A Typology For An Online Socrates Caf

1
Teachers College Record Volume 118, 050302, May 2016, 26 pages
Copyright © by Teachers College, Columbia University
0161-4681
A Typology for an Online Socrates Café
JODY S. PIRO
Western Connecticut State University
GINA ANDERSON
Texas Woman’s University
Background/Context: Increased polarization of viewpoints in the United States may have
detrimental consequences for democratic pedagogy. The goals of civil society require a reliance
on democratic values, and active participation is necessary for a strong civil society that de-
mands the common good be deliberated in democratic ways. Discussion as pedagogy has been
advanced for furthering democratic learning spaces in higher education with adults and in
teacher education programs. Opportunities to participate in democratic discussions may also
be created in online courses to prepare students who are literate in multiculturalism and an
inclusive society. Engaging students in discussion that facilitates diverse perspectives and
that challenges taken-for-granted assumptions is necessary.
Purpose: This article explores the theoretical frameworks of a pedagogy of process called a
Socrates Café, resulting in a typology for an online Socrates Café. This framework may assist
instructors to create and sustain purposeful online discussion forums that engage students
in deliberative discussion to develop democratic learning spaces and civil discourse. If demo-
cratic pedagogies are enhanced when people deliberate in online discussions by sharing their
reasoning with each other, listening to competing points of view, considering new evidence,
and treating one another as political equals, then the Socrates Café has much to offer as a
pedagogical process.
Research Design: Drawing on scholarship from key pedagogical and dispositional compo-
nents, this analytical essay offers a typology that finds its theoretical roots in several areas,
including: philosophical forum, discussion and dialogue, critical inquiry, habits of mind,
intellectual traits, critical reflection, and civil discourse.
Findings/Results: From both the pedagogical and dispositional components of the Socrates
Café, we develop an integrative framework for guiding the creation and ongoing development
of an online discussion. Our purpose in creating the framework was to determine those peda-
gogical and attitudinal dispositions that were foundational elements of the online Socrates
Café: clarity of thinking and other habits of mind; attitudes of empathy, confidence, open
mindedness and scholarliness; and questioning and dialogue.
Conclusions/Recommendations: This essay concludes that the online Socrates Café is fraught
with unavoidable contradictions resulting in a pedagogy of process that is negotiated and dy-
namic, but also purposeful and intentional. The integrative framework proposed in this work

Teachers College Record, 118, 050302 (2016)
2
assists students to examine who they are as scholars, practitioners, and members of a demo-
cratic society. The inherent tensions between the competing values that situate the Socrates
Café make it a complex pedagogy that invites students to encounter issues that surpass the self
and connect them with larger societal problems, enhancing the potential for discussions that
are purposeful and result in an expansion of perspectives. Supporting students as they negoti-
ate these and other contradictions and paradoxes in a functional Socrates Café has immense
potential for facilitating democratic spaces in pedagogy for civil discourse.
Our nation has been termed a “rude democracy” (Herbst, 2010) and a
place where compromise is a dirty word (Baker, 2012). Extreme polar-
ization of viewpoints appear in various forms of media and according to
McAvoy & Hess (2013, p.15) one need only look at recent publications
to observe its prevalence in our world. They suggest that titles such as
Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide (Sunstein, 2009), The
Spirit of Compromise: Why Governing Demands It and Campaigning Undermines
It (Gutmann & Thompson, 2012), and It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How
the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism
(Mann & Ornstein, 2013) demonstrate our nation’s great divide in opin-
ions on complex issues. It has even been argued that the opposing politi-
cal parties have created an “unbridgeable gulf” between them that limits
working solutions and actual governance, and that purposeful discussions
are necessary between factions for a democracy to remain healthy and
functional (Dworkin, 2006).
Increased polarization of viewpoints in the United States may have det-
rimental consequences for democracy. The goals of civil society require
a reliance on democratic values and active participation is necessary for
a strong civil society that demands the common good be deliberated in
democratic ways (Edwards, 2009). Discussion as pedagogy has been ad-
vanced for furthering democratic learning spaces in higher education
with adults (Brookfield & Preskill, 2012) and in teacher education pro-
grams (Hess, 2009; Marri, 2005; Parker & Hess, 2001). Opportunities to
participate in democratic discussions may also be created in online cours-
es to prepare students who are literate in multiculturalism and an inclu-
sive society (Banks, 1996). Engaging students in discussion that facilitates
diverse perspectives and that challenges taken-for-granted assumptions is
necessary. Purposeful and deliberative pedagogies may accomplish com-
munication across differences. Linda Darling-Hammond (1996) stated:
America’s capacity to survive as a democracy . . . rests on the kind
of education that arms people with an intelligence capable of free
and independent thought . . . that helps people to build common
ground across diverse experiences and ideas . . . that enables all
people to find and act on who they are, what their passions, gifts,

TCR, 118, 050302 A Typology for an Online Socrates Café
3
and talents may be, what they care about, and how they want to
make a contribution to each other and the world. (p. 5)
A Socrates Café is a deliberative discussion (Parker & Hess, 2001) in an
online forum that may facilitate the core elements of civility in discourse.
A Socrates Café constitutes an ongoing inquiry, one we call a pedagogy of
process (Anderson & Piro, 2015), whereby one’s instructional intentions
are to assist students to engage with contradictions and competing val-
ues by setting alongside one’s “perception of the matter under discussion
the several perceptions of other participants, challenging our own view of
things with those of others” (Bridges, 1979, p. 50), creating a new dialectic
in the course of action. An online discussion of this form has the potential
to facilitate civil discourse and democratic engagement for both individu-
als to create a community of critical learners whose commonality is com-
mitment to civil communication, itself.
This article explores the theoretical frameworks of a pedagogy of pro-
cess called a Socrates Café which may assist instructors to create and sus-
tain purposeful online discussion forums that engage students in delibera-
tive discussion to develop democratic learning spaces and civil discourse,
not only for the purposes of education, but as a way of life (Dewey, 1916,
2004). If democratic pedagogies are enhanced when people deliberate in
online discussions by sharing their reasoning with each other, listening to
competing points of view, considering new evidence, and treating each
other as political equals (McAvoy & Hess, 2013), then the Socrates Café
has much to offer as a pedagogical process.
The theoretical framework grounding the Socrates Café includes the
pedagogical and dispositional components of the online discussion fo-
rum. From the theoretical components, we identify the essential elements
of the Socrates Café, the literature that supports those elements, and the
guiding goals or outcomes online instructors may propose as focus for
scaffolding online Socrates Café discussions. This final typology may be
used as a guide for students to use when writing their online discussions,
as a self-assessment framework aimed at growth, or as a typology for pro-
fessor-researcher inquiries within context.
PEDAGOGICAL COMPONENTS OF AN ONLINE SOCRATES CAFÉ
An online Socrates Café discussion contains several key pedagogical com-
ponents. It finds its theoretical roots in several areas: philosophical fo-
rum, discussion and dialogue, and critical inquiry. An online version of a
Socrates Café is derived from these public and educational forms of these
expressions.

4
PHILOSOPHICAL FORUMS
A Socrates Café is a discussion format where the ancient form of Socratic
dialogue can emerge. The Socrates Café has gained contemporary rele-
vance with Christopher Phillips, who developed café style discussions in cof-
fee shops, schools, and libraries. Phillips stated that Socrates Café “reveals
people to themselves… [and] makes them see what their opinions really
amount to” (Phillips, 2001, p. 20). Engaging in Socrates Café “is a way to
seek truth by your own lights” (Phillips, 2001, p. 18). Socrates Café is a peda-
gogical practice that connects the practice of philosophy to the practice of
democracy (UNESCO, 2007). Socrates Café discussions invite participants
to engage with issues that surpass the self to connect with larger societal
problems, enhancing the civil discourse necessary in a democratic society.
The Socrates Café “is not so much a search for absolute truth and certainty
as it is a quest for honesty” (Phillips, 2001, p. 53). Similar to other styles of
interaction, the Socrates Café has common philosophical roots with public-
style philosophy forums and philosophy in educational environments, such
as Collaborative Philosophical Inquiry (Millett & Tapper, 2012), world Cafés
(Brown, 2005) and knowledge Cafés (Gurteen, 2009) in that these prac-
tices focus on the reflective component of the process of thinking and are
grounded in the works of John Dewey (1938, 1985) and Matthew Lipman
(2004, 2010). In the Lipman tradition, philosophical Cafés include the
practices of metacognition—or thinking about one’s thinking; the quest for
meaning as an outcome of the discussion, conversation as dialogue, not
debate; critical thinking as a necessary element of dialogue; and using open-
ended questions to initiate discussion (Lipman, 1993; Lipman & Sharp,
2010). UNESCO identified the democratic and discussionary paradigm of a
public philosophical pedagogy such as a Socrates Café as pedagogy in con-
text, a practice which has ties to the advancement of democratic principles:
The idea is that for democracy as a political system to mature,
it needs to have a thinking citizenry, that is to say, citizens with
critical minds who can avoid the excess of which democracy is
always capable: doxology, majority rule, sophistry, persuasion by
any means, demagoguery, and similar. (UNESCO, 2007, p. 85).
The facilitator’s role in a Socrates public philosophy Café is to develop
opportunities to interact and pose Socratic questions in a process-orient-
ed search for students’ own reflective conceptions of taken-for-granted
assumptions about current issues and to develop their understanding
of those issues. The goals of learning are critical reflection of one’s own
thinking for personal development but also as that development relates to
furthering democratic expression and problem-solving.

5
Discussion and Dialogue
Discussion is a form of shared inquiry that “requires a group of people, an
aim, a text (broadly defined), and a focusing question” (Parker & Hess,
2001, p. 282). Thoughtful discussions are situated and contextual and are
dedicated to “creating subjects with particular identities and abilities in
relation to the state, ethnic group, civil society, market, family, strangers,
and friends” (Parker, 2006, p. 11). The Socratic dialogue as a form of dis-
cussion has taken many pedagogical forms. Any pedagogical method that
disinterestedly pursues truth through analytical discussion may be viewed
as Socratic in nature (Honderich, 2005). The purpose of the Socratic dia-
logue is not one that leads to the instructor’s self-proclaimed content out-
comes. In fact, the facilitator “is actually curious about the inquiry at hand
and has not yet crystallized an interpretation or truly made up her mind”
(Parker & Hess, 2001, p. 279) about the issue being discussed. It is an
organic facilitation whereby students come to their own learning conclu-
sions through a socially constructed dialectical and dialogical or textual
process. The Socratic dialogue is a participatory pedagogy wherein one
examines opinions, attitudes and ways of knowing as they intersect with
questions posed by the instructor or other students.
Socratic questioning that encourages students to recognize their own
limitations in content and in analysis may be referred to as dialectic, a
Greek word that means discourse. This form of discourse in pedagogy
begins with an open-ended question which proceeds to student response,
further questioning and continued dialogue. The instructor, or other stu-
dents, facilitates further questioning to create a forum of self-investigation;
thus, a dialectical is created. The outcome is process-oriented, construc-
tivist and focused on both personal and collective learning. The ultimate
purpose is increased personal understanding of difficult issues through
social learning, not victory or conquest, as in debate. An examination of
Socrates’ dialogue with Thraysmachus demonstrates this dialectical:
Thrasymachus’s purpose is to win points to win applause. The
purpose of Socrates is to try, through dialectical discussion with
Thrasymachus and others, to understand better the essential na-
ture of justice. Each of the two men makes a choice of weapons
appropriate to his purpose. The rising voice, the personal accu-
sation…the vanity that replaces love of truth with love of victory
are all exemplified by Thrasymachus. What Socrates displays to-
wards Thrasymachus is courtesy. He treats him not as an enemy
but as a valued colleague in the mutual search for understanding.
Socrates is never fearful that he will “lose” precisely because he is
not trying to “win.” (Barr, 1968, p. 3)

6
Socrates’ “love of truth” over “love of victory” echoes Phillips’ “truth by
one’s own light.” Socratic questioning as a component of Socratic dialogue
has historically been recognized as a method for developing critical analy-
sis (Golding, 2011; Knezic, Wubbels, Elbers, & Hajer, 2010; Paul & Elder,
2007) and Socratic questioning has shown promise in cultivating critical
thinking in an online or hybrid classroom formats (MacKnight, 2000;
Perkins & Murphy, 2006; Yang, Newby, & Bill, 2008). Not all question-
ing in discussion forums is Socratic in nature. When an instructor guides
students through a discussion with questions that ask them to self-analyze,
engage in further dialogue and use rebuttal for critically analyzing their
understandings and misunderstandings of issues, they are making use of
Socratic questioning (Copleston, 1985).
Assisting students through a contemporary-issue online discussion us-
ing Socratic questioning informed by the Universal Intellectual Standards
may scaffold this academic dialectic.
CRITICAL INQUIRY THROUGH THE UNIVERSAL INTELLECTUAL
STANDARDS
Critical inquiry advances thinking which meets “standards of adequacy
and accuracy” and “thinking that is goal-directed and purposive… think-
ing aimed at forming a judgment where the thinking itself meets stan-
dards of adequacy and accuracy” (Bailin et al., 1999, p. 287). Critical in-
quiry encompasses “disciplined, self-directed thinking that exemplifies
the perfections of thinking appropriate to a particular mode or domain of
thought” (Paul, 1992, p. 9)
According to Elder & Paul (2007), humans regularly distort the truth,
and it is this distortion in thinking that led them to create Universal
Intellectual Standards for thought. Universal Intellectual Standards may
assist students and instructors to scaffold Socratic questioning (Piro &
Anderson, 2015). “Universal Intellectual Standards are standards which
must be applied to thinking whenever one is interested in checking the
quality of reasoning about a problem, issue, or situation” (Elder & Paul,
2007, p. 1). Universal Intellectual Standards (Elder & Paul, 2008; Paul &
Elder, 1996) advance a framework for this outcome. The nine Universal
Intellectual Standards known as clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance,
depth, breadth, logic, significance, and fairness are used to scaffold and
develop Socratic questions during the discussion as well as to assess their
use at the conclusion of the activity. Probing questions for each standard
consist of the following:

7
1. Clarity: Could you elaborate further? Could you give me an example?
Could you illustrate what you mean?
2. Accuracy: How could we check on that? How could we find out if that
is true? How could we verify or test that?
3. Precision: Could you be more specific? Could you give me more de-
tails? Could you be more exact?
4. Relevance: How does that relate to the problem? How does that bear
on the question? How does that help us with the issue?
5. Depth: What factors make this a difficult problem? What are some of
the complexities of this question? What are some of the difficulties
we need to deal with?
6. Breadth: Do we need to look at this from another perspective? Do we
need to consider another point of view? Do we need to look at this
in other ways?
7. Logic: Does all this make sense together? Does your first paragraph fit
in with your last? Does what you say follow from the evidence?
8. Significance: Is this the most important problem to consider? Is
this the central idea to focus on? Which of these facts are most
important?
9. Fairness: Do I (you, they, etc.) have any vested interest in this issue?
Am I (you, they, etc.) sympathetically representing the viewpoints of
others? (Elder & Paul, 2007, p. 5).
From these theoretical viewpoints, we illustrate the main pedagogical
components of an online Socrates Café, which includes literature from
philosophical forums, discussion and dialogue and critical inquiry. The
framework in Table 1 includes the pedagogical component, its main pro-
ponents and the strategy or characteristics of the component emerging
from the theory.
The success of an online Socrates Café rests on participant use of dis-
positions in thought, as well. The dispositional elements as a framework
for analyzing our Socrates Café discussion and encouraging civility in dia-
logue are discussed in the next section.

8
DISPOSITIONAL COMPONENTS OF AN ONLINE SOCRATES CAFÉ
Most measures of critical analysis attempt to limit reasoning that is con-
strained by extremely biased prior beliefs because these expressions re-
duce the open and reflexive dialogue that promotes democratic expres-
sions (Ennis, Millman & Tomoko, 2004; Facione, 1990; Norris & Ennis,
1989). Expression in a Socrates Café is no different. Engaging in purposive
dialogue and discussion stimulates this transcendence of the self and fur-
ther improves “habits of mind” (Meier, 2002) necessary for the interpre-
tive element of inquiry in an online discussion forum such as the Socrates
Café. Dispositional elements of the Socrates Café which are essential for
this process include attitudinal elements of critical inquiry, such as habits
of mind and the Intellectual Traits, critical reflection and civil discourse.
Each of these elements is discussed in the next sections.
Table 1. Pedagogical Components of an Online Socrates Café
Pedagogical
Component
Main Proponents Strategy or Characteristics
Philosophical
Forums
Brown, 2005; Dewey, 1938, 1985;
Gurteen, 2009;
Lipman, 1993, 2004, 2010;
Lipman, Sharp, & Oscanyan, 2010;
Phillips, 2001; Manthey, 2010;
Millett & Tapper, 2012; UNESCO,
2007
Public Philosophical Pedagogy
Democratic Dialogue
Open Forums Using Open-Ended
Questions
Discussion/
Dialogue
Parker & Hess, 2001; Parker,
2006; Honderich, 2005; Golding,
2011; Knezic, Wubbels, Elbers, &
Hajer, 2010; Paul & Elder, 2007;
MacKnight, 2000; Perkins &
Murphy, 2006; Yang, Newby, & Bill,
2008; Elder & Paul, 2007
Socratic Method
Socratic Seminar
Socratic Questioning
Deliberate Discussion and
Dialogue
Critical
Inquiry
Bailin et al., 1999;
Paul, 1992; Elder & Paul, 2007
Goal-directed and Purposive
Disciplined and Self-Directed
Universal Intellectual Standards
Clarity
Accuracy
Precision
Relevance
Depth
Breadth
Logic
Significance
Fairness

9
HABITS OF MIND/INTELLECTUAL TRAITS
There are habits of mind, or attitudes for critical analysis, which are differ-
ent from the actual ability to engage in critical thinking. This differentia-
tion led Facione (2000) to suggest that critical thinking abilities and the
attitudes that make that thinking possible are two disparate entities and
he defined those dispositions as “consistent internal motivations to act
toward or respond to person, events, or circumstances in habitual, yet po-
tentially malleable ways” (Facione, 2000, p. 64). Similarly, Paul (1992) ad-
vanced the idea of dispositions by titling these types of attitudes of think-
ing Intellectual Traits. The Essential Intellectual Traits consist of:
1) Intellectual Humility: consciousness “of the limits of one’s
knowledge, including a sensitivity to circumstances in which
one’s native egocentrism is likely to function self-deceptively”; 2)
Intellectual Courage: awareness of “the need to face and fairly
address ideas, beliefs or viewpoints which we have strong negative
emotions and to which we have not given serious hearing”; 3)
Intellectual Empathy: the awareness of “the need to imaginatively
put oneself in the place of others in order to genuinely under-
stand them”; 4) Intellectual Autonomy: the ability to have rational
control of one’s beliefs, values, and inferences”; 5) Intellectual
Integrity: realization “of the need to be true to one’s own think-
ing”; 6) Intellectual Perseverance: awareness of the “need to use
intellectual insights and truths in spite of difficulties, obstacles,
and frustrations”; 7) Confidence in reason: “confidence that , in
the long run, one’s own higher interests and those of humankind
at large will best be served by giving the freest play to reason”; and
8) Fairmindedness: awareness of “the need to treat all viewpoints
alike, without reference to one’s own feelings or vested interests.”
(pp. 16-17).
CRITICAL REFLECTION
In How We Think (1933), John Dewey addressed the dispositional element
of thinking by suggesting that the thinking process is integrative in nature:
Human beings are not normally divided into two parts, the one
emotional, the other coldly intellectual—the one matter of fact,
the other imaginative. The split does, indeed, often get estab-
lished, but that is always because of false methods of education.
Natively and normally the personality works as a whole. There is
no integration of character and mind unless there is a fusion of

