Fostering multiperspectivity through philosophical dialogue about controversial issues in the classroom

References

1. Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D. I., Wade, C. A. and Persson, T. (2015), ‘Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis’, Review of Educational Research, 85:2, pp. 275–314.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Al-Adeimi, S. and Baumann, J. (2023), ‘Roles of engagement: Analyzing adolescent students’ talk during controversial discussions’, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 67:2, pp. 42–52, https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1289.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Anthone, R. and Mortier, F. (2007), Socrates op de speelplaats (Socrates in the Playground), Leuven: Acco.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Arao, B. and Clemens, K. (2023), ‘From safe spaces to brave spaces: A new way to frame dialogue around diversity and social justice’, in L. M. Landreman (ed.), The Art of Effective Facilitation: Reflections from Social Justice Educators, Sterling, VA: Stylus and Routledge, pp. 135–50.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bakhtin, M. M. (2010), The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, vol. 1, Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Barton, K. and McCully, A. (2007), ‘Teaching controversial issues: Where controversial issues really matter’, Teaching History, 127, https://www.history.org.uk/secondary/resource/700/teaching-controversial-issueswhere-controversia. Accessed 5 August 2025.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Bermudez, A. (2015), ‘Four tools for critical inquiry in history, social studies, and civic education’, Revista de estudios sociales, 52, pp. 102–18, https://doi.org/10.7440/res52.2015.07.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Boyd, M. P. and Markarian, W. C. (2015), ‘Dialogic teaching and dialogic stance: Moving beyond interactional form’, Research in the Teaching of English, 49:3, pp. 272–96, https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2011.597861.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2019), ‘Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis’, Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11:4, pp. 589–97, https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676x.2019.1628806.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Bridges, D. (1979), Education, Democracy and Discussion, Slough: NFER.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Byford, J., Lennon, S. and Russell, W. B. (2009), ‘Teaching controversial issues in social studies: A research study of high school teachers’, The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 82:4, pp. 165–70, https://doi.org/10.3200/tchs.82.4.165-170.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Callan, E. (2016), ‘Education in safe and unsafe spaces’, Philosophical Inquiry in Education, 24:1, pp. 64–78, https://doi.org/10.7202/1070555ar.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Cassar, C., Oosterheert, I. and Meijer, P. C. (2023), ‘Why teachers address unplanned controversial issues in the classroom’, Theory & Research in Social Education, 51:2, pp. 233–63, https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2022.2163948.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Cochran-Smith, M., Shakman, K., Jong, C., Terrell, D. G., Barnatt, J. and McQuillan, P. (2009), ‘Good and just teaching: The case for social justice in teacher education’, American Journal of Education, 115:3, pp. 347–77, https://doi.org/10.1086/597493.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Cornelissen, E. and De Schrijver, J. (2022), ‘Kan waarheid een leugen zijn? Kinderen kritisch laten denken over media en (des)informatie met Kritikat’ (‘Can the truth be a lie? Enabling children to think about media and desinformation with Kritikat’), Tijdschrift voor jeugd en kinderrechten, 3, pp. 188–202, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25871-8_8.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Cornelissen, E., Van den Broeck, L. and Galle, G. (2024), ‘Kritisch denken stimuleren via filosofische leeractiviteiten’ (‘Critical thinking through philosophical learning activities’), in E. Tanghe, W. Smets and W. Schelfthout (eds), Wij weten van praten: Overleg op school als cultuur en praktijk, Brussels: Politeia, pp. 39–50.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Cotton, D. R. (2006), ‘Teaching controversial environmental issues: Neutrality and balance in the reality of the classroom’, Educational Research, 48:2, pp. 223–41, https://doi.org/10.1080/00131880600732306.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Doornbosch, L. M., van Vuuren, M. and de Jong, M. D. (2024), ‘Brave conversations within safe spaces: Exploring participant behavior in community dialogues’, Small Group Research, pp. 1–39, https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964241302071.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Flensner, K. K. and Von der Lippe, M. (2019), ‘Being safe from what and safe for whom? A critical discussion of the conceptual metaphor of “safe space”’, Intercultural Education, 30:3, pp. 275–88, https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2019.1540102.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Galle, G. (2018), ‘Sporen van en naar filosofie en filosoferen in het Vlaamse secundair onderwijs’ (‘Pathways from and to philosophy and philosophizing in Flemish secondary education’), Algemeen Nederlands tijdschrift voor wijsbegeerte, 110:1, pp. 113–37.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Geller, R. C. (2020) ‘Teacher political disclosure in contentious times: A “responsibility to speak up” or “fair and balanced?”’, Theory & Research in Social Education, 48:2, pp. 182–210, https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2020.1740125.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Giordmaina, J. (2005), ‘Communities of conversation’, in Menon (ed.), Dialogue on Dialogue: A Resource Book for the Developing Dialogue Through Philosophical Enquiry Course for Teachers, n.p: Menon, pp. 70–83, https://menon.eu.org/material/Booklet%20English.pdf. Accessed 5 August 2025.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Gurin, P., Nagda, B. (R.) A. and Zúñiga, X. (2013), Dialogue across Difference: Practice, Theory, and Research on Intergroup Dialogue, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Gutmann, A. and Thompson, D. F. (2004), Why Deliberative Democracy?, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
