|
About P4CII
P4CII news
P4C world news
Books about P4CII
P4C’s Stories
About the site
A New approach in Teaching Philosophy & Ethic in Schools
An Interview with
Stephan Millett
October 2009
By: Saeed Naji & Samira Pezeshkpour
Associate Professor Stephan Millett is foundation Director of the Centre for Applied Ethics and Philosophy at Curtin University of Technology, Chair of the University’s Human Research Ethics Committee and Ethics Specialist with the Faculty of Health Sciences. He is immediate past president and now executive member of the Association for Philosophy in Schools (WA) and was for seven years a full-time teacher of philosophy from pre-primary through to Year 12. He has conducted many courses for teachers and was the writer for the Western Australian Certificate of Education course in Philosophy and Ethics. With Alan Tapper he is the author of three textbooks for this course. His PhD in Philosophy was for work examining an Aristotelian basis for environmental ethics. Before turning to Philosophy he was a journalist, newspaper editor and Journalism academic.
Q:You have some books on teaching Philosophy and Ethics for children and the young e.g. Philosophy and Ethics: A Resource for Units 2A-2B. They are interesting, unparalleled and in the different type concerning p4c books. There are some questions about them.
What is the relation between these and (Lipman’s) formal p4c books? Are they similar in their structure with Lipman’s book?
The books were written for a curriculum that is set for Year 11 and 12 students in Western Australia (students aged 16-17), but we wrote them also with a general audience in mind and the hope that educators around the world would be able to make use of them. There are three books in the series. They make strong use of the community of inquiry method, however they are different from the Lipman materials in that the philosophical content is mainly in the text, rather than in the exercises and teacher guides.
The books are very different in structure from Lipman's but have the same sorts of goals. The books combine philosophical content, stories and exercises. The approach is a mix of community of inquiry, collaborative learning theory and philosophical content, with enough in them so that solo learners can work through them in a self-paced way (we had in mind students who were in remote communities or farms a long way from towns). We hope that students who cannot come together for normal classes are able to do philosophy using our books. It will be difficult for them, but possible as long as there is some sort of dialogue, such as is now possible with Skype, Blackboard and other internet-based interactive technologies.
There are not many school teachers in Australia who have university qualifications in philosophy, so we wrote the books also with teachers in mind. While the books are designed for high school students (the three final years of high school), we think that primary school teachers can use them to teach themselves enough philosophy to improve their ability to teach philosophy using the Lipman method in junior schools.
Q: Do we use these books in the same way or should they be taught via a new way?
The books are used in new ways, but the (Lipman-inspired) Community of Inquiry is an essential component. As noted above, the books (in particular Book 1A-1B) are based on collaborative learning theory and a student-centred, outcomes-focused approach as well as on content.
There is a mix of didactic teaching and collaborative learning. Some content (such as critical thinking) we believe is best taught overtly and didactically and then practised using examples. In the main, though, the course is based on students learning together (from a Vygotskyian psychology point of view the students aid each other in their zones of proximal development and in various ways turn inter-personal language and discussions into intrapersonal "language")
Q: Do the teachers have to have new courses to learn how use these books? It seems there is no manual for teachers.
The teachers have training courses run by the Curriculum Council in Western Australia and some short courses that my co-author, Alan Tapper, and I have run. In attempting to get philosophy into the curriculum we (those involved) knew that there would not be enough university-trained philosophy graduates available to be teachers, so we wrote a book that could be used (if necessary) by someone without formal philosophy training.
We know it is desirable to have formal philosophical training, but there was a conundrum: There were too few teachers with Philosophy training to start teaching philosophy across the state of Western Australia; and we would not get future teachers taking up philosophy at university unless there was a course for them to teach in schools once they graduated. When we set up the school philosophy program we knew there would not be many who were already trained, so we made a textbook that would help teachers train themselves while teaching. The Curriculum Council in Western Australia also made available a lot of support materials knowing that teachers would need them. We hope that within a few years enrolment patterns in Universities will change and there will be more fully-qualified teachers who have Philosophy in their degrees and are able to teach the school Philosophy and Ethics program
Q: How can foreign teachers contribute [participate?] in your courses? Are there any online courses they can use?
We do not have online courses. We intended that the books would provide a basic structure and that teachers would make use of the great amount of online material that is available in Philosophy, even though we know that a lot of the Philosophy material available online is difficult and not suitable for schools [eg Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/
It would be difficult to teach the mix of methods in our books via an online course, but that does not mean it should not be attempted. We (Alan Tapper and myself) do not have the resources to make an online course available, but this might be something that could be done in collaboration with others.
Our books are written in English and I do not speak another language well enough to teach in that language.
Q: what is the relation between these books and Philip Cam‘s books (e.g. Thinking stories)? What are their differences?
You will see in 1A-1B (the yellow book) that we have used some short narratives. We found that Philip Cam's books (which are very good) are not suited to the age group or the degree of philosophical sophistication required of Year 11 and 12 (the final years of school). Short narratives such as those in the yellow book allow a topic to be explored in one or two class sessions, which is desirable in our system as the full syllabus needs to be taught. Our books are different from Philip Cam’s because there is overt philosophical content included. Much of our text is focused on simple explanation of complex philosophical issues. The teaching and learning is still based, in part, on students' questions and on collaborative inquiry but the content of the chapters is more overtly philosophical than Philip Cam’s books.
Q: What do you mean by“ the overtly philosophical content”? why do you think the cam’s books aren’t overly philosophical?
Phil Cam’s stories are written in such a way that a community of inquiry can draw philosophical meaning from them. The teacher resource books that come with the stories can help that content be drawn out. I meant by “overt philosophical content” such things as explanations of inference, explanation of modus ponens, demonstrations of elenchus, summaries of philosophical positions.
Q: What about stories? Did you use stories in your books to start talking about your topics?
We wrote some short narratives. These are mostly in the Yellow Book. The philosophical content is written in a way that we hope will enable it to be used in the same sorts of ways as narrative stories in the Lipman tradition.
The books (1A-1B; 2A-2B; 3A-3B) are designed as a series which increases in complexity. The Yellow book (1A-1B) was written for 16 year olds who do not intend to go on to University but is also suited to high-achieving 13-15 year olds . The orange book (2A-2B) is of middle difficulty. The third book (3A-3B) is intended for those who intend to go to University (but not necessarily to study philosophy).
Not all students will work through all three books.
Q: is there a scientific reason for calling these books (1A-1B/2A-2B/3A-3B)? What is that?
No, there is no scientific reason for naming the books this way. The books were written for a specific curriculum (in Western Australia). Under the guidelines of the Western Australian Curriculum Framework, all courses available to Year 11 and 12 students must be available at three levels (1,2 and 3) and must comprise two subsidiary courses that can be taught in one semester each (A and B). So, the names were provided by the curriculum the books were written for. 1A is the first sub-unit, 1B is the second sub-unit at the first level; 2A is the first sub-unit at the second level, and 2B the second sub unit at this level. 3A and 3B are respectively the first and second sub-units at the third level. The most common approach taken by schools is to provide 2A and 2B in Year 11 and 3A and 3B in Year 12 for students intending to enter university. 1A and 1B are intended for students headed for vocational education (e.g. learning a trade such as mechanic) but are also increasingly used in Years 9 and 10 as an introduction to Philosophy.
Q: In the text that was published by UNESCO recently:”teaching philosophy in Asia and pacific” you wrote:
“The success of the programme has aroused great interest and the Buranda School receives many requests for visits from teachers from Australia and overseas” ...
This refers to the Philosophy for Children program, not our books.
Q: .... yes we know the p4c programme has aroused great interest in schools but you mentioned in your article" coming in from the Margins,…" (published in Thinking) that it [p4c] has not translated into policy. Why it hasn’t? What are the reasons? In other word if managers of schools find benefits of this programme why didn’t they all use it?
There are many reasons that the P4C program has not been translated into policy. These include:
• the lack of a large body of clear research data demonstrating the effectiveness of philosophy in schools. There is some data, but not enough to convince policy-makers.
• Philosophy may have a place in the new National Curriculum as there has been a strong push to have Philosophy included as a subject area in the new curriculum. We will not know if the efforts have been successful for some time, but we have been encouraged by way our arguments have been received.
• School managers in primary schools are more free to implement philosophy than are managers in secondary schools (high schools) because the curriculum is more flexible. School managers in state secondary schools can only introduce courses from an approved list. That list now includes Philosophy (for years 11 and 12) but this is only since 2008 and has been the result of much campaigning by a group of dedicated philosophers and teachers.
• Each state in our federal system decides its own curriculum.
• Philosophy has generally been regarded as a difficult subject only suitable for very intelligent people, with a special sort of intelligence, so most people have avoided it.
• To teach in secondary school, teachers need to have specialised in a subject (or two) at university. So, English Literature teachers need a “major” in Literature; Geography teachers need a major in Geography; and so on for Physics, Chemistry, Biology etc. Because there has been no course in Philosophy at schools, prospective teachers have not seen any advantage in taking a major or minor in Philosophy as to do so would limit the range of subjects that they could be employed to teach. We hope that with the new course in Philosophy and Ethics, more prospective teachers will choose Philosophy at university.
Q: Do the European countries and others use your method? (It seems your method is different from Lipmann’s- at least because of your books.)
Not yet! We had in mind that our books could be taught in a number of different countries and wrote them in a way that they could be readily adapted. We are exploring publication outside Australia.
Q: How can we use your method and books in Iran?
S: There is no reason I can think of why Iranian teachers (who read and understand English) should not use our books.
The method is reasonably well explained in the books themselves (we think), but I am not opposed to visiting Iran to help teachers.
If someone wished to translate the books into Farsi I am sure we could work out how to proceed.
Q: Also you mentioned that the principal movers in favor of philosophy come from outside the central education System. In your view why did Central education go this way? What is the ground of the resistance?
There is generally a resistance to 'the new' in education. Teachers are very busy people who resist change unless there is very clear evidence of benefit. There is only in recent years a growing body of formal evidence that philosophy can be taught to children and that there are substantial benefits to their general learning and their behavior. There is also a strong group of educators who see "content" as the most important element and for whom measuring the uptake of that content is the only valid criterion for educational success. Philosophy offers benefits that are more difficult to quantify and philosophy as a discipline is (in general) poorly understood.
[see also the answer above]
Q : Can you explain more please? Why the current plan in schools is not fitness for our life?
Fitness for life is an increasingly stronger part of our education system, but there is not uniform agreement on what this means. We (the philosopher teachers) have been pushing very strongly the idea that philosophy makes all children better citizens and better able to cope with rapidly changing social and technological environments. This argument is slowly being taken up.
There is still a lot of competition for a place in the curriculum. In a democracy such as Australia’s there are many voices clamouring (sometimes shouting) for attention and sometimes what is most popular is included to the exclusion of what some consider is best. There are strong voices calling for more didactic teaching, for going back to the ‘old way of teaching’ and for teaching only that which can be measured. The voices calling for change in education are strong, and being heard at all can be difficult, especially if those making the policy decisions do not fully understand the benefits of cultivating inquiry and creativity in children.
Q: You have emphasized the critical thinking in your books? What is the importance of critical thinking in new (modern and post modern) societies?
We believe that critical thinking is one of the pillars of clear thinking. Seeing the logic of an argument (or its illogic) is necessary to understand it. Knowing how to structure (and critique) an argument is a seriously useful skill for all people. It allows us to identify false claims. It gives us some measure of control over the effects of advertising and propaganda. Clear critical thinking together - i.e. in groups - is a necessary part of a society that values freedom of thought.
Q: We learned from your UNESCO note that you emphasize on teaching philosophy on primary schools. Why? What is the point?
The note made the point that philosophy had been accepted into primary schools, not that we made a conscious decision to focus on primary to the exclusion of secondary schools. Teaching philosophy in primary schools became one of the levers to have it introduced into secondary school. This has been part of a long-term plan by a number of us.
Primary schools have a much more flexible curriculum structure and teachers are able to modify their syllabi to include philosophy. A philosophy class in primary school, for example, might allow the class to meet outcomes in science, mathematics, literacy or social and environmental understanding.
As students move through to high school the flexibility decreases. In the final years students specialise into 5 or 6 discrete subjects (e.g. Chemistry, Calculus, Biology, Literature, History etc - there are 50 subjects to choose from).
Getting Philosophy included as one of the 50 subjects to choose from in Western Australia took a lot of effort and we consider it a major victory. Other states have their own stories.
We will hear soon whether we (a small group distributed across the country) have been successful in having philosophy included in the proposed new national curriculum. (At present each state in our federal system creates its own curriculum. the new national curriculum will bring a greater measure of uniformity across the states).
Q: Who is the administrator of teaching philosophy in primary schools? When did it start there? Can we know about its syllabus?
There is no administrator for teaching philosophy in primary schools. The curriculum for all schools in our state (Western Australia) is decided by the Western Australian Curriculum Council. Philosophy is only a formal part of the Year 11 and 12 curriculum: we are still trying to have it become a core component of all schooling.
Primary schools have more flexibility to include or exclude strategies or approaches or specific syllabi. Those schools that have included philosophy have done so because the school principal, or a committed teacher, has promoted it as an idea.
Q: Question: Did you write any books for primary schools or lower levels too?
I have not written books for primary school, but I have teaching materials for all levels of primary school.
All Rights Reserved