10
the intellectual and the emotional, of meaning and value, of fact
and imaginative running beyond fact into the realm of desired
possibilities. (Dewey, 1933, p. 278)
Ideally, critical reflection must embrace attitudes and emotions as an in-
tegrative element of inquiry, but also must recognize when those emotions
inhibit clear thinking during discussion. “When desire, fear, need, or other
strong emotions direct the course of inquiry we tend to acknowledge only
the evidence that reinforces that premise” (Rodgers, 2002, p. 858) and
then, those dispositional elements must be harnessed for dialogue and
reflection to persist. Rodgers (2002) explored the four attitudes of mind
that Dewey (1933, 1944) suggested should guide reflection: wholehearted-
ness, directedness, open-mindedness and responsibility. The first, whole-
heartedness, also referred to as single-mindedness, encompasses a teacher’s
content, the actual learning by the student, and the intersection of that
teaching and learning. Rodgers suggested that this attribute is a “kind
of total engagement” (2002, p. 859) that demonstrates passion, curiosity
and enthusiasm for the subject-matter. A second attribute for reflection
is directedness, which can best be described by what it is not. “It is not self-
consciousness, distractedness, or constant preoccupation with how oth-
ers perceive one’s performance. Rather it indicates a confidence, but not
a cockiness…” (Rodgers, 2002, pp. 859-860). This forgetting of self and
with the obsession with one’s performance leads to a self-awareness that is
grounded in the confidence in the subject matter of teaching. Dewey sug-
gests that the third attribute, open-mindedness, is characterized by welcom-
ing new ways of thinking as one would welcome a guest into one’s home,
a candidness that allows one to be mistaken, to play with fresh notions,
and to change one’s perspective with new information. “Dewey reminds
us that to be open-minded means not only being hospitable but also being
playful…” (Rodgers, 2002, p. 861) with novel ideas and perspectives, to
be delighted with the freshness and uniqueness that new viewpoints bring
to our own thoughts and positions. The last attribute, responsibility, inte-
grates the other three elements of reflection: whole-heartedness, direct-
ness, and open-mindedness. This integration should lead to action that
is not isolated from the world (Rodgers, 2002). Responsibility is bound in
the pragmatic philosophy that one’s individual and social learning has a
component of agency, a responsibility that to acknowledge one’s meaning-
making results from one’s view of the world that is constructed through
experience with the world (Rodgers, 2002). Moving from the reflective act
to experience and the interpretation of that process embodies the attitude
of responsibility in reflection (Dewey, 1985).

11
CIVILITY AND CIVIL DISCOURSE
The ability to problematize issues and understand the perspectives of oth-
ers is a particularly significant outcome when promoting pedagogies that
support critical analysis through civility in discourse. John Dewey is attrib-
uted with saying that democracy begins with conversation (Farrell, 1959)
and we might add, with conversation that is civil. Civility has been defined
as a “form of goodness…an active interest in the well-being of our com-
munities and even for the health of the planet on which we live” (Forni,
2002, p. 9); “Courtesy, politeness and good manners” (Forni, 2002, p. 9);
or when “citizens of a given culture speak and act in ways that demonstrate
a caring for the welfare of others as well as the welfare of the culture they
share in common” (Davetian, 2009, p. 9). For some, civility is best under-
stood by behaviors which are in opposition to its meaning, such as discour-
teousness or displaying a lack of regard for others (Andersson & Pearson,
1999). Incivility may be seen as any “self-centered behavior that is impolite
or boorish or shows a disregard for rights and concerns of others” (Weeks,
2011, p. 7). Civility may be viewed as a personal virtue whereby one “com-
municates basic moral attitudes of respect, tolerance and considerateness
(Calhoun, 2000, p. 255).
Civility is bound in principles of democracy (Papacharissi, 2004). People
involved in functional civil discourse display several behaviors. They un-
dertake a serious exchange of views; they focus on the issues rather than
on the individual(s) espousing them; they defend their interpretations
using verified information; they thoughtfully listen to what others say; they
seek the sources of disagreements and points of common purpose; they
embody open-mindedness and a willingness to change their minds; they
assume they will need to compromise and are willing to do so; they treat
the ideas of others with respect; they avoid violence—physical, emotional,
and verbal (Leskes, 2013).
Attitudes of critical inquiry such as habits of mind and Intellectual
Traits, critical reflection and civility encompass the major elements of dis-
positions for thinking and interacting in a Socrates Café discussion fo-
rum. Table 2 summarizes and compares these dispositional components
of the online Socrates Café, the main proponents, and the dispositional
strategies.

12
Table 2. Dispositional Components of a Socrates Café
Dispositional
Component
Main Proponents Strategy or Characteristics
Habits of Mind/
Intellectual Traits
Ennis, Millman &
Tomoko, 2004;
Facione, Sánchez,
Facione, & Gainen, 1995;
Facione, 2000; Halpern,
1998;
Bailin et al., 1999;
Paul, 1992;
Paul & Elder, 2001
Truth-seeking
Open-mindedness
Analyticity
Systematicity
Critical thinking
Fairmindedness
Inquisitiveness
Intellectual humility
Intellectual courage
Intellectual empathy
Intellectual autonomy
Intellectual integrity
Intellectual perseverance
Confidence in reason
Reflective Attributes Dewey, 1933, 1944 Whole-heartedness/
single-mindedness
Directness
Open-mindedness
Responsibility
Civility and Civil
Discourse
Calhoun, 2000; Davetian,
2009; Leskes, 2013;
Papacharissi, 2004.
Respect
Tolerance
Considerateness
Undertake a serious exchange of
views
Focus on the issues rather than on
the individual(s) espousing them
Defend their interpretations using
verified information
Thoughtfully listen to what others
say
Seek the sources of disagreements
and points of common purpose
Embody open-mindedness and a
willingness to change their minds
Assume they will need to compro-
mise and are willing to do so
Treat the ideas of others with
respect
Avoid violence (physical, emotional,
and verbal)
Concern for the welfare of others
Civility through democratic
principles

13
A TYPOLOGY FOR OUR ONLINE SOCRATES CAFÉ
Our Socrates Café discussion is situational, interactional, dialectical, re-
flective, and process-oriented. We situate our Socrates Café in several of
the pedagogical and dispositional frameworks discussed above. In that we
require a textual or content foundation for analysis, our Socrates Café re-
sembles a Socratic seminar, whose purpose is to increase students’ powers
of understanding, or what Adler (1982) termed “enlarged understand-
ings,” through the application of content and reading to open-ended ques-
tions. This requirement focuses on a disposition of scholarliness and use
of text through readings to inform the participant’s dialogue, an element
we have identified as an essential element of the Socrates Café. For ex-
ample, in an online Socrates Café discussion regarding Peggy McIntosh’s
White Privilege article (1988), a student clarified her perspective by ground-
ing it in an outside textual reference:
Non-whites are not oblivious to white privilege just as females are
not oblivious to male advantage. W.E.B Du Bois first introduced
the idea of white privilege as a “psychological wage” in his book,
Black Reconstruction of America. So it seems that there may some
obliviousness on McIntosh’s part as to who is actually oblivious to
white privilege.
Another student connected her analysis to the reading:
I have come to see white privilege as an invisible package of un-
earned assets, which I can count on cashing in each day, but
about which I was ‘meant’ to remain oblivious. White privilege is
like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps,
passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools and blank checks.
(McIntosh, 1988)
Referring to text expands the students’ perceptions beyond the self and
connects their discussion to course content through scholarly interpreta-
tions of course or outside materials. This use of text to substantiate one’s
analysis connects our online discussion with Socratic seminar, whose pur-
pose is to reveal the world with greater clarity and nuance to the par-
ticipants (Parker & Hess, 2001) and is a core instructional process of our
online Socrates Café.
We additionally ground our Socrates Café in what Parker & Hess (2001)
term as deliberative discussion—which has roots in the notion of a de-
liberate democracy—and is further grounded in interpersonal engage-
ment and not simply personal reflection (Ackerman, 1989). The purpose
of a deliberative discussion is more outcome and action-oriented, and

14
perhaps more political than the Socratic seminar, which has no specific
outcome rather than increased understanding. A deliberative discussion
springs from the “powers of understanding” of issues that emerged from
the Socratic seminar and culminates in a course of action. “The question
at hand, whether urgently present as foreground or lurking in the back-
ground” (Parker & Hess, 2001, p. 282) is what should the communal out-
come of the discussion be? The emphasis on action beyond the discussion
resonates with the progressive and critical pedagogies that frame our edu-
cational mission as educators
Unlike Parker & Hess’s (2001) deliberative discussion which focuses on
the communal question, “What should we do?” (p. 282), our Socrates Café
focuses on individual action in classroom or school-wide pedagogy that
may result in an action-oriented question—What should I do in my class-
room?—though the process toward those individual pedagogical actions
emerges out of a social dialogue and it certainly encourages communal
actions. Encompassing Dewey’s reflective principles (1985), students are
encouraged to move from the reflective act within discussion to actual
experience and to an attitude of responsibility in their own educational
practice from participation in the Socrates Café. A student’s reflection in
the online Socrates Café regarding her analysis of a textbook for issues of
diversity illustrates his commitment to expand the topic of discussion to
actual practice within his classroom:
Completing the textbook analysis gave me hope that textbooks
will continue to incorporate more diversity and clearer images
of race, class, gender, religion, ability, and much more. I did find
that the middle class was represented 100% of the time and that
the poor or working class was not represented at all. If I were us-
ing this textbook in my classroom, I might incorporate additional
readings that show different socio-economic classes, especially if
we were covering a unit on families and topics that influence fami-
lies over time. Therefore, I will make a conscious effort to start
providing written and visual representations of diversity, which
will help create a diversity-affirmative, culturally inclusive learn-
ing community in my own classroom.
Our Socrates Café is online whereas the forum of traditional Socratic
seminars and public style Socrates Cafés tend to be face-to-face in orga-
nization. A public style Socrates Café is not evaluated by the facilitator or
participants. Our Socrates Café is assessed as part of the course require-
ments. Our choice to assess the Socrates Café arises from literature that
suggested instructional assistance is an a priori requirement of instructors
who hope to increase critical analyses in their classrooms (Abrami et al.,

15
2008; Bailin et al., 1999; Facione, 2000; Halpern, 1998; Hew & Cheung,
2003; Landsman & Gorski, 2007; Paul, 1992).
When accompanied by the pedagogical and dispositional components,
an integrative framework to evaluate a Socrates Café emerges. From both
the pedagogical and dispositional components of Socrates Café, we devel-
oped this integrative framework for guiding the creation of an online dis-
cussion. Our purpose in creating the framework was to determine those
pedagogical and attitudinal dispositions that, through our own research
and pedagogical practice and through a search of other literature, we de-
termined were foundational elements of the Socrates Café. The frame-
work provides a focus for the elements that are essential for the online
Socrates Café: clarity of thinking and other habits of mind, interactions in
dialogue, attitudes of empathy, confidence, open-mindedness, scholarli-
ness, questioning and dialogue in the Socrates Café.
The following typology emerged from the essential pedagogical and
dispositional components from the theoretical viewpoints (Tables 1 & 2)
that reflect those components. The first four elements of the integrative
framework are pedagogical. These elements included Socratic dialogue,
Socratic questioning, Intellectual Standards, and use of text or course con-
tent to ground the students’ analyses of the issues. The last two elements
of the integrative framework are dispositional and include interaction and
attitudes that are central to a successful Socrates Café discussion. For each
element of the framework the components from the literature are listed.
Additionally, there are guiding student goals or outcomes that represent
the use of the element.
Of course, the online Socrates Café is not a panacea for democratic edu-
cation or democracy, more generally. There are some who fear that online
discussions have the potential to balkanize participants even more than
before they engaged in the discussion (Bellamy & Raab, 1999; Witschge,
2004); that participants gravitate to discussions with people who are like-
minded and resist discussions with people with divergent perspectives
(Davis & Owen, 1998) and that this tendency increases non-deliberative
forms of interaction (Schlosberg, Zavestoski, & Shulman, 2008); that the
requirement for participants to ground their analysis in theory and text
results in a fractured sense of self (Simon, 1992); or that participants in
discussions with divisive issues feel more powerless than before the dis-
cussion (Mansbridge, 1998). Paralleling the contention that Americans
prefer a stealth democracy (Hibbing & Theiss-Morse, 2002), it is even con-
ceivable that participants prefer a stealth democratic learning environ-
ment in which participants want democratic procedures in classrooms,
but do not necessarily prefer to engage in democratic dialogue.

Teachers
College
Record,
118,
050302
(2016)
16
Table 3. Typology for an Online Socrates Café Discussion
Essential Element of
Online Socrates Café
Supporting Components/Literature Sample Student Goals
Dialogue Socratic seminar and discussion (Elbers, & Hajer, 2010;
Honderich, 2005; Knezic, Wubbels, Elbers, & Hajer,
2010; Paul, 1992; Parker & Hess, 2001; Parker, 2006)
Philosophical forums (Brown, 2005; Dewey,
1938, 1985; Gurteen, 2009; Lipman, 1993, 1998, 2004;
Lipman & Sharp, 2010; Phillips, 2001; Manthey, 2010;
Millett & Tapper, 2012; UNESCO, 2007)
Undertake a serious exchange of views (Leskes, 2013)
Whole-heartedness (Dewey, 1933).
Remains intellectually open for dialogue.
Engages with the open-space.
Connects between dialogue and the quest for truth.
Reveals passion for content and discourse.
Socratic Questioning Socratic questioning (Meier, 2002; Phillips, 2001;
MacKnight, 2000; Perkins & Murphy, 2006; Yang, Newby,
& Bill, 2008)
Open-ended questions (Lipman, 2000; Lipman, Sharp,
& Oscanyan, 2010; Phillips, 2001)
Undertake a serious exchange of views (Leskes, 2013)
Whole-heartedness (Dewey, 1933)
Inquisitiveness (Facione, 2000)
Maturity of judgment (Facione, 2000).
Questions own and peer’s taken-for-granted notions.
Passion for truth drives inquisitiveness.
Connects questioning and the quest for truth.
Questioning is deliberative and focused on an honest
exchange of values and issues.
Use of Intellectual
Standards
Intellectual Standards (Elder & Paul, 2007)
Analyticity (Facione, 2000)
Confidence in reason (Paul & Elder, 2001).
Uses varying levels of the Intellectual Standards in dia-
logue and questioning is deliberative.
Scholarliness Intellectual Standards (Paul, 1992; Elder & Paul 2007)
Defend their interpretations using verified information
(Leskes, 2013); Truth-seeking (Facione, 2000)
Intellectual perseverance (Paul & Elder, 2001)
Intellectual courage (Paul & Elder, 2001).
Grounds opinions in text or other course content.
Uses reasoned thought.
Encourages peers to ground their interpretations through
the text.

TCR,
118,
050302
A
Typology
for
an
Online
Socrates
Café
17
Essential Element of
Online Socrates Café
Supporting Components/Literature Sample Student Goals
Interactions Thoughtfully listen to what others say (Leskes, 2013)
Embody open-mindedness and a willingness to change
minds (Leskes, 2013)
Assume compromise and be willing to do so (Leskes,
2013)
Treat the ideas of others with respect (Leskes, 2013)
Avoid violence (Leskes, 2013)
Open-mindedness (Dewey, 1933; Facione, 2000)
Intellectual Humility (Paul & Elder, 2001)
Fairmindedness (Paul, 1992; Paul & Elder, 2001)
Respect, tolerance, considerateness (Calhoun, 2000).
Enters the discussion respectfully.
Participates actively.
Listens actively.
Encourages participation by others.
Questioning is respectful.
Uses appropriate language.
Displays open-minded orientation toward others’ ideas.
Compromises appropriately.
Attitudes Focus on the issues rather than on the individual(s)
espousing them (Leskes, 2013)
Seek the sources of disagreements and points of com-
mon purpose (Leskes, 2013)
Self-confidence (Facione, 2000)
Intellectual Autonomy (Paul, 1992; Paul & Elder, 2001)
Intellectual Empathy (Paul, 1992; Paul & Elder, 2001)
Directness (Dewey, 1933)
Responsibility (Dewey, 1933)
Civility
Habits of Mind (Meier, 2002).
Demonstrates respect for others’ positions.
Acknowledges varying perspectives.
Displays confidence.
Exhibits problem-solving orientation.
Mediates disputes.
Demonstrates empathy.
Adheres to principles of democratic discourse.

18
With these potential limitations also come possible benefits. Online dis-
cussions may have the capability to advance the public-sphere through
the use of critical and reasoned discourse (Dahlberg, 2001; Dryek, 1996).
Dewey (1927) suggested that communication systems which do not serve
citizens are more of a threat to democracy than incompetent citizens.
Following Dewey’s reasoning, it may be that the design of a communi-
cation system such as an online discussion forum affects the participant
outputs (Wright & Street, 2007), with some designs advancing more dem-
ocratic, less polarizing forms of interaction (Morrison & Newman, 2001).
The intended functional design of the Socrates Café—which includes
outputs that focus on an increasing critical analysis; connecting text to
opinion; expanding perspectives beyond the self; and respecting diverse
opinions—may result in a pedagogy that is deliberative in its attempt to
value democratic forms of expression instead of restricting them. Noting
that technology by itself does not result in democratic spaces in online
environments, Barber (1998) observed that the intention to create delib-
erative democracy is an essential element. He stated, “If the technology is
to make a political difference, it is the politics that will first have to change.
There must be a will toward a more participatory and robust civil society”
(p. 263). In educational contexts, there must be the will to scaffold delib-
erative discussions toward the purpose of increased and better student
engagement with difficult and potential divisive issues.
To use the proposed framework in an online Socrates Café discussion
is to promote and sustain perturbation, disturbance, and disequilibrium
(Doll, 1993) as natural and anticipated outcomes of the online discussion
forum. The pedagogical and dispositional elements from the theoretical
framework challenge students’ taken-for-granted notions and habits of
thought. The process may be uncomfortable for some. With this natural
imbalance as a consequence of the pedagogy, we offer some recommenda-
tions for developing a Socrates Café.
First, relate the discussion topic or original open-ended question to
course content that is bound in contemporary educational relevance. For
example, in our graduate-level diversity course in teacher education and
curriculum, we offer Socrates Café prompts related to globalization, prej-
udice, discrimination, immigration laws, and religious diversity. General
topics in education courses that make excellent prompts or a basis for
initial questions include any current educational policy, reform efforts,
the purposes of instruction and assessment, ethical dilemmas, the notion
of professionalism, or instructional styles and personal missions. Consider
using the big curricular questions, such as: What is the purpose of educa-
tion? Who decides? Who are the stakeholders? Who wins? Who is margin-
alized in the process? Must learning be assessed?

19
Second, encourage questioning and dialogue, both self-and peer.
Consider introducing the Universal Intellectual Standards as a guide for
varying the types of questions students use. To keep the Socrates Café
from becoming a repository of distorted thought, urge students to resist
opined expressions and diatribes that are unreflective, not grounded in
readings or course, and undisciplined. Use the pedagogical and disposi-
tional components in Tables 1 & 2 to scaffold expectations for discussion.
Further, consider the final framework we present in Table 3 as an instruc-
tional focus and guide.
Third, model the habits of thought and critical reflection you expect
from students (Hemming, 2000). Dispositional components are required
for an online Socrates Café to have the effect of a functional civil discourse
which further democratic expression. Empathy, fair-mindedness, and in-
quisitiveness within an open forum also beget thinking that is reasoned,
courageous and autonomous. The instructors’ own entry into the Socrates
Café as an originator of topics or questions and within the discussion is
the place to model those salient dispositions. Table 2 may assist instructors
with the dispositional foci for their students.
Fourth, allow cognitive dissonance, self-questioning, and disequilibrium
as a natural consequence of the online Socrates Café. The Socrates Café
as a pedagogy of process encourages students to frame competing dis-
courses in educational topics as interrelated and complementary in many
circumstances. Further, expressions of thought emerge from the partici-
pants’ own social, cultural, ethnic, and gendered experiences and these
contextual expressions have the ability to expand others’ viewpoints and
situate students’ own investigation of their perspectives. Encourage stu-
dents to investigate further into difficult and complex issues by looking at
new research, policy or news. Promote students’ ability to simultaneously
hold opposing viewpoints in perspectives while they continue their inves-
tigation as demonstration of the dispositions of inquisitiveness and open-
mindedness and also analyticity and perseverance.
Last, do not shy away from conflict and polarization by avoiding con-
troversial issues in the Socrates Café. McAvoy & Hess (2013) offer advice
for guiding students through difficult issues by including the issue in
the curriculum by “teaching the controversy”, that is, using the complex
issue as a content to teach and by acknowledging viewpoints that are em-
pirically grounded simultaneously while allowing students to disagree.
Actively encouraging students to remain open-minded and empathetic
about the controversy puts that conflict itself, at the center of the online
Socrates Café.
The elements of a Socrates Café deliberative discussion are both peda-
gogical and dispositional in nature. Its educational purpose is based in

20
individual growth within community as an outcome that supports demo-
cratic communication. As in the Greek philosophical tradition, it empha-
sizes the connection between dialogue and inquiry for democratic princi-
ples in pedagogy. Core values come from varying frameworks of pedagogy
and dispositions, including critical thinking and reflection for the pur-
poses of civil discourse. Instructors may add student goals, outcomes or
even behaviors as the iterative process of development their own online
Socrates Cafés and practice emerges. It is best used organically, as a guide
and focus for growth, rather than as a static structure. Pedagogical and at-
titudinal dispositions of a Socrates Café include:
•฀ Socratic questioning and dialoguing to develop one’s ideas;
•฀ Connecting viewpoints to text and course content;
•฀ Supporting social learning for the individual and the group;
•฀ Encouraging interactional behaviors stimulate inquiry; and
•฀ Embracing attitudes that are bound in respect and compassion.
Using the integrative framework for creating and sustaining an online
Socrates Café with the essential elements to support students in the process
may foster a community of critical learners (Dewey, 1916, 2004) where the
common value people experience in a deliberative online discussion with
diverse and conflicting opinions is a commitment to civil communication.
CONCLUSION
Many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried in
this word of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is per-
fect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the
worst form of government except all those other forms that have
been tried from time to time. (Churchill, 1947/1979, p. 150)
It may be contended that the rise of polarization between people is an
opportunity for democracy (Flores, 2014) and this prospect for democrat-
ic dialogue arises within an online Socrates Café, as well. Churchill’s above
sentiment about the challenges of a democracy suggests its complexity as a
form of government, and by extension, the difficulty of creating democrat-
ic learning spaces that honor vital and sustainable democratic principles
as an outcome of education. Because facilitation of this integrative online
discussion forum is so challenging, assisting students through deliberate
discussion of demanding and multifaceted subjects in teacher education
is the worst form of pedagogy, except for all other pedagogies. The on-
line Socrates Café is fraught with unavoidable contradictions resulting in

21
a pedagogy of process that is negotiated and dynamic, but also purposeful
and intentional. The integrative framework proposed in this work assists
students to examine who they are as scholars, practitioners and members
of a democratic society. The deliberative discussion that is foundational to
an online Socrates Café is bound in a paradigm of pedagogy for democrat-
ic learning spaces and civil discourse that requires students who can think
critically and also compassionately; who can remain intellectually confi-
dent and open-minded simultaneously; who can dialogue and question;
who can listen even when they disagree, and mediate intellectual disputes.
Specific content or textual outcomes are not required and would be anti-
thetical to the pedagogy; yet, relying on the scholarly practice of referring
to text in dialogue is a necessary disposition. The tensions between these
competing values makes the Socrates Café a complex and complicated
pedagogy that invites students to encounter issues that surpass the self and
connect them with larger societal problems, enhancing the potential for
discussions that are purposeful and result in an expansion of perspectives.
Supporting students as they negotiate these and other contradictions and
paradoxes in a functional Socrates Café has immense potential for facili-
tating democratic spaces in pedagogy for civil discourse.
NOTE
The authors wish to thank Diana Hess from the Spencer Foundation
whose probing questions helped to focus the theoretical foundations of
our online Socrates Café.

22
REFERENCES
Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R, Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M., Tamim, R., & Zhang, Dai.
(2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A
stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102–1134.
Ackerman, B. (1989). Why dialogue? Journal of Philosophy, 86(1) 5-22.
Adler, M. (1982). The Paideia proposal: Rediscovering the essence of education. American
School Board Journal, 169(7), 17-20.
Anderson, G. & Piro, J. (2015). A partnership in a pedagogy of process: Conversations about
co-teaching critical analysis. Journal of Interdisciplinary Education. 14(1) 72-94.
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the
workplace. Academy of management review, 24(3), 452-471.
Baker, J. (2012). Civil discourse and a grand bargain. Woodrow Wilson Center video.
Retrieved from http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/civil- discourse -and- grand- bargain-
lee- hamilton -lecture-series.
Banks, J. A. (Ed.). (1996). Multicultural education, transformative knowledge, and action. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J., & Daniels, L. (1999). Conceptualizing critical thinking.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(3), 285–302.
Barbour, B. (1998). A passion for democracy: American essays. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Barr, S. (1968). Notes on dialogue. Annapolis: St. John’s College.
Bellamy, C. and C. Raab (1999). Wiring up the deck-chairs? In S. Coleman, J.Taylor and
W.Van de Donk (eds). Parliament in the Age of the Internet, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
pp. 156–72.
Bridges, D (1979). Education, democracy and discussion. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities
Press.
Brookfield, S. D., & Preskill, S. (2012). Discussion as a way of teaching: Tools and techniques for
democratic classrooms. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Brown, J. (2005). The world café. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Calhoun, C. (2000). The virtue of civility. Philosophy & public affairs, 29(3), 251-275.
Churchill, W. (1979). Parliament Bill. Speech on the House of Commons, November 11, 1947. The
Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. 3rd
ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Original
work published 1947)
Copleston, F. (1985). A history of philosophy. New York, NY: Image Books.
Dahlberg, L. (2001). The Internet and democratic discourse: Exploring the prospects of
online deliberative forums extending the public sphere. Information, Communication &
Society, 4(4), 615-633.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The right to learn and the advancement of teaching: Research,
policy, and practice for democratic education. Educational Researcher (25) 6, 5-17.
Davetian, B. (2009). Civility: a cultural history. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Davis, R., & Owen, D. (1998). New media and American politics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Wilson.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. (Original work published
1910).
Dewey, J. (1938). The theory of inquiry. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press. (Original work published
1910)

23
Dewey, J. (1985). How we think and selected essays, 1910-1911. J. A. Boydston & B. W. Graubner
(Eds.). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (2004). Democracy and education. Mineola, NY: Dover. (Original work published
1916)
Doll, W. E. (1993). A post-modern perspective on curriculum (Vol. 167). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Dryek, J. (1996). Democracy in capitalist times: Ideals, limits, and struggles. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Dworkin, R. (2006). Is democracy possible here? Principles for a new political debate. Princeton, N.J:
Princeton University Press.
Edwards, M. (2009). Civil society. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
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.
Elder, L. & Paul, R. (2008). Intellectual standards: The words that name them and the criteria that
define them. Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Ennis, R., Millman, J., & Tomoko, T. N. (2004). Cornell critical thinking tests level X & level Z
manual. Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational
assessment and instruction. Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
Facione, P. A. (2000). The disposition toward critical thinking: Its character, measurement,
and relationship to critical thinking skill. Informal Logic, 20(1).
Facione, P., Sánchez, C., Facione, N. & Gainen, J. (1995). The disposition toward critical
thinking. The Journal of General Education, 41(1)1-25.
Farrell, J. T. (1959). Dialogue on John Dewey. C. Lamont (Ed.). New York, NY: Horizon Press.
Flores, I. B. (2014). The Problem of democracy in the context of polarization. In Philosophical
Perspectives on Democracy in the 21st Century (pp. 103-117). New York, NY: Springer
International Publishing.
Forni, P. M. (2002). Choosing civility: The twenty-five rules of considerate conduct. New York, NY:
St. Martin’s Press.
Golding, C. (2011). Educating for critical thinking: Thought-encouraging questions in a
community of inquiry. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(3), 357-370.
Gurteen, D. (2009). Knowledge Café. Inside Knowledge, 13(3), 8-13.
Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2012). The spirit of compromise: Why governing demands it and
campaigning undermines it. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.
Halpern, D. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Dispositions,
skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4),
449–455.
Hemming, H. (2000). Encouraging critical thinking: But...what does that mean? Journal of
Education, 35(2), 173.
Herbst, S. (2010). Rude democracy: Civility and incivility in American politics. Philadelphia, PA:
Temple University Press.
Hess, D. (2009). Controversy in the classroom: The democratic power of discussion. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Hew, K., & Cheung, W. (2003). Evaluating the participation and quality of thinking of pre-
service teachers in an asynchronous online discussion environment: Part II. International
Journal of Instructional Media, 30(4).
Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how
government should work. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

24
Honderich, T. (Ed.). (2005). The Oxford companion to philosophy (pp. 793-794). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
James, R. (1974). Winston S. Churchill: his complete speeches, 1897-1963. New York, NY: Chelsea
House Publishers.
Knezic, D., Wubbels, T., Elbers, E., & Hajer, M. (2010). The Socratic dialogue and teacher
education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1104-1111.
Landsman, J., & Gorski, P. (2007). Countering standardization. Educational Leadership, 64(8),
40–41.
Leskes, A. (2013). A plea for civil discourse: Needed, the academy’s leadership.
LiberalEducation, 99(4). Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/le-fa13/
leskes.cfm
Lipman, M. (1993). Thinking children and education. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing
Company.
Lipman, M. (2004). Philosophy for children’s debt to Dewey. Critical and Creative Thinking,
12(1), 1-8.
Lipman, M. (2010). Philosophy goes to school. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Lipman, M., Sharp, A. M., & Oscanyan, F. S. (2010). Philosophy in the Classroom. Philadelphia,
PA: Temple University Press.
MacKnight, C. B. (2000). Teaching critical thinking through online discussions. Educause
Quarterly, 4, 38-41.
Mann, T. E., & Ornstein, N. J. (2013). It’s even worse than it looks: How the American constitutional
system collided with the new politics of extremism. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Mansbridge, J. (1998). The many faces of representation. Working Paper. John F. Kennedy School
of Government. Boston, MA: Harvard University.
Manthey, M. (2010). A new model of healing for the profession of nursing. Creative Nursing,
16(1), 18–20.
Marri, A. (2005). Building a framework for classroom-based multicultural democratic
education: Learning from three skilled teachers. The Teachers College Record, 107(5),
1036-1059.
McAvoy, P., & Hess, D. (2013). Classroom deliberation in an era of political polarization.
Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), 14-47.
McIntosh, P. (1988). White privilege: unpacking the invisible knapsack. Retrieved from: http://
www.amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html
Meier, D. (2002). The power of their ideas: Lessons for America from a small school in Harlem.
Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Millett, S., & Tapper, A. (2012). Benefits of collaborative philosophical inquiry in schools.
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(5), 546-567.
Morison, J., & Newman, D. (2001). Online citizenship: Consultation and participation in
New Labour’s Britain and beyond. International Review of Law, Computers and Technology,
15(2), 171–94.
Norris, S., & Ennis, R. (1989). Evaluating Critical Thinking. Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest
Publications.
Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential
of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6(2), 259-283.
Parker, W. C., & Hess, D. (2001). Teaching with and for discussion. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 17(3), 273-289.
Parker, W. C. (2006). Public discourses in schools: Purposes, problems, possibilities.
Educational Researcher, 35(8), 11-18.
Paul, R. (1992). Critical thinking: What, why, and how? New Directions for Community Colleges,
1992(77), 3–24.

25
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (1996). Universal intellectual standards. Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for
Critical Thinking.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2001). The miniature guide to critical thinking: Concepts & tools (Vol. 2).
Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2007). Critical thinking: The art of Socratic questioning. Journal of
Developmental Education, 31(1), 34-37.
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.
Phillips, C. (2001). Socrates café: a fresh taste of philosophy New York, NY: Norton.
Piro, J., & Anderson, G. (2015). Discussions in Socrates café: Implications for critical thinking
in teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 37(3), 265-283.
Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking.
The Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842-866.
Schlosberg, D., Zavestoski, S., & Shulman, S. W. (2008). Democracy and e-rulemaking:
Web-based technologies, participation, and the potential for deliberation. Journal of
Information Technology & Politics, 4(1), 37-55.
Simon, R. I. (1992). Teaching against the grain: Texts for a pedagogy of possibility. New York; NY:
Bergin & Garvey.
Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Going to extremes: How like minds unite and divide. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
UNESCO. (2007). Philosophy. A school of freedom. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://www.
unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/philosophy/.
Weeks, K. (2011). In search of civility: Confronting incivility on the college campus. New York: NY:
Morgan James Publishing.
Witschge, T. (2004). Online deliberation: Possibilities of the internet for deliberative
democracy. In P. Shane (Ed.), Democracy online: The Prospects for political renewal through the
internet (pp. 109-122). New York; NY: Routledge.
Wright, S., & Street, J. (2007). Democracy, deliberation and design: the case of online
discussion forums. New Media & Society, 9(5), 849-869.
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.

26
JODY S. PIRO, Ed.D. is an Associate Professor in the Doctor of Education
in Instructional Leadership program at Western Connecticut State
University. She has been involved in education for over twenty-five years in
K-12 as a social studies teacher and as a dean and principal, and in higher
education as a professor and dissertation director. Dr. Piro’s current schol-
arly interests focus on integral instruction and problematizing discussion
for critical analysis and civil discourse. Dr. Piro is the author of the book 10
Dilemmas in Teaching with Discussion: Managing Integral Instruction, which
will be published in 2016. Her most recent publications with co-author
Gina Anderson include, Discussions in Socrates Café: Implications for Critical
Thinking in Teacher Education, Managing the Paradoxes of Discussion Pedagogy,
and A Partnership in a Pedagogy of Process: Conversations about Co-teaching
Critical Analysis.
GINA ANDERSON, Ed.D. is an Associate Professor of Teacher Education
and the Interim Associate Dean College of Professional Education
Program at Texas Woman’s University in Denton, Texas. Prior to her work
at TWU, Dr. Anderson taught several years of elementary and middle
school in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and served as a student teacher su-
pervisor and teaching and research assistant at Oklahoma State University.
Culturally-responsive teaching strategies and the Scholarship of Teaching
and Learning guide her research and scholarly interests. Her most recent
publications with co-author Jody Piro include, Discussions in Socrates Café:
Implications for Critical Thinking in Teacher Education,Managing the Paradoxes
of Discussion Pedagogy, and A Partnership in a Pedagogy of Process: Conversations
about Co-teaching Critical Analysis.

A Typology For An Online Socrates Caf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to A Typology For An Online Socrates Caf

Similar to A Typology For An Online Socrates Caf (20)

More from Jeff Nelson

More from Jeff Nelson (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A Typology For An Online Socrates Caf