ABSTRACT
Emerging from the 1990s age of outcomes education, we are still grappling with attempts to benchmark performance. Bands of Performance are used for reading and mathematics. This paper attempts to develop Stages of Philosophical Development in a community of inquiry, i.e., descriptors useful to praise achievements, to indicate to a teacher and her class the positives they do and to provide a vector for new achievements. They can also act as achievement markers (building on Haynes & Haynes in Critical & Creative Thinking March 2000). Laurance Splitter challenged me in Launceston 1998 to go beyond 'having a good discussion', or 'feeling satisfied' as evaluations of success to asking what questions were raised, what distinctions drawn, etc. This discussion is an outcome of that conversation.
THE PAPER
Introduction - relevance to conference theme
Typically, practitioners of philosophy for children are working with their own classes and are in constant interaction with them. What makes the community of inquiry time more significant for their students is its distinctive format and agenda. This paper will offer some markers in the developing community for both teachers and students which recognise its growing development and indicate its strengths on objective criteria. My teaching experience in philosophy is in the middle years and since the middle years are the linchpin to school-wide scope and sequences, my observations will apply to those age levels. In this way, the paper strives to meet the Conference theme: "Integrating the Curriculum: Prep to Year 12", to show "how philosophy can provide the integrative links between the years; how the structure of the community of inquiry, the habits of mind developed, [and] the attitude to oneself as an autonomous learner, can change and grow as the demands of the curriculum change" (Phillips, 2000:18). In developing and applying these markers, teachers and administrators will indeed be integrating the curriculum across the age and year levels.
With its distinctive community of inquiry format, philosophy for children encourages reflective dialogue in an atmosphere of openness and enhances critical and creative thinking. Philosophical discussions enhance the thinking skills of students to give them control over their own learning processes. This group ownership and control is its distinctive characteristic whereby both the agenda for discussions is decided by the children themselves and the progress of the discussion is in their own hands. The teacher is but one member of the community and ideally will intervene only to keep discussion on track, to be reflective, to seek clarifications, to identify 'philosophical' shifts or to moderate unhelpful interpersonal interactions. Lipman (1988:148; Splitter & Sharp, 1995:141) outlines how the group inquiry moves towards truth via impartiality and objectivity; in this way the search for truth gradually becomes an internalised regulative ideal, both in its aim and process. Learning this practice, students who transfer it to other areas of the curriculum will certainly be integrating the curriculum.
The teacher can explicate these integrative links too. As usually its only professional and adult participant, she sits in a privileged place in that community as its legal protector, moderator and guide. The teacher, often solitary in her meta-philosophy, will be constantly reflecting on her class's progress as a community of inquiry. Week by week as the class continues discussions, embarks on new topics and grapples with its preoccupations, she will seek ways to monitor the class's 'progress'. Gardner (1996) eminently well describes what depth, sensitivity and tenacity, she must show in her facilitation of inquiry. As students are meaning making together, by 'double effect' she is meaning marking too.
Backgrounding this paper is the educational milieu of the 1990 where 'bench-marking' and outcomes approaches prevail. No programme in a school can escape this net. So it is incumbent on us to engage in that effort. Philosophy also must register results if it wants a reputable place in the education industry. It is said that we need to demonstrate our efforts and results in an acceptable form to parents: to "enable parents to assess achievements against appropriate benchmarks and standards . . . in formats and worded in language that is readily understood by parents" (DETYA, 2000:4, 2). Our communities of inquiry though are not designed to produce product but to enhance processes. Processes never start at zero either (Heesen p. 3). So this paper offers a survey of various schemas or formats identifying and enhancing those skills we consider to be important. Finally, I will offer an original grid, ranking indicators or vectors of progress, or of maturity, or in less value-laden language, markers of consolidation in growth as a community of inquiry.