25. de Haan, M. (2023), ‘The “every day” of polarisation in schools; understanding polarisation as (not)dialogue’, Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 33:2, pp. 481–501, https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2023.2237986.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Hand, M. and Levinson, R. (2012), ‘Discussing controversial issues in the classroom’, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44:6, pp. 614–29, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00732.x.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Hersted, L. (2017), ‘Reflective role-playing in the development of dialogic skill’, Journal of Transformative Education, 15:2, pp. 137–55, https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344616686765.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Hess, D. E. (2002), ‘Discussing controversial public issues in secondary social studies classrooms: Learning from skilled teachers’, Theory & Research in Social Education, 30:1, pp. 10–41, https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2002.10473177.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Hess, D. E. (2005), ‘How do teachers’ political views influence teaching about controversial issues’, Social Education, 69:1, pp. 47–48.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Hess, D. E. and McAvoy, P. (2015), The Political Classroom: Evidence and Ethics in Democratic Education, New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Jensen, S. S. (2020), ‘The art of facilitating philosophical dialogues from the perspective of teachers’, Educational Studies, 49:1, pp. 116–30, https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2020.1835612.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Journell, W. (2011), ‘Teachers’ controversial issue decisions related to race, gender, and religion during the 2008 presidential election’, Theory & Research in Social Education, 39:3, pp. 348–92.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Journell, W. (2016), ‘Teacher political disclosure as parrhesia’, Teachers College Record, 118:5, pp. 1–36.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Journell, W. (2020), ‘Controversial decisions within teaching controversial issues’, Annals of Social Studies Education Research for Teachers, 1:1, pp. 5–9.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Kello, K. (2016), ‘Sensitive and controversial issues in the classroom: Teaching history in a divided society’, Teachers and Teaching, 22:1, pp. 35–53, https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1023027.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Kelly, T. E. (1986), ‘Discussing controversial issues: Four perspectives on the teacher’s role’, Theory & Research in Social Education, 14:2, pp. 113–38, https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.1986.10505516.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Kizel, A. (2016), ‘Enabling identity: The challenge of presenting the silenced voices of repressed groups in philosophic communities of inquiry’, Journal of Philosophy in Schools, 3:1, pp. 16–39.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Kjøstvedt, A. G., Kosberg, E., Vandvik, G., Aspelund, I., Flacké, K. and Riseth, I. (2024), Ny viten – ny praksis: Implementering av resultater fra forskningsprosjektet DEMOCIT i grunnskolelærerutdanning og praksis (‘New knowledge – new practice: Implementing results from the DEMOCIT research project in primary teacher education and practice’), Oslo: OsloMet University Publication series.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Kubota, R. (2014), ‘“We must look at both sides”: But a denial of genocide too?: Difficult moments on controversial issues in the classroom’, Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 11:4, pp. 225–51, https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2014.968071.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Kuhn, D. (1991), The Skills of Argument, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511571350.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Kumashiro, K. K. (2004), ‘Uncertain beginnings: Learning to teach paradoxically’, Theory into Practice, 43:2, pp. 111–15, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4302_3.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Lafrarchi, N., Van Alstein, M., Cornelissen, E. and De Schrijver, J. (2024), ‘Controversiële thema’s in de geschiedenisles: leerkansen voor dialoog en reflectie’ (‘Controversial topics in history class: Learning opportunities for dialogue and reflection’), in S. Bollen, B. Delanote, J. De Schrijver, W. Smets, J. Van Doorsselaere and J. Van Schaftingen (eds), Sleutels tot historisch denken: handboek vakdidactiek geschiedenis, Gent: Borgerhoff & Lamberigts, pp. 190–204.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Lefstein, A. (2010), ‘More helpful as problem than solution: Some implications of situating dialogue in classrooms’, in K. Littleton and C. Howe (eds), Educational Dialogues, London: Routledge, pp. 182–203.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Lipman, M. (1988), ‘Critical thinking: What can it be?’, Educational Leadership, 46:1, pp. 38–43.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Lipman, M. (2003), Thinking in Education, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Ljunggren, C. (2011), ‘Utbildning-mellan individ, nation och samhälle’ (‘Education between individual, nation and society’), Utbildning & Demokrati – tidskrift för didaktik och utbildningspolitk, 20:3, pp. 7–28.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Martí, J. (2017), ‘Pluralism and consensus in deliberative democracy’, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 20:5, pp. 556–79, https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2017.1328089.
    [Google Scholar]
48. McAvoy, P. and Hess, D. (2013), ‘Classroom deliberation in an era of political polarization’, Curriculum Inquiry, 43:1, pp. 14–47.
    [Google Scholar]
49. McKenney, S. and Reeves, T. C. (2021), ‘Educational design research: Portraying, conducting, and enhancing productive scholarship’, Medical Education, 55:1, pp. 82–92, https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14280.
