Journaling and Self-Study in an International Research Collective
Amber Strong Makaiau, Unveristy of Hawai‘i
Lu Leng, University of Hawai‘i
Suguru Fukui, Hiroshima University
I was wanting a space where I could reflect on the research process in a community of inquiry, andI am so thankful that I have you two to reflect with. …My big question is what are YOU two mostinterested in studying? (Amber, American Author)
Your big question for me is also the biggest question for me. 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, Chinese Author)
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 to be caught in a tree, a bank or... I don’t want to swim to stay same place.
Above all I can not swim. I want to float a stream, although there is obstacle. I am floating stream
already. (Suguru, Japanese Author)

Introduction
The quotes above are from an interactive on-line journal (Lee, 2010) that was kept by theauthors of this paper. We are three educational researchers in Hawai‘i who are each from adifferent country, and at different stages in our professional careers. Initially, we were drawn
together because of our common interest in philosophy for children Hawai‘i (p4cH). p4cH is anapproach to education that aims to transform traditional classrooms into intellectually safe
communities of inquiry (Jackson, 2001), and in each of our home countries p4cH is being
explored as a viable means for school betterment (Oakes, Quartz, Ryan & Lipton, 2000). Caught
between the tension of representing the interests of our unique backgrounds and wanting to finda common ground to discuss our p4cH research we started the reflective practice (Dewey, 1933;
Schon, 1987; Zeichner & Liston, 1987; Loughran, 1996) of journaling with one another.
Through journaling we hoped to create a “systematic and critical examination of [our] actions
and [our] context as a path to develop a more consciously driven mode of professional activity”(Samaras & Freese, 2006, p. 11). In this paper we discuss the collaborative self-study that we
conducted as we systematically wrote in, and analyzed our journal. We will explain how
journaling and self-study helped to promote our international collaboration (DeZure, Chism,
Sorcinelli, Cheong, Ellozy, Holley, Kazem, & Atrushi, 2012) by creating an internationalcommons where we could deepen our inquiry in the research process in a culturally responsive
way. We will conclude with our personal reflections on the importance of journaling and selfstudy among educational researchers who share common interests, and yet who wish to tailor
their research to the contexts of their home countries.
Background and Theoretical Framework
In this paper we draw upon the literature of reflective teaching, culturally responsive
pedagogies, social constructivism and self-study to help us frame the role of journaling in ourinternational research collective. The research literature abounds with studies that discuss thevalue of reflection and reflective practice (Dewey, 1929; 1933; Schon, 1987; Zeichner & Liston,
1987; Erickson & Gumperz, 1988; Henderson, 1989; Van Manen, 1991; Loughran, 1996).
Reflection is an integral part of conscious being, and “professional growth is found in the ability
to always create the conditions for self-reflection, to use narrative and reflective writing to
	
  

1	
  

unpack our own thoughts and gain that intellectual distance important to analyze our dailyexperience” (Cuarsarano, 2011, p. 553). In this study, we envisioned learning journals (Moon,
2006) as an important tool for creating the conditions necessary for a reflective practice(Loughran, 1996) that would help us improve upon our newly established international researchcollaboration in education (DeZure et al., 2012, p. 27).
Like Spalding and Wilson (2002), we believed:(1) journals serve as a permanent record of thoughts and experiences; (2) journals provide ameans of establishing and maintaining relationships with [others reading the journals]; (3)journals serve as a safe outlet for personal concerns and frustrations; and (4) journals are an
aid to internal dialogue. (p. 1394)

We wanted to use this type of “reflective thinking via journal writing” (Spalding & Wilson,
2002, p. 1393) to study our international research collective and to personally examine each of
our roles in it (Lunenberg & Samaras, 2011).
We envisioned the journal as a place where we could begin with a question, doubt,
hesitation, wondering or perplexity, and move “through the act of searching to find material that[would] resolve, clarify, or otherwise address the doubt” (Spalding & Wilson, 2002). We saw thejournal as a “a mutually self-disclosing context” where we were “free to ask and answer
questions, to discuss [research] with others, and to probe for deeper understanding of complex
issues.” We wanted to use our journal as a place for cultivating “further inquiry with others thatwere like-minded in their commitment to critical dialogue, transformational inquiry,” (ElliottJohns, Peterson, Allison-Roan, & Ramirez, 2010, p. 81) and the p4cH approach to education.
We also wanted to use our journal “a ‘community of practice’ without geographic
boundaries” (Elliot-Johns et. al., 2010, p. 81). Through dialogue and caring we wanted totranscend the boarders of our nation states, “understand each others’ lives and concerns and build[our] relationships” (Lunenberg & Samaras, 2011, p. 844). We imagined, that through journaling
international researchers like us could “avoid making assumptions about what is essential, what
will work and what is desirable. Instead [we could] work collaboratively with [our] partners to
identify what is relevant, useful and appropriate to context” (p. 27). In line with the practices ofculturally-responsive approaches to education (Gay, 2000; Castagno & Brayboy, 2008) we
wanted to use our journal, and this study to build upon the literature by suggesting that reflection
and journaling are essential to relationship building, the co-construction of knowledge, selfknowledge, and validation of diverse cultures, languages and experiences in international
research partnerships.
To conduct our self-study research we used a social constructivist lens. This included thebelief that knowledge is constructed by learners, is experienced based, and is developed within asocial context (Schon, 1987; Vygotsky, 1978). We further characterized our self-study as“personal, constructivist, and collaborative” (Beck, Freese, & Kosnick, 2004, p. 1256). It was
personal because we started with ourselves, and reflected on own research processes andinterests. It was constructivist because we were “constantly inquiring” about our p4cH researchand ourselves, “never content with present ideas, aware that knowledge is always partial and canalways be improved upon” (Beck, Freese & Kosnick, 2004, p. 1263). And finally, it wascollaborative. We developed a philosophical community of inquiry (Lipman, 1991, 1993;
Jackson, 2013, 2001) where “the views of individuals” were “constantly brought into dialogue
with the views of others” (Beck, Freese, & Kosnick, 2004, p. 1265).

