|
About P4CII
P4CII news
P4C world news
Books about P4CII
P4C’s Stories
About the site
Teaching
Science & Morality
Via P4C
An Interview with
Tim Sprod
February 2009
By: Saeed Naji & Samira Pezeshkpour
Tim Sprod is presently the International Baccalaureate Diploma Coordinator at The Friends' School in Tasmania, Australia. He is a past Secretary of the International Council for Philosophical Inquiry with Children (ICPIC), past Chair of the Federation of Australasian Philosophy in Schools Associations (FAPSA) and present Chair of the Association for Philosophy in Tasmanian Schools. Recognized by ICPIC as a teacher educator, he has presented workshops for teachers and researchers in philosophical inquiry for schools in Australia, the UK, the USA, Japan, and Thailand. He is the author of Books into Ideas , (with Laurance Splitter) ,Places for Thinking which both address the use of the community of inquiry with picture books in early childhood and Philosophical and Discussion in Moral Education: the community of ethical inquiry. His research interests cover the place of discussion in education for scientific and ethical inquiry.
Q: Could you please explain your own program for introducing philosophical thinking to children in the first four years of school?
Tim: In the early years of schooling, I think that our aim is to help young children to improve their abilities to think well. Obviously, children have been learning to think better ever since they were born. At the time that they start to acquire language, this process speeds up a lot, as there is clearly a close link between being able to think and being able to use language. Much of our more complex thinking has to be done in a language, and it is often small, common words which are vital to thinking. In English, these include words like ‘all’, ‘no’, ‘some’, if… then’, ‘only’, ‘rather’.
My book Books into Ideas is aimed at encouraging children to think aloud, in a community, with the aid of their teacher. To get the thinking started, I suggest that the teacher read a carefully chosen picture book to the class. The next step is to ask the children what interested or puzzled them. Your readers who are familiar with Philosophy for Children will know that, traditionally, the next step is for the class to chose an issue to discuss. This can work with young children, but I find that the teacher may need to be more directive than would be the case with older children. They may need to ask children questions that arise from their interests and puzzles.
In Books into Ideas, I have tried to choose books that build essential skills. For example, the first book I mention is John Birmingham’s Would You Rather?. The book proposes several alternatives and asks the reader to choose the one they would rather, such as asking whether the child would rather their house was surrounded by water, jungle, snow or mud. Discussing this book with children can build several basic skills: giving reasons for their answer; speaking to the whole group; listening to what others say; and learning the meaning of ‘rather’. ‘Rather’ is an interesting logical word: it is not asking which you like, but which you prefer - even if all the alternative are nice, or all unpleasant.
In my view, children need to learn skills such as the ones above, as well as making connections, drawing distinctions, waiting their turn, distinguishing a question from a statement, being aware of ambiguities and many more, before we can expect them to discuss deeper issues with insight and ability. However, I do not advocate separating out the deep issues, and first learning the skills on shallow ones. It is my view that the skills are learned through trying to discuss issues that matter - deep, philosophical issues - with the support of other children and (importantly) a more skilled adult, such as their teacher or parent.
Q: How can the community of inquiry be utilized in teaching the discipline of science? What kinds of scientific discipline ?
Tim: I think that the community of inquiry can contribute to the teaching of science in three ways. Firstly and most obviously from the philosophical point of view, discussing puzzles that arise in doing science can help students to understand the nature of the scientific enterprise better. This is the domain of philosophy of science. For example, students can explore whether science can ever be said to have conclusively proved something, or whether there is always the possibility of contrary evidence arising. They can explore the power and success of science, and the question as to whether there are issues that are beyond the scope of science. I believe that students who have more insight into the nature of science will be able to avoid the twin dangers of placing more belief in particular scientific findings than the evidence warrants, or of dismissing science and its power to help us.
The second benefit I see is in encouraging students to explore the key concepts of science more deeply. Science uses terms more precisely than ordinary language, and I am not sure that science teaching at present allows students to grasp these differences properly. This leads to confusion. Take the word ‘work’. I could sit here with my eyes closed, thinking hard about how to answer your questions: in everyday language, we would say I was doing a lot of work. In Physics, though, there would be virtually no work done. Science is full of such key concepts: energy, species, light, bonds, elasticity. Many are ordinary words, but with special conceptual meanings.
Finally, I believe that the community of inquiry is an ideal medium for investigating the moral dimensions of science. Some scientists claim that their work is value free - that they are merely discovering more knowledge. This is contentious, of course, but a citizen has no such escaper clause. As citizens, we need to be able to weigh up scientific evidence and possibilities, and help make decisions about which science should be used and in what ways. Both for students who will eventually become scientists, and for those who will never work with science again, becoming more able to think through the moral dimensions of scientific findings is very important to our future.
Q: I have studied your introduction of your book, "philosophical discussion in moral education: the community of ethical inquiry". It is clear that you concerns moral education. what is the importance of moral in contemporary world In your opinion? What is the moral education's place in philosophical discussion?
Tim: I have alluded to this in my previous answer. In my view, morality touches on most things that we do. I believe that Aristotle had it largely right. It is about our character: what sort of person we are and how we act in the world. Our personal futures, and the futures of our societies (local, national, global) all depend on educating children to be more morally sensitive and thoughtful adults.
