Information in this sample is to help you, not to do your

Information in this sample is to help you, not to do your work
for you.
Copying and pasting info from this sample into your assignment
violates the
university’s academic integrity standards and could constitute
plagiarism.
BEGINNING OF REPORT ON COMMUNICATION IN MY
FIELD FORM
Name: Susie Sample
Program I am studying: Sports and Health Sciences
Research Guide I am using is Sports and Health Sciences
1. Types of articles I would find in journals in this program:
Articles about nutrition, exercise, motivation, injury, and
physical
therapy
2. Databases I would use in this program:

MEDLINE Complete; ScienceDirect Health & Life Sciences
College
Edition; SPORTDiscus with Full Text
3. Types of books I would use in this program:
Reference books include ABC of Sports and Exercise Medicine;
Handbook of Sports Medicine and Science, Sports Therapy; IOC
Manual of Emergency Medical Care in Sports. Other books
include
those on youth sports, nutrition, injury, and exercise.
4. Examples of video media sites (if any) for this program:
Duke Sports Medicine Videos; Mayo Clinic Sports Videos;
Sports
Injury Clinic on the Net
5. Websites for this program:
Reference sites include Anatomy Videos – National Library of
Medicine;
National Center for Catastrophic Injury Research; Sports
Injuries –
University of Wisconsin.

6. Organizations used by people in this program:
The American College of Sports Medicine; National Strength
and
Conditioning Association; Sports Dietetics - USA
7. Social media sites (if any) for this program:
The National Association of Sports Nutrition on Facebook;
American
Kinesiology Association on Facebook; FoodInsight.org on
Twitter
Here is a closer look at one site.
The American College of Sports Medicine
(https://www.acsm.org/) is an
organization that touts its diversity, with members working in
“research,
education and practice, working to ensure the best outcomes for
every
population.” ACSM claims to be “the world’s largest and most
influential
organization in sports medicine, exercise science and the
promotion of
physical activity and its cobenefits.” Review of the ACSM
website found

that the wording is clear, professional, and compelling, without
confusing
jargon or unnecessary multi-syllable words. The guide for
authors for the
ACSM’s publication (Exercise and Sports Science Reviews)
says that most
articles are by invitation only; uninvited submissions should
focus on new
ideas about contemporary issues and must be supported by
original
research published by the author(s). Specific guidelines are
provided
about language use (such as use abbreviations sparingly; use
present
tense; and follow the Merriam-Webster Dictionary’s guidance).
Images on
the website are of healthy, active, primarily young people. It
was not
easy to determine if newcomers are treated differently than
seasoned
members.
Here are tips for communicating in the sports and health
sciences

field:
Tips for communicating with members of the sports and health
sciences discourse community would be consistent with those
related
to interacting with any academic community. Specific tips are
these:
• Be clear, focused, and concise.
• Do your homework (discussions are based on fact not
opinion).
• Stay current (approaches change based on ongoing research).
• Avoid logical fallacies and aggressive language.
• Use a formal, academic voice that is free of slang and
conversational terms.
• Know the VIPs in the field (institutions, organizations,
researchers and authors focusing on your topic).
END OF REPORT ON COMMUNICATION IN MY FIELD
FORM

56 Strong, Voyaging to the Outer
Litllits tt'Education
Voyaging to the Outer Limits of
Education: Reflections on P4C
in the Secondary Classroom
he first day I attempted to practice P4C in my class-
room the students revolted. The memory is clear in
my mind-most potentially scarring events are. The
students, all thirty-three of them, were seated in a circle
which had already made them squirmy because it was not
the five neatly aligned rows facing the teacher that by tenth
grade they had all become accustomed to. I stood in the
center ofthem all, as they exchanged glances with one an-
other across the room, and began to expiain how the com-
munity ball that we had made would be used during class
discussions. "This is too hard," one girl whined using that
perfected teenage pitch. "Yah, you're making us do college

stuff," commented another boy. Although I was a novice
teacher, merely attempting the fine aft of student teaching, I
recognized that if I didn't say something quick I would
soon be buried in a shallow grave ofadolescent rebellion.
With conviction, I confidently replied, "This class will be
different for most of you, but I know you are all excellent
thinkers and capable of what we are about to do. Please take
a risk with me and try something new." This pivotal mo-
ment opened the door that led to my quest, as an educator,
to explore how the ingenious ideas behind P4C could
change the face of public education in the state of Hawaii.
I could have easily resigned to my student's fears, as
well as my own insecurities during the first few weeks that I
experimented with P4C. I was student teaching at a Wind-
ward Oahu high school where I taught two tenth grade U.S.
history classes and four senior political science classes. I
had decided that I wanted to investigate how P4C could be
applied in the secondary social studies classroom so I dove

into a year-long action research project and took my stu-
dents with me.
My students and I may have been taking our "maiden
voyage," but the P4C route was not unchafted. Over the
past thirty years teachers all over the world have experi-
mented with Matthew Lipman's P4C cuniculum in their
own classrooms using "action research" to find ways to
transform the fundamental ideas that center around P4C
AMBER PE,NNINGTON STRONG
into a classroom cuniculum that fits both the individual
practitioner's teaching style and, more impoftantly, the
unique needs of their students (Cochrin Smith and Lytle,
1993). Action research requires that teachers research and
practice an existing curriculum, collect data from their ex-
perience, analyze the data and "improve the nature and spe-
cifics" of the curiculum (Oberg, 1990). The existing cur-
riculum, in my case, was taught to me by Thomas Jackson
when I participated in his P4C course at the University of
Hawaii at Manoa.

I met Dr. Jackson while I was floundering in the open
ocean of a Masters in Teaching education program at the
University of Hawaii. Like most teacher preparation pro-
grams, no matter how liberal they seem, this one had
thrown me into a vast sea of theoretical inquiry and then
expected me to build my own pedagogical ship to stay
afloat during my year of student teaching. Forlunately, as I
attempted to consttuct a curriculum that matched my theo-
retical beliefs, I was introduced to processes that had al -
ready been created for students participating in P4C-Dr.
Jackson's "Gentiy Socratic" method, incorporating the use
of a "community ball, magic rvords, Plain Vanilla, and the
Good Thinker's Tool Kit" (Jackson,2001). Dr. Jackson's
always-apparent enthusiasm and clearly articulated method-
ologies inspired me and provided me with actual techniques
with which to experiment in my own classroom.
As my students staged their own version of "mutiny on
the bounty," I knew that the life preservers of Dr.Lipman

and Dr. Jackson would be by my side to catch anyone. in-
cluding myself, if we were thrown over into the sea I de-
scribed. Without giving away the story of my experience
Antber Strong (maniniz(@yuhoo.conr) received her Musters of'
Edtrcu-
tion in Teaching degree.front the College of'Education.
Universih'ttl
Hawctii/Manoa. Her Master's paper, co-authored v'ith Meredith
Ing
was titled: "The Teacher as Researcher: Results and Reflections
on
Practicing Philosophl,.for Children in the Secondary Clussroom.
"
Amber cmtently teaches social studie.s at Kailua lIigh School-
She
has been involved with P4C since I999.
Thinking: The Jotrnal of Philosophlt .for Children, Volume I7,
Numbers I & 2
with P4C, I must admit there was an occasional community
member thrown overboard. During my first year of student

teaching my students and I both ran into unique challenges
that might have ended our quest to change how we looked
at teaching and learning. However, it was the experiences of
each and every community that had practiced P4C before us
that kept us above water-even soaring.
In my first year of student teaching, I was what veterans
in the field ofeducation referred to as a novice teacher. This
meant that I was teaching six classes at the high school,
conducting action research that would be used to write my
Masters thesis, and concurently attending teacher educa-
tion classes. I had decided that I would be focusing my re-
search on the success and failures that I experienced while
practicing P4C. Naturally, I dialogued with Dr. Jackson fre-
quently during this time. He and I collaboratively discussed
the types of processes I could use in my P4C classes and
helped me to develop effective ways to teach the students
about the cognitive tools found in the Good Thinker's Tool
Kit. The shared vision, conviction and passion for P4C that

Dr. Jackson and I had, gave me the support that I needed to
take the risk and try something new with my students. It
s'as a good thing that I had his support because there were-
n't many other professional sources who were confident
about what I was doing.
First, I was frequently challenged to justify my decision
ro use P4C in the classes that I was taking from the college
.-rl education. In particular I remember when we were intro-
duced to the fine art oflesson planning. Our professors
stressed that one of the main reasons for lesson plans was to
"set an agenda" to eliminate any "down time" with our stu-
dents. The course instructors stressed rhat"a novice teacher
should plan for each minute that we shared with our stu-
dents," and then have a back up planjust in case the stu-
dents got finished with their assignments early' Upon re-
t-lection I realize that this was good advice. The underlying
assumption however was that an unplanned moment for any
reacher would eventually lead her into the abyss of a class -
:oom management nightmare. Therefore, the P4C discus-

sions that I was "planning" t<l consume the entire seventy
ninutes of the class period were discouraged by some
:eacher educators. Also, most of the other novice teachers in
ry program, fearful of the uncerlainty of class discussions,
.hied away from incorporating them into their developing
:urriculums. I must admit that the fear of thirty-five out of
:.-rntrol raging sixteen year olds did put fear in my heart.
:ltrw€ver, I knew that in order to really have student-driven
:-scussion-based inquiry, I would have to take the risk of
:-rt unplanned classroom moment.
Besides the classroom management issues, other educa-
-::s voiced concerns about the lack of content that I would
:e covering by using class discussions as a method of
-=:ching. My mentor teacher, as he corrected 180 fiIl-in-
::-blank Civil War vocabulary tests, joked, "so what will
- -r class be discovering in the Kumbaya circle this
' -k?" His perception was that because discussions al-
lowed my students to explore issues of their choice' in a
non-traditional setting compared to most other high school