	
  

2	
  

Objectives and Purpose of the Study
Drawing upon the research on self-study and reflection, this paper aims to capture thecomplexities of conducting educational research with international partners. It also aims explore
the possibilities of using a collaborative and interactive online journal in an international
research collective.
Research Questions
What is the role of journaling in an international research collective?
• How did the journaling support our collaboration?
• How did the journaling advance our individual and collective research interests/goals?
• How does the journaling process support the growth of the project we are researching(p4cH and the philosophical inquiry course)?
• How does the journaling process support our development as educators, researchers, andpeople?
Methods
This study applies a self- study research methodology that is self-initiated, improvement
aimed, and interactive (Laboskey, 2004). It was also characterized by a “collective self-study
method” that involved the “interactive exploration of an issue by a team of researchers”(Lunenberg & Samaras, 2011, p. 844) who were engaged in collaborative inquiry (Samaras &Freese, 2008).
Context and Participants
The participants in this study are the three authors of this paper. We are educational
researchers from three different countries: the United States, China, and Japan. We became
connected with one another at a large university in Hawai‘i, and because of our common
research interests formed an international research collective.
Amber is the Director of Curriculum and Research at the University of Hawai‘i Uehiro
Academy for Philosophy and Ethics in Education. The Uehiro Academy is the home of p4cH. As
a part of Amber’s position she is responsible for designing innovative approaches to p4cH andresearching the impact of p4cH. During the course of this study she was researching the impactof a newly developed public high school social studies elective titled, Philosophical Inquiry.
Amber has been practicing and researching p4cH since 2001. She was born and raised in the
United States.
Lulu is a doctoral student from Educational Psychology Department in College of
Education at University of Hawai‘i at Manoa. She originally came from China and moved to
Hawai‘i to pursue her doctoral degree in August 2011. She was fascinated by the power of p4cH
in positively impacting students’ thinking and behaviors, thus she became interested in doing
p4cH research and planned to spread p4cH teaching philosophy to China in the future. In 2012,
Lulu was introduced by the founder of p4cH, Thomas Jackson to the principal investigator
Amber, and began to work together to investigate the Philosophical Inquiry course’ impact on
students’ academic engagement and psychological well-being. Amber introduced Lulu to Suguru
in June 2013.
Suguru is a doctoral student from the College of Education at Hiroshima University. He
was born and raised in Kyoto, Japan. Suguru was drawn to Hawai‘i because of his interest in
p4cH. He is particularly fascinated in the relationship between the collaborative questioning

	
  

3	
  

process in the community of inquiry and the construction of democratic (minnshyushyugiteki)social relationships. Suguru came to Hawai‘i in the spring of 2013 to visit the Uehiro Academy,
and then applied to be a visiting scholar at the University of Hawai‘i during the 2013-14 school
year. Suguru met Amber at the Uehiro Academy and Amber introduced Suguru to Lulu. In the
future, Suguru wants to apply what he learns from his research to reshape citizenship educationin Japan.
Data
The primary data source was our interactive on-line journal. Initially, during the summerof 2013, we wrote in the journal five times per week. Then, when the 2013 fall semester started,and life became much more busy, we wrote in the journal once a week. We continued thispractice for eight months (6/17/2013 – 1/22/2014).
We used google docs as our online journaling tool to share our journal entries with one
another. Like Elliott-Johns, Peterson, Allison-Roan, and Ramirez (2010) “the content of ourjournals included personal reflections, perceptions and questions” (p. 81). The journals were aplace for open ended-inquiry and reflection as we read and responded to one another’s writing.
Through this practice we created an ongoing and continuous dialogue (Freire, 1990) with one
another despite the gaps in our personal contact. In our dialogue we respectfully recognized eachother’s voice though careful listening, asking for further clarification, and acknowledging our
openness to different viewpoints to improve our collective work (Lunenberg & Samaras, 2011, p.
844). At the end of our data collection period, we ended up with a total of seventy single spaced
pages of journal entries.
The secondary data sources in this study include emails between the three of us,transcripts of audio recorded conversations and discussions, and analytic memos (Creswell,2005, p. 67; Charmaz, 2006, p. 72–95) that we each kept throughout the study.
Data Analysis
Using the method of constant comparison (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) we did an extensive
analysis of our journals. This occurred in three phases. In phase one, we analyzed the journals“early to help us focus further data collection” (Glaser & Straus, 1967, p. 508). We started withthe 51 (single-spaced) pages of our journal, which we kept from June 17, 2013 to August 9,
2013. We analyzed these entries separately and developed initial open codes. Then we came
together and served as critical friends (Miles & Huberman, 1994). We shared our open codes andworked together to develop an initial set of theoretical codes and analytic themes (Charmaz,
2006). In phase two, after journaling again for three more months, we read through 35 morepages of (single-spaced) journal entries that were kept from October 2, 2013 to January 22, 2014.
Again, on our own we further developed our initial set of theoretical codes 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 andcollaborated further to revise our thinking and refine the themes we had developed.
Findings
The discussion of our findings includes an overview of the themes that emerged fromanalyzing our interactive on-line journal. Our collaborative analysis resulted in the following
themes: an international commons, deepened inquiry in the research process, and a culturally
responsive practice.

	
  

4	
  

An international commons. Through the analysis of the data we came to see ourinteractive on-line journal as an international commons. The “commons, encompasses everythingthat is jointly owned by all of us” (Walljasper, 2010, p. 1), and in this study, the data revealed
how journaling created a common space for the three authors. The data showed how ourcommon interests in p4cH, along with regular journal writing, helped us overcome our language
barriers and build a safe place for dialoguing about our intellectual confusion, emotionaldifficulties and social relationships with one another. The data also showed how our journal kept
us connected with one another, and helped us overcome the loneliness and isolation that we had
experience prior to forming our international research collective.
Throughout the journal the three of us wrote extensively about our passionate interest in ap4cH approach to education. Amber was focused on the new Philosophical Inquiry p4cH coursethat she was developing and researching for the Hawai‘i State Department of Education. On June17, 2013 she wrote excitedly, “this is the first social studies class that I have been able to design
curriculum for and teach that focuses on thinking!” On the same day, both Lulu and Suguru
replied to her post.
I was just passionate in changing the Chinese education system…I wonder how to get Chinesechildren more critical? Innovative? How to make them more sympathetic? Compassionate? Howto make them value themselves and have confidence? How to make them enjoy their learning andengage in school? How to get them to know that their ideas and thinking are cared for andrespected by others? Then I found the Philosophy for Children Program. THIS IS EXACTLY
WHAT I WANT! (Chinese 6/17/2013)
I am interested so much in the p4c in Hawai‘i (p4cH) because p4cH is curriculum reform thatteaches to children think for themselves. In Japan, we have many problems in school (e.g., school
violence, bullying)….But how to change? I think p4cH is a strategy for motivating and promoting
children’s learning...philosophical inquiry is…designed so that children practice thinking forthemselves. (Japanese 6/17/2013)

