|
|
Philosophy for
Children Where Are We Now?
An Interview with
Maughn Gregory
(2010)
By: Saeed Naji
Maughn Gregory, Ph.D., J.D. is Associate Professor of Educational
Foundations at Montclair State University, where he also directs the
Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children. He
publishes and teaches in the areas of Pragmatism, Political
Philosophy, Philosophy for Children, Philosophy of Education, Gender
and Education, and Critical Thinking. Dr. Gregory regularly
conducts workshops on these topics throughout the US and around the
world.
_________________________________________
Saeed:
We know after several decades P4C has been
introduced in most parts of the world. As you are informed of the
major activities in P4C, please tell us how you describe its
development.
2009 marked the fortieth anniversary of Matthew
Lipman’s first philosophical novel for children, Harry
Stottlemeier’s Discovery (1985).
The
fascinating story of how Lipman conceived the idea of bringing
philosophy and children into mutual encounter, how he gave up a
professorship at Columbia University to cross the Hudson River and
pursue this idea at Montclair State College (now University), and
how he established the Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy
for Children (IAPC;
www.montclair.edu/iapc)
there with Ann Margaret Sharp,
is recounted in his autobiography, A Life Teaching Thinking (2008).
Today the IAPC has Affiliate Centers and/or Fellows in nearly 50
countries, Harry and the other philosophical children’s novels
Lipman authored have been translated into scores of languages and
dialects and Philosophy for Children, or “P4C” has become a
world-wide movement encompassing diverse approaches, some of which
did not originate from the IAPC.
I would characterize this
movement as a network of philosophers, scholars in education,
graduate students, school teachers and administrators, education
policy makers, publishers, parents and children working to establish
and improve the practice of children’s philosophical inquiry.
These constituents engage in many kinds
of collaboration, including newsletters, workshops, conferences,
grant writing and shared research.
By many measures, this movement has
been extraordinarily successful.
The International Council of
Philosophical Inquiry with Children (ICPIC; www.icpic.org),
inaugurated in Elsinore, Denmark in 1985 has grown from having
organizations in just over 20 countries to over 60 countries today.
The body of empirical research into the
nature and the benefits of children’s philosophical work has become
increasingly wide-ranging, rigorous and methodologically diverse (Reznitskaya
2005; Gregory 2007).
Scholarship in P4C is regularly
published in top-ranked journals and by university presses in
philosophy, education and other academic disciplines.
Curriculum materials (pre-school
through college) for children, teachers and parents have
proliferated, in scores of languages.
University courses and graduate degree
programs in P4C are run in many places around the world.
Local, regional and international
conferences are held annually and bi-annually all over the world.
National and regional-international
federations of P4C organizations have standardized multiple levels
of professional development in P4C.
And over the years, P4C has received
more, and more substantial recognition and financial support from
national and international philosophical and educational
professional associations, from governmental authorities and from
non-governmental agencies.
Of course, children and adults have always pursued philosophical
questions together, and the practice of philosophical dialogue
between adults and youth is at least as old as Socrates.
But it is only since the 1970s that philosophy programs have
been established in pre-secondary schools and other settings for
children and young adults around the world, by the IAPC, its
affiliate centers and other colleagues committed to this work.
Many who work in this field aspire to make philosophy a
standard school subject for all age groups (see Splitter and Sharp
1995; Cam 2006).
Saeed:
What have been the major obstacles to the
work and to the dissemination of P4C?
In spite of the institutional and professional
success of P4C and the growing empirical evidence of its benefits,
the idea of children conducting their own philosophical inquiries
still strikes many as odd and in need of special justification.