history courses, that my students would not have the time to
"know everything that they needed to know" about U.S.
history. Other teachers had similar concerns as they won-
dered how I would be able to cover all of the chapters in the
U.S. history book. Many of my colleagues believed that if I
took the time for students to actively engage in a dialogue
about the writings of Fredrick Douglas or President Lin-
coln, for example, I would never reach the Gulf War by the
end of the school year. It was at this early point in my deci -
sion to use P4C that I began to rigorously question my own
belief systems about leaming.
The concerns voiced by the community of educators
described above initiated questions that guided the perpet-
ual discussion in which I was engaged about the meaning of
schooling. Traditionally, learning is measured through stan-
dardizedtests by the quantity offacts that students can re-
call, the accuracy of their memory, their ability to identify
the standard conventions of English and apply mathematical

procedures. Keeping the foundations of modem schooling
in mind, I wondered what exactly was it that today's stu-
dents "should know" and what "should they know how to
do" as result ofparticipating in the courses that I designed?
I had not yet established where I wanted my students to be
at the end of the school year as a result of experiencing a
discussion based class and I must admit that the outside
pressures voiced by the contingency for traditional teaching
did make me wonder if my students would end up "behind"
their other classmates because of the nature of discussion-
based inquiry. With all of this in mind I worked hard during
that first year to create learning goals for my students and I
learned to appreciate how the critical voices that surrounded
me would selve as catalysts for challenging my own think-
ing.
During that first year I also wondered how could I, or
my students for that matter, measure learning that occurred
as a result of discussion-based inquiry? At the same time I

also asked the question: how could the leaming that took
place within the four walls of our classroom be shared with
the larger community that we belonged to? So, I began to
create the tools my students and I would need to measure
our learning. These tools consisted ofdaily oral assess-
ments, rigorous seventy minute discussion debriefs that re-
quired students to use evidence from all ofour discussions
to critique our discussion community, writing rubrics that
evaluated the student's ability to apply the thinking skills
we practiced during our discussions to the rest of their class
work, and finally I began to develop a test to measure the
effects of P4C over the course of a year for the following
school year.
With the use of my assessment tools I collected evi-
dence documenting what was really going on in our class-
room. This evidence allowed me to become confident in my
ability to share the successes and concems I was having
about P4C with people who were unfamiliar or even critical

I'
58 Strong, Vovaging to the Outer I'imits oJ Education
of the program. In that first year of experimenting with P4C
I relentlessly documented the success of the existingP4C
methodologies with which I was experimenting, the innova-
tive curriculum that I was forging, and most imporlantly I
made sure to record the voices of my students. My docu-
mentation revealed much and allowed my students and I to
reflect on our practice. By the end of that first year I was
able to articulate what was working in regards to P4C and
identify concrete areas of my developing curriculum that
needed to be improved.
First, I did have classroom management challenges. Af-
ter all, previous to their exposure to P4C, the students had
rarely been asked to speak in class. I was now requiring
them to take ownership of their learning by letting them ask
their own questions based on the readings I initially se-

lected, choose their own topics of inquiry, speak freely in
an intellectually safe environment, inviting them to act as
members of a democratic community and most imporlantly,
teaching them to challenge their ability to think critically-
which often meant that they would challenge me. My stu-
dents who were now seeing "education as the practice of
freedom" tested their new boundaries with one another and
myself, which often erupted in passionate discourse (Freire,
1989). They had extreme difficulty listening to one another,
and struggled to craft their verbal responses to the discuss -
ant that spoke before them. Quite often, during those first
few months, "shut up" flew out of some student's mouths
and I found myself reclaiming the community ball from the
group to signal that the shouting match that was occuring
needed to end.
In the first few months of P4C they also tested my pro-
fessional "position ofauthority" by introducing topics for
discussion that were extremely controversial and which
they might have previously thought to be were taboo in

school settings. For example, they often wanted to talk
about things like drug legalization or sexual identity issues.
On the day that one girl used genital mutilation in Africa as
a counter example to the statement that "everyone is free,"
the class erupted in inappropriate laughter. In the beginning,
the natural tendency for teenagers to want to talk about so-
cially controversial issues affected classroom management
because the students didn't necessarily know how to have a
critical discussion about some "hot topics" and their imma-
turity would result in teenage silliness that could sometimes
be harmful to certain community members. However,
whenever my students did push the topical boundaries I
made sure that we responsibly addressed various sides of
the issue and made sure that our community remained intel-
lectually safe.
These challenges with classroom management drove
my mentor teacher wild. He kept his students in impeccably
straight rows and created lessons that required the students
to engage in mostly silent individual work. During some

particularly difficult discussions in the beginning of the
school year I could see him cringing in the corner ofthe
classroom evidently holding in his immense desire to put
my students in their place. His feedback frequently ques-
tioned my decision to let the students be so vocal during
class time when they obviously weren't prepared for this
type of classroom setting. It was also obvious that I was
navigating my way through experimental tenitory not really
knowing what my students could and couldn't do before I
tried something with them.
The easy way out during those first months of P4C
would have been to simply silence my students as my men-
tor teacher alluded to. He was right-they obviously had
never learned how to critically engage in a dialogue with
their peers. However, I didn't become a teacher because I
thought it would be easy. I knew that I would have to work
hard if things were going to change in Hawaii's public
schools. So, as a result of his feedback and my own assess-

ment, I did realize the need to make changes in the curricu-
lum. lt was at this point that I began to develop a curricu-
lum that would teach my students how to think critically for
themselves and to brainstotm instructional strategies that
would give them the necessary skills to be responsible
members of a democratic classroom.
With regards to the classroom management issues, I
developed listening games and challenges that required the
students to think before they blurled out their comments.
These exercises also included lessons that taught students
how to listen to constructive feedback from their peers and
required that they demonstrate their listening by changing
their behavior. I also decided that when I introduced P4C to
the seniors at the beginning of the new semester I would
devote time to discuss with them what the difference is be-
tween a dialogue and a monologue. (Reed & Sharp, 1992).
This assured that the class had a concrete, operational defi -
nition before they experimented with discussions them-
selves. Finally, we also learned how to discuss "hot topics"

in responsible ways. It was during these discussions that I
witnessed my students really engage in a school activity
unlike they probably had ever done before-it gave me
chicken skin.
Slowly, over the course of the year I began to see a
change in the way students approached their peers during
class discussion. I particularly remember a discussion that
centered on a recent school shooting in California. The sen-
iors, after reading an article about the student who had com-
mitted the crime, chose to discuss the possibi|ty of gun re-
lated violence at our school. The question that they chose to
discuss required that the class uncover the different cliques
that existed at our school and examine the implications of
these cliques as they were forced to socialize with one an-
other on campus. It should be noted that school violence is
common on our campus, where fighting between different
social groups occurs on what seems to be a daily basis. So,
naturally when the students chose this question I began fa-

cilitating with trepidation, not wanting to instigate an in
class brawl. After all, in the beginning of the school year
the students had been very confrontational with each other
about issues that didn't necessarily require them to draw
Thinking: The Jou'nal oJ'Philosophy for Chilcrren, vorume 17,
Numbers I & 2 59
upon evidence this close to home.
As students began talking, their candor and willingness
to take intellectual risks with one another eased my discom_
forl in not knowing what direction the discussion would
take. It was in a discussion like this, at the end of the first
year, that they demonstrated their internalized conception of
what it meant to be a community of inquiry. They pulled
examples from one another regarding times when particular
groups didn't resolve conflict in a non-violent way. They
were brave enough to look at the reasons why the specific
-:st so that they could create a question for their peers to
:ink about. By the end of the year the tenth graders were
.-.-'pping into class early to find out what topic we would be
-::ding about so that they could be thinking about it before
':-.,
came to class. Some students would even bring in arti_
:-:s of their own that they thought would be of interest _
-::se were the same students who never took text books
-,- ne, barely remembered to bring a pencil to class and

hardly tumed in homework.
I reveled in the seniors' ability to use the assessment
criteria to give feedback to their peers and was even more
overjoyed when that feedback initiated changes in the stu_
dents' behavior. I witnessed students who had been intimi_
dating and domineering in the beginning of the year pass
the community ball to quieter students as they used our new
discussion language to ask the less vocal student, ,.what do
you think about what has just been said?" euite often with
the encouragement from their peers students who I had not
been able to coax into
giving a verbal re-
sponse during discus-
sion time would speak
when invited by their
classmates.
I rejoiced on the day
when one girl com-
plained, "we never
have the answer when
the bell rings." It had
been a parlicularly
deep discussion about
the difference between
what is real and what
is ideal. The class had
spent the majority of
the discussion grap-
pling with criteria and
by the time the bell

did ring they had not
come to a consensus. I
had repeatedly told
the class that we were
not trying to find the
one right answer as a
result ofour discus-
sion. However, many
of the students thirsted
for certainty as they
exited the classroom.
On this parlicular day
as the girl I described
above left the room
complaining I also
heard her classmate
answer, "yah, well we
have lot's of answers
and at least we know the reasons behind those answers." I
couldn't have said it better myself.
I was ultimately convinced of my students, growth
on the day that the Lieutenant Governor to the State of Ha_
waii sat in and participated in a philosophy for Children
discussion. It was a bright sunny Hawaiian day-one of the
last days of the school year. While most Seniors were busy
cutting their final day of class, all twenty-nine of my stu_
groups that they were
discussing, and of which
they were also mem-

bers, didn't get along.
By the time the bell
rang the students were
brainstorming the ways
in which they ensure
peace in their own
school community.
Besides being able
to talk about "hot top-
ics." my students denr-
onstrated growth in
other areas as well. As i
reflected on what my
students accomplished
during the first year,
many mini-movies of
my students' discus-
sions played out in my
mind. I had been so im-
pressed with how the
students, who had put
on such a great perform-
ance resisting P4C at the
beginning of the course,
challenged their think-
ing and begged for
"discussion Friday's
:r,eryday" at the end of
:he school year. I had
.rbserved tenth graders

; ho could barely read
iemonstrate how intel-
.:ctually safe our class
r:d become as they
i,rrxldsd words out loud
60 Strong,
Voyaging to the Outer Limits o.f Etlucation
dents, plus the Lt. Governor and her entourage sat crammed
in our discussion circle creating one final question that they
wanted to talk about with their peers. On this last day of
class, I explained to the group that the question could be
about anything that they wondered about in life-something
that they wanted to think about with their classmates before
they ended their high school joumey. The Lt. Govetnor was
included in the group and I gave her a pencil and paper to
write down her questions as well.
When the group finished constructing their questions,
with out my prompting one student rose and took the posi-
tion by the chalkboard that I had filled at the beginning of
the school year. With this visual cue the students went

around the circle and read their wonderings out loud while
the student poised by the chalkboard transcribed the
classes' jewel like questions for the group to see. I remem-
ber thinking that their ability to articulate their thinking in
the form of a question mimicked Socrates and his disciples.
However, in this class it was hard to tell who was Socrates
and who were the disciples.
When it was the Lt. Governor's tum to ask her question
she looked to the camera, which was held by a member of
her group and stated, "I wonder how all children in the
State of Hawaii can have access to an excellent education?"
The students watched as her question was put on the chalk-
board next to theirs and one student raised his hand for the
community ball. She passed him the ball, and in an attempt
to clarify her question he asked, "why don't you go ask the
governor? Isn't this the type ofthing you should have been
talking about with the governor and legislature the whole
time you've been in office?" His tone was inoffensive but

serious. With a politically conect smile she took the com-
munity ball back from the student and passed it to the next
student beside her. With a flurry of small butterflies in my
stomach I waited to see how the class would react.
The class respected her right to pass and simply contin-
ued with the Plain Vanilla procedure that they had used dur-
ing discussions all year (Jackson, 2001). They finished
gathering questions from the rest ofthe students, and initi -
ated the voting process to select the question that they
wanted to talk about. I clearly remember the content of the
question that they chose. On that final day they wanted to
know why they could successfully communicate and dis-
agree with one another within their classroom community-
yet, when they were outside of class they would fall back
into their cliques and barely acknowledge each other's pres -
ence. The discussion was unforgettable as they used exam-
ples from their own life to scratch beneath the surface of a
universal issue regarding contradictions that are found in

human behavior. As the bell rang they were wondering why
sometimes national harmony could exist and concunently
internationally turmoil would erupt in world wars. I often
like to remind myself that these are the types of things high
school students choose to talk about.
It was days like the one described above that exempli -
fied the success of P4C in my first year. The students dem-
onstrated good thinking, an ability to respect the members
of their classroom community no matter how long that per-
son had been with the group, and their ability to use discus-
sion as a fotmat to challenge the status quo. My students
were truly practicing the skills needed to be a member of a
democratic society and I had become confident that P4C
was a necessary component of the secondary social studies
classroom.
At the end of that first year, while using P4C in the
courses I taught, I also internalized many of my own teach-
ing philosophies that had merely been theoretical at the be-

ginning of the school year-hypothetical foundations in my
beliefs about education prior to my hands-on experience in
the classroom. I had witnessed social constructivism in ac-
tion, students leaming in accordance with Vygotsky's no-
tion of a "zone of proximal development" (Vygotsky,
1978). Jerome Btuner, along with other social leaming
theorists, explained that people leam as members of a com-
munity, and that it is during this community-based learning
that they are able to develop their social identities as they
figure out how to act in those groups (Bruner, 1996)' By
practicing P4C I concluded that I was not only teaching my
students academics. My students were developing as people
and not just as isolated individuals. I witnessed my students
grow and craft identities that allowed them to participate as
conscious members of our collective human social group.
I also now had evidence to support my initial belief that
students could rise to any challenge that I put in front of
them as long as I understood the leaming steps they would

need to take in order to meet that challenge. Teacher expec-
tations do shape what students can do and their ability to
think critically. I completed my year of student teaching
with confidence in the capabilities of my students. Their
profound ability to overcome challenges as a community of
inquiry during that first year inspired me to look fotward to
developing a more refined P4C cuniculum for the follow -
ing school year.
Besides the confidence that i developed in my students'
abilities I also left that first year feeling confident in my
ability as a teacher to foster a classroom culture that truly
matched my theoretical ideals about education. I now knew
that if I created cumiculum focused on my desired outcomes
for my students they could rise to the standard. I was ma-
turing as a teacher and establishing for myself what it meant
to be a teacher who incorporated discussion-based inquires
in her classroom. I adjusted the way I managed my class-
room, cultivated my ability to practice the art of facilitation,

reflected constantly on my practice and ultimately invented
new ways to teach students how to monitor their own think-
ing and behavior. With great expectations in mind, I began
to formalize a P4C curriculum for the following school
year.
In the summer before my second year of teaching I
made a mental list of all the P4C activities and assessments
that I wanted to work on. First, I wanted to create a meas-
urement tool that would measure cognitive and affective
Thinking: The Journal of'Phiktsophl'.fur Children, Volune 17.
Nunfiers I & 2
6t
effects of P4C. about which Lipman had rvritten extensively
(Reed & Sharp, 1992). Keeping the desired outcomes for
my students that I described above, I developed a pre/post
test to measure the cognitive and affective effects of P4C in
my classroom. I collaborated on this project with Meredith
Ing, a middle school English teacher who also practiced

P4C and who had been my partner while writing our Mas-
ters thesis on our experiences with P4C. We finalized the
test with Dr. Jackson at the University of Hawaii and used
his feedback to make adjustments to this new assessment
tool we were creating.
At the beginning of the school year, my second year of
teaching, I gave the pre-test to my four tenth grade U.S. his-
tory classes. At the end ofthat year all four tenth grade
classes took the same post-test. I had also made sure, during
this second year of teaching that another tenth grade U.S.
history class that was not practicing P4C took the pre and
post-test as well. Cunently, I am analyzing the results of
these tests.
Besides creating the pre/post test during the summer
before my second year ofteaching, I also began to brain-
stom how I could extend the original P4C curriculum I
practiced during my student teaching. Keeping my previous
experiences with P4C in mind, I decided to focus on creat-
ing a curriculum that centered on teaching students how to

tacilitate their own P4C discussions. There were many rea-
sons for this decision.
First, students explicitly wanted to know about facilita-
tion. When I star-ted doing P4C with the tenth graders they
ri'anted to know why I could talk without holding the com-
munity ball. Understanding their concem, and addressing
the major issue of faimess plaguing most teenagers, I ex-
plained the dynamics of facilitation. We began with a defi-
nition. Facilitate simply means, "to tnake easy," and by util -
rzing specific skills the facilitator helps to keep the discus -
sion alive (Webster, 1987).
As I continued to clarify the idea of facilitation, I used
eramples from our past discussions to describe how my ac-
iions as a facilitator were fueled by a desire to make inquir -
ies "easier." Making discussions easier meant constantly
:hinking about how I could help our discussions "flow,"
:cratch beneath the surface ofour initial question and al-
riays look for ways to help our community maintain a stan-

dard of intellectual safety (Jackson,2001). Whiie I was
;oaxed by their own inquisitiveness to define what it really
:reant to be a facilitator, I uncovered the second reason I
',i anted students to facilitate their own P4C discussions: to
re consistently engaged in students' thinking through listen-
.rg attentively, which I found to be essential from my own
r-periences facilitating. As a facilitator, after all, I r ealized
I had to continually serve as a reflective voice regarding the
JOn-rmunity's successes and weaknesses. This rneant taking
.re risk to confront parlicular students' behaviors tactfully
'nd
create opporlunities to praise the community when
.rings were going well. Being a facilitator forced me to
-:ragine what direction the discussion might go as a result
of the communities' individual personalities interacting
with the reading I selected. At the same time, facilitation
required that I make contemporaneous decisions during our
"live" discussion. In summary, facilitating class discussions
required that I continually challenge my own thinking about

community and inquiry.
My facilitation skills grew exponentially over the
course of that first year and I began to clearly define what it
meant to be a good facilitator. This is when I hypothesized
that if it was true that facilitation fostered all the skills I de -
scribed above in myself, then wouldn't my students develop
those very sarne skills if they were required to become class
facilitators themselves? This guiding question, if true, had
many irnplications and inspired further questions. If all my
students were effective facilitators wouldn't all our discus-
sions become better in general? I imagined the students be-
coming better listeners, more engaged in each others' think-
ing, and this final step of requiring students to facilitate
would encourage them to take complete ownership of their
leaming. I envisioned students choosing their own reading,
creating possible questions for the inquiry, establishing
roles they would play during class discussions, thinking on
the spot, self-assessing their successes and taking the risks

to assess their peers. With all these learning goals and ex-
pectations in mind I remembered I would have to create
leaming opporlunities that would provide my students with
the skills to achieve these goals. The second voyage that I
was about to take with my students was preparing to set
sail.
I decided that a senior level political science class titled
"American Problems" would be the perfect setting to ex-
periment with student-led discussions simply because of the
nature ofthe course content. This is not to say that student-
led discussions could not be fostered in other courses, but
because this course would focus on current events, I be-
lieved it would be easier for the students to locate arlicles
regarding topics of their choice. The course was a semester
long, and I had also decided that in the first quarter the stu-
dents would be looking at global issues that involved the
United States and in the second quafier the students would
be required to select an internal American problem that they

felt would be impofiant to inquire about in a discussion
with their peers. Having determined that American Prob-
lems would be the setting for my experiment, with a clear
vision of what I wanted my students to be able to do and
with the conceptual foresight of what I wanted them to un-
derstand, I began to rigorously design a discussion-based
inquiry cuniculum for the course.
The first step in developing a novel curriculum was to
examine which aspects of P4C that I had already practiced
would be relevant and useful with regards to the newly es-
tablished leaming goais that I had set. Keeping the new cul -
minating activity in mind, student-facilitated discussions, I
reviewed my already established P4C lesson plans. At this
point I realized that despite the fact that I had established a
new standard of where I wanted my students to be at the
62 Strong, Voyaging to the Outer Limits of Educatbn
end of the school year, most of the P4C activities with
which I had experimented in the first year were still rele-

vant. Over the course of the entire second year of teaching I
refined the P4C activities from the previous year and guided
changes with the question - what do my students need to
learn how to do next in order to become facilitators them-
selves? Finally, by the third quarter ofthat second year, I
had established a solid foundation for my new curriculum.
The cuniculum was clearly outlined in the following four
distinct learning stages:
A) Establishing a Framework for Discussion-Based
Inquiry
B) Building the Background by Practicing Discus-
sion-Based Inquiry
C) Deepening the Understanding of Discussion Based
Inquiry through Role Playing and Peer Assessment
D) Culminating in Students as Facilitators for their
own Discussion-Based Inquiries
In the first stage of the curriculum, a foundation for
learning in P4C is established by the students and myself. In
other words, throughout the rest ofthe year all other learn-
ing opporlunities during discussion-based inquiries require
that students have the base knowledge provided during this

first stage in order for them to grow as philosophers and
members of a community of inquiry. The lessons in the first
stage provide students with "scaffolding, a temporary struc-
ture around the 'construction' of the student's leaming that
helps hold concepts together during the early stages ofi'
learning about the skills required for engaging in P4C
(Oakes & Lipton, 1999). In this first segment of the curricu-
lum students take the P4C pre-test; uncover the difference
between dialogue and discussion; build their community of
leamers; discuss intellectual safety; are introduced to the
Good Thinker's Tool Kit; and leam about "Plain Vanilla."
In the second stage students reinforce the skills, and
procedures, and try out the concepts from the stage one as I
facilitate a series ofdiscussion-based inquiries. For each of
these discussions I select the arlicle and provide challenges
that include various experimental exercises with the Good
Thinker's Tool Kit. Besides encouraging use of the Good
Thinker's Tool kit in their questions, I have also created a
series of thinking games that focus on a particular letter of
the Tool Kit.
In the third stage the classroom set up changes dramati-
cally. In the first two stages students had been accustomed

to the room set up with chairs placed in a giant circle. In
this third stage the room is set up with the chairs in a "fish
bowl." This means half the chairs are in a circle in the mid-
dle ofthe room and the other halfofthe chairs are organ-
ized around the center circle. The primary goal of this third
segment is to foster meta-cognition where students are
thinking about their own thinking during class discussions.
During the third stage the students' discussions im-
proved dramatically in terms of community functioning and
the increased ability to scratch beneath the surface. After
using the fish bowl technique one or two times students
demonstrated increased concentration and practiced appro-
priate codes for a discussion because they knew that their
peers would "call them" on their behavior. Some competi -
tion was initiated by the students themselves as they at-
tempted to "out perform" the discussion group that had
gone before them. The inside group served as a window for
the outside group to look through to examine their own
thinking and behaviors during discussions. Most students,

who previous to this sort of reflective exercise and my own
feedback had not self-corrected their thinking and behavior,
quickly began to grow as critical members of our communi-
ties of inquiry.
In the fourth stage students are introduced to the re-
quirement that they will become co-facilitators of an in-
quiry. I began by reviewing what it meant to be a facilitator
and at this point laid out specific criteria of"good facilita-
tion." The students then used these criteria to write down
examples of good facilitation as they obserued me facilitate
a discussion with their peers. After I modeled good facilita-
tion, to the best of my ability mind you, we debriefed the
discussion as a class. I then explained that the criteria I was
providing for good facilitation would be the same criteria
their groups would be expected to meet and be assessed by.
My students were successful-beyond my wildest
dreams. And you know how I explained that most poten-
tially scarring events stick out in your memory? Well,
amazingTy, wonderful events do as well. Where do I begin?
First of all the students, on their own, picked a variety of
dynamic topics. We had discussions about the Hawaiian
sovereignty, the possibility of male pregnancy, a patient as-

sisted suicide bill coming up for consideration in the legis -
lature, the right to choose graduation attire, one group even
chose an intimidating article concerning the relationship
between science and religion. When the students were re-
quired to choose what they believed were "American Prob-
lems" they were able to do it independently from pre-
determined course content thus taking complete ownership
over their leaming.
When the students were asked to anticipate their
strengths as co-facilitators they gave the following answers.
Our strengths are:
Summarizing and clarifying because we
know a lot about the topic we are choosing.
Asking open ended questions to make the
environment safer, which makes it easier for
the group to parlicipate and communicate.
We will be able to invite participants by us-
ing questions that should be easy to answer
and challenge their thinking.

Selecting a dynamic topic is one of our
strengths because the discussants will be able
Thinking' The Journal of philosophyfor Chiklren, Volume 17,
Numbers I & 2
63
to relate their during/after prom experiences
to the conversation/discussion. Inviting all
discussants to participate will be on" oi ou.
strengths because we are all curious and in_
terested in what everyone has to say.
It is evident from the students' anticipatory responses that
they were thinking about the possible impiications of their
actions. The uncertainty of how their disiussions would un_
fold, even though they expressed that they felt they were
prepared, surfaced in their responses as one oftheir poten_
tial weakness.
Here is what a couple of students had to say about their
,qroup's potential weaknesses. Our weaknesses are:
Everyone's opinion will be different because
ofthe different experiences they went through.
We won't be able to anticipate everyone,s
thoughts.
If the topic is not interesting it's hard to make
everyone participate.
Demonstrating our own willingness to chal_

lenge our thinking because the people in our
group are not always willing to parlicipate in
discussions. We might not make great ques_
tions but will try to make questions that every_
one will give input to.
It was interesting to read what the students
thought of their weaknesses, which truly were
the groups' fears because they were the same
things I would worry about as a facilitator.
The transformation of students from discuss_
ants to facilitators allowed them to consider all
members of the community - to really think
about the ways members of their community
might think about the topic they selected at the
same time they were working hard to chal_
lenge their own thinking about the topic they
had chosen.
When the students finally led their discussions, class
:articipation was at it,s highest, everyone seemed en_
.:,eed, and the group's ability to scratch beneath the sur_
-ice of the topics they had chosen was prevalent. I kept a
rurnal during some group,s discussions and my com_
rrents at the time demonstrate the students' success. The
:rllowing excerpt is from the group,s first peer facilitated
:'scussion. The topic that the group had chosen was un_
::rage drinking.
Wow! I was very impressed with the discus_
sion. The facilitation was good because of
the open-ended questions, they did an excel_
lent job clarifying all of the difficult words,
summarizing what people had said and invit_

ing other students into the discussion. I could
tell that they were thinking on the spot be_
cause at first they started to read a question
that they had planned and then theydecided
that the class had already addressed the topic
so they skipped the question and moved on.
The thing that I was mosr impressed with
however was the skills that the discussants
demonstrated. Leonard, Mitchell, Makani,
and Frankie constantly used parts of the arti_
cle to support what they were saying. They
got everyone to read the portion of the article
and then they began to ask many inferential
questions themselves. Leonard asked if
Ieaming about drinking was like learning
about history - if only particular things are
taught then do we only have a certain per_
ception of things? Tamara began to wonder
ifour behavior about drinking (binge drink_
ing) is shaped by societies perceptions or at_
titudes. So, because we can,t talk about
drugs and alcohol it shapes how people be_
have - like binge drinking. The class also
then began to talk about religion and how
religious beliefs contribute to drinking.
Finally, I knew that the curriculum had been a success
when I read the students' facilitation self-assessment forms.
1-9ng
other things they were required to reply to the fol_
lowing statement - describe on" ni,, thing that you learned
from being a facilitator and one new thing that you learned
from the group you facilitated. The following are vignettes
from their responses.

I learned that being a facilitator requires a lot
of listening. If you miss o.re ans*ei yo.,
could be left out of the whole rotation of
opinions. I leamed to listen no matter what,
so you don't have to stress later on. I learned
from our group that I was wrong to assume
that everyone was interested in alcohol con_
sumption. Of all people I thought Kahai
would be interested and want to participate.
It turned out that this topic wasn't relevant to
his life at all. That,s what I learned from the
group I facilitated today.
...I also learned that everyone in the group
has different points of views for their re_
sponses so I have to accept them all _ from
Rob's religious points of view to Mitchell,s
own experiences.
I learned that it is not easy to be a facilitator
64 Sn'ong, Voyaging to the Outer Lintits qf Education
because you have to keep the discussion
flowing.
I leamed that being a facilitator isn't easy.
You have to do so much you end up forget-
ting what your job entails. I learned that the

group you facilitate will always come up
with a question that will really make you
think, and you won't always think of all of
their questions.
You have to have confidence in your topic
and questions and have control ofthe stu-
dents. There are always a lot of assumptions
being made by people.
It's sort of hard to facilitate. I will be more
grateful to my teachers.
Are these the voices of a student led revolt against di s-
cussions? No, in fact, by the end of the year, when they
were required to co facilitate their own discussions, they
were diving head first into the challenge. Was it "too hard,"
like one girl had complained the first time I experimented
with P4C? Well, it was hard but as I explained, when my
students were given the right steps to achieve a standard
that was set for them it wasn't "too" hard as evidenced in
each of their co-facilitated discussions with their peers.

Was I "making them do college work," like another boy had
whined at the beginning of this effort? Maybe, it was col -
lege work because intellectual discussions are at the heart of
a college education. However, being able to have an effec-
tive discussion with the people that you live with in the
world goes beyond college.
In our daily lives oral communication is the most preva-
lent form of human interaction. On any given day we dis-
cuss a variety of topics with our families, friends, the peo-
ple we work with, govemment officials, the guy at the
counter of a convenience store, the people we love and the
people that we experience the most conflict with in our
lives. In so many of these contexts people in general, let
alone teenagers, feel thwarted in their ability to solve pr ob-
lems or really express themselves. This is why practicing
discussion, and the art offacilitating good discussions is a
crucial practice for the classroom teacher. Inquiry-based
discussions provide the most relevant leaming because they
mirror the reality of our social world.

From my colleagues, I eventually heard a lot less criti -
cism and instead more dialogue about how P4C has devel -
oped in our school community. I knew things had changed
when a science teacher sacrificed her measly thirty-minute
lunch break to visit my classroom. "What are you doing
with your students?" I had been accustomed to a culture of
negativity and as I was about to ask her for clarification she
replied. "They always come to science on Friday, after your
class, passionately dialoguing about some deep social issue.
Tell me how you get them so excited." This is when it be-
came clear that P4C was changing the face of our school
culture. Could this enthusiasm about bettering the way we
look at schools grow beyond the chicken wire fences of our
country school? I was beginning to think so.
The more that I work on facilitation of discussions with
teenagers, the more Irealize how important my job is. If
teenagers are the next generation to change the world, don't
we want them to have the skills to talk about the world's
issues with one another? Most centers of power in our

world operate within a context that requires their partici -
pants engage in discussions. For example, the United Na-
tions is one of, if not the most imporlant forum for world
change and the global positionrng of nations. Members of
the United Nations must be able to have effective discus-
sions in order to resolve world conflict. An example more
specific to our country is the political ideal of democracy,
and discussion is a requirement for the perpetuation of this
ideal. Keeping these two examples of discussion-based re-
alities in mind, I wonder, why is it that within our own
communities, especially our schools, we rarely give our stu-
dents a space to critically discuss issues?
Discussion-based classrooms will change the world-
for the better. P4C provides the essential framework to
make this change happen. However, it is up to teachers to
take this program, and experiment with it in their own
unique classrooms. Today's students, diverse as they are,
must have a common language that allows them to talk
about their differences with one another in an intellectually

safe and rigorous way. As individual teachers like myself
draw on the foundations that P4C has to offer, we can pro-
vide our students with the tools to change the world that
they so desperately desire. Just as I strive to change certain
aspects of the Hawaii State School system I know my stu-
dents are already changing cefiain aspects of Hawaii in gen-
eral-for the better. One thing to keep in mind as you em-
bark on your own journey with your own students: they
might revolt at first, but keeping my story in mind, remem-
ber-with a little encouragement anyone can go anywhere.
Works Cited
Bruner, J. (1996). Culture and edttccttion. Cambridge: Harward
Uni-
versity Press, p.77.
Cocharin -Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1993). Inside out.side;
Teacher re-
search und Knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.
Freire. P. (1989). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York:
Continuum.
Jackson, T.(2001). The art and craft oJ gently socratic inquiry.

ASCD.
Oakes , J. & Lipton, M. ( 1999). Teaching to change the world.
Bos-
ton: McGraw Hill College.
Oberg, A. & McCutcheon, A., (Eds.) (1990). Teacher as
researchet
Special issue of Theory into Practice, 29(3).
Reed, R. & Sharp, A. (1992). Sndies in P4C: Hanl;
Stottlemeirer's
Discovery. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Seiferet, K. ( I 999). Constructing a psychoktgy of'teaching and
learn-
ing. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Vygotsky, L. ( 1978). Mind in society. The tlevelopment of
higher psy-
chological proces.ies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
The Good Thinker’s Tool Kit
WRAITEC
Developed by Dr. Thomas Jackson

Good
Thinker’s
Letter
What is it used for? Question Stems & Claim Starters
W
What do you
mean by…?
Seeking clarity - “W” is essentially meant to capture the aspect
of
thinking that involves sensitivity to complexity, possible
ambiguity, and
multiplicity of meanings. “W” questions are clarifying
questions.
• What do you mean by…?
• What does the author mean by?
• What is the…?
• What have I forgotten to ask?
• What else do I need to know?
R
Reasons
Thinking about why - “R” reflects that for a philosophical
thinker it is
not enough to simply offer an opinion. Opinions need to be
supported by
reasons. Are some reasons better than others? When we want to
know WHY
we ask reason questions.
• Are reasons being offered to support

claims?
• What are the reasons…?
• One of the reasons…
A
Assumptions
Acknowledging/making clear what we take for granted - “A”
recognizes that an important part of philosophical thinking is
becoming
aware of and making explicit assumptions that underlie a
discussion,
position, argument or presentation. Identify assumptions,
recognize how
those assumptions are influencing what we are seeing and
judging, and
identify other assumptions that can be made.
• Is it reasonable to assume…?
• Are we aware of and identifying key
assumptions being made?
• An assumption embedded in this
argument/claim is…
• The author is assuming…
I
Inferences
Thinking about “if…then”-“I” represents “If … then’s…”,
inferences, and implications. IF, for example, we do, or don’t
pursue a
particular line of action, THEN what follows? What are the
consequences?

Inferences have a starting point (something seen, heard, smelled
tasted or
touched) and an ending point (a “place” the mind “moves” to
that is beyond
what was presented at the starting point). I may see a person
frown
(STARTING POINT) and infer they are sad (ENDING POINT).
• Is it reasonable to infer ______ from
_______?
• If ___________ then is it reasonable to
infer _______?
• From __________ I infer___________.
T
Truth
Thinking about what is true, and the implications of what we
think is true - “T” concerns is what’s being asserted in fact
true? How
can we find out? What we take for granted as true must meet
certain
standards? What are those standards? How do we measure
what’s true?
Even if we aren’t sure if something is true can we imagine what
might be
the implications if it is true?
• Is what’s being said true, and what are
the implications if it is true?
• If _________ is true, then what does that
imply?

• If __________ is true does that imply
_______?
• When __________ is true it
implies_______.
E
Examples
Evidence
Offering evidence to prove a claim is true - “E” is one way in
which clarification of a position or assertion can be
accomplished. It is a
way of making a general claim specific or testing a claim by
presenting an
illustrative example. Equally important is the offering of
evidence to support
assertions. What is the evidence? Evidence looks different
depending on the
discipline you are in. What does evidence look like in science?
Social
studies? Math? Language Arts?
What are some examples of __________?
Are EXAMPLES being given or is
EVIDENCE being offered to support or
illustrate claims?
_____________is an example of _______.
C
Counter –
Examples
Offering counter-evidence to prove a claim is not true - “C”
reflects the important task of testing the limits of a claim or
position by

searching for a way to prove it false or at least to test the limits
of the claim.
What are some counter-examples to
_______?
Are there any COUNTER – EXAMPLES to
the claim being made?
_____________is a counter-example to
__________.
Developry
Minds;Reso,,;
Bookfor
Teach^g
Think*g
3rd Edition
Edited by Arthur L. Cosra
/AOI;. Associarion fcrr Supervision and Curriculum
Development
,L-l-- r,gr'd uJ^
^lll|lllo.Ltl]-
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

1703 N. Beauregard St. . Alexandria, VA ZL3ll-l?14 USA
Glephone: 1-80A.%3.2723 or 703-578.9600 . Fax: 703-575-
5400
'Web site: http://wwwascd.org . g-11u,1: [email protected]
Copyright O 2001 by the Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development (ASCD). All rights reserved. No part
of this
publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by
any rn"rrrr, .L.rronic or mechanical, including photocopy,
recording
or any information storage and retrieval system, without
permission from ASCD. Readers who wish to duplicate materiaf
copyrighted
by ASCD may do so for a small fee by contacting the Copl'right
Clearance Center (CCC), 222 Rosewooj D*, Da.ruer, , ua
otgzt,USA (telephone:978'750'8400; fax: 978-750-44?0). ASCD
has authorized the CCC to collect such fees on its behalf
Requests ro
reprint rather than photocopy should be directed to ASCD's
permissions office at 703-578-9600.
Because ASCD does not hold copyright to the following
chapters, they may not be reproduced in any form without the
consent of
the authors, their publishers, or the agents listed in the
copyright notice on the firsr page of each chapter:
L,4,7, ll,13,1.6,17,21, Section IV
Introducrion,26,28,Zg,3L,39,40,41,45,46,50,52,6?,63,66,67,7e,7
4,g0, g3, g4
ASCD publications present a variety of viewpoints. The views
expressed or implied in this book should not be interpreted as
oficial
positions of the Associarion.