As this data demonstrates, our shared excitement and enthusiasm for p4cH brought us together,
but additional quotes from the journal make obvious our struggles to overcome the fact that we
spoke different languages.
English was the language that we all had in common, but each of our relationships to theEnglish language was different. Amber was a native speaker, Lulu was quite proficient after
living in Hawai‘i for over two years, and for Suguru, this was the first experiencing
communicating solely in English. Throughout the journal we wrote about our differing abilities,
and how language impacted our communication and relationships with one another in theinternational research collective.
Suguru wrote extensively about struggling with his English. Finally, on November 18,
2013 Amber wrote,
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 tomorrowand talk about it. I feel like you writing about your research in English gives me a window into
what you are thinking about, and then we can discuss the parts that don’t make sense. I think it is areally cool process. I get to learn more about what you are thinking in your research, and you get
to work on your English - this is good for everyone. (American 11/18/2013)

	
  

5	
  

In addition to her words of encouragement, the data also showed that Amber was wrestling withissues of guilt related to her inability to speak Japanese. She wrote, “this language barrier makes
it so frustrating. It makes me feel guilty” (American, 10/29/2013).
Suguru followed up on Amber’s comments and concerns,
Yes. I want to improve through this journal. Thank you for your reading to 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 a just little such few word, thoughbecause it could be great means to make Japanese relax….I always appreciate your patience soplease don’t feel guilty! (Japanese 11/21/2013)

Lulu approached the language differences more pragmatically. To Suguru, she wrote, “don’t
worry, if you practice writing everyday, you’ll see your English becomes fluent. Your English is
now better than before” (Chinese 12/17/2013). This dialogue, about our language differences
was important. It helped us work out our communication breakdowns so that we could constructa safe place to talk through the intellectual confusion, emotional struggles and social
relationships that were a part of each of our p4cH research initiatives.
A safe place. A hallmark of the p4cH approach to education is the importance of creating
intellectually safe communities of inquiry. Jackson (2001) wrote, “for dialogue and inquiry tooccur,” participants “must be emotionally and intellectually safe” (p. 460). The analysis of thedata demonstrates how we incorporated these beliefs about teaching into our online journaling.
Some examples of intellectual safety are seen in quotes where we honestly share our
confusion with one another. At one point Amber wrote, “Suguru - I am interested in yourquestion about the philosophical inquiry course, but I’m not sure that I understand your thinking
around why you want to know” (American, 6/27/2013). This allowed Suguru to dig deeper into
the reasons behind his questions, which provided Amber with an explanation about why he wasasking the questions he was asking. Another example intellectual safety was when Suguru
interrupted an intense back and 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 PhilosophicalInquiry course under DOE? “(Japanese 10/20/2013). In response to Suguru’s inquiry, Amber andLulu helped to clarify his understanding of the issue, which enabled Suguru to become an active
member of the discussion. This process of maintaining an intellectually safe community ofinquiry was ongoing and required vigilance. But the payoff was well worth it. As Suguru
concluded, “of course, I know I can put my thinking freely….I think it is very tough work towrite own thinking, even so we are adults. This journal is very tough work and very goodchallenge” (Japanese 1/22/2013).
The data also showed how we worked hard in our journal to create an emotionally safe place
where we could share our feelings and support one another. Some of emotional sharing related toour research:
There were some other small changes. I was really overwhelmed and irritated at first because thesechanges were not mentioned on the comments I got from the review board over a month ago. I felt
like changing my research design at first because I didn’t want to make all of the changes theysuggested, but then I remembered why I chose the research design that I did and I just got started
working. That is always helpful for me. When I get stressed out about something I found thatwhen I just get down to work - things tend to work themselves out. (American 6/24/2013)

	
  

6	
  

I feel I am a chicken with head cutting off. I keep running around, but forget where to head for.
Before I am fascinated by doing survey instrument design and field test, but because of the sample
size issue, I have to give up. So, I cannot do item response theory and structural equation
modeling at the first semester. (Chinese 6/25/2013)
Tonight, I struggle to write a proposal for my dissertation that I read for Committee Members at
July 23th in HIroshima. But I couldn’t proceed with the work. I get depressed. Although I felt andthought my project is advancing, now I feel I don’t know what I do and think. (Japanese 7/1/2013)

As the quotes above illustrate, the very process of journaling helped us work through ouremotions, but in other cases, like Suguru’s final quote, we needed words of encouragement fromsomeone else. On the same day that Suguru wrote his entry about being depressed, Lulu replied,“I have the same feeling with Suguru. I don’t always know exactly where I am headingfor…”(Chinese 7/1/2013). After reading her response Suguru came back with a more settled
attitude. He wrote, “do what you can, with what you have, where you are” (Japanese 7/6/2013).
In addition to our emotional expressions about the research, we also felt safe enough towrite about our personal emotions with one another. Amber wrote about her struggles balancing
motherhood and her career.
I worry that my children will be ok while I am gone. This is one thing I am constantly struggling
with - can I still be a good mom, and be a successful professional. I hope that I will have Internet
access so that I can continue to write in this journal. It will be so cool if I do because that will
mean that each of us will be separated by the big Pacific Ocean but we will still be able to support
one another, and gain strength from one another. (American 7/12/2013)

As the quote illustrates, while Amber was away from her family on travel, she used the journal
as a source of emotional support.
For Suguru, the journal was an emotionally safe place to talk through the difficulty ofadjusting to living in a new country. He wrote, “I’m very confusing. I feel frustration. I’m in
Hawai‘i but I still writing in Japanese article” (Japanese 10/10/2013). Amber wrote back,“Suguru…I think it is ok that you are working on the article in Hawai‘i” (American 10/15/2014),
and through their continued dialogue he became more settled in his new home.
Lulu also used the journal as a place to express her emotions. On November 16, 2014 she
wrote,
Because of me, my boyfriend came back from mainland, but cannot find a very good fit or betterjob here in Hawai‘i. If I can finish my study earlier, he and I may have more opportunities andwe’ll feel our life finally settling down. I don’t want him to sacrifice his time and dream for me forso 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, and I’ll quickly build up my relationships andreputation in the place where I work. Besides, I can always meet with my parents and brother, so I
don’t have to bear the guiltiness and heartaching feeling. In the U.S., it will be much harder for me
to find a good job comparing with the Chinese job opportunities because of my language and the
U.S. policy toward the international students. However, I do believe if I work hard and I
demonstrate competent qualities, I can find a good job in the U.S. But how about my fiance? Can
he find a better job in the U.S. than in China? Will his parents allow him to stay in the U.S.?
(Chinese 11/16/2013)This entry in particular opened up Amber’s ideas to the unique struggles that Lulu was facing in
the group’s international research collective. Amber wrote back,

	
  

7	
  

Wow Lulu, this is a lot of heavy stuff. I have had to do a lot of thinking about how to create a lifethat will make both my husband and I happy, but I have not had to think about what country willbe the best for both of us to live in. I wish I could make the dissertation process go a lot faster foryou, but it is this thing, which is not always in your control…I can remember going to see a movie
with my husband where the girl had a baby and all I did was cry because I wanted to be done with
my dissertation and have a baby. I think I still had one or two more years before I finished. Lots tothink about. Let me know how I can support you. (American 11/18/2013)

These quotes begin to demonstrate how the dialogue, open sharing, and words of support thatwere facilitated through our interactive online journal helped us to construct a international
research collective that was much more than a straightforward academic collaboration. We werecritical friends who not only cared about one another’s research, but about each other.
The final component of the safe environment to emerge from the data was the way inwhich the journal allowed us to debrief our social relationships with one another. At one point
during the study Amber and Suguru got into a heated discussion with one another. They did notdebrief their social interaction in person, and instead waited to talk to one another through thejournal. Suguru wrote,
In this week, I had some discussion about my research with Amber. I didn’t tell about my interest 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.
(Japanese 10/28 – 10/29/2013)

Amber wrote back,Ahh Suguru…I’m sorry I got a bit frustrated too. I was having a bad day...I also can’t imagine
trying to communicate my complex thinking in another language. Both you and Lulu are socourageous to be doing your studies in another country and another language. As I reflect I realizethat I need to be a bit more patient. I really want to understand what you are thinking, and I want
to be able to dialogue with you about the relationship between p4c and social studies…I should belearning Japanese so that I can communicate with you better…(American 10/29/2013)

As the quotes illustrate the journal provided a safe place to discuss misinterpretations andmisunderstandings that would have taken much more courage to bring up in person. In this ways,
and others, our interactive online journal kept us connected.
Kept Us Connected. On January 17, 2014 Amber wrote, “this is a busy life, and throughjournaling we remain connected to each other’s thoughts, feelings, struggles, and celebrations.”
What she recognized what the important role that the journal was playing in keeping theinternational research collective in tact.
Quite often there were large gaps in time when Amber, Lulu, and Suguru wouldn’t see
one another. We would write things like, “I am wondering how is Suguru now? Did he still feel
discouraged? Is he in England right now? I look forward to hearing about his new P4C
experiences there” (Chinese 7/13/2013). Separated by the business of our own life, and in thiscase physical distance, we would use the journal to communicate with one another.
In our communications with one another we would share what we were working on, andgive each other important updates about the areas of our research that we were collaborating on.
There is evidence of us corresponding about theoretical arguments that we were making(Chinese 6/18/2013), reports we were writing (Japanese 7/23/2013), and our communications
with research participants (American 10/16/2013). This data shows how the journal was an
essential tool for our open and ongoing communication with one another.
	
  

8	
  

In one outstanding entry, the data showed how our journal helped us stay connected
despite the miscommunications that we were having with one another about the research process.
Suguru had found out that he could not do research that involved student participants. He wrote,“I can not easily accept that I can not be researcher in school. What am I? I thought I'm
researcher for schooling education” (Japanese 7/11/2013). On the same day, Amber replied,
You are a researcher of schooling education!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are researching p4cH in schools - you will justhave a different data source than you originally thought. It is OK - your data source does not determine
whether you are a school researcher or not. I wish I could help you see that the research you are doing with
p4cH is SO important. (American 7/11/2013)

And Lulu added,
Suguru, you just have to change another lens to look at your research. Maybe this is a better opportunity.
Although you felt you were going the other way, you will end at the same point one day. You are studying
P4C and p4cH, everything you do is connected to this. One day you will see everything is connected.
(Chinese 7/11/2013)

Through many explanations about the University and Department of Education research policies,
and mostly through words of encouragement, Amber and Lulu helped Suguru through apotentially debilitating part of his research process. As the data shows, Suguru was ready to quit
his p4cH research project in Hawai‘i, but because of his ongoing dialogue with Amber and Lulu
via the journal, he cleared up his misconceptions about the U.S. research policies and moved his
research forward.
The deep connection with one another that was cultivated by our communication in thejournal also helped us overcome the loneliness and isolation that we had felt while doing ourresearch prior to meeting one another. Lulu wrote about what it felt like before our international
collective. “I even questioned what is the meaning for me to do the research….Sometimes I feel I
deserted my mom and dad to come to the U.S. to suffer ” (Chinese 6/20/2013). Amber had also
felt very alone in her role as the sole p4cH researcher in Hawai‘i, and as she explained in her
journal entry, “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” (American 6/17/2013). She went on to explain,“When I forget to read our 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 thisresearch all the time too” (American 1/3/2014).
Through our constant connection and encouragement to one another the journal became aplace of inspiration and a source of motivation. Our journal makes me “feel more power andmomentum to do p4cH research,” (Chinese 10/19/2013). Lulu continued,
I cannot imagine what my situation if Amber or Suguru were gone. Many times, I feel I cannot find myway, many times, I feel frustrated. I read this journal, I know I am not alone. I get courage to do thisresearch again. (Chinese 7/16/2013)

