Intentional Online Discussions in Teacher Education

References

• Adamic, L. A., & Glance, N. (2005). The political blogosphere and the 2004 US election: Divided they blog. In Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on link discovery (pp. 36–43). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Barney, L. J., Griffiths, K. M., & Banfield, M. A. (2011). Explicit and implicit information needs of people with depression: A qualitative investigation of problems reported on an online depression support forum. BMC Psychiatry, 11(1), 88. doi:10.1186/1471-244X-11-88
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bridges, D. (1979). Education, democracy and discussion. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, J. (2005). The world café. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
   Google Scholar
• Calhoun, C. (2000). The virtue of civility. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 29(3), 251–275.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. Practitioner's inquiry. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. ( Eds.). (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New `York, NY: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W., & Maietta, R. C. (2002). Qualitative research. Handbook of research Design and Social Measurement, 6, 143–184.
   Google Scholar
• Del Vicario, M., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Petroni, F., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., Stanley, H. E., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2016). The spreading of misinformation online. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(3), 554–559. doi:10.1073/pnas.1517441113
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. (Original work published 1910)
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. (1938). The theory of inquiry. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. (1985). How we think and selected essays, 1910–1911. J. A. Boydston & B. W. Graubner ( Eds.). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Díez Pinto, E. (2003). Towards the construction of a dialogue typology. Draft. United Nations Development Programme: Regional Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean: Democratic Dialogue Project (RLA-01–004). Retrieved from http://www.democraticdialoguenetwork.org/documents.pl?s2;ss9
   Google Scholar
• Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2007). The thinker's guide to analytic thinking: How to take thinking apart and what to look for when you do: The elements of thinking and the standards they must meet (Vol. 16). Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation Critical Thinking.
   Google Scholar
• Ennis, R., Millman, J., & Tomko, T. N. (2004). Cornell critical thinking tests level X & level Z manual. Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. (2003). In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(10), 454–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.08.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Facione, P. A. (2000). The disposition toward critical thinking: Its character, measurement, and relationship to critical thinking skill. Informal Logic, 20(1), 61–84. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v20i1.2254
   Google Scholar
• Frenda, S. J., Nichols, R. M., & Loftus, E. F. (2011). Current issues and advances in misinformation research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(1), 20–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410396620
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaines, B. J., & Mondak, J. J. (2009). Typing together? Clustering of ideological types in online social networks. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 6(3–4), 216–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331680903031531
   Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer, G., & Todd, P. M. (1999). Fast and frugal heuristics: The adaptive toolbox. In Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 3–34). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gore, J. M., & Zeichner, K. M. (1991). Action research and reflective teaching in preservice teacher education: A case study from the United States. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(2), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(91)90022-H
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gurin, P., Dey, E., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330–367. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.72.3.01151786u134n051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gurteen, D. (2009). Knowledge cafe. Inside Knowledge, 13(3), 8–13.
   Google Scholar
• Hamburg, D. A. (1993). Preventing contemporary intergroup violence. In Carnegie commission on preventing deadly conflict. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Herzig, M., & Chasin, L. (2006). Fostering dialogue across divides: A nuts and bolts guide from the Public Conversations Project. Cambridge, MA: Essential Partners. Retrieved from https://www.whatisessential.org/resource/fosteringdialogue-across-divides-nuts-and-bolts-guidepublic-conversations-project
   Google Scholar
• Hess, D. (2009). Controversy in the classroom: The democratic power of discussion. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hetherington, M. J., & Weiler, J. D. (2009). Authoritarianism and polarization in American politics. J. A. Thurber & A. Yoshinaka (Eds.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hetheringon, M. J., & Weiler, J. D. (2015). Authoritarianism and polarization in American politics, still? In American Gridlock: The sources, character and impact of political polarization. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans' beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Howell, L. (2013). Digital wildfires in a hyperconnected world. WEF Report, 3, 15–94. Retrieved from reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2013/risk-case-1/digital-wildfires-in-ahyperconnected-world
   Google Scholar
• Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approached to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hurtado, S. (2005). The next generation of diversity and intergroup relations research. Journal of Social Issues, 61(3), 595–610. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00422.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., Lovallo, D., & Sibony, O. (2011). Before you make that big decision. Harvard Business Review, 89(6), 50–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). Online social interchange, discourse, and knowledge construction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57–74.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, Y. (2011). The contribution of social network sites to exposure to political difference. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 971–977. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, Y., Hsu, S.-H., & Gil de Zuniga, H. (2013). Influence of social media use on discussion network heterogeneity and civic engagement: The moderating role of personality traits. Journal of Communication, 63(3), 498–516. doi:10.1111/jcom.12034 https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohut, A., Keeter, S., Doherty, C., & Dimock, M. (2008). Social networking and online videos take off: Internet's broader role in campaign 2008. TPR Center, The PEW Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2008/01/11/internets-broader-role-in-campaign-2008/
   Google Scholar
• Knezic, D., Wubbels, T., Elbers, E., & Hajer, M. (2010). The Socratic dialogue and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1104–1111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruglanski, A. W. (1980). Lay epistemo-logic—Process and contents: Another look at attribution theory. Psychological Review, 87(1), 70. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.1.70
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruglanski, A. W., & Ajzen, I. (1983). Bias and error in human judgment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420130102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kyngas, H., & Vanhanen, L. (1999). Content analysis (Finnish). Hoitotiede, 11, 3–12.
