ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS Vol. 29 No.1 31 Democracy as Morality: Using Philosophical Dialogue to Cultivate Safe Learning Communities Monica B. Glina In order to begin to cultivate safe learning communities, serious social problems that manifest themselves in school settings and threaten its constituents need to be addressed. One such problem is bullying. Bullying is a type of peer aggression (Olweus, 1993; Rigby, 1996; Whitney & Smith, 1993) defined as unrelenting, willful and malicious physical or psychological abuse (Batsche & Knoff, 1994; Olweus, 1993) that results in physical or psy- chological harm (Smith & Thompson, 1991) to the victim (Smith & Sharp, 1994; Underwood, 2003), the bully (Batsche & Knoff, 1994) and the bystander (Twemlow, Fonagy & Sacco, 2004). Approximately 160,000 students stay home from school each day because they are afraid of being bullied (Vail, 1999), and an estimated half a mil- lion students nationwide are marked absent every 30 days because of bullying (Sampson, 2000). Thus, bullying clouds the school setting with fear and anxiety, which adversely affects a student’s ability to learn (Greenbaum, Turner & Stephens, 1989). Despite the negative effect that bullying can have on the entire climate of a school which can, in turn, create a mortally unpleasant experience for all students (Hoover & Hazler, 1991), many schools have failed to create a bully-free environment (Shakeshaft et al., 1995; Unnever & Cornell, 2003). In order to cultivate safe learning communities, schools need to create bully-free environments. To accomplish this, research suggests that it is imperative to cultivate and nurture a safe school environment within which individuals know and interact with each other (Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1985; Finn, 1998) and within which a culture of trust exists amongst students (Stone and Isaacs, 2002). In this paper, I will make a theoretical argument for the promise that a peda- gogical approach called Philosophy for Children, which features key tenets of democracy, like philosophical dia- logue and deliberation, has as mechanism for cultivating and nurturing safe learning communities. Bullying in Schools Research indicates that most bullying occurs in schools or on school grounds (Garrett, 2003; Rigby, 2003). Hoover, Oliver & Hazler (1992) found that over 75% of middle- and high-school students reported being bul- lied at least once during the course of their time in school. Because of the frequency and severity of the aggres- sion, bullying may be one of the most common and potentially serious forms of violence in schools (Batche and Knoff, 1994; Espelage and Swearer, 2003). A major study by Vossekuil et al. (2002) of school shootings reported that the common denominator amongst students who had murdered their classmates was that they had been chronically bullied (Vossekuil et al., 2002). In its recent analysis of 37 school shooting incidents, the U.S. Secret Service learned that a majority of the shooters had suffered “bullying and harassment that was long-lasting and severe” (U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center, 2000). Thus, research shows that bullying can be a significant reason why school children do not feel safe in school. Until the problem of bullying in schools is addressed, it will continue to serve as an obstacle to creating a safe community for learning, an implication that extends beyond just the bully and the victim to all the community’s constituents. Historically, researchers suggested that bullying involved at least two participants: a victim, who is the target of frequent episodes of physical and psychological abuse, and a perpetrator who is responsible for administering the abuse (Perry, Kusel & Perry, 1988; Farrington, 1993). Recent studies redefine the bully/victim relationship ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS Vol. 29 No.1 32 by featuring the bystander in as integral a role as the bully and the victim (Twemlow, Fonagy & Sacco, 2004), suggesting that the bystander is an active participant in the “social architecture” of bullying (Twemlow, Fonagy & Sacco, 2004) who may play a more significant role than previously recognized. Furthermore, researchers who have examined the problem of bullying in schools from a variety of perspectives, have found that bullying has serious short- and long-term physical, academic, psychological, social or emotional effects for the bully, the bul- lied and the bystander (e.g. Graham & Juvonen, 1998; Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Hazler, Hoover & Oliver, 1991; Olweus, 1991, 1993; Rigby, 2003). For example, the bully, the victim and the bystander can all manifest responses that range from depression, low self-esteem and adult psychosis to suicide and violence towards others (such as school shootings) to problems that extend well into adulthood (Olweus, 1993; Batsche & Knoff, 1994; Hazler, 1996; Ballard, Argus & Remley, 1999; Harris, Petrie & Willoughby, 2002), where they are manifested as elevated levels of aggression, attentional difficulties, anxiety, depression (Clarke and Kiselica, 1997; Hawker & Boulton, 2000) and low self-esteem (Hawker & Boulton, 2000). Thus, the research suggests that all students in the school environment are affected in one way or another by bullying, hence, amplifying the urgency for the recognition of and effective response to this very serious and pervasive problem. Empathy and Bullying There is a strong correlation between low empathy and bullying (Endresen & Olweus, 2002; Olweus, 1993; Smith & Thompson, 1991; Rigby & Slee, 1999; Sutton, Smith & Swettenham, 1999). Empathy is defined as sharing the emotions of another person (Eisenberg & Strayer, 1987). Research suggests that bullies lack empathy for their victims, have difficulty feeling compassion (Olweus, 1992) and are unable to understand and sympa- thize with another individual’s feelings (Arsenio & Lemerise, 2001; Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998). In addition to the absence of empathy, bullying is characterized by a disequilibrium between an individual who has power over another individual who is incapable of counteracting the aggression (Roland & Idsoe, 2001; Horne et al., 2004). Thus, it is critical to attempt to recalibrate the disequilibrium that exists amongst students by cultivating and nurturing a safe school environment within which individuals interact with one another (Gottfredson & Gott- fredson, 1985; Finn, 1998) and by creating a school environment within which a culture of trust exists amongst students (Stone & Isaacs, 2002, Olweus, 1996). Therefore, any proposed intervention to reduce bullying should (1) promote empathy, respect and caring (Miller & Eisenberg, 1988; Olweus, 1993; Rigby & Slee, 1999; Smith & Thompson, 1991) and (2) recognize the power relations that exist between school children (Roland & Idsoe, 2001). I am proposing that an instructional approach that features democratic tenets such as dialogue and delib- eration as core pedagogical values holds promise as a mechanism by which to accomplish these objectives and is an approach that departs from that used by many of the existing bullying interventions. Existing Interventions There are existing interventions that utilize an instructional model of “knowledge transmission” in which stu- dents are told what bullying is, what the characteristics of a bully are and what one should do if one encounters a situation in which bullying occurs (e.g. Olweus, 1993; Smith, Ananiadou & Cowie, 2003; Smith, Schneider, Smith & Ananiadou, 2004). Using Paul’s (1986) terminology, these interventions are ‘monological,’ since they do not offer students the opportunity to explore bullying on a deeper intellectual and emotional level, become conversant with and arrive at their own understanding of concepts, such as empathy, power, caring, respect, and justice. Philosophy for Children (P4C) is a unique pedagogical approach that uses philosophical dialogue to al- low children to explore these concepts, to formulate their own understandings of the complex issues involved in bullying and aggression, to engage in structured dialogue with their peers and to reach judgments about how to make their experiences more meaningful. The empirical evaluations of anti-bullying interventions have yielded mixed results. Some studies report only modest improvements (e.g. Olweus, 1993; Smith, Ananiadou & Cowie, 2003; Smith, Schneider, Smith & Ananiadou, 2004), while others fail to show any significant improvement (e.g. Rigby, Smith & Pepler, 2004). Thus, empirical research supports the assertion that interventions based largely on transmission may lack the ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS Vol. 29 No.1 33 qualities necessary to affect change and make an impact on the problem of bullying. Because existing interven- tions have not significantly or successfully impacted the problem of bullying, a new approach may be necessary. I am proposing an instructional method that could offer students the opportunity to move beyond being mere recipients of information presented to them by adults and engage, instead, in a substantive examination of es- sential issues underlying aggression, such as fairness, respect, caring, justice and empathy using two key features of democracy: dialogue and deliberation. Democracy as Morality A theoretical argument can be made for the significance of a democratic approach. Dewey (1916) explains that democracy is more than the processes and procedures associated with politics and government. He argues that democracy is also comprised of a moral component, or “an ethical way of life,” that informs the way in which individuals should think about issues that affect their communities and the people within them. Dewey (1916) further argues that individuals have a moral obligation to others in their community, and the decisions and actions that they make must be understood in terms of the way they influences the lives of others. “A being connected with other beings cannot perform his own activities without taking the activities of other into ac- count, for they are indispensable conditions of the realization of his tendencies. When he moves, he stirs them and reciprocally” (Dewey, 1916, 14). Thus, democracy for Dewey is a political process mediated by the moral consciousness of its participants, who are committed to making unbiased, nonrepressive, nondiscriminatory decisions. Dewey recognizes the importance of educating all citizens so that they understand how to participate as moral agents responsible for deliberating over political issues and suggests that it is the role of schools to fa- cilitate this education. Democracy has many meanings, but it has a moral meaning. It is found in resolving that the supreme test of all political institutions and industrial arrangements shall be the contributions they make to the all-around growth of every member of society (186). According to Dewey, it is the role of social institutions, like schools, to establish conditions such that all their constituents are educated to actively participate in, deliberate about, and contribute to the development of each other as well as the development of their school community. “A society is undemocratic…if it restricts rational deliberations or excludes some educable citizens from an adequate education” (Gutmann, 1999, 95). Gutmann (1999) argues for the importance of deliberation in a democracy as “a means of reconciling differ- ences” and “an important part of democratic education” (11). Thus, dialogue and deliberation informed by a moral consciousness are means by which citizens in a democracy can negotiate issues underlying aggression, such as fairness, respect, caring, justice and empathy so that they support an ethical way of life. Philosophy for Children Philosophy for Children (P4C) is an established instructional approach that features philosophical dialogue and opportunities for deliberation. Lipman (2003) argues against telling students what is right and wrong. Instead, he suggests that children should learn to arrive at their own conclusions by engaging in exploratory dialogue with one another. P4C’s inquiry-based, dialogically-driven group setting offers students precisely the kind of forum that allows students to benefit from social interaction with their fellow participants and engage concepts collectively. As argued by Vygotsky, individuals are social and cultural beings who learn through interac- tions with others (Wertsch, 1981). The ideas that are generated during the sociocultural exchange are reflected upon, cognitively accommodated and then internalized (Vygotsky, 1978). It is through this process that children learn to think for themselves. Understanding the descriptive parameters of dialogue is critical for understanding the transformative power that dialogue can have. Lipman makes a clear distinction between conversation and dialogue, arguing that a ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS Vol. 29 No.1 34 conversation involves stability while dialogues involve instability (Lipman, 2003). A conversation involves turn- taking, but the turn-taking neither advances nor enriches the conversation. On the other hand, a dialogue manifests instability, which represents a series of arguments and counter-arguments that continually propel the dialogue forward. Each turn taken by an individual is a logical, purposeful “move” to both actuate and substan- tively elevate the dialogue. The descriptive parameters of dialogic inquiry need to be expanded beyond purposeful moves to encompass the central role that dialogic inquiry plays in establishing and nurturing dispositions. Dialogic inquiry serves as the vehicle that facilitates the way in which the community sets acceptable parameters for social interaction. Participants, learn, for example, to acknowledge the opinions of others, respect the rights of others to be heard in a fair and equitable manner and entertain multiple perspectives. Therefore, dialogic inquiry and social inter- action together constitute good inquiry. Doing good inquiry is not just a way for students to explore concepts in a deeper, more meaningful way; because there are certain ways individuals act when they are doing inquiry, it becomes the way that students learn to behave toward one another. “Individuals not only internalize the meth- ods of collaborative performance, they also internalize the characteristic behaviors that come from engaging in a community of inquiry” (Burgh et al., 2006). This has significant implications for a successful bullying interven- tion since doing good inquiry requires a commitment to the dialogue and its