To provide some common markers of philosophical progress, this new paper picks up on aims and process skills in my previously published paper (Smith, 1996). It resiles from claiming to have a comprehensive list of learnings achieved in the community of inquiry, so rich is its interpersonal dynamic and educational effectiveness. The intention is to identify some sequences in the skill growth of a group, in effect, in one class, and to augment Haynes and Haynes' (2000: 15-22) endeavour to interleave philosophical skills as a Key Learning Area in the K-12 curriculum.
Progressive inquiry within community
As an educational endeavour, the community is designed to progress: through it, knowledge grows, the group's self confidence will be raised, individuals' self esteem will grow, the community's acceptance and openness to one another will be greater, and the quality of discussions become more excellent. But that progress may not be linear but more often be spiral in shape. As the community reconvenes each time, its gains and pains on previous occasions are brought to bear for better or for worse. Through her formal training in philosophy for children, the teacher will be seeking signs of its progress.
Through its regular meetings and their teacher's discerning interventions, a community's repertoire of important process skills will be growing and her role as scaffolder will be fading. Obviously, discussions with children and adolescents can seem to go nowhere, or be repetitive or need shaping along vectors to achieve successful outcomes. A original diagram identifies possible outcomes of a discussion [overhead]. The teacher's goal would be to nurture a more 'mature' community, that is, one able to take up in-depth inquiries of its own choosing, to monitor its own processes, and increasingly enjoy the benefits of democratic discussions in ways that show increasing understanding of 'philosophical' ways of doing things. In short, the community would be consolidating.
This paper takes up this important facet of the teacher's operations as her metaphilosophy. It submits for discussion relevant Markers of Philosophical Consolidation. It offers some descriptors of performance that mark typical process behaviours. Using them, teachers would recognise achievement and be able to reset aims for sessions. This endeavour to signpost markers will greatly assist our efforts to justify philosophy in established programmes across the curriculum. In these respect, this paper is assisting the overall attempt in Australia to develop a 'philosophical curriculum' with descriptors of progress and pathways of sequences.
My focus is micro not macro, not the evaluation of the philosophy programme within the whole school context nor with an individual student nor individual lesson, or within the whole Australian educational system such as relating it to the Key Learning Areas (Hill, 1994:37) or later paradigms for organising the explicit curriculum. It sets out to be local, class-centred and formative, being concerned with identifying and classifying the process behaviours and goals for a qualitative evaluation. It provides typical descriptors for diagnostic purposes rather than benchmarks that must be achieved in every discussion. In this way the teacher within her Faculty can initiate ad hoc and periodic reviews of progress towards "philosophical consolidation" if I may coin a term, to describe the rather spiral growth occurring in classroom communities of inquiry.
Besides adopting a checklist of performance markers, I found we can build respect for philosophy in schools by osmosis too, by a combination of big events and small cycles of calendar events, by making reasonable timetable requests of administrations, by establishing budget priorities, by maintaining continuity in an on-going programme, by offering in-service staff training on- and off-site, and by nurturing student and parental interest. While educational fashions in quantitative analyses come and go, qualitative outcomes will give us better leverage to achieve our goals and better serve schools and students. Quality behaviours such as learning community building procedures are very valuable life-long learnings. The following formats list these most desirable group behaviours.
A special environment
If the community of inquiry is to be a special environment, distinctive and valued behaviours in it will be more consciously taught there. These desirable behaviours are to be developed as personal skills appropriate to doing philosophy effectively. For instance, children could become better self-correctors, more thoughtful contributors or more caring of one another's individual contributions. They could be learning to enrich themselves in sharing one another's outlooks with increased openness to the value of exploring their differences.
The community of inquiry is not just cognitive, or social or moral. It does have elements of all three aspects. In a sense the underlying idea of the community of inquiry is participation in an ideal society, where citizens listen to and respect one another and where they can engage in a mutually advantageous pursuit of truth together, believing that the benefits of joint action can be enormously greater than if it were engaged individually. In this sense for students, the community of inquiry idea has a moral role to play in that it embeds expectations of 'good behaviours' and in practice teaches students the benefits of deep discussion through cooperation. It acts as an experiential norm for process behaviours so necessary for the agenda to be achieved. The qualitative shift from "I" to "us" is a very valuable moral outcome.