   Google Scholar
• Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A call for data analysis triangulation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(4), 557–584. https://doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.22.4.557
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leskes, A. (2013). A plea for civil discourse: Needed, the academy's leadership. Liberal Education, 99(4), 44–51. Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/le-fa13/leskes.cfm
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Lipman, M. (1993). Thinking children and education. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Lipman, M. (2004). Philosophy for children's debt to Dewey. Critical and Creative Thinking, 12(1), 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Lipman, M., Sharp, A. M., & Oscanyan, F. S. (2010). Philosophy in the classroom. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lytle, S., & Cochran-Smith, M. (1992). Teacher research as a way of knowing. Harvard Educational Review, 62(4), 447–475. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.62.4.4lm3811r1033431n
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacKnight, C. B. (2000). Teaching critical thinking through online discussions. Educause Quarterly, 4, 38–41.
   Google Scholar
• Maor, D. (2007). The cognitive and social processes of university students' online learning. In Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE) (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Manthey, M. (2010). A new model of healing for the profession of nursing. Creative Nursing, 16(1), 18.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Meier, D. (2002). The power of their ideas: Lessons for America from a small school in Harlem. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• McAvoy, P., & Hess, D. E. (2013). Classroom deliberation in an era of political polarization. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), 14–47. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/curi.12000/full.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2010). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Medders, R. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 413–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millett, S., & Tapper, A. (2012). Benefits of collaborative philosophical inquiry in schools. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(5), 546–567. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00727.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milkman, K. L., Chugh, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). How can decision making be improved? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 379–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01142.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagda, B. R. A., & Zúñiga, X. (2003). Fostering meaningful racial engagement through intergroup dialogues. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6(1), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430203006001015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagda, B. R. A., Kim, C. W., & Truelove, Y. (2004). Learning about difference, learning with others, learning to transgress. Journal of Social Issues, 60(1), 195–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00106.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagda, B. R. A., McCoy, M. L., & Barrett, M. H. (2006). Mix it up: Crossing social boundaries as a pathway to youth civic engagement. National Civic Review, 95(1), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/ncr.131
   Google Scholar
• Naudé, L. (2011). Your culture or mine? Changes in cultural sensitivity in a service-learning class. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 21(3), 487–491.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naudé, L. (2012). At the cultural crossroads: Intergroup psychology among students in a service learning programme. Current Psychology, 31(3), 221–245. doi:10.1007/s12144-012-9142-5 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-012-9142-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norris, S., & Ennis, R. (1989). Evaluating critical thinking. Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Parker, W. C. (2006). Public discourses in schools: Purposes, problems, possibilities. Educational Researcher, 35(8), 11–18.
   Google Scholar
• Parker, W. C., & Hess, D. (2001). Teaching with and for discussion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(3), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00057-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paul, R. (1992). Critical thinking: What, why, and how? New Directions for Community Colleges, 1992(77), 3–24.
   Google Scholar
• Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2001). The miniature guide to critical thinking: Concepts & tools (Vol. 2). Foundation Critical Thinking.
   Google Scholar
• Perkins, C., & Murphy, E. (2006). Identifying and measuring individual engagement in critical thinking in online discussions: An exploratory case study. Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), 298–307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pena-Shaff, J. B., & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Computers & Education, 42(3), 243–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2003.08.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips, C. (2001). Discussion café: A fresh taste of philosophy. New York, NY: Norton.
   Google Scholar
• Piro, J. (2016). 10 Dilemmas in teaching with discussion: Managing integral instruction. Charlotte, N.C.: Information Age Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Piro, J., & Anderson, G. (2016). A typology for an online Socrates café. Teachers College Record, 118(7), 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2004). Nursing research: Principles and methods. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
   Google Scholar
• Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2012). Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice. 9th ed. Data Collection in Qualitative Research. pp. 542–543. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
   Google Scholar
• QSR International (2016). What is NVivo? Retrieved from http://www.qsrinternational.com/what-is-nvivo
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (Vol. 5126). New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational?: Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E. (2002). Rationality, intelligence, and levels of analysis in cognitive science: Is dysrationalia possible? In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Why smart people can be so stupid (pp. 124–158). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1999). Discrepancies between normative and descriptive models of decision making and the understanding/acceptance principle. Cognitive psychology, 38(3), 349–385.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, E. R., & DeCoster, J. (2000). Dual-process models in social and cognitive psychology: Conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2), 108–131. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. R. (2001). republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• UNESCO (2007). Philosophy. A school of freedom. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/philosophy/
   Google Scholar
• United Nations Development Program. (n.d.). Practical guide on democratic dialogue. Retrieved from http://www.democraticdialoguenetwork.org/app/documents/view/en/1854
   Google Scholar
• Van Alstyne, M., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2005). Global village or cyber-Balkans? Modeling and measuring the integration of electronic communities. Management Science, 51(6), 851–868. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, Y., Newby, T., & Bill, R. (2008). Facilitating interactions through structured web-based bulletin boards: A quasi-experimental study on promoting learners' critical thinking skills. Computers and Education, 50(4), 1572–1585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.04.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar