Journal of Academic Perspectives

A Philosopher's Pedagogy: A Three-Part Model for School Betterment
Amber Strong Makaiau, Director of Curriculum and Research, University of Hawai‘i Uehiro
Academy for Philosophy and Ethics in Education, University of Hawai‘i Manoa
Benjamin Lukey, Associate Director, University of Hawai‘i Uehiro Academy for Philosophy
and Ethics in Education, University of Hawai‘i, Manoa

Abstract
The pedagogical approaches used in teacher education implicitly shape teachers’“conceptual orientations towards teaching, learning, and learning to teach” (Grossman
2005, 429). This study explores what happens when the “philosopher’s pedagogy” is used
to create a new professional development model in the K-12 setting. The participants are
the two authors, university faculty who conduct a self-study as they collaborate withstudents, teachers, and administrators in the Hawai‘i State public school system to design
and implement this new professional development model. Data includes transcripts of theparticipants planning meetings, electronic communication, workplace documents andpersonal memos. A constructivist approach to grounded theory methods is used to analyze
the data. The findings are described in two parts. First, the three analytic themes thatemerged from the analysis of the data illustrate how the philosopher’s pedagogy helped theauthors: ground the professional development model in their own experiences, find theirfocus, and view philosophy as the general theory of education reform. Second, eachcomponent of the three-part professional development model that emerged from thisstudy’s findings are explained. These three parts are: (1) an educative experience, (2)mentoring and coaching from a philosopher in residence, and (3) a meaningful
peer/professional community of inquiry. At the study’s conclusion, this three-partprofessional development model is offered as a viable alternative to traditional and usual
education reform efforts. In addition, the need for future longitudinal research to examine
the continued implementation and longstanding impact of the philosopher’s pedagogy threepart professional development model is suggested.
Introduction
John Dewey (1916) wrote extensively about philosophy as “the general theory of education”(328) and in this article we propose philosophy as the general theory of education reform.
In recent decades, education reform efforts in the United States have fallen short due towhat the authors of Becoming Good American Schools (Oakes et al. 2000) refer to as “thereform mill” (xiii). Characterized by prescriptive teaching practices, sequential training units,and quick fix approaches, “this reform mill short-circuits lofty reform goals through its
overly technical-rational approach” (xiii). In an effort to avoid these trappings, and torealize “Dewey’s conceptions of how humans think and learn, and the conditions Dewey
called educative that nurture thinking and learning” (Oakes et al. 2000, 69) we incorporated
philosophy into the design and implementation of a brand new professional development
model.1

1.
Thomas Jackson (2013) distinguishes between “Big P and little p” philosophy, and what we mean byphilosophy in this article is both the content and activity of little p philosophy.

1

Journal of Academic Perspectives
We are an experienced public school teacher-researcher and a philosopher-teacher ata large university in Hawai‘i. Over the past decade we have been experimenting with aunique approach to education called the “philosopher’s pedagogy” (Makaiau and Miller2012). Recently, we wondered how the philosopher’s pedagogy could be applied to theoverall “betterment” (Oakes et al. 2000, xiv) of the K-12 schools that we work in. We
collaborated with students, teachers, and administrators in the Hawai‘i State public school
system, and used the philosopher’s pedagogy to create a model for improving teaching,learning and the overall culture of schooling. To systematically study our efforts, growpersonally and professionally, and improve on the model we were developing we used a
self-study approach to research (Beck, Freese, and Kosnick 2004; Samaras and Freese,2006). In this article we describe how the philosopher’s pedagogy was found to be an
instrumental component of both the developmental process we went through to create themodel and the actual model we produced. We also explain the three-part professional
development model that emerged from the analysis of the data, and how this three-partmodel addresses the challenges faced by educators who work towards meaningful school
betterment.