    [Google Scholar]
50. Nieto, S. (1995), ‘From brown heroes and holidays to assimilationist agendas: Reconsidering the critiques of multicultural education’, in Multicultural Education, Critical Pedagogy, and the Politics of Difference, New York: State University of New York Press, pp. 191–220.
    [Google Scholar]
51. Oulton, C., Day, V., Dillon, J. and Grace, M. (2004), ‘Controversial issues-teachers’ attitudes and practices in the context of citizenship education’, Oxford Review of Education, 30:4, pp. 489–507, https://doi.org/10.1080/0305498042000303973.
    [Google Scholar]
52. Ozturk, D. and Kus, Z. (2019), ‘Social studies teachers’ opinions and practices regarding teaching controversial issues’, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 44:8, pp. 15–37, https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2019v44n8.2.
    [Google Scholar]
53. Payne, K. A. and Journell, W. (2019), ‘“We have those kinds of conversations here…”: Addressing contentious politics with elementary students’, Teaching and Teacher Education, 79, pp. 73–82, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.12.008.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Rapanta, C., Vrikki, M. and Evagorou, M. (2021), ‘Preparing culturally literate citizens through dialogue and argumentation: Rethinking citizenship education’, The Curriculum Journal, 32:3, pp. 475–94, https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.95.
    [Google Scholar]
55. Rombout, F., Schuitema, J. and Volman, M. (2024), ‘Effects of a philosophy classroom dialogue intervention on students’ value-loaded critical thinking’, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 53, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101617.
    [Google Scholar]
56. Saarsar, P. (2017), ‘PMI (Plus-Minus-Interesting): A creative thinking strategy to foster critical thinking’, International Journal of Academic Research and Development, 2:6, pp. 974–77.
    [Google Scholar]
57. Sætra, E. (2022), ‘An empirical moral philosophy perspective on classroom discussions of controversial issues’, Educational Theory, 72:5, pp. 641–62, https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12548.
    [Google Scholar]
58. Samuelsson, M. (2016), ‘Education for deliberative democracy: A typology of classroom discussions’, Education for Deliberative Democracy: Theoretical Assumptions and Classroom Practices, 24:1, pp. 1–9.
    [Google Scholar]
59. Schaffalitzky, C. (2024), ‘Learning to facilitate dialogue: On challenges and teachers’ assessments of their own performance’, Educational Studies, 50:5, pp. 828–45.
    [Google Scholar]
60. Sharp, A. M. (2007), ‘Let’s go visiting: Learning judgment-making in a classroom community of inquiry’, Gifted Education International, 23:3, pp. 301–12, https://doi.org/10.1177/026142940702300311.
    [Google Scholar]
61. Skrefsrud, T. A. (2024), ‘Intercultural dialogue in diverse classrooms: Debating the socratic dialogue method from a postcolonial perspective’, Religions, 15:1, pp. 98–107, https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15010098.
    [Google Scholar]
62. Sprod, T. (2001), Philosophical Discussion in Moral Education, Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
63. Stradling, R. (1984), ‘The teaching of controversial issues: An evaluation’, Educational Review, 36:2, pp. 121–29, https://doi.org/10.1080/0013191840360202.
    [Google Scholar]
64. Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H. and Schulz, W. (2001), Citizenship and Education in Twenty-Eight Countries: Civic Knowledge and Engagement at Age Fourteen, Amsterdam: IEA Secretariat.
    [Google Scholar]
65. Van Eemeren, F. H. (1995), ‘A world of difference: The rich state of argumentation theory’, Informal Logic, 17:2, pp. 144–58.
    [Google Scholar]
66. Vansieleghem, N. and Kennedy, D. (2011), ‘What is philosophy for children, what is philosophy with children – after Matthew Lipman?’, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 45:2, pp. 171–82, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.2011.00801.x.
    [Google Scholar]
67. Veugelers, W. (2000), ‘Different ways of teaching values’, Educational Review, 52:1, pp. 37–46, https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910097397.
    [Google Scholar]
68. Wansink, B. G. J., Timmer, J. and Bronkhorst, L. H. (2023), ‘Navigating multiple perspectives in discussing controversial topics: Boundary crossing in the classroom’, Education Sciences, 13:9, p. 938, https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13090938.
    [Google Scholar]
69. Wansink, B. G. J., Mogutov, M., Damhuis, K. and Bronkhorst, L. H. (2024), ‘Situationality in discussing controversial topics: (When) does controversial equal difficult?’, Journal of Social Science Education, 23:2, pp. 1–36, https://doi.org/10.11576/jsse-6754.
    [Google Scholar]
70. Zembylas, M. and Kambani, F. (2012), ‘The teaching of controversial issues during elementary-level history instruction: Greek-Cypriot teachers’ perceptions and emotions’, Theory & Research in Social Education, 40:2, pp. 107–33, https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2012.670591.
    [Google Scholar]
71. Zimmerman, J. and Robertson, E. (2017), ‘The controversy over controversial issues’, Phi Delta Kappan, 99:4, pp. 8–14, https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721717745541.
    [Google Scholar]