As this quote exemplifies, the journal created an international commons, a safe place for
dialogue that ultimately kept us together.
Deepened inquiry in the research process. The second major theme that emerged fromthe analysis of the data demonstrates how the journal helped to deepen our inquiry throughout
the research process. We used the journal to ask questions, reflect on our field experiences, and
	
  

9	
  

think through the difficult phases of our research projects. Through journaling we became“critical friends or trusted colleagues who seek support and validation of their research to gain
new perspectives in understanding and reframing their interpretations” (Luneberg & Samaras,
2011, p. 843). In Suguru’s words we formed a “research community [which] is very helpful forme” (Japanese 1/2/2014).
Many of the questions that we asked in the journal pushed us to think more deeply about
the theoretical dimensions of our research projects. For example, Lulu wanted to explore “theconnections between multicultural education (M.E.) and p4cH. What M.E. can do to improvestudents’ learning experiences in philosophical inquiry (PI) class? Does PI class need M.E.
anyway” (Chinese 1/15/2014)? Amber responded, “Wow Lulu, so many questions! I’m not surethat I have all of the answers to them, and I think they would good for our group to discuss inperson” (American 1/17/2014). As Amber suggested in this particular journal entry, we would
often meet in person and use the questions that we posed in our journal as starting points for
dialogue and philosophical inquiry. As it happens with classroom inquiries that use a p4cH
approach, our inquiries revealed what we were confused about, helped us uncover thecomplexity of the topics that we were exploring, and supported us in developing possible
answers to our questions.
In addition to asking philosophical questions about the topics we were investigating in
our research, the journal also helped us deepen our inquiry by providing us with a place to reflect
on our field experiences. In this journal entry Lulu reflected on her first day at an American
school.
Today, it’s like a dream come true experience. I finally went to one of the p4cH flagship schools -- Kailua
High School, the school where Amber and Chad worked. Amber showed me the classroom where she
worked before. I visited the classroom, there are warm and colorful paintings on the wall, and two oldcomputers and one old TV. Don’t know why, I then thought about the Chinese high schools. In China, it
seems that all the high school structures are the same. It is all about tall buildings and artificial playground.
The Chinese class structure is also very different from the US’s. This makes me wonder how I can apply
p4cH in Chinese classroom? (Chinese 7/23/2013)

The journal provided her with a place to record her experience and think about how theexperience connected to her own life. In the case of this journal entry, Lulu began to think about
how her work with p4cH in Hawai‘i could apply to her future work with p4cH in China.
Research is “up and down” The data also shows how the journal helped us become more
comfortable with our confusion and uncertainty about the research process. At one point Suguru
wrote, “When I read journal which Lulu wrote, I think, research is up and down…our inquiry
have many directions…and I think I’m off track” (Japanese 6/25/2013). This prompted Amber to
respond,
All of your comments remind me about 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 that we have to remain flexible as
researchers…it is a lot like life. We can be very intentional about the life that we want to lead, but we alsoneed to be flexible to account for all of the things that happen that are out of our control. (American
12/15/2013)This realization deepened our inquiry because it helped all of us become more open to seeing ourresearch as a continual work in progress.
	
  

10	
  

We also recognized that our critical friendship was an essential tool for improving upon
our works in progress. One example was how we used each other’s eyes to look at our researchquestions in new ways. This is seen in the following exchange:
Lulu’s questions made me realize that I will need to go back to my research questions that I
developed a couple of months ago and revise them in light of the progress we have made with thecurriculum and with our own thinking. Lulu - any ideas for Suguru? Maybe you can share yourresearch questions with Suguru. (American 10/22/2013)
Suguru - If you feel you still are going to different directions, you don’t know which way to go, you need tosettle down your mind at first. Ask yourself again WHAT IS YOUR BURNING QUESTION? WHAT IS
YOUR BIGGEST INTEREST? WHAT IS YOUR PASSION? Then try to write down everything, fly withyour mind, WHAT ARE YOUR WONDERINGS? WHAT QUESTIONS YOU WANT TO SOLVE AND
INQUIRY DEEPLY INTO? Write all the questions down. Then probably we can give you more feedback.
When you think about a research question, you should also imagine how you gonna answer the question.
How to define it? How to measure it? And can you measure the thing you really want to measure?...Hereare my research purpose and questions, I hope this may help you narrow your research questions…
(Chinese 10/22/2014)
Thank you, I appreciate your advice (Japanese 10/28/2013)!

As the data shows, we were constantly learning with and learning from one another. We used
questions, reflection and dialogue to cultivate a critical friendship that not only helped to support
the research we were producing, but the knowledge that we were constructing about otherpeople, places, cultures, and ourselves.
A culturally responsive practice. The final theme to emerge from the analysis of thedata revealed how journaling was an essential tool for creating culturally responsive practices(Castagno & Brayboy, 2008; Gay, 2000) in both our research and our relationships with one
another. The use of an online interactive journal in our international research collective helped usreflect on our home countries and cultures, and become more aware of others’ countries andcultures. The journal also provided a place for us to engage in cross-cultural sharing, which
helped us situate and tailor our research to the uniqueness of our home countries. All of thishelped us gain multiple perspectives on the role of research in our own lives.
It became apparent during the analysis of the data that for Lulu and Suguru the journal
played an important role in helping them reflect on their own schooling experience. In an
extensive journal entry, Lulu reflected,
These kids remind me of my high school time, I am jealous again about their curriculum and classenvironment. I never had this kind of classroom before, I only remember I lived in the boarding school, I
got up between 5 to 5:30am, and then recited English words or text, historical facts, and Chinese texts withour classmates in a very organized classroom. At 6:30am, we began running in the playground, I had deep
impression of the dark sky and “scary” trees, especially in the winter time. I feel I am like a warrior,running a long way and fighting against all the hardships, and sacrificing everything to win a battle. Oh, thefigure of our chief teacher emerges. I now feel very respectful for her commitment and engagement inmotivating and “controlling” us in the early morning, she even came to school earlier than us at 5 o’clock.
After the running, we will head to the dining room for a simple breakfast, I remember, I don’t have muchtime 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 11pm. We had night class until 9:30pm, then we went back to the dorm forcleaning and washing. 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…The funny thing is that although we feel our highschool life is the most miserable life at that time, I feel more cherished and touched by that experience. At