I know of only a small number of schools in which P4C is conducted
in all classrooms, at every grade level; and of local or state
school systems in which philosophy is a standard subject in
pre-secondary schools. One of the most common questions I’m
asked about Philosophy for Children is, Why isn’t it more prevalent
in schools? As I see it there are three broad answers:
cultural, professional and educational. First, philosophy is
not a significant aspect of cultural heritage in every part of the
world. This is true in the U.S., in spite of there being
notable philosophers in every era of US history, owing to factors
such as the practical / economic mindset of US settlers and
immigrants, the religious orientation of early US universities, and
the populist, at times anti-intellectual bent of some US political
leaders.1 Second, professional philosophers in the US and
elsewhere have kept and talked mostly to themselves, avoiding the
role of public intellectual and considering philosophical discourse
beyond the ken of non-philosophers – especially children. Third,
education in many parts of the world tends to focus more on
preparation for employment and values reinforcement than on
capacities for reflection and wellbeing, and, at least in the US,
has lately become narrowly focused on short- and long-term test
preparation.
However, recent developments in each of these
areas, in the US and elsewhere, signify a growing appreciation of
Philosophy for Children and of precollege philosophy more generally.
Culturally, there has been a growing
interest outside the academy in programs of practical and applied
philosophy including philosophical counseling (See Ellis 1999;
Marinoff 1999; Raabe 2001; Cohen 2003), the philosophy café (See
Phillips 2001; 2007),2
Socratic dialogue retreats,
philosophy in schools, and numerous trade books (See De Botton 2000;
Baggini 2005; Eagleton 2007; Vernon 2008), radio programs3,
web logs 4,
and public symposia that engage
non-philosophers in philosophical reflection and inquiry.
Professional philosophy has been
increasingly responsive to this trend.
This year the American Philosophical
Association (APA) Board of Officers proposed a bylaws amendment
creating a new category of membership for “persons employed or
seeking employment as teachers in primary or secondary schools, who
teach or are preparing to teach philosophy in a primary or secondary
school.”5
The APA Committees on
Pre-College Instruction in Philosophy and on Teaching Philosophy
recently produced “The Philosophy Toolbox
(http://philosophy-toolbox.org), an online resource for precollege
philosophy featuring several IAPC resources.
Finally, though only a small number of US pre-college schools have
philosophy courses, clubs or other programs, in recent years
educational and psychological researchers in the US have been giving
P4C close attention and high praise.
A recent study funded by the US Department of Education
conducted between the Universities of Ohio and Pennsylvania on nine
programs for classroom dialogue evaluated P4C as a highly effective
method of engaging students in critical-analytic dialogue (Soter,
Wilkinson et al. 2008). Yale
psychology professor and former American Psychological Association
president Robert J. Sternberg has cited Lipman’s Philosophy for
Children as one of three educational programs that “seem
particularly related to the goals of … teaching for wisdom”
(Sternberg 2003, 163).
Harvard psychologist and originator of multiple intelligence theory
Howard Gardner has identified seven approaches or “entry points” to
teaching school subjects that map onto multiple intelligences, one
being the “foundational (or existential) entry point [which]
examines the philosophical and terminological facets” of a subject
and provides the opportunity for students “to pose fundamental
questions of the ‘why’ sort associated with young children and
philosophers ….” Not
surprisingly, Gardner recommends Philosophy for Children for this
approach (Gardner 2006).
Saeed:
How do you evaluate
the fact that we can find diverse and divergent approaches to P4C
throughout the world?
Today
there are numerous approaches to engaging children in philosophical
inquiry, some of which are not derived from the work of the IAPC.
The IAPC welcomes this diversity and encourages cooperation among
colleagues practicing different approaches.
However, this diversity
presents several challenges to the P4C movement, perhaps
the most important of which is the
difficulty of comparing the relative merits of different programs.
In fact, the diversity of
curriculum materials, pedagogical protocols, and grounding theories
the P4C movement has spawned signifies not merely different
approaches to, but different conceptions of what it means to teach
philosophy to children or to engage children in philosophical
practices.
There has been confusion and unfairness
in comparing and criticizing programs with widely different
objectives, such as
improving children’s thinking skills, social skills, and ethical
judgment.
Another challenge is a lack of collaboration or even communication
among philosophy education program developers, with the result that
new programs often do not build on the successes, or deliberately
avoid the mistakes of past programs. The philosophical and empirical
research on P4C now amounts to thousands of academic books,
articles, and doctoral dissertations, from scores of countries.