There are many aspects to becoming morally good persons. Upbringing is important: we need to be taught morally good habits. We need to be placed in situations where we can practice morality. But there is another, very important, aspect as well. Aristotle called in practical wisdom. We need to be able to make morally good judgments. One class of these is about what to do in specific circumstances. Another is about the moral habits, attitudes and principles we have developed. Our parents, or society might be wrong, as in the example of the once widespread acceptance of slavery.
While moral education is much wider than what schools do and, even in schools, wider than what happens in the community of inquiry, I do believe that philosophical discussion has an important role to play. In brief, by encouraging students to discuss and think through fictional situations with moral implications, it can allow students to strengthen their moral capacities without the dangers that can occur in real life. They can try out positions, hear the reactions of others, clarify moral concepts, explore the importance of context and many more. In this, they engage their intellect and their emotions, all the while listening carefully to how others experience the world.
When their practical wisdom, strengthened in such discussions (and in other ways as well), is incorporated into their habitual approach to the world, then we can say they are morally good characters.
Q: What is your view about achievement of your work in the classrooms on p4c?
Tim: An interesting question. I am proud of the difference I feel I have made to many of the children I have worked with over the years. It has been great fun to be in some many, varied communities of inquiry, and to have learned so much from the children and young adults.
I am also proud of the work I have done with teachers, and the impact I have had through my writing. To see enthusiastic teachers in action, engaging their classes and bringing out the kids’ best, and to feel that I have has a role in that is very gratifying. I am delighted when teachers let me know how they have drawn on my work.
However, like most people who are involved in philosophy with youngsters, I can get frustrated when I consider the much larger numbers of children and adolescents - and teachers - who have never benefited from exposure to an educational methodology that I consider extremely powerful and effective. So there is a lot more work to do. Thank you, Q, for allowing me the chance to spread the message a little further.
Q: As most of our readers didn’t read your books about using picture books; [“Books into Ideas” and (with Laurance Splitter) “Places for Thinking”]; please briefly explain about following subject matters :
1. What is the structure of Picture Books? What is the difference of these kinds of books with other ordinary picture books?
In “Books into Ideas”, all the books used to get the children talking about ideas are ordinary picture books, not published especially for philosophy with children. Many of them were books I had read to my own children when they were young. All of them, though, have some big idea in them, and children’s questions can bring these ideas out. My son Liam called them ‘philosoful books’. They raise concepts such as reality, existence, ethics, truth and lying, identity and so on.
“Places for Thinking”, on the other hand, was written to accompany four picture books. These books had been written by Francesca Partridge & Franck Dubuc as ordinary picture books, and they asked ACER if they wanted to publish them. Laurance Splitter and I saw that they were suitable for starting philosophical discussions, and wrote “Places for Thinking” to help teachers see the philosophical possibilities, as well as asking Francesca and Franck to make some small changes to bring out the philosophy more.
2. How could we use this kind of books in the community of inquiry in early childhood?
Tim: Once teachers are familiar with the methods of philosophy for children, and have developed an ability to recognize and develop philosophical ideas, then they can look for suitable picture books in those books they already use. Not all good picture books are suitable for philosophy. Some wonderful picture books are good for other reasons, such as the art work, or the poetry of the text. However, many children’s books (like many books for grownups) do have one or more ‘big ideas’ embedded in the text (and sometimes the pictures).
A very good way for a teacher to make sure that they understand how to draw out the big ideas from a picture book is to have used the Matthew Lipman materials before, especially “Elfie”. There are many excellent exercises and discussion plans in the manual for “Elfie” (“Getting our Thoughts Together”). I have also tried to give similar advice in “Books into Ideas”.
As to what to do with such a book when you have one, I have talked about this in my answer to your question about my program for the first four years of schooling.
3. You have made a distinction between “a community of philosophical inquiry” and “a community of ethical inquiry” in "Community of Inquiry in P4C: Its Nature and the Practice of it". Could you please tell us about this distinction? Is there any disagreement?
Tim: Generally, ethics is considered to be a sub-discipline of philosophy, so in that sense the community of ethical inquiry is a particular type of the more general community of philosophical inquiry: one where the focus is on ethics. However, if we are inquiring into what makes a particular way of living (morally) good, or what actions we should take in particular situations, then it is both likely and desirable that the community will introduce considerations from other areas – psychological, sociological and (most importantly) from everyday life. Of course, other areas of philosophy might do so as well, so this is not a sharp distinction.
I would always like the discussions in any sort of community of philosophical inquiry to make a difference to the way the children in it understand, and act in, the world. However, it is of vital importance in the community of ethical inquiry. If the ethical discussion is cut off from the children’s real world, and makes no difference to how they live, or what they do, then it is hard to see the justification for it. Ethical inquiry should not be merely a game, trying to show off how clever we are. It should strengthen our moral judgment, but also transfer out of the classroom and affect all we do. That means, I think, that it needs to be used in conjunction with other means in a school: a set of ethically based rules for the school, an expectation that they will be followed, the opportunity for children to discuss and question the rules, and many opportunities for students to act ethically.
All Rights Reserved