In this second sense, the community of inquiry is a distinctive environment like a market place because it engages students in the real world skills of negotiation, persistence, and persuasion. Students report that they do very much enjoy the honest exchange of opinions and the ensuing revelation of the range of responses and perspectives that emerge in our discussions. They hear responses there that they say they had not thought of themselves. Of course, adult dinner party discussions can do that, but students report that the very experience of structuring discussions is itself liberating; and that this teaching format is regarded as novel by students who are not normally given this freedom in schools. In it, social skills enhance the development of cognitive skills. Putting thinking to a purpose like this is felt to be most empowering.
Open communities like marketplaces rest on shared assumptions about the purposes of the endeavour. Conflicts of opinion there will not necessarily be seen as conflicts of personalities, or as grounds for stopping discussion before it get acrimonious, but merely as expressions of different points of view or revelations of perspectives within the inquiry. Expectations about exploring differences can be part of our classroom environment and skill agenda, for a shared commitment to pursuing the inquiry and seeking the truth is the unifying element that binds everyone together in the community of inquiry. Exploring differences can be part of our classroom environment and skill agenda, for a shared commitment to pursuing the inquiry and seeking the truth binds everyone together in the community of interest.
However, these outcomes will not always be readily forthcoming. Lipman (1984) reassures us however that such skill development will be a gradual but comprehensive process: "Gradually the children will come to discover inconsistencies in their own thinking . . . They (will) learn to cooperate by building on one another's ideas, by questioning each others' underlying assumptions, by suggesting alternatives when some find themselves blocked and frustrated, and by listening carefully and respectfully to the ways in which other people express how things appear to them" (p. 52). Becoming educated to think well requires the necessary self-discipline to develop listening and speaking skills on along a time scale to greater excellence. What follows are some pertinent outlines or schemas to help teachers define pathways for further growth by reflecting on, or even measuring, progress in such community building.
Others' schemas for doing a meta-philosophy
We now review schemas already proposed for progress in thinking and our own original one follows. Tom Jackson's (1989) pointers for a good (philosophical) discussion include:
- 1. Were the participants listening to one another?
- 2. Were the participants responding to one another?
- 3. Did most people participate rather than just a few dominate?
- 4. Did our discussion "scratch beneath the surface" or "open up the topic"?
- 5. Was the topic interesting?
- 6. Did I challenge my own thinking?
Ron Reed (1993) offered four pertinent questions to review a discussion:
Pertinently to our purpose, Ann Margaret Sharp (1995) lists desirable behaviours for the community of inquiry:
Berrie Heesen lists five major philosophical skills in particular:
Heesen also argues that Notebooks are very helpful to help students evaluate what happened during a dialogue session. He offers examples of questions to ask at the end of the lesson to structure responses in student notebooks:
Heesen also publishes a Dialogue Check List by Professor Barry Curtis of Hawaii. It ranks markers for progress in the community of inquiry 'across a minimum of ten sessions' (p. 13):
- 1. paying attention (not restless, distracted)
- 2. showing respect for the process (no silly answers or jokes)
- 3. getting the main ideas
- 4. showing respect to other students (and their answers)
- 5. understanding what other pupils have said
- 6. giving individual answers (not chorusing, embroidering on others)
- 7. giving original answers
- 8. giving reasons (distinguish between critical and creative thinking)
- 9. answering at a general level (thinking starts beyond the anecdote)
- 10. staying on the subject
- 11. addressing other children (showing sensitivity in reacting to others)
- 12. speaking about a question with two or three others
- 13. recognising that your thought is already expressed (better to pass than repeat it yourself)
- 14. defending a position (dealing with counter examples and others' criticisms)
- 15. taking criticism (acknowledge valid criticism; avoid being the oracle syndrome)
- first published at http://www.xs4all.nl/~krant100/engels/evaluate.html with additions /comments /examples by G. Smith August 2000.
As well, Wilks (1995: Chapter 4) comprehensively surveys a number of current ways of monitoring and evaluating progress in thinking. Glaser's (1989) report format developed in an Australian school is a useful instrument, listing skills of inquiry, skills of logical reasoning, skills of dialogue, and behaviour. There is a useful discussion there on the 'internalisation of skills' (Echeverria, 1990), whether skills learnt in doing philosophy transfer to other settings. Teachers also report there how they felt more likely to take risks on discussion topics as a result of improved skill development levels they observe.
Additionally and from outside our generic literature, Newman's "Prompts for Thinking" (1990) could also be used as review items: The following could be used as prompts for critical, analytical thinking and as progress vectors too:
Newman offers these examples of questions that could be used to prompt creative, divergent thinking:
Another useful grid of descriptors for use in the English classroom appears in : "Descriptors for 'Speaking and Listening' " by Sukarna, Hornsby, & Jennings (1996) [Appendix 1]. Their grid plots increasing competence in oral work, moving from self management to group management skills:
Sukarna, Hornsby, & Jennings (1996) I offer this resource from outside our p4c literature as a sample of the kind of grid that we teachers find familiar and useful in our curriculum writing and planning.
Reviewing Discussions
So in practice when does one use these grids to rate discussions? It could well be argued that the teacher is too busy while in action, concentrating on her students' and her own performance capacities to do evaluation simultaneously. The answer lies in getting help: either tape recording discussions for later review, inviting a colleague to monitor the discussions or to engage in personal review or metaphilosophy as soon after the session as possible. In my experience, in-service teachers report that the teacher usually can 'sense' how well a discussion goes. But such anecdotal evaluation is problematic. Splitter and Sharp (1995:152) note that informed reflection on the part of researchers, given their combined philosophical and pedagogic experience, constitutes a philosophical and procedurally valid evaluation. Otherwise and more routinely, teachers report that they invite responses 'round the circle' to evoke evaluations of a metacognitive nature, to measure community confidence, to ascertain any sense of progress, to pinpoint significant issues raised, and mark any changes of opinion reached. Significant exchanges could even be written down by students in cartoon bubbles as they remember them.
More often than not, students seem to remember content not processes; it is up to the skilled professional to identify process gains and to acknowledge them both along the way and at the end of discussions. Some teachers even begin with a review of a previous session to highlight social and philosophical skills practised at that time, to reinforce them and encourage their imitation this time. We teachers find many formal and informal ways to identify process skills so necessary for the health and progress of a community in inquiry. So this paper steers a viable path between qualitative and quantitative modes, by naming only major features along a short rating scale for groups.
A set of low-inference, original markers of performance follows. Sample typical behaviours are grouped under four normative domains, Quality of Participation, Quality of Interaction, Quality of Discussion, and Degree of Self-Management. A quality of performance scale (3,2 1: that is, High, Medium, Low) could be applied to four domains, while a three point (Never Sometimes Often) indicator could be applied to their nested descriptors:
Table 1: Marking performances in the community
of inquiry, four normative domains invite a rating, each nested with
typical descriptors along a frequency rating. Quality of Participation
(commitment).................................. 3......
2............. 1......... Quality of Discussion (cognitive
skills) ...................................3........
2............ 1... Degree of Self-Management (moral
dimension).......................3....... 2.............
1......... Total.........................................................................................................................
© G. Smith 2000
It will be observed that the detailed comments identify compassion and mutual support, depth of listening, degree of involvement with the process, quality and depth of discussion, extent of engagement with other speakers, and recognition and use of 'philosophical' terminology and steps. On-going training in process skills is essential. Becoming a community is an important step and further, a sense of progress is most desirable to justify the endeavour as educational, for a sense of well-being. For it is true that achievement dynamises motivation to proceed. In this sense, 'Philosophical Consolidation' is a touchline goal and a arrived-at group perception that "we are progressing", and that greater understandings come from this democratic process, in the interactive dialogue we call the community of inquiry.
