encourage ideas, and totease thought out of chaos or nothing. Overall, the experience provided her with courage,
determination, inspiration, stimulation, and friendship, which she needed as she engaged
in the tough process of conducting research abroad. Before she started this self-study she
knew that her research was related to her concern about Chinese education, but she was not
fully aware of the roots of her wonderings. As a result of the journaling and self-study
process, she gained insight into the impact of her prior educational experience, cultural
background, and the current state of China’s education system on her motivation forchange. She also realized that she wouldn’t have had these insights if it weren’t for thealternative views and multiple perspectives that were provided by her critical friends andtrusted colleagues (Samaras & Freese, 2006).
The Japanese Researcher’s Perspective
This was Suguru’s first experience with journal writing and reflective practice. A bit
reluctant about the process at first, he learned the benefits of risk taking and vulnerability.
As he opened up to discussing his hopes, confusion, and anxieties with our intimate group,
he realized how journaling worked to create an extended experience (Dewey, 1929)
beyond our face-to-face interactions. The journal was responsive to his needs as aninternational researcher working in the United States. It gave him think time so that hecould formulate his thoughts and respond when it was convenient. The journal became aplace where he could practice a new language in a supportive and caring environment.
He came to recognize that Amber and Lulu wanted to learn from him, and this gave him
confidence in his efforts to communicate. Through open dialogue and communication withothers, he learned that, although he might not know exactly where he is going in his
research, he is going somewhere.
Conclusions
Interactive online journaling was an essential tool for helping us build a culturally
responsive community of inquiry in our international research collective. It was themedium with which we became critical friends and trusted colleagues. Through the open
and critical dialogue (Freire, 1970) that occurred on the pages of our journal, we learned
how to step back and use the “paper mirror” (Hubbs & Brand, 2005) to examine how eachDownloaded by [Amber Strong Makaiau] at 12:11 09 March 2015

14

A.S. Makaiau et al.

of our individual research goals was embedded within the cultural contexts of our homecountries. The use of collaborative technology, Google documents, was particularly
helpful in facilitating this cross-cultural exchange. It offered us a meta-cognitive space
where we could unabashedly take the time to think through, edit, and revise ourinteractions with one another. This ultimately led to “greater sensitivity, understanding,and ethical awareness . . . [and] positive international and social relations” (O’Brien et al.,2007, p. 128). We made “connections between ourselves and the world around us” (Hubbs& Brand, 2005, p. 62) and gained insight into the context-driven dimensions to theresearch we were conducting.
The online journaling and self-study process helped situate our research in the uniqueproblems and opportunities of our home countries, and it helped us use the questions andperspectives of others to better understand those problems and opportunities. For example,
Lulu and Suguru became more cognizant of their reasons for wanting to use p4cHI as ameans for school reform in each of their home countries, and Amber learned more about
how p4cHI would have to grow and change in order to meet the needs of learners incountries other than her own. For each of us, the journal provided a new space, a placebeyond the borders of our nation states, where each of us was “inherently and consistently
engaged in [the] cultural production and reproduction” (Castagno & Brayboy, 2008,
p. 960) of knowledge in “culturally validating and affirming” ways (Gay, 2000, p. 29).
Grounded in parallel theories and practices, self-study and p4cHI ensured that ourculturally responsive community was characterized by philosophical inquiry andreflection. We asked: What is the meaning of my research? How do I know what I know?
Is what I know in the United States different from what I know in my home country? Whatis the right approach to my research given the context of my home country? And at the endof our study a new and more fundamental research question emerged. We asked ourselves,“What does it mean to be a part of an international research collective?”
Prior to this study we had not taken the time to dig deeply into this question.
We assumed that our common interest in p4cHI and our willingness to get to know one
another automatically made us an international community of inquiry. Then, as we began
our reflective practice of writing and thinking with one another, we started to expand on
our initial interpretation of what it meant to be a part of an international researchcollective. We learned how to use the “medium of written language as a canvas of colors to
meticulously make choices of how to represent important professional experiences”(Causarano, 2011, p. 549). Through this process we realized that the answer to our newquestion resided in our own choices of how we wanted to represent our professional
experience. This was the important role of journaling and self-study in our international
research collective; combined with our background in p4cHI, journaling and self-study
helped us to “negotiate and co-construct knowledge of our collective understanding”(Lunenberg & Samaras, 2011, p. 842) of what we thought it meant to be a part of ourinternational collaboration.
Educational SignificanceIf one were looking for levers to change [educational research] in a global context,
international . . . collaborations offer a productive and powerful option. (DeZure et al., 2012,
p. 32)

This collaborative self-study has significance for the authors as well as other international
scholars and researchers in education. As increasing numbers of educational researchers
make the decision to go beyond their organizations and transcend the geographic

Studying Teacher Education

15

boundaries of their current support systems, they must have tools for building
intellectually safe international communities of inquiry. The findings from this study
demonstrate the value of self-study, journaling, p4cHI, and collaborative technologies inthe development of culturally responsive international research partnerships. With thesetools, educational researchers like us are better equipped to “overcome taken-for-granted
beliefs and values in our individual institutions” and are more open to new “ways ofthinking to help us recognize our own cognitive distortions and reinterpret our beliefs andpractices” (Elliott-Johns et al., 2010, p. 81). They help each of us become agents ofchange, ready to develop new areas of knowledge that extend beyond our personal andcultural boundaries.

Downloaded by [Amber Strong Makaiau] at 12:11 09 March 2015

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Au, K. H., & Kawakami, A. J. (1994). Influence of the social organization of instruction on
children’s text comprehension ability: A Vygotskian perspective. In T. E. Raphael &R. E. Reynolds (Eds.), The contexts of school-based literacy (pp. 63 – 77). New York, NY:
Random House.
Beck, C., Freese, A., & Kosnick, C. (2004). The preservice practicum: Learning through self-study
in a professional setting. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.),
International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices(pp. 1253– 1259). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Butnor, A. (2012). Critical communities: Intellectual safety and the power of disagreement.
Educational Perspectives, 44, 29– 31.
Castagno, A. E., & Brayboy, B. M. J. (2008). Culturally responsive schooling for indigenous youth:
A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 78, 941– 993. doi:10.3102/
0034654308323036
Causarano, A. (2011). Becoming a special education teacher: Journey or maze? Reflective Practice,12, 547– 556. doi:10.1080/14623943.2011.590344
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. (1929). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative
process. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath.
DeZure, D., Chism, N. V. N., Sorcinelli, M. D., Cheong, G., Ellozy, A. R., Holley, M., . . . Atrushi,
D. (2012). Building international faculty-development collaborations: The evolving role ofAmerican teaching centers. Change, 44(3), 24 – 33. doi:10.1080/00091383.2012.672909
Elliott-Johns, S., Peterson, S., Allison-Roan, V., & Ramirez, L. (2010). A cross-continentcollaboration: Seeking community to support critical inquiry in teacher education.
In L. B. Erickson, J. R. Young, & S. Pinnegar (Eds.), Navigating the public and private:
Negotiating the diverse landscape of teacher education (pp. 81 – 84). Provo, UT: Brigham
Young University.
Erickson, F., & Gumperz, J. J. (1996). The counselor as gatekeeper: Social interaction in interviews.
New York, NY: Academic Press.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Henderson, J. G. (2001). Reflective teaching: Professional artistry through inquiry. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Merrill.

Downloaded by [Amber Strong Makaiau] at 12:11 09 March 2015

16

A.S. Makaiau et al.