	
  

11	
  

that time, we don’t question the meaning of the life, don’t think about the ethical and respectful
relationships with other, don’t inquiry with other peers in an intellectually safe community… but we still
enjoy the life. Now I know it is because the culture and the belief in our country affecting our thinking
philosophy and motivation to learn. If we had opportunity to know or learn other things, we were notbounded in a in a limited time and space, I or even we would certainly chose p4c style. (Chinese
10/07/2014)

This caused Suguru to think of his schooling experience as well. He replied,
I remember my school experience. It was so different from Lulu’s experience. I was in private school thatallows students to advance from one stage to the next, without taking entrance exams. We call a school likethat “escalator school”. In “escalator school” I didn’t study at all. I strongly remember, when I waselementary school student, I thought “I hate study, so I should go to school where I may be notstudying!” Even there is the problem for the money (private school is expensive), I was be able to go that
school. Because, fortunately I’m only child in my family. I was playing every day through 10 years. And
then I noticed I like to think about something, so I started to study and thought how to go graduate school.
After all I went to Hirosima University. (Japanese 10/07/2014)

For Lulu and Suguru, the journal was a place where they could compare their experiences in the
U.S. to prior experiences in their home countries. They also used the journal to think about the
future, when they planned on returning home.
For example, in another journal entry Lulu thought deeply about how she would apply
what she learned in the U.S to her work in China. She 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. To transfer the whole p4c model to Chinese schools will not be easy, that means I needto consider seriously what aspects of p4c I want to use in Chinese classroom, which can also be adissertation topic. I need to study all the literature about Chinese educational system and teaching method,
Chinese culture, and Chinese educational innovation; then find out what Chinese education really needs,
finally I can choose what elements in p4c fit the Chinese education the most. In this way, my research canbenefit the Chinese education, instead just transplanting a good organ, but it doesn’t fit the body condition.
(Chinese 7/2/2013)

Journal entries like these illustrate how Lulu and Suguru were highly aware of the culturalcontext of their research. They also show the important role of journaling in helping them
integrate their home culture into their new research context.
Initially, Amber did not have reflections like these. As she conducted research in herhome country she was more focused on her research topic, and less focused on the culturalcontext of her study. That was until she started journaling with Lulu and Suguru.
The first evidence of Amber’s transformation was a journal entry she wrote in response to
Suguru. Amber stated,
Suguru talked about how in Japan people have a vision about how they want schools to be and then thereform efforts are very linear. The people at the top articulate the vision, then they make the curriculum,
and then teachers teach the curriculum, and the thought process is that students will learn better. I think thesame type of linear reform efforts happen in the United States. Vision, common core standards, state
standards, teacher PD, and the hope is that students will learn. I think that the problem is that by the timethat vision trickles down to students no one really knows why they are doing what they are doing, and in
this sense schooling is meaningless. (American 6/9/2013)This data shows how Amber started to think more deeply about her cultural context as a result of
	
  

12	
  

her participation in the interactive online journal with her international partners.
Further evidence of the way in which this international journal encouraged us to think
about the cultural context of our research is seen in an entry written by Amber on June 23. She
wrote,
I wonder, is it different when you are doing your research in a context that is not your homecountry? Do you have to think about the context you are doing your research in, and your homecountry? (American 6/23/2013)

Lulu and Suguru answered her questions.
I carry the dream – impacting Chinese education and saving Chinese children’s wonderings. In China…on
examinations there are almost no open-ended questions…a standardized answer is designated to eachquestion…the students have less opportunity to express their true thoughts and innovative ideas…most ofchildren do not enjoy their schooling and the memory of their childhood times is always related to study
and examinations That is why I am here in Hawai‘i, I try my best to do my research….We need to tailor the
research to the public needs and reality. (Chinese 6/20/2013)
In Japan, we have many problems in school (ex: school violence, bullying). Many people know
these problem is caused by simple reason that is children’s poor motivation for learning…school
curriculum has to change…But, how to change? …I want to explain curriculum, which makelearning to asking question as goal...[I want to use] textbook analysis…to make theory? (Japanese
6/17/2013)This exchange of ideas demonstrates how the journal not only helped us have a hightenedawareness of the important role of cultural context in research, but it also facilitated crosscultural sharing and understanding between the three of us.
The data also revealed how the journal gave us cross-cultural perspectives on our
personal lives. For example, in response to Amber writing about her struggles balancing her
family and professional life Lulu wrote the following journal entry.
Most of the Chinese young parents will feel easier to balance the work and their family responsibilities,
because the grandparents would consider taking care of the grandchildren, cooking and doing house chores
are their responsibilities after the baby/babies are born. I agree with your thinking that the family is yourcenter of gravity. According to Confucius: cultivate a good personality and be a good person, raise andregulate 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 otherthings, no matter whether it’s your work. (Chinese 11/11/2013)

Amber replied to Lulu “I love the Confucius quote Lulu - it is very meaningful for me, and I’mso thankful for your understanding” (American 11/13/2013).
The data revealed that as we engaged in the back and forth of cross-cultural sharing,
listening, and reflecting on our own research we had the opportunity to gain multiple
perspectives on the role of research in our own lives. 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, andsometimes they say a PhD dissertation is like “sending smoke signal (lighting signal fire).” In Japan weused to use smoke for signal in war. I guess it is tradition imported from China…meaning that we arestarting an act for a big movement…it is declaration of position in knowledge world. I want to have license
to drive research in this world, to do movement of changing schooling, and to let everybody know myposition. (Japanese 11/13/2013)

	
  

13	
  

Deeply entrenched in the dissertation process, this quote shows how Suguru came to a deeper
understanding of why he was invested his research.
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 totake our career goal into consideration while writing a dissertation. We need to fulfill our passion, but mostimportantly we need to survive. If I want to survive well either in the U.S. or in Asia, I need to do p4c
research through quantitative lens. I need to do psychometrics and statistical analysis. This is the market
need. (Chinese 6/20/2013)

She listened to Suguru’s thinking, but in light of the context of her own life she was thinking
about 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,
That is such an interesting inquiry...it seems like we all need to ask right now - who is our researchfor?...Can we stay true to ourselves and find a form of research that resonates with who we are? Will thispay off in the long run? I have no idea. People may continue to say - where is your data? I too feel
mounting pressure a bit because my position in the Uehiro Academy is to research p4c and have DATA toshow people it’s impact...but how do you research something so complex? I think we need to constantly
ask ourselves -why are we doing what we are doing? Is this meaningful? And the intention is that we willcontinue to ask these questions as we move forward…(American 6/23/2013)

The power of the journal is that we got to ask these questions with one another, which helped us
move forward.
What Did We Learn?
While analyzing our journal, we recognized that we each had unique roles in thisinternational research collective. Amber’ role as a professional and experienced researcher
helped to inspire and develop Lulu and Suguru’s thinking (Vygotsky, 1978). Lulu and Suguru
used Amber’s questions and suggestions to organize their thoughts, refine their researchquestions and plan out their research methodology. Lulu and Suguru’s questions helped Amberin a similar way. Their questions pushed her to thoroughly explain her thinking, rethink her
research methods and look at p4cH with new eyes. From Lulu and Suguru, Amber also gained
partnership, emotional support, and other much-needed human connections in her lone research
position at the Uehiro Academy. The journal did the same for Lulu and Suguru; it gave them a“home base” in a country outside of their own.
For Suguru, the journal was a place 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 this type of open
and honest communication with one another we not only made progress on our research projects,
but we also connected on an emotional level. As we developed our shared passion for p4cH, webecame more familiar with one another, more aware of our cultural differences and unique homecontexts, and connected on a personal level. The journal brought us together. It took us out of ourisolation and “made our discussions about our research endeavors really fun and inspirational”(American 1/21/2014). It built “colleagues who are working hard with each other to conduct
challenging yet fulfilling and meaningful research” (Chinese 1/22/2014). The journal was themedium with which we created our “critical friendship” (Lunenberg & Samaras, 2011, p. 842).

	
  

14	
  

American researcher. I have always been interested in culturally responsive approaches
to education, but up until this point, I had only experienced cross-cultural education and researchin very limited ways. Never before have I challenged myself to inquire, learn, think, and reflect
alongside people from different countries. This experience opened my eyes to the value ofinternational collaboration in educational research. It helped me see the importance of reaching
beyond national boarders to find and develop relationships with researchers who share common
interests. The journal was important because it maintained our community of critical friends
despite travel and distance. My strong desire to communicate across the language barrier forced
me to better articulate my thinking and push my research in exciting new directions.
Chinese researcher. While writing the journal, I learned to write to think deeply, toactively encourage ideas, to tease thought out of chaos or nothing. The journal provided me withcourage, determination, inspiration, stimulation, and friendship while going through the toughprocess of conducting research abroad. Before the journaling process I knew that my research
was related to my concern for Chinese education, but I wasn’t fully aware of the roots of mywonderings and motivation. Now I am aware that my prior educational experience, my cultural
background, and the situation in my home country are at the heart of the research. Theinternational journal collective really provides me with a safe place that I can think together withinternational scholars to gain multiple perspectives and to build up personal relationships.
Japanese researcher. The online journal helped to create a space where I could talkabout my hopes and anxieties with a group of critical friends. It created an extended“experience” (Dewey, 1929) beyond the face-to-face contact that I had with the members of thisinternational research collective. The journal helped me express my confusion and uncertainties
about the direction my research was going. I felt grounded by the journal because it gave me a“common language” for describing and discussing my research. It helped me clarify mythinking, and communicate with people from backgrounds different than mine. And although I
don’t know exactly where I am going with my research, the journaling helped to reassure me that
I am going somewhere.
Conclusions
Interactive online journaling was essential tool for helping us build a culturally
responsive community of inquiry in our international research collective. Through the open
dialogue 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 of our individual research goals
were embedded within the cultural contexts our home countries. We made “connections between
ourselves and the world around us,” (Hubbs & Brand, 2005, p. 62) and discovered otherperspectives and context-driven dimensions to the research we were conducting. This process
helped each of us situate our research in the unique problems and opportunities of our homecountries, and helped us weave into our research the new perspectives that were gained from ourinternational partnership. The journal provided a new space, beyond the boarders 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 our research in “culturally validating
and affirming” ways (Gay, 2000, p. 29).
To create this new space in our journal, we incorporated the four pillars of p4cH:
community, inquiry, philosophy, and reflection. This started with our commitment to develop

	
  

15	
  

and maintain intellectual safety (Jackson, 2001) in our new community. We worked hard tolisten to one another and to accept virtually any question or point of view as long as it was
respectful of the others in our group (Jackson, 2001). The establishment of intellectual safety
helped us create a journaling “context in which dialogue and inquiry can unfold” (p. 460). As apart of our inquiries we “kept the sacred spark of wonder alive” (Dewey, 1910, p. 34) by asking
questions that were philosophical and about the things that mattered to us most. What is themeaning of my research? How will I know what I know? What is the right approach to myresearch given the context of my home country? We were each deeply embroiled in the brandnew, and often disorienting adventure of constructing international partnerships in our researchcollective and we used the tools of philosophy and inquiry to make sense of our experience. We
recognized confusion as a sign of progress and became more aware of the complexity of theresearch (Makaiau & Miller, 2012) we were conducting. Through our reflective practice(Loughran, 1995) we lived the examined life (Plato, 1961, 38a), and used our journal as a tool
for personal and professional development (Spalding & Wilson, 2002). As a result of this process,we became more aware of the thinking of our international partners, and of our thinking about
our own thinking.
From this self-study, a new, more fundamental research question emerged. We asked
ourselves, “What does it mean to be a part of an international research collective?” Prior to thisstudy we hadn’t taken the time to dig deep into this question. We assumed that our common
interest in p4cH, and our willingness to get to know one another automatically made us aninternational community of inquiry. Then, as we began our reflective practice of writing andthinking with one another, we started to expand on our shallow interpretation of what it meant tobe a part of an international research collective. As Causarano (2011) writes,
When we self-reflect, when we use reflective thinking and writing, we use language not as a mere string ofwords on a page but we use the medium of written language as a canvas of colors to meticulously makechoices of how to represent important professional experiences. (p. 549)