The Philosopher’s Pedagogy in Context
The research in this study took place on the Hawaiian Island of Oahu. This uniquemulticultural setting is the home of philosophy for children (p4c) Hawai‘i. p4c Hawai‘i is aninnovative approach to education that integrates philosophy into the everyday practices of
K-12 classrooms with the aim of creating intellectually responsible communities of inquiry.
Philosophy, wrote Dewey (1916), is “a form of thinking, which like all thinking, finds its
origin in what is uncertain in the subject matter of experience, which aims to locate thenature of perplexity and to frame hypotheses for its clearing up to be tested in action”(331). It is this notion of philosophy that those of us who practice p4c Hawai‘i believe to be
central to teaching and learning, and is at the heart of what we call the “philosopher’spedagogy.”
The “philosopher’s pedagogy” is rooted in the Philosophy for Children movement
started by Matthew Lipman in the late 1960’s. Philosophy for Children, he wrote, “will cease
to treat children as passive blotters whose education consists merely of learning of inert
data and will instead stimulate their capacity to think” (Lipman 1988, 110). By 1984, his
Philosophy for Children program had gained international recognition as a growing
movement in education with several centers around the world and thousands of individual
practitioners in countries over.
In 1999, Thomas Jackson, professor of philosophy at the University of Hawai’i atMānoa, introduced us to Philosophy for Children. From the beginning Jackson’s (1984;2001) approach has been to begin with the teachers and to then find every way possible tosupport these teachers both in their classrooms and as faculty in a school setting. This
commitment has empowered many regular classroom teachers (i.e. non-academic
philosophers) to become experienced practitioners.
Furthermore, Jackson and hiscolleagues have encouraged those teachers to find new ways to make p4c Hawai‘i (as he
now referred to it) more culturally relevant.

2

Journal of Academic Perspectives
In her work as secondary classroom teacher, Amber Makaiau collaborated with Chad
Miller, and pioneered a new approach to p4c Hawai‘i called the philosopher’s pedagogy(Makaiau 2010; Makaiau and Miller 2012). Philosophy, as it is defined in the philosopher’spedagogy “encourages individuals to examine their lives and experiences in order to cometo a deeper understanding of the world and their place in it” (Makaiau & Miller 2012, 6).
Given such and understanding of philosophy, the philosopher’s pedagogy cannot be
understood as a method or curriculum to follow, but rather it is an approach to teachingthat is defined by six interconnected educational commitments: 2
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Live an examined life.
View education as a shared activity between teacher and student.
Re-conceptualize class “content” so that it reflects the interaction between classroom
participants’ beliefs and experiences, and the subject matter being taught.
Position philosophy as “the general theory of education” (Dewey, 1916).
Make philosophy a living classroom practice.
Challenge contemporary measures for classroom assessment.

The philosopher’s pedagogy differed from the work of Lipman and Jackson because it
focused on ways in which p4c Hawai‘i could be used to teach a variety of subject-based
content across grade levels.
Since its inception the philosopher’s pedagogy has resonated with teachers andappealed to administrators and other school officials in the state Department of Education.
This was the case at the two p4c Hawai‘i Model Schools, a K- 6 elementary school in urban
Honolulu and a 9 -12 secondary school located on the windward side of the same island.
The principals, teachers and staff at these two schools embraced p4c Hawai‘i and moved
forward efforts to make the philosopher’s pedagogy a means for overall school
improvement. Supported by funding, we took the lead in formalizing their efforts, andbegan to work on a professional development model.
Never having designed a professional development model before, we employed thephilosopher’s pedagogy as our general method of inquiry and problem solving. This beganwith self-reflection, and an examination of our own growth as p4c Hawai‘i educators, andthen developed into a formal project. We participated in regular meetings and exchanges,
and incorporated philosophical discussion, introspection and reflection throughout theprocess. In an effort to find ways in which our personal reflections, professional discussions,and our collaborative efforts with students, teachers, and administrators could all be used todesign and implement the best professional development model possible we conducted aself-study.

Theoretical Framework2. See “The Philosopher Pedagogy” by Makaiau and Miller (2012) for a more detailed description of thiseducational approach.

3

Journal of Academic Perspectives
The cultivation of effective teachers is critical to the future success of schooling. Teachers
are “the most, significant factors in children’s learning and the linchpins in educational
reforms of all kinds” (Cochran-Smith and Zeichner 2005, 1). However, what constitutes
effective teacher education and, in the case of this paper, teacher professional development
is widely debated, especially in regards to how teachers “should be recruited, prepared, andretained in teaching” (Cochran-Smith and Zeichner 2005, 1). At the heart of this debate arequestions about pedagogy. How should teachers be taught? What should teachers betaught? What does