The problem is not merely that many programs touted as new or
unique are actually neither, but more importantly, that they are
uninformed by the past forty years of scholarship.
Today it is simply un-creditable for developers of
pre-college philosophy programs to claim ignorance of this field of
scholarship.6
Saeed:
Given such divergent
approaches to P4C, what will become, or should become, of Lipman and
Sharp’s
original version?
First we must clarify what distinguishes P4C, as
conceived by Lipman and Sharp, from other approaches to pre-college
philosophy, and then we must ask whether and how that approach is
worth continuing. There are three aspects of Lipman and
Sharp’s program that remain distinctive: its aims, its method and
its materials.
Aims
The
central aim of Lipman and Sharp’s program is that children of all
ages learn to make good “ethical, social, political, and aesthetic
judgments … applied directly to life situations” (2003, 279).
Philosophy for Children builds on John Dewey’s insight that
“ethical,” “aesthetic,” “political,” and many other philosophical
categories describe meaningful dimensions of ordinary human
experience. (See Dewey
1934, 17.) Young
children’s experience is already replete with philosophical meaning.
They have strong, even visceral intuitions of what is
beautiful and ugly, fair and unfair, right and wrong.
They enjoy playing with language and are intrigued by logical
puzzles. They are given
to metaphysical speculation and frequently engage in epistemology:
asking how we know what we think we know.
Indeed, many professional philosophers date their interest in
philosophy to their early childhoods.
And as children approach adolescence, they begin to confront
existential questions such as What does it all mean? Is life ever
fair? and What do I think my life is for?
P4C aims to make children (and those of us who work with
them) more sensitive to these dimensions and more intelligent in our
responses to them.
In order
to achieve this central aim, P4C has developed two sets of auxiliary
aims: preparing children in the procedures of philosophical inquiry,
and making them sensitive to philosophical content.
Of course, the content of P4C is not the canonical
philosophical problems, concepts, arguments, and key figures that
are the stuff of high school and college philosophy courses.
Instead, P4C draws students’ attention to philosophical
concepts like fairness, person, mind, beauty, cause, time, number,
truth, citizen, good and right – concepts that are foundational to
the arts and sciences and are already implicated in children’s
experience. Splitter and
Sharp (1995, 130) characterize such concepts as central to human
experience (rather than trivial), common to most people’s experience
(rather than esoteric), yet contestable, or essentially problematic.
An important objective of Lipman and Sharp’s program is
therefore to help children become conversant with philosophical
concepts, and to discern them wherever they arise – sometimes
referred to as developing “a philosophical ear.”
The
procedure that P4C teaches is collaborative inquiry that
incorporates excellent thinking.
The study and promotion of excellent thinking has been the
cornerstone of Lipman’s work, as exemplified in both editions of his
most important book, Thinking in Education (Lipman 1991; Lipman
2003), and as indicated by the subtitle of his recent autobiography
– A Life Teaching Thinking (2008).
The advent of Philosophy for Children coincided with the
critical thinking movement in education, but Lipman uses the phrase
“multidimensional thinking” to refer to his famous tripartite of
critical, creative and caring thinking (see Lipman 2003, chs. 11-13)
– all of which children practice extensively in P4C.
P4C incorporates multidimensional thinking into a broader
method of dialogical inquiry patterned on the pragmatist notion of
the community of inquiry (Kennedy 2004; Fisher 2008; Gregory 2008).
Dialogue is one of the most ancient, the most effective and
the most widespread methods of philosophical inquiry.
In P4C dialogue is conducted as a conversation centered on a
particular question or problem, in which the participants share
diverse views about it, clarify each other’s thinking, offer
multiple possible answers, and test those answers by coming up with
reasons for and against them.
The goal of dialogue is not complete consensus, but that each
participant be able to decide what s/he thinks is most reasonable,
whether that judgment puts her in league with a majority of her
peers, with a minority, or by her/himself.
Dialogue
also provides an opportunity for children to practice important
communicative and social skills, such as attentive listening,
mindful speech, helping another person express his idea, building on
the ideas of others, offering and accepting criticism respectfully,
sharing important but unpopular opinions, and self-correcting.