We realized that the answer to our new question lie in our own choices of how we wanted torepresent our professional experience. This was the important role of journaling and self-study in
our international research collective, the two processes helped us “negotiate and co-constructknowledge of our collective understanding” (Lunenberg & Samaras, 2011, p. 842) of what wethought it meant to be a part of our international 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 makethe decision to go beyond their organizations and transcend the geographic boundaries of theircurrent support systems (Elliot-Johns et. al., 2010) they must have tools for building
intellectually safe international communities of inquiry. The findings from this study
demonstrate the value of systematic reflection, self-study and journaling in the development of
culturally responsive international research partnerships. With tools, like these, educational
researchers like us are better equipped to “overcome taken-for-granted beliefs and values in our

	
  

16	
  

individual institutions” and are more open to new “ways of thinking to help us recognize ourown cognitive distortions and reinterpret our beliefs and practices” (Elliot-Johns et. al., 2010, p.
81). They help each of us become levers of change who are ready to develop new areas ofknowledge that extend beyond our personal and cultural boundaries (Loughran, 2007).
References
Beck, C. Freese, A., & Kosnik, C. (2004). The preservice practicum: Learning throughself-study in a professional setting. In J. Loughran, M.L. Hamilton, V.K.
LaBoskey & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook self-study of teaching andteacher education practices (pp. 1253-1259). Kluwer, Netherlands: Dordrecht. .
Causarano, A. (2011). Becoming a special education teacher: Journey or maze? Reflective
Practice, 12(4), 547-556.
Castagno, A. E., & Brayboy, B. M. J. (2008). Culturally responsive schooling forindigenous youth: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research,
78(4), 941 – 993.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the
AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative
analysis. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Dewey, J. (1910/1997). How We Think. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc.
Dewey, J. (1929). Experience and Education. New York: MacMillan.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to theeducative process. Boston, Heath and Company.
DeZure, D., Chism, N.V.N., Sorcinelli, M.D., Cheong, G., Ellozy, A.R., Holley, M.,
Kazem, B., & Atrushi, D. (2012). Building international faculty-development
collaborations: The evolving role of American teaching centers, Change: The
Magazine of Higher Learning, 44(3), 24-33.
Elliott-Johns, S., Peterson, S., Allison-Roan, V., & Ramirez, L. (2010). A crosscontinent collaboration: Seeking community to support critical inquiry in teacher
education. In L.B. Erickson, J.R. Young, and S. Pinnegar Navigating the Publicand Private: Negotiating the Diverse Landscape of Teacher Education. Paper
presented at the Eighth International Conference of Self-Study of Teacher
	
  

17	
  

Education Practices, East Sussex, England (pp. 81-84). Provo, Utah: Bringham
Young University.
Erickson, F., & Gumperz, J. J. (1996). The counselor as gatekeeper: Social interaction ininterviews. Academic Press.
Freire, P. (1990). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory; Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Henderson, J. G. (2001). Reflective teaching: Professional artistry through inquiry.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Hubbs, D. L., & Brand, C. F. (2005). The paper mirror: Understanding reflective journaling.
Journal of Experiential Education, 28(1), 60-71.
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.
Jackson, T. (2013). Philosophical rules of engagement. In S. Goering, N.J. Shudak & T.E.
Wartenberg (Eds.), Philosophy in schools: An introduction for philosophers and teachers(pp. 99-109). New York: Taylor and Francis.
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
handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (Vol. 1, pp. 817-869).
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lee, O. (2010). Facilitating preservice teachers’ reflection through interactive online journal
writing. Physical Educator, 67(3), 128-139.
Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in Education. Victoria, Australia: Cambridge University Press.
Lipman, M. (1993). Thinking Children and Education. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing
Company.
Loughran, J. (1996). Developing reflective practice: Learning about teaching and learning
through modeling. London: Falmer Press.

	
  

18	
  

Loughran, J. (2007). Researching teacher education practices: Responding to the challenges,
demands, and expectations of self-study. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 12-20.
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.
Makaiau, A. S., & Miller, C. (2012). The philosopher’s pedagogy. Educational Perspectives,44(1&2), 8-19.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Moon, J. (2006). Learning journals: A handbook for reflective practice and professional
development. London: Routledge.
Munby, H., & Russel, T. (1990). Metaphors in the study of teacher professional
Knowledge. Theory into Practice, 29, 116-121.
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.
Samaras, A.P., Freese, A.R., Kosnik, C., & Beck, C. (2008). Learning
communities in practice. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Samaras, A., & Freese, A. (2006). Self-study of teaching practices. New York: Peter Lang.
Schon, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Spalding, E., & Wilson, A. (2002). Demystifying reflection: A study of pedagogicalstrategies that encourage reflective journal writing. Teachers College Record,104(7), 1393 – 1421.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques andprocedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Van Manen, M. (1991). The tact of teaching: The meaning of pedagogicalthoughtfulness. State University of New York Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychologicalprocesses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walljasper, J. (2010). All that we share: How to save the economy, theenvironment, the internet, democracy, our communities and everything elsethat belongs to all of us. New York, NY: New York Press.

	
  

19	
  

Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D.P. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 23-48.
Zeichner, K. (1990). Changing directions in the practicum: Looking ahead to the1990s. Journal of Education for Teaching, 16(2), 105-13.
	
  

	
  

20