Printed in the United States of America.
ASCD Product No. 101063
ASCD member price: 932.95
s612001
nonmember price: $39.95
Library of Congress Cataloging.in.Publication Data
Developing minds: a resource book for teaching thinking/edited
by Arthur L. Costa.-3rd ed.
p.cm'
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0871203790 (alk. paper)
1. Thought and thinking-Study and teaching. 2. Cognition in
children. Costa, Arthur L.
LB1590.3 .D 48 2001
370.15/2 2t
200t006466
07 06 05 04 03 1098765432
The Art and Craft of
"Cently Socratic" lnquiry
Tuottrus E. Jtcrsow
"/7 ently Socratic" inquiry recognizes that a paramount
tJ :ff: :ffi ,$,:1mru;:*:il;ilfi: ff '::

use this ability in responsible ways. It also acknowledges that
much of current schooling still falls short of helping children
achieve rhls abiliry ro think. Frequently, by the time children
reach 3rd grade, the sense ofwonder with which they entered
kindergarten-wonder our of which authenric thinking and
thus thinking for oneself develops-has begun to diminish.
By 6th grade it has practically disappeared. Childrens think.
ing focuses instead on what the teacher expects. A major
contributing facror to this loss of wonder is the failure to prop.
erly nurture the true voices of children. Due to a variety of
pressures, both internal and exrernal, the typicai classroom
teacher does not appear to have time for childrens genuine
wondering and questioning, from which structured inquiries
can grow. This apparent lack of time is exacerbated by the fact
that most teachers simply have never been exposed to this
gpe of inquiry. If teachers are ever to do this successfully in
their own classrooms, they need time and guidance in leam-
ing how to conduct such inquiries.
Wuar Is GrNrry Socnanc lvpurnv?
The "gentle" in gentiy Socraric inquiry involves highlighting
both a connection and distinction from what Socrates and
Socratic method too often have come to represent, Socrates
is often portrayed as the consummate lawyer, cleverly ques.
tioning and manipulating his adversary inro an 'Ahal Gor
youl" position of contradiction. Socratic method is construed
as methodical questioning and cross.examining, peeling away
layers of half.truths, exposing hidden assumprions. The So-
cratic method becomes an almost algorithmic, step.by.step
procedure.
The term "gently Socratic" is meant to distance the nature
of inquiry presented here from Socratic method or the
Socrates described above, Hannah Arendt (1978) eloquently
portrays the Socrates whom she contends would be worthy of

the admiration that history has bestowed upon him as a model
thinker and inquirer. Gentiy Socratic inquiry draws its inspira-
tion from this portrayal ofSocrates.
The first connection with Socrates in gently Socratic in-
quiry is dialogue. A salient feature of dialogue is nor quesrion-
ing (let alone, cross.examination) but listening. Dialogue,s first
interest is not to counte! debate, disagree, lead, or expose, but
to genuinely and simply listen. This qualiry of listening requires
setting aside one's own thoughts in order to be truly open to
what the other is saying. This is especially imporranr because
the "other" in this case will most often be a child, and gentle-
ness must be foremost in one's mind if one hopes to be privi.
leged with an authenric response from a child.
Many factors in contemporary teaching and teacher prepa.
ration work against the kind of listening essential for genuine
Socratic inquiry, As Peter Senge suggests, we all intemalize a
mental model of what it means to be a teacher. Central to this
tendency is the idea that the teacher is the one who is ,,in the
know" and the student is the "leamer." Too often, the teacher
focuses her listening on hearing an expected answe! or on
probing the student's understanding of a particular idea or
concept. "Has the student understood what I am trying to
teach?" is a stance that precludes the kind of listening that is
essential for the success of gently Socratic inquiry.
The focus on dialogue means rhar a particular reladonship
must develop among the members of the classroom commu.
niry that is quite different from standard classroom practice.
This new relationship places much more emphasis on listen-
ing, thoughtfulness, silence, and care and respect for the
thoughts of others. The teacher provides ample time for stu-
dents to express and clarify what they mean, to understand, to
respond to rvhat others have said, and to delve further into
what other students intended. Above all, the classroom is an

intellectually safe place that is not in a rush ro get somewhere.
459
D r v E I O p t N C M t N n S A Resource Book for Teaching
Thinking
'!ilhenever
possible, students and teacher sit in a circle during
inquiry time. Students call on each other, no longer relying on
the teacher to carry this responsibility. Each has the opporru,
niry to speak or to pass and remain silent. In this environment,
inquirywill grow.
Gently Socratic inquiry is essentially about creating a par -
ticular place, time, and context in the classroom within which
to establish a different relationship berween reacher and stu.
dents. The teacher becomes a co.inquirer in dialogue u,lrh the
children, rather than their guide or sage. Over time, tools and
criteria come into play that enhance the qualiry and rigor of
the discourse and inquiry but always within the context of an
intellectually saG place.
To develop the classroom communiry and the needed skills,
the teacher needs to deliberately set aside time for both. A
minimum of fwo sessions per week is highly recommended. As
the children internalize the skills and procedures, the sffare.
gies and skills that emerge fiom the inquiry sessions ultimately
appear at other times of the school day and in other content
areas. The children begin to ask qualitatively different sorrs of
questions; they persist in seeking to scratch beneath the sur -
face ofa text, or lesson, or personal situation.

WHer GrNrry Socnetc lNeuny Is Nor
Gently Socratic inquiry is not about having a particular answer
in mind beforehand. Nor is it a method in any algorithmic
sense. In particular, it is not a Socratic method. It invoives cer -
tain skills, but no method.
Gently Socratic inquiry is also not a program specifically for
a targeted group such as the gifted. It works u.ith virtually any
ability group, or mix thereof,
Dnvrropwc A CoMMUMTy oF h.leuny
Gendy Socratic inquiry begins by developing a context within
which dialogue and inquiry unfold. Certainly, classrooms must
be physically safe places. For dialogue and inquiry to occur
they
must be emotionally and intellectually safe as well. In an intel.
lectually safe place there are no put.downs and no comments
intended to belittle, undermine, negate, devalue, or ridicule.
Tithin this place, the group accepts virtually any question or
comment, so long as it is respectful of the other members of the
circle. 7hat develops is a growing trust among the participants
and with it the courage to present one's own thoughts, how.
ever tentative initially, on complex and difficult issues.
Anyone who knows how to pretend they understand some.
thing even though they don't, or who has been in a context
where they had a question but were afraid to ask it, has felt the
influence of a piace that was not intellectually safe. Intellec,
tual safety is the bedrock upon which inquiry grows.
An important detail relevant to intellectualsafery is proper
acknowledgment of the diversity of views that emerge in the
course of various inquiries. Intellectual safety arises, in part,
out of acknowledging and celebrating this diversiry, This is not
the same as saying there are "no right or wrong answers" or

"any answer is okay." Sometimes a student will fail to present
reasons, or well-thoughl.out reasons, to support their answer.
The group may not fully understand the implications of a par.
ticular answer, nor the assumptions that underlie them. Over
time, the group begins to understand thar it needs to take
these criteria into account in considering a proposed answer.
Mere opinion-unsupported opinionJoes not suffi ce.
Equally important is this: The goal is not to persuade any-
one to any particular answer, but rather for everyone to reach a
deeper understanding of the complexity of the issues involved
and a $eater abiiity to navigate among these complexities.
CnrMNc rrn CoMMUNTTY
The most favorable configuration for developing a commu,
nity is for the class, including the teacher, to sit in a circle, on
the floor if possible. Unlike the more traditional configuration
with students in rows, the circle allows all members of the
communily to make eye contact, to see each other. In the en,
suing dialogue, participants are better able to hear what others
are saying and aiso to see how they are saying it; in other
words, the facial expressions and mannerisms of those who are
speaking. The circle also facilitates seeing the impact on each
other of the interaction. What is the impact of acceptance or
rejectionl Of careful listening as opposed to indiflbrence?
An early objective is to establish a protocol rvhereby stu.
dents feel empowered to call on each other. One effective ac.
tivity for accomplishing this is to create a "community ball"
together as a way to give shape to what wili become an inquiry
communiry. This activiry is effective with groups from kinder-
garten through university (see Figure 73,1). Once the group
has made the ball, the agreement is that the person with the
ball is the speaker of the moment. That person, when finished,
passes to whomever he or she wishes. One caveat is that if the

ball comes to a person who has not asked to speak or does not
wish to speak, she has the absolute right to pass.
Another strategy is to introduce certain "magic words" (see
Figure 73.2) that members of the community will use to facil,
itate procedures. The use of magic words has been effective in
developing a safe place where inquiry can unfold in a non-
t+6o
l-:i; Anr .lsn Cn..rrr or ,,Grrrlr SocR.lrrc" Irpurnr
-Figure 7J.t-
Making a Community Ball
Materials needed;. 12" x 4" stiff cardboard. Skein of multi-
colored yarn. One long piece of heavy-duty string for tying
Procedure:
l. Fold the cardboard in half lengthwise, so that it
is 12" x 2".
2. Place the tie-string inside the center fold.3. Wrap yarn from
the skein around the width of
ca rdboard.
4. Hold on to the tie-string while pulling the yarn off
the cardboard. The tie-string will- be iunning
through the center of the yarn coil. Grasp both
ends of the tie-string and tie them together se_
_ curely, forming a bagel shape.5. Cut through the yarn at the
outer edge, creating
a pom-pom ball.