participants. Engaging in a deeper, more meaningful exploration of issues underlying aggression implies more than just the act of dialogic inquiry but necessarily includes social attributes, such as fairness and respect, which constitute good inquiry. The process of inquiry and dialogue, therefore, are insufficient if a sensitivity toward and understanding of another’s values, interests and beliefs is absent (Lipman, Sharp & Oscanyan, 1980). Philosophy for Children helps students, “both understand and practice what is involved in violence reduction and peace development. They have to learn to think for themselves about these matters, not just to provide knee-jerk responses when we present the proper stimuli” (Lipman, 2003, p. 105). Caring thinking is the component of P4C that requires indi- viduals (1) to “care for the other” through love and respect, (2) to “care for his or her own beliefs” by valuing his or her own personal beliefs and values and (3) to “care for the inquiry” by taking judgment seriously. “If think- ing does not contain valuing or valuation, it is liable to approach its subject matters apathetically, indifferently, and uncaringly, and this means it would be diffident even about inquiry itself” (Lipman, 2003). Caring thinking empowers students to establish a value system which leads them toward making sound and compassionate value judgments (Lipman, 2003). The dialogic and intersubjective features of P4C necessitate an interaction between students and their class- mates. Research suggests that learning in small groups supports students’ abilities to work with others in a democratic society (Dillon, 1994, Gastil, 1993; Parker, 2001). Cohen (1992) and Johnson, Johnson and Stanne (1989) argue that constructive peer interaction promotes tolerance, diversity and communication in a democrat- ic society. By virtue of the rules of inquiry and an experienced facilitator, students are restricted to well-reasoned exchanges directed toward advancing the dialogue, thus severely limiting or eliminating attempts at or displays of aggression. The social disequilibrium that students feel as victims of bullying can translate itself into a dialogic disequilibrium, which can open the door to discussions of empathy and understanding. Thus, students use spe- cific rules of inquiry, such as reasoning and concept clarification, to debate reasonably with one another as they analyze questions of morality and mediate their notions of complex issues, such as caring, empathy, fairness and respect. Recent research shows that children are developmentally ready to participate in dialogic discussions and engage in abstract thinking about issues such as fairness, respect, caring, justice and empathy at an early age (Reznitskaya et al., in press; Crowhurst, 1988; Stein & Trabasso, 1982), although many educators have previously underestimated this ability in young children. Students, though, are not only developmentally ready to handle these concepts but come to appreciate that only by participating in a thinking community where it is incumbent upon them to clarify and defend their ideas with good reasons, where they are helped by others to articulate their ideas and where their ideas are addressed, extended and strengthened by others, can they make judgments that ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS Vol. 29 No.1 35 are meaningful for them. They recognize that these judgments are the result of multiple and diverse perspectives and begin to realize that even those who disagree with them and with whom they disagree are valuable resources for their own inquiries (Gregory, 2004). Democracy is not a low-maintenance endeavor. Among its requirements is a system of education that pre- pares people for it—not only to operate it, in the sense of knowing civics, but to constitute it, in the sense of practicing civility (Fenstermacher, 1999, 14). In order to begin to cultivate safe learning communities, schools need to address serious social problems, such as bullying. In order to do so, it is incumbent upon schools to provide opportunities for students to criti- cally examine social practices, reflect on what they learn and put that learning into action. Philosophy for Chil- dren is an instructional method that offers students a mechanism by which to accomplish this. Conclusion If an educational intervention centered around philosophical discussions, such as Philosophy for Children does, in fact, have the potential to impact the way students approach each other and the conflicts that arise among them, the implications for reducing instances of bullying in schools and, in turn, cultivating safe learning communities are significant. Philosophy for Children, or a similar environment centered around a philosophi- cal dialogue, offers a practical, pedagogical vehicle by which participants in a school community can address the attributes essential for a successful bullying