The following table, incorporating these behaviours, has been developed to represent Stages of Philosophical Consolidation (© G. Smith 2000) in a community of inquiry, i.e., descriptors used to praise achievements and to indicate to a teacher and her class the positives they do and can still achieve. They would also act as achievement markers to show how well a discussion went, how well the group is working, how successful the community is becoming. Laurance Splitter challenged me in Launceston to go beyond 'having a good discussion', or 'feeling satisfied' as evaluation, to asking what questions were raised, what distinctions were drawn, what new insights gained, what changes of attitude occurred. etc.
Figure 2: A table of typical characteristics to identify stages in the development of a community of inquiry from dependence to autonomy. Descriptors of desirable behaviours on a 1 to 5 scale of increasing consolidation from 'dependence to 'autonomy' in the direction of growth nestle under three major headings: Quality of interactions, Quality of philosophical discussion and Degree of self-management:
Major Stage Feature Quality of Interactions Quality of Discussion Degree of
Self-Management 1. Teacher dependence only some individuals speak; comments
directed to the teacher teacher initiates, asking all
questions teacher-led support 2. Constant teacher support a few individuals dominate participants pose questions teacher needs to focus discussion;
teacher reviews 3. Teacher and students share
support majority of students speak; some lines of
debate occur; some trust emerging; silences
avoided. students pose questions and pursue some
issues; some 'scratching the surface' occurs - inquiry
begins only some teacher support; students
explore, extend ideas; able to refer back some steps;
students welcome other students' comments 4. Growing group independence growing mutual respect; views supported
and directed to the whole group; differences of opinion not
threatening; votes proposed and taken; silences
tolerated. thoughtful insights; consequences
explored; comparisons and distinctions made; clarifications
sought; some open-ended questions pursued increasing student independence; plotting
of course of a discussion; students encourage others to
speak; students keep inquiry 'on track' 5. Group autonomy group pursuit of inquiry; mutual respect
& trust very apparent; differences of opinion are
sought; thoughtful silences valued. majority speak and interactions are
philosophical in nature; discussion complex for age level;
pursuit of open-ended inquiries self-management: students 'control' own
progress; metacognitive review undertaken; identify gains
and aims for future discussions.
© G. Smith 2000
It is envisaged that in her metaphilosophy, the teacher will be enabled to assess "progress" across all four normative domains. In this way, she can be reassured that she maintains a clear focus on philosophical outcomes as interests and topics come and go. The class repertoire of skills can then be identified, strengthened, honed, and consolidated. In this way, it is possible to rate important outcomes in the classroom community of inquiry.
It will be seen that who is evaluating is here addressed: it is both teacher and students, together and apart, who can use this grid. What is assessed and achieved is addressed: its primary focus are the skills of operation. The grid can be invoked both during or after discussions to address when they are assessed. The use of the grid is itself an indicator of why the community meets, for it shows a willingness to progress and lock into a vector of philosophical consolidation.
CONCLUSION
This grid of 'markers of consolidation' is offered as help to ascertain progress in philosophical growth in communities of inquiry, essentially to help teachers with the process. They will look for the group's increased self confidence, a greater sense of mutual respect and the recurring movement from enquiry to inquiry. Such standard descriptors will enable her to recognise group progress in development and indicate pathways to further improvement.
A good conversation is not enough; nor is a feeling of unanimity. Better philosophical discussions with children and adolescents are typified by greater intensity of discussion, greater overall involvement and greater depth of discussion. The educational setting is the best place to develop these understandings, since tolerance, fairness and equality are process behaviours required in successful inquires and learners. To be integrative across the curriculum then, individuals in communities of inquiry will be progressing to yield not just new cognitive knowledge but social and moral awarenesses about themselves, one another and our world. Only then can the group rejoice in that cry of discovery, "Eureka!" #
Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (2000). Best practice in reporting on student and school achievement: Information for teachers. Canberra. [On-line] Available: http://www.detya.gov.au/schools/publicat.htm