The group sits in a circle. The teacher begins wrap_
ping the yarn around the cardboard, whiie the stu_
dent next to her feeds the yarn from the skein. The
teach.er.responds to a question that each person in
the circle will answer in turn. This question can be
anything the teacher thinks will draw out the chil_
dren, such as, "What is your favorite food or music?,,
or "What do you like best about school?,, When Ihe
teacher finishes speaking, she passes the cardboard
to the student beside her. who begins to wrap and
rap(l) as the teacher takes over f-eeding the'yarn.
This.p.rocess-one person wrapping unj rp..i ing,
and his neighbor feeding the yarn-continues unt]i
all have had the opportunity to speak.
Source: From-Getting Started.in phitosophy: A Staft_l)p Kitfor
K_l,byf
Jackson & L. 0ho, 1993. UnpublisheO manuicript.
threatening way. Children who are soft-spoken readily speak
up when someone in the group says ,,SpLAT" (speak louder
please). Ir's okay to say "IDUS" (l don't understand). And
when several people are speaking at once, ,,pOpAAT" (please,
one person at a time) works. The teacher and students can
write these "words" on cards and display them for all to see as
needed. Each group can, of course, develop its own set of
words. Vhatever words you use, they can be powerfully in-
strumental in developing a communiry where all ..rt.rr,
rather than just the teache6 share in the responsibiliry for
moving an inquiry forward, and where the members share a
common vocabulary with which ro engage in this task.
46r
-Figure 73.2-

Magic Words
. SPLAT = Speak a little louder, please. SpLAT
means that what a person said .just barely got out
of their mouth and then went ,,splat', onio the
floor. ln other words. we need you to speak louJer
so we can hear you.. IDUS = I don't understand. IDUS can
empower
students to be able to say when they don,t under_
stand. lt has proven much easier for students to
say IDUS than "l dont understand.,,Teachers find
it encouraging when IDUS begins to show up in
other content areas.. P0PAAT = Please, one person at a time.
Once stu_
dents. learn that during inquiry time the group is
uery interested in what they have to siv. t'h.u
often all want to speak at the same time. pbpnni
is effective in this context. When people start
speaking out of turn, someone says F0eAAt
which means that all must stop talking. The per-
son holding the ball then continues.. OMT = One more time.
OMT is a request for the
speaker to repeat what he has said.. N0P = Next question,
please.. LMO = Let's move on.. PB0 = Please be quiet.. G0S =
Going off subject. A qroup member can sav
G0S when the discussion is losing focus.
Sourc.e: Fro.m Philosophy for Children: A Guide for Teacherq
by T. Ja ckson,
1989. Unpublished manuscript.
Once the teacher introduces the magic words, anyone may
hold up a card. If the community seems bogged down in a
topic and is not getting anywhere, someone may offer ,,LMO,
to the community. At that moment, the community votes to
see if the majority would indeed like to move on. If a minoriry

still has interest in the topic, they can pursue it at a later time.
DEvnroprNc AN UNDERSTANDTNG oF INeurRy
Perhaps most basic to successful inquiry is the clear and
shared understanding that "we aren't in a rush to get any.
where." In other content areas there is pressure to cover the
material, to get on with it. The dialogue and inquiry sessions
have a different feel.
Co.inquiry: In gently Socratic inquiry no one, especially
not the teacher, knows either "the', answer to the question (if
the inquiry begins with a quesrion) or where the inquiry will
D r v p I o p r N c M t N o S A Resource Book f or kaching
Thinking
lead, Any effort to guide an inquiry to a predetermined an.
swer or outcome corrupts the process from the smrt. The dia.
logue develops its own integrity, its own movement, going
where "it" wants or needs to go. At various points it may bog
down and need an occasional nudge ("LMO") but in the
main, the inquiry emerges from the context. It frequently
pushes what Vygotsky (Vygotslq, 1986; Lipman, 1996) refers
to as the "zone of proximal development" of all participants,
including the teacher.
Gently Socratic inquiry is co-inquiry in the best sense. The
teacher is not a priviieged knower. In such inquiries, the chii-
dren are not infrequently ahead of the thinking of the
teacher, leading the inquiry down unexpected paths. Indeed,
what the teacher knows can interfere with participation
in the unfolding inquiry. Matthew Lipman, of New Jersey's
Montclair University, has developed a curriculum called Phi.

losophy for Children that is designed to nurture this form of
inquiry (1980).
The source of the inquiry: Whenever possible, the in.
quiry arises out of the questions and interests of the children
and moves in directions that the children indicate. There are
a wide variery of possible ffiggers, occasions, and topics for in-
quiry. Plain Vanilla is one strategy for finding a trigger and
then giving shape to an inquiry (see Figure 73.3). A salient
feature of gently Socratic inquiry is its sensitivity to the inter.
ests and questions of the children, their thoughts, and where
they take the topic. Even very young children generate so.
phisticated lines of inquiry from deceptively simple begin-
nings. One kindergartner, in response to the question, "'What
do you wonder about?" answered: "The other night, whiie I
was gazing at the stars, I wondered whether anything came
before space." In the discussion that ensued, the children's ex.
ploration ranged from dinosaurs to God, Other inquiries have
explored such topics as "Could there be a greatest number?"
(3rd grade); "'$7hat constitutes a right?" and "What is the pur.
pose of rights?" (5th grade); and "What is more important-
friends, fame, or fortune?" (6th grade). Once children realize
that the topics can indeed come from them and be pursued
along lines they are interested in, the quality of their thinking
is truly astounding.
The self,conective nature of inquiry: Matthew Lipman
(1991), following in the pragmatist tradition of the American
philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce, emphasizes the centraliry
of self-corrective inquiry. In classrooms where inquiry has be-
come an essential and ongoing activity, community members
-Figure
73.1-
Plain Vanilla

Step 1, Read-A paragraph or two, an episode, a
chapter, or a whole story. ln the primary grades, the
teacher may do the reading, or she may write the
story on chart paper for everyone to read together.
Alternatively, students could look at paintings, espe-
cially those by the students themselves; watch a
video; read a poem; listen to a piece of music; or se-
lect a topic from a "wonder box" into which children
have placed things they wonder about.
Step 2. Ouestion-Ask the children for questions
or comments they have about the story. Write them
down on chaft paper with the child's name next to
their comment.
Step 3. Vote-As a class, the children vote for the
question or comment they would like to inquire into
first. Note this beside the question. Write N0P beside
the question with the next highest number of votes.
Step 4. Dialogue/lnquiry-lnquire into the ques-
tion selected, using WRAITEC (letters from the tool
kit) and magic words as appropriate. lf the children
lose energy for the question selected, the group fo-
cuses on the question marked NOP
Step 5. Evaluate-Use the criteria suggested in
this chapter, some subset thereof, or other criteria
you select.
Source:From Philosophy for Children: A Guide for Teachers, by
T. Jackson,
1 989. Unpublished manuscript.
will change and develop their thoughts about a particular

topic. "Before I thought. . ., but now I realize that . . . ." be.
comes an increasingly common comment in a maturing in.
quiry community in the course of a school year,
Ixeunv Toors FoR ScRATCHTNG
BnwserH tn Sunrecn
Gently Socratic inquiry is more than a conversation or sharing
of ideas within a group. It is characterized by an intellectual
rigor that certain cognitive tools can facilitate, These tools
comprise the "good thinker's tool kit." They are the means for
giving shape and direction to the notion that, although we
aren't in a rush to get aryrvhere, we do have an expectation
that we will get somewhere.
462
One of the goals in developing inquiry skills is leaming to
scratch beneath the surface ofany topic or question' The ac'
dve use of the good thinker's tools is one indication that
"scratching" is occurring. In addition, at least three rypes of
progess can result from effective scratching.
One form of progress occurs when an inquiry reveals how
complicated the question or topic really is. At the end of the
session, things might well appear in a muddle, more mixed up
than in the beginning. This muddle can be a form of progress
when participants realize that the topic was much more com'
plex than they thought at first'
Another form of progress is when connections begin to
emerge among the various ideas that present themselves in the
course of the inquiry. For example, an inquiry that began with
the question, "tWhat does it mean to say, 'That wasrlt fair'?"
led a group of 3rd graders to questions of whether it wasrlt fair

because someone was treated differently, and whether treating
someone differently is ever consistent with being fair. The chil.
dren thereby made a connection between "fair" and "how
someone is treated."
A third type of pro$ess is when the shape of an answer
begins to emerge. In the faimess inquiry above, "how one is
treated" might emerge as a criterion of faimess such that it
might be proposed that "I/ a person is treated differently in a
particular sort of way, then thatwouldn't be fair."
Moreover, various participants in the same inquiry may in-
dividually experience different types of progress. For some, it
may just be a muddle. For others, connectio ns may begin to
emerge, while still others may begin to have an answer in
mind. Each form of progress has value and merit. A valuable
exercise is to have students keep joumals of inquiry sessions to
promote an ongoing intemal dialogue for each individual.
Certainly there will be days and times when it appears that
students are not making progress in any of these ways. Yet
there may be progress of a different, equally important kind.
For example, in a given session, a particularly quiet student
may feel moved to participate verbally for the first time.
Tnr Goop Tunucils Toor Krr
Helping students and teachers intemalize good thinkers'tools
of inquiry equips them with the ability to think for themselves
in a responsible way. With sustained experience in dialogue,
students become more adept at giving and asking for reasons,
detecting assumptions, anticipating consequences, reflecting
on inferences they draw, asking for clarification, and seeking
evidence and examples as well as counterexamples. They also
leam to seek out altematives and to form criteria for the judg-