intervention by (1) promoting empathy, caring and respect and (2) working toward rectifying the imbalance that exists between bullies and their victims in an effort to begin to redress bullying behavior. While committed to the procedures of inquiry, Philosophy for Children pedagogy holds discussion participants equally and simultaneously responsible for adhering to conditions such as mutual respect, fairness and an absence of indoctrination. These are the attributes which have implications for school children whose lives are impacted by bullying each and every day (e.g., Smith & Thompson, 1991; Batche & Knoff, 1994; Nansel et al., 2001; Olweus, 2001; Rigby, 2001; Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Garrett, 2003; Rigby, 2003) as well as for educators who strive to create and nurture safe learning environments. Because of the short- and long-term impact that bullying has on the lives of children, there is a clear urgency to identify a successful educational intervention. Previous approaches focused on didactic teaching and have yielded disappointing results (e.g. Olweus, 1993; Smith, Ananiadou & Cowie, 2003; Smith, Schneider, Smith & Ananiadou, 2004). None have used philosophical dialogue as a means by which to affect change in attitudes of violence and aggression amongst schoolchildren. While P4C has been evaluated in relation to other outcomes, such as gains in reasoning skills (e.g. Camhy and Iberer, 1988; Banks, 1989), self esteem relative to family rela- tionships (Pálsson et al., 1998) and gains in academic performance (Meyer, 1988; Jackson, 1993), its impact has not been assessed in relation to issues underlying aggression. The proposal that I have set forth makes a theoreti- cal argument for the potential that philosophical dialogue has for addressing this significant social problem and invites research that will provide concerned educators with practical and empirically-supported suggestions for addressing bullying in their schools as a step toward creating environments that promote safe, democratic and caring communities of learning. References Arsenio, W. F. & Lemerise, E. A. (2001). Varieties of childhood bullying: Values, emotion processes and social competence. Sociological Development, 10, 59-73. Ballard, M., Argus, T. & Remley, T. (1999). Bullying and school violence: A proposal prevention program. NASSP Bulletin, 83(607), 38-47. Banks, Joyce. (1989). Philosophy for children and the California achievement test: An analytic study in a Mid- western suburb.” Analytic Teaching, 9, 2. Batche, G. M. & Knoff, H. M. (1994). Bullies and their victims: Understanding a pervasive problem in the schools. School Psychology Review, 23, 165-174. ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS Vol. 29 No.1 36 Boivin, M & Hymel, S. (1997). Peer experiences and social self-perceptions: A sequential model. Developmental Psychology, 33(1), 135-145. Bosworth, K. & Espelage, D. (1995). Empathy-teen conflict survey. Bloomington, IN: Center for Adolescent Studies, Indiana University. Burgh, G., Field, T. & Freakley, M. (2006). Ethics and the community of inquiry: Education for deliberative democracy. South Melbourne, Victoria: Thomson Social Science Press. Camhy, D. & Iberer, G. (1988). Philosophy for children: A research project for further mental and personality development of primary and secondary school pupils. Thinking, 7(4) 18-26. Casey-Cannon, S., Hayward, C. & Gowen, K. (2001). Middle-school girls’ reports of peer victimization: Con- cerns, consequences and implications. Professional School Counseling, 5(2), 138-147. Clark, B. J. (1997). “The fun-kids club:” Developing an effective school-based program for children at risk. Jour- nal of Psychohistory, 24(4), 361-369. Cohen, E. G. (1992). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Issues in Restructur- ing Schools, 2, 4-7. Crothers, L. M. & Levinson, E. M. (2004). Assessment of bullying: A review of methods and instruments. Jour- nal of Counseling and Development, 82, 496-503. Crowhurst, M. (1988). Research review: Patterns of development in writing persuasive/ argumentative discourse (No. 506374). Vancouver: University of British Columbia, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 299 596. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company. Dillon, J. T. (1994). Deliberation in education and society. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., Pettit, G. S. & Price, J. M. (1990). Peer status and aggression in boys’ groups: Develop- mental and contextual analyses. Child Development, 61, 1289-1309. Eisenberg, N. & Fabes, F. (1998). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychol- ogy, volume 3: Social, emotional and personality development, 5th edition, (pp. 701-778). New York, NY: Wiley. Eisenberg, N. & Strayer, J. (1987). Empathy and its development. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Endresen, I. M. & Olweus, D. (2002). Self-reported empathy in Norwegian adolescents: Sex differences, age trends and relationship to bullying. In D. Stipek & A. Bohart (Eds.), Constructive and Destructive Behavior: Implications for Family, School & Society (pp. 147-165). Washington: American Psychological Association. Espelage, D. L. & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32(3), 365-383. Farrington, D. P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A re- view of research. Vol. 17 (pp. 348-458). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fenstermacher, G. D. (1999). Agenda for Education in a Democracy. In W. F. Smith and G. D. Fenstermacher (eds.), Leadership for educational renewal: Developing a cadre of leaders (pp. 3-27). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Finn, J. D. (1998). Class size and students at risk: What is known? What is next? Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart- ment of Education. Garrett, A. G. (2003). Bullying in American Schools. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publish- ers. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2.2-3, 1-19. Gastil, J. (1993). Democracy in small groups: Participation, decision-making and communication. Philadelphia, PA: New Society Publishers. Gottfredson, G. D. & Gottfredson, D. C. (1985). Victimization in schools. New York: Plenum Press. Graham, S. & Juvonen, J. (1998). A social cognitive perspective on peer aggression and victimization. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development (pp. 23-70). London: Jessica Kingsley. Greenbaum, S., Turner, B. & Stephens, R. D. (1989). Set straight on bullies. Malibu, CA: Pepperdine University Press. Gregory, M. (2004). Conflict, inquiry and education for peace. In S. N. Chattopadhyay (Ed.), World Peace: ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS Vol. 29 No.1 37 Problems of Global Understanding and Prospects of Harmony, Calcutta, India: Naya Prokash. Gutmann, A. (1999). Democratic education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Harris, S., Petrie, G. & Willoughby, W. (2002). Bullying among 9th graders: An exploratory study. NASSP Bul- letin, 86(630), 3-14. Hawker, D. S. J. & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and psychosocial malad- justment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 41(4), 441-455. Hazler, R. (1996). Breaking the cycle of violence: Interventions for bullying and victimization. Washington, D.C.: Taylor and Francis Group. Hazler, R. J., Hoover, J. H. & Oliver, R. (1991). Student perceptions of victimization by bullies in schools. The journal of humanistic education and development, 29, 143-150. Hoover, J. H. & Hazler, R. J. (1991). Bullies and victims. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 25, 212-219. Hoover, J. H., Oliver, R. & Hazler, R. J. (1992). Bullying: Perceptions of adolescent victims in the Midwestern USA. School Psychology International, 13(1), 5-16. Horne, A. M., Orpinas, P., Newman-Carlson, D. & Bartolomucci, C. L. (2004). Elementary school bully busters program: Understanding why children bully and what to do about it. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A socio-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 297- 325). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Huesmann, L. & Guerra, N. (1997). Children’s normative beliefs about aggression and aggressive behavior. American Psychological Association, Inc. 72, 408-419. Jackson, T. E. (1993). 1990-1991 evaluation report of philosophy for children in Hawaii. Thinking, 10(4), 36- 43. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Stanne, M. B. (1989). Impact of goal and resource interdependence on problem-solving success. Journal of Social Psychology, 129(5), 621-629. Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Lipman, M., Sharp, A. M. & Oscanyan, F. S. (1980). Philosophy in the classroom. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Meyer, J. R. (1988). A quest of the possible? Evaluation of the impact of the Pixie programme on 8-10 year olds. Analytic Teaching, 9(2), 63-64. Miller, P. A. & Eisenberg, N. (1988). The relation of empathy to aggressive and externalizing/ antisocial behav- ior. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 324-344. Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B. & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behav- iors among U.U. youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094-2100. Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among school children: Basic facts and effects of a school-based in- tervention program. In D. J. Pepler and K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 411-448). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Olweus, D. (1992). Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long-term outcomes. In K. H. Rubin & J. B. Asend- orf (Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition and shyness in childhood (pp. 315-341). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell. Olweus, D. (1996). Bully/victim problems at school: Facts and effective intervention. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Problems, 5(1), 15-22. Olweus, D. (2001). Peer harassment: A critical analysis and some important issues. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 3-20). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Pálsson, H., Sigurdardottir, B. & Nelson, Y. B. (1998). Philosophy for children on top of the world. Akureyri, Iceland: University of Akureyri. Parker, W. C. (2001). Classroom discussion: Models for leading seminars and deliberations. Social Education, 65(2), 111-115. Paul, R.W. (1986). Dialogical thinking: Critical thought essential to the acquisition of rational knowledge and ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS Vol. 29 No.1 38 passions. In J. B. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 127-148). New York, NY: Freeman and Co. Perry, D. G., Kusel S. J. & Perry, L. C. (1988). Victims of peer aggression. Developmental Psychology, 24(6), 807-814. Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., Dong, T., Li, Y. & Kim, I. (In press.). Learning to think well: Application of Argument Schema Theory. In C. C. Block, P. Afflerbach & S. Parris (Eds.), Comprehension Instruction: Research-Based Best Practices. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Rigby, K. (1996). Bullying in school and what to do about it. Melbourne, Victoria: The Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd. Rigby, K. (2001). Health consequences of bullying and its prevention in schools. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 310-331). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Rigby, K. (2003). Stop the bullying: A handbook for schools. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Edu- cational Research. Rigby, K. & Slee, P. T. (1999). Australia. In P. K. Smith & Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano & P. Slee (Eds.), The Nature of School Bullying, (pp. 324-339). London: Routledge. Rigby, K., Smith, P. K. & Pepler, D. (2004). Working to prevent school bullying: Key issues. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools (pp. 1-12). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Roland, E. & Idsoe, T. (2001). Aggression and Bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 27, 446-462. Shakeshaft, C., Barber, E. Hergenrother, M., Johnson, Y. M. Mandel, L. S. & Sawyer, J. (1995). Peer harassment in schools. Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 1, 31-45. Smith, J. D., Schneider, B. H., Smith, P. K. & Ananiadou, K. (2004). The effectiveness of whole-school antibul- lying programs: A synthesis of evaluation research. Psychology Review, 33(4), 547-560. Smith, P. K., Ananiadou, K. & Cowie, H. (2003) Interventions to reduce school bullying. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48(9), 591-599. Smith, P. K. & Sharp, S. (1994). School bullying: Insights and perspectives. London, Routledge. Smith, P. K. & Thompson, D. (1991). Practical approaches to bullying. London: David Fulton. Stein, N. L. & Trabasso, T. (1982). Children’s understanding of stories: A basis for moral judgment and di- lemma resolution. In C.J. Brainerd & M. Pressley (Eds.), Verbal processes in children: Progress in cognitive development research (pp. 161-188). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Stone, C. & Isaacs, M. I. (2002). Involving students in violence prevention: Anonymous reporting and the need to promote and protect confidences. NASSP Bulletin, 86(633), 54-65. Sutton, J., Smith, P. K. & Swettenham, J. (1999). Social cognition and bullying: Social inadequacy or skilled manipulation. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17, 435-450. Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P. & Sacco, F. C. (2004). The role of the bystander in the social architecture of bullying and violence in schools and communities. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 1036, 215-232. Underwood, M. K. (2003). Social aggression among girls. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Unnever, J. D. & Cornell, D. G. (2003). The culture of bullying in middle school. Journal of School Violence, 2, 5-27. Vossekuil, B. Fein, R. A., Reddy, M., Borum, R. & Modzeleski, W. (2002). The final report and findings of the Safe School Initiative: Implications for the prevention of school attacks in the United States. U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wertsch, J. V. (Ed.) (1981). The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Whitney, I. & Smith, P. K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bully- ing in junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research, 35, 3-25. Address correspondence to: Monica Glina, Montclair University, glinam@mail.montclair.edu