Many philosophers and educators have noted the pedagogical
benefits of dialogue, which brings its own ethical and rational
discipline. On the one
hand, a successful dialogue has energy and a sense of adventure –
something even young children avidly enjoy; on the other hand, a
successful dialogue requires rigorous thinking, wide-ranging
participation and the coordination of the participants’ various
communicative strengths and points of view.
This, of course, has implications not only for philosophical
inquiry but for democratic community and citizenship – as
philosophers and educators have also noted.
For these reasons, helping children learn to participate in
disciplined dialogue is another important objective of Lipman and
Sharp’s program.
In my estimation, these aims of P4C – helping children to become
familiar with philosophical concepts and issues relevant to their
experience, to become fluid in habits of careful thinking, and to
become accustomed to collaborative dialogue – continue to be
exemplary among precollege philosophy programs.
Method
The method developed by Lipman and Sharp for
engaging children in philosophical inquiry consists of five stages:
1. The offering of the text [Students read or
enact a philosophical story together.]
2. The construction of the agenda [Students raise
questions for discussion and organize them into an agenda.]
3. Solidifying the community [Students dialogue
about the questions as a community of inquiry facilitated by an
adult with philosophical training. Discussion continues over
subsequent philosophy sessions until the agenda for the reading is
finished, or until the students agree to move on to next reading.]
4.Using exercises and discussion plans [The
philosophical facilitator introduces relevant activities to deepen
and expand the students’ inquiry.]
5.
Encouraging further responses [These include, e.g. self-assessment
of philosophy practice, and the expression and further exploration
of philosophical judgments in art projects, creative writing,
dramatic role play, etc.] (Lipman 2003, 101-03)
Though often embellished and varied in practice, this method has
endured mostly in-tact since the in the early 1970s – a kind of
natural selection that demonstrates its fitness for doing
philosophy. One innovation
that has been discussed in the past several years, and that I have
recommended (2007), is helping children learn how to experiment
with, and apply the philosophical judgments they reach, in their
personal lives and in the communities they belong to, especially the
classrooms in which they practice philosophy.
The extent to which acting on our judgments is part of the
practice of philosophy, and the extent to which children should be
allowed or encouraged to do so remains controversial.
Another innovation I would recommend, perhaps in stage 4, is
the opportunity for individual, private philosophical reflection,
e.g. in contemplation, journaling or essay writing.
Materials
The philosophy curriculum materials written by
Lipman and Sharp include novels for students and manuals for
teachers, for use in grades P-12. The novels model children having
their own philosophical dialogues, with and without adults, and are
designed to make philosophical concepts and issues easy to identify.
The manuals contain conceptual explanations for teachers as well as
thinking exercises, discussion plans and other activities that can
be used to supplement the students' inquiry. The Lipman / Sharp
curriculum was the first systematic pre-college philosophy
curriculum to ever be attempted, and they have been translated and
culturally adapted all over the world.
Today there are many kinds of materials being published for
pre-college philosophy programs;
however, it seems that many of these have been developed by
simply taking standardized scholastic workbooks and adding
philosophical content, rather than by considering what unique
objectives a philosophy for children program ought to have, what
methods of instruction would be most conducive to those objectives,
and what materials would support such methods, as Lipman and Sharp
spent several years doing (Lipman 2008).
Although the Lipman / Sharp curriculum is continually in need
of being up-dated, several of its features are uniquely beneficial
for teachers and students new to philosophy.
It makes philosophical themes easy to recognize.
It portrays children engaged in complex philosophical
dialogue. It includes
reasoning exercises and conceptual exploration activities.
It attempts to “reconstruct” important historical
philosophical positions and arguments at the level of young
children’s discourse so that children can be acquainted with these,
both as resources for their own inquiries, and as a means of
learning about their cultural heritage.
Saeed: Since philosophical short
stories are being authored in many countries, can these be useful
too, in your view?