men$ they make. The letters V( R, A, I, T E, and C represent
the good thinker's tools (Jackson, 1989):
W = What do you/we meanbv . . . ? V/highlights the im'
portance of being sensitive to possible multipliciry of meanings
and ambiguity; hence, a readiness to seek clanfication when
needed.
R = Reasons. R reflects that in inquiry one should expect
that it is not enough to simply offer an opinion. il4renever
possible, group members should support their opinions with
reasons.
A = Assumptions. A represents the importance of mak-
ing explicit, whenever appropriate, the assumptions that un-
derlie the discussion during inquiry.
I = lnferences;If ... then's; Implications.Ihighlights
the cennal role of inferences we might make, of possible im'
plications of what someone has said, and of hypotheticalstate'
ments such as, "I/what Jody said is true, then 'real' can't just be
things we can see or touch."
T = Tiue? T indicates that a major concem in our inquiry
is the question of whether or not what someone has stated is
in fact true, and how we might go about finding out.
E = Examples; Evidence. E points out the importance of
giving examples to illustrate or clarify what someone is saying
and of providing evidence to support a claim.
C = Counterexamples. C represents an important check
on assertions or claims that possibly cast too wide a net. For ex-
ample, "always" or "never" frequently occur in conversations,
such as "The boys always get to go first" or "'We never get to
stay up late." The search for counterexamples is a way of

checking the truth of such a claim. For example, "You get to
stay up late if it's a holiday" is a counterexample.
An important class activiry is to make tool kits together, so
that each student has her own kit, Students design 3 x 5 cards,
one for each lette5 mitrng on the back of each card whatever
clarifying notes will help them remember the significance of
each letter. 7hen desiring a reason fiom someone who is
speaking, a student displays the R card. If an important as-
sumprion is going unnoticed, a student can show the A card,
and so on.
The class should also devote time, separate from the in-
quiry sessions, to becoming more familiar with each tool. In
the course ofan inquiry anyone can place a card representing
a given tool in the circle when they want to use that particu-
lar tool. This can facilitate the evaluation of the session at the
463
D p v E l- o p r N c M t N n s A Resource Book for kaching
Thinking
end, as it makes apparent which tools made their appearance
in the course of the day's inquiry.
RnrrncnNG oN TtrE INQUIRY
Finally, it is important that the inquiry community reflect on
how well it has done on any given day flackson, 1989). 7e
suggest the following criteria, which the teacher can present to
the group prior to beginning the inquiry cycle and again at the
end of each session. The criteria fall into fwo categories, those
dealing with how we did as a community and those dealing
with the inquiry itself

How did we do as a communiry?
' Listening-7as I listening to others? !7ere others listen'
ing to meJ
' Participation-Did most people participate rather than
just a few who dominated?
' Safety-7as it a safe environmentJ
How was our inquiryl
' Focus-Did we maintain a focusJ
' Depth-Did our discussion scratch beneath the surface,
open up the topic, or otherwise make some progressl
. Understanding-Did I increase my understanding of the
topic?
' Thinking-Did I challenge my own thinking or work
hard at it?
' Interesl-ilas it interesting?
At some point it is importanl for the group to discuss more
fully what each criterion means' 7hat, for example, counts as
participation? Does one need to speak in order to participate?
7hat does it mean to scratch beneath the surface? At an ap'
propnate time, the teacher can introduce the notion of three
rypes ofprogress and the use ofthe various tools as indicators
ofscratching or its absence.
The evaluation can occur in a variety of ways. The teacher
can list each criterion on a separate card, He displays each
card one at a time, and the members indicate how they
thought the community did on that criterion with "lhumbs
up" or "thumbs down." A thumb midway between up and

down indicates neuffal. At first the teacher can handle the
cards, but as soon as possible it is useful to ask individual stu-
dents to take a particular card and ask the group for their re'
sponse to that criterion. As the communiry gains experience,
it can establish a standard for what "thumbs up" means within
the context of the experiences of that community.
Related to evaluation of an inquiry session is a feature lhat
will inevitably emerge wherever inquiry has become a regular
part of the classroom: Once intellectual safety is firmly in
place, diversity of viewpoints will make their appearance. One
way of preparing for this is to make clear that with complex
topics, one can expect a number of legitimate, different points
of view. Indeed, as individuals, we may have differing points of
view at different points in time.
At the end of a discussion into whether a particular action
was fair, or indeed any other topic of similar complexity, it's
im-
portant to acknowledge at least four possible places someone
might be in their thinking at any given time. They might be
prepared to answe! "Yes, I think it was faiq" or "No, I dont
think it was fair," but also, importantly, they might be at an
"l don't know" or "Maybe so" place'
Asking students and teacher to raise their hands in re-
sponse to where their thinking is on the particular topic is a
way of displaying to the group the diversiry of their thinking on
a particular issue, Asking for such a display of hands is also a
way of bringing closure to an inquiry that is still ongoing but
must pause because it is time for lunch' recess, or another class.
Trn RorB oF Tm TBecHnn
The teacher is absolutely pivotal to the success of gently So-
cratic inqurry In the beginning it will be the teacher who in-
troduces the ideas behind such inquiry' She will be responsi ble

for establishing, monitoring, and maintaining the safety within
the group. This will include monitoring the proper use of the
community ball and calling on each other, and seeing that
members have ample opportuniry to speak as well as permis'
sion to remain silent. fith younger grades, for example, one
problem that often appears initially is that boys only call on
boys, girls call on girls, and close fiiends call on each other.
The teacher is responsible for introducing the magrc words
and seeing to their proper use. In some cases, students may ini'
tially abuse the freedom offered by these words and repeatedly
utter "SPLAT" (speak louder please) to someone who is shy, or
"LMO' (let's move on) the moment there is any pause in the
dialogue.
The teacher conducts the lessons that involve making the
tool kit and follow-up lessons that focus on a particular tool.
For most students and many teachers, "inference" and "as'
sumption" are little more than vocabulary words' The group
needs to spend time on developing deeper understanding of
what these telTns mean. Similarly, what makes a reason a good
reason, how counterexamples function, and how one might go
about finding out whether a given claim or statement is true
464
THe Anr ,qNo Cnnrr or "Ge n rlv Socnn-rtc" INQutnv
may be areas where understanding is cunently quite shallow.
In early sessions the teacher should call attention to uses ofthe
various tools and encourage their use.
Most importantly, it is the teacher, especially in the begin,
ning who sets the tone for the group. "Not being in a rush'de-

pends on a teacher sufftciently comfortable with silence and
"wait time" beyond what is typical in most classrooms. It re.
quires a teacher whose own sense of wonder is still very much
alive and who is keenly interested in what the authentic
thoughts of the children are on a given topic; one who is com-
fortable with uncertainty, not eager to push for closure, but
willing to allow an inquiry to move where "it" and the children
seem to want to take it. She must be willing to risk not know-
ing the answe! to indeed be a co-inquirer in the quest for an
answer.
Initially the teacher needs to make the crucial judgments
about using both magic words and good thinker's tools. The
teacher is the one who asks for reasons, examples, and clarifi.
cation, at the same time displaying letters that represent the
particular tool requested, at once modeling and highlighting
their use.
The teacher begins to weave threads of conversation into
dialogue, asking who agrees or disagrees or has other thoughts
about the topic at hand, offering a counterexample, asking "lf
what Tanya said is true, would it follow that . . . ?" or making
some other comment to nudge the dialogue along. This is es-
pecially delicate and challenging because a major objective is
for the children to intemalize and thus take over these skills
and behaviors. They need as much opportuniry as possible
to try them out, and providing these opportunities is the
teacher's responsibility.
It is the teacher who brings a given session to a close and
sees to it that the group conducts an evaluation. How long are
inquiry sessions? 7ith kindergarten children they last from 10
minutes to more than an hour. Sessions with older children
tend to be more predictable in terms of length, but also more
subject to the time demands of the school day and curriculum.

In this kind of inquiry the teacher's role is to be pedagogi -
cally strong but philosophically selleffacing. The teacher
should be firmly in control of the procedures but allow the
content of the inquiry to unfold as it needs to, rather than fol -
lowing the desires of the teacher.
RrrnnnNcrs
Arendt, H. (1978). The life of tlw mind. New York: Harcourt
Brace
Jovanovich.
Jackson, T (1989). Phibsoplry for childrar: A guide for teachers.
Unpublished
manuscript.
Lipman, M. (1980). Phtbsophy mtlwckusroun (Znd ed.).
Philadelphia: Tem-
ple University Pres.
Lipman, M, (1991) . Thinking in educatirn. New York:
Cambridge University
Press.
Lipman, M. (1996). Natasha: Vygo*kian ilalngues. New York:
Gachers Col-
lege, Columbia University.
Vygotslq', L. (1986). Thaughtadlor,g^cr. Cambndge, MA:
MITPress.
465
Prompt: What does intellectual safety mean to you?

In order to receive credit for these assignments (in general) you
must do a number of things:
1. Have a post of at least 150 words on topic.
2. Contain one citation. (do not worry about this for the first
assignment)
3. Include the password I drop in the audio lectures (do not
worry about this for this first assignment
3. It must use one of the WRAITEC ( The goodthinker's toolkit)
letters as a tool to prompt yourself.
How does one use WRAITEC? It is rather straightforward; pick
one of the letters (such as R for reasons) and focus on the
reasons for Aristotle making this or that claim. Any letter can
be used, but be sure to be clear which it is you are using (at
least for these first couple weeks of class).

Information in this sample is to help you, not to do your

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from LaticiaGrissomzz

More from LaticiaGrissomzz (20)

Information in this sample is to help you, not to do your