Hubbs, D. L., & Brand, C. F. (2005). The paper mirror: Understanding reflective journaling. Journalof Experiential Education, 28, 60– 71. doi:10.1177/105382590502800107
Jackson, T. (2001). The art and craft of ‘gently Socratic’ inquiry. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing
minds: A resource book for teaching thinking (pp. 459– 465). Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kosnik, C., Samaras, A. P., & Freese, A. R. (2006). Beginning with trusted friends: Venturing out towork collaboratively in our institutions. In L. Fitzgerald, M. Heston, & D. Tidwell (Eds.),
Collaboration and community: Pushing boundaries (pp. 152–156). Cedar Falls, IA: Universityof Northern Iowa. Retrieved from http://resources.educ.queensu.ca/ar/sstep/S-STEP6-2006.pdf
LaBoskey, V. K. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings.
In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbookof self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 817– 869). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lee, O. (2010). Facilitating preservice teachers’ reflection through interactive online journal writing.
Physical Educator, 67, 128– 139.
Leung, K., & Chan, D. K. S. (1999). Conflict management across cultures. In J. Adamopoulos &Y. Kashima (Eds.), Social psychology and cultural context (pp. 177–188). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Loughran, J. (1996). Developing reflective practice: Learning about teaching and learning throughmodeling. London: Falmer Press.
Lunenberg, M., & Samaras, A. (2011). Developing a pedagogy for teaching self-study research:
Lessons learned across the Atlantic. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 841– 850. doi:10.
1016/j.tate.2011.01.008
Makaiau, A. S., & Freese, A. R. (2013). A transformational journey: Exploring our multicultural
identities through self-study. Studying Teacher Education, 9, 141–151. doi:10.1080/17425964.
2013.808049
Makaiau, A. S., & Miller, C. (2012). The philosopher’s pedagogy. Educational Perspectives, 44,
8 – 19.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Moon, J. (2006). Learning journals: A handbook for reflective practice and professional
development. London: Routledge.
Morita, H. (2003). Conflict management styles of Americans and Japanese within close friendships:
Differences and intriguing similarities (Master’s thesis). University of Hawaii Manoa. Retrieved
from http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/7112
Oakes, J., Quartz, K. H., Ryan, S., & Lipton, M. (2000). Becoming good American schools: The
struggle for civic virtue in education reform. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
O’Brien, A. J., Alfano, C., & Magnusson, E. (2007). Improving cross-cultural communication
through collaborative technologies. In Persuasive technology (pp. 125– 131). London: Springer.
Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-540-77006-0_17
Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1986). Racial formation in the United States. London: Routledge.
Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review
of Psychology, 49, 345– 375. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.345
Pang, V. O. (2005). Multicultural education: A caring-centered, reflective approach. Now York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Richardson, L. (1994). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 516– 529). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Samaras, A. P., & Freese, A. R. (2006). Self-study of teaching practices. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
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 thatencourage reflective journal writing. Teachers College Record, 104, 1393– 1421. doi:10.1111/
1467-9620.00208
Takemura, K. (2014). Being different leads to being connected: On the adaptive function ofuniqueness in “open” societies. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 45, 1579– 1593. doi:10.
1177/0022022114548684

Downloaded by [Amber Strong Makaiau] at 12:11 09 March 2015

Studying Teacher Education

17

Tatum, A. W. (2011). The legitimacy of culturally relevant pedagogy: Resolved or unresolved.
In L. Scherff & K. Spector (Eds.), Culture, relevance, and schooling: Exploring uncommon
ground (pp. v– xi). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Tharp, R. G., Estrada, P., Dalton, S., & Yamauchi, L. (2000). Teaching transformed: Achieving
excellence, fairness, inclusion, and harmony. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1997). Intercultural conflict competence. In W. R. Cupach & D. J. Canary (Eds.),
Competence in interpersonal conflict (pp. 121– 147). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
van Manen, M. (1991). The tact of teaching: The meaning of pedagogical thoughtfulness. Albany:
State University of New York Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walljasper, J. (2010). All that we share: How to save the economy, the environment, the internet,
democracy, our communities and everything else that belongs to all of us. New York: New York
Press.
Yos, T. (2012). Raising the bar: Love, the community of inquiry, and the flourishing life.
Educational Perspectives, 44, 52– 57.
Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard Educational
Review, 57, 23 –48.
Zhou, W., Simpson, E., & Domizi, D. (2012). Google Docs in an out-of-class collaborative writing
activity. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 24, 359– 375.