Most definitely yes. In fact,
at the IAPC Advanced Summer Seminar in Philosophy for Children held
each May, we study the art of writing philosophical stories, and
each participant writes a story, with some accompanying
philosophical exercises. Most
participants find that this is not as easy as it may seem.
If a philosophical story is meant to be used pedagogically,
to prompt children into their own, original philosophical inquiries,
it is important that the story not only present one or more
philosophical themes, but present them as contestable – as something
that provokes questioning and doubt.
The story should also represent a variety of perspectives on
the theme, or at least indicate that a variety exists.
It should also model dialogue, however brief, that is both
thoughtful and open-ended, i.e. that does not steer the reader
toward a particular perspective.
Finally, it should incorporate important ideas from the
history of philosophy relevant to the theme.
The philosophical exercises that accompany the story should
help the children explore the contestable concepts found in the
story, and practice relevant reasoning skills (see Lipman 1996).
Teachers and students with greater sensitivity to
philosophical themes, and with some skill at reasoning and dialogue
may use all manner of materials to stimulate a philosophical
inquiry, e.g. film clips, stories the children bring to the
classroom, current events, and children’s literature.
However, such materials should be selected carefully, for the
same criteria.
Saeed:
In your opinion, how can the
traditional, non-reflective educational paradigm current in most
schools be changed to the reflective paradigm presented by Lipman
and others?
Most of
the teachers and school administrators I have worked with have been
dedicated, idealistic, innovative, curious, and tireless.
However, I agree with your assessment of the current
paradigm. I believe the
non-reflective educational paradigm is a result of two, broad
cultural phenomena that have to be confronted if that paradigm is
going to change. The
first is that education in many parts of the world has tended to
focus almost exclusively on student’s economic viability, i.e. job
readiness. As
educational theorist Mike Rose recently remarked, “To be sure, a
major goal of education is to prepare the young to make a living.
But parents send their kids to school for many other reasons
as well: intellectual, social, civic, ethical, aesthetic.
Historically, these justifications for schooling have held
more importance. Not
today.” (2009, 4.) Underlying this dismal status quo is a largely
unarticulated view that the primary purpose of education is to
prepare students to be successful at pursuing relatively unexamined
desires in a free-market economy.
As educational psychologist Robert J. Sternberg has observed,
this view is sometimes promoted deliberately by educational
stakeholders:
Education
is seen more as an access route … not so much toward the enhancement
of … learning and thinking as toward obtaining through education the
best possible credentials for individual socioeconomic advancement.
Education is seen not so much as a means of helping society
but of helping one obtain the best that society has to offer
socially, economically, and culturally. (1999, 62.)
The
antidote to this phenomenon is to expand the purposes of education
to include students’ intellectual, aesthetic, civic and moral
development and self-awareness.
I believe there are many resources for this effort in
philosophy, particularly in some of the ancient, Eastern and Western
schools, which were focused on wisdom as the study and practice of a
worthwhile life. This
has been a focus of my work for the past few years (Gregory 2009;
Gregory 2009; Gregory and Laverty 2009).
The second
cultural phenomenon is a narrow understanding of human intelligence,
caused both by the economic motive just described, and by the
mechanisms developed in the last century for measuring human
intelligence and scholastic performance.
As Rose observes, in the U.S., “We’ve reduced our definition
of human development and achievement—that miraculous growth of
intelligence, sensibility, and the discovery of the world—to a test
score.” (Rose 2009. x)
Teaching as test preparation is largely incompatible with
teaching for thinking and inquiry, because most of what is tested is
recall and comprehension of large amounts of information.
This reflects a cultural misunderstanding that human
intelligence is mostly a capacity for acquiring and storing
information. The
antidote to this phenomenon is to somehow effect a cultural change
of mind, to see knowledge in all fields as the product of inquiry,
and to see education as initiation into a number of fields of
inquiry. That initiation
must, of course, make students conversant with each discipline’s
fund of knowledge, but also with its particular methods of inquiry.
This is how most educators think of science education today:
that learning to do science is as important as learning scientific
facts. The same should
be true for education in mathematics, history, literature and the
arts. Of course,
teaching inquiry across the disciplines means covering less
information in a given school year, but I believe it’s more
important—for children and adults—that we hold our knowledge
critically, evidentially and tentatively, than that we hold more of
it superficially.
Saeed:
Does P4C rely on particular theories
of children’s psychological and moral development, and does it
challenge stage theories such as those of Jean Piaget and Lawrence
Kohlberg, which have been so influential in educational psychology?
P4C does
not directly rely on particular theories of educational psychology,
though a number of educational psychologists have studied the
program. The work of
Piaget and Kohlberg have been used to criticize some aspects of P4C
– especially that it expects too much of children too soon – but the
same work has been used to support P4C (Gazzard 1983).
Many of the tenets of stage theories of childhood development
have been challenged by social learning theory of, e.g. Mead,
Vygotsky and Bruner, who were also influential for Lipman (Lipman
1991; Lipman 1996), by empirical research into children’s cognitive
capacities (especially as “scaffolded” by more advanced peers), and
by the emerging science of neuro-plasticity.
Though philosophers and educators disagree about
psychological theories of children’s development, it is undeniable
that children’s cognitive and social capacities are in a process of
development and habit formation, and that children in any given
elementary school classroom are likely to display a wide range of
cognitive and social development, and of academic and cultural
literacy. This is particularly true of children in preschool,
kindergarten and first-grade.
The
question is often asked, “At what age are children capable of doing
philosophy?” While no
definitive answer to this question has emerged, a number of
innovative pre-school and kindergarten programs have demonstrated
that even very young children are capable of meeting the three
fundamental aims at some level: working with philosophical concepts,
practicing careful thinking, and cooperating with others in
dialogue. With proper
support, e.g. preschool children are able to take turns giving each
other reasons they find different insects ugly, scary or beautiful –
and to alter their judgments as a result of the conversation.
Of course, the objectives and contours of any program of
elementary school philosophy should reflect the children’s age and
socio-cultural context.
Some youngsters may need several months of practice in order to
understand the difference between a question, an answer and a
reason, or to be comfortable taking turns talking in a group.
Most
importantly, the work of Lipman, Sharp and hundreds of colleagues
around the world over the past forty years has established the
fundamental premise of Philosophy for Children: that children and
adults without philosophical training are capable of discerning
ethical, aesthetic, political and other philosophical dimensions of
their own experience, of recognizing problematic aspects of that
experience, and through a process of rigorous and conscientious
dialogue, of inquiring toward judgment and action capable of
resolving what was problematic.
That is the experience we aim for when we sit on the rug with
a group of children to do philosophy for an hour or so.
------------------------
ENDNOTES
1-As
Martha Nussbaum recently observed, “There’s just something about our
[U.S.] public culture that’s not that friendly to philosophy. I
think religion is thought to be where you go with your big
questions.” Deborah Solomon: “Gross National Politics: Questions for
Martha Nussbaum,” New York Times Magazine, December 10, 2009, p.
MM22.
2-See
also the Society for Philosophical Inquiry at
www.philosopher.org/en/Socrates_Cafe.html, accessed 11/20/09.
3 -See,
e.g. Jack Russell Weinstein’s philosophical radio program “Why?”
from the University of North Dakota, airing on Prairie Public Radio:
www.whyradioshow.org, accessed 11/20/09.
4-
See, e.g.
www.maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher and
www.markvernon.com/friendshiponline/dotclear,
both accessed 02/15/09.
5- See
www.apaonline.org/governance/constitution/bylaws.aspx,
at 4.7, accessed 11/20/09.
6-Some of this section was
published previously in
Gregory, M.: “Wisdom and Other Aims for
Pre-College Philosophy Education,” Farhang Journal (Iranian
Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies), Vol. 22, No. 69
(Spring 2009).
=================
REFERENCES
Baggini,
J. (2005). What's it all about?: philosophy and the meaning of life,
Oxford University Press.
Cam, P. (2006). "Philosophy and the School
Curriculum: Some General Remarks." Critical and Creative Thinking:
The Australasian Journal of Philosophy in Education
14(1):
35-51.
Cohen, E. D. (2003). What would Aristotle do?:
self-control through the power of reason, Prometheus Books.
De Botton, A. (2000). The consolations of
philosophy Pantheon Books.
Dewey, J. (1934). Art as Experience
Carbondale, IL, University of Illinois Press.
Eagleton, T. (2007). The Meaning of Life. New
York, Oxford University Press.
Ellis, A. a. H., R. A. (1999). A new guide to
rational living (Prentice-Hall 1975); Marinoff, L. Plato, not
Prozac!: applying philosophy to everyday problems, HarperCollins.
Fisher, R. (2008).
Philosophical Intelligence: Why Philosophical Dialogue is Important
in Educating the Mind. Philosophy in Schools. M. Hand. New York,
Continuum International:
96-104.
Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple Intelligences:
New Horizons. New York, Basic Books.
Gazzard, A. (1983). "Philosophy for Children
and the Piagetian Framework." Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy
for Children
5(1):
10-13.
Gregory, M. (2007). "A Framework for
Facilitating Classroom Dialogue." Teaching Philosophy
30(1):
59-84.
Gregory, M. (2007). "Thirty Years of
Philosophical and Empirical Research in Philosophy for Children: An
Overview." Diotime: Revue Internationale de Didactique de la
Philosophie
34.
Gregory, M., Ed. (2008). Philosophy for
Children Practitioner Handbook. Montclair, NJ, Institute for the
Advancement of Philosophy for Children.
Gregory, M. (2009). "Ethics Education and the
Practice of Wisdom." Teaching Ethics
9(2):
105-30.
Gregory, M. (2009). "Wisdom and Other Aims for
Pre-College Philosophy Education." Farhang Journal
22(69).
Gregory, M. R. and M. J.
Laverty (2009). Philosophy and Education for Wisdom. Teaching
Philosophy. A. Kenkman. New York, Continuum International: 155-73.
Kennedy, D. (2004). "Communal Philosophical
Dialogue and the Intersubject." International Journal for
Philosophical Practice
18(2):
203-18.
Lipman, M. (1985). Harry Stottlemeier’s
Discovery. Upper Montclair, Institute for the Advancement of
Philosophy for Children.
Lipman, M. (1991). "Rediscovering the Vygotsky
Trail." Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines
7(2):
14-16.
Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in Education.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Lipman, M. (1996). Natasha: Vygotskian
Dialogues New York, Teachers College Press.
Lipman, M. (1996). "Philosophical Discussion
Plans and Exercises." Analytic Teaching
16(2):
3-14.
Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in Education.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Lipman, M. (2008). A Life Teaching Thinking.
Upper Montclair, Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for
Children.
Marinoff, L. (1999). Plato, not Prozac!:
applying philosophy to everyday problems, HarperCollins
Phillips, C. (2001). Socrates Café: A Fresh
Taste of Philosophy, W.W. Norton & Co.
Phillips, C. (2007). Socrates in love:
philosophy for a die-hard romantic, W.W. Norton & Co.
Raabe, P. B. (2001). Philosophical counseling:
theory and practice, Praeger
Reznitskaya, A. (2005). "Empirical Research in
Philosophy for Children: Limitations and New Directions." Thinking:
The Journal of Philosophy for Children
17(4):
4-13.
Rose, M. (2009). Why School? New York, The New
Press.
Soter, A. O., I. A. Wilkinson, et al. (2008).
"What the discourse tells us: Talk and indicators of high-level
comprehension." International Journal of Educational Research
47:
372-91.
Splitter, L. and A. M. Sharp (1995). Teaching
for Better Thinking: The Classroom Community of Inquiry. Melbourne,
Australian Council for Educational Research.
Sternberg, R. J. (1999).
Schools should nurture wisdom. Teaching for intelligence. B. Z.
Presseisen. Arlington Heights, IL, Skylight Training and Publishing:
55-82.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, Intelligence,
and Creativity Synthesized. New York, Cambridge University Press.
Vernon, M. (2008). Wellbeing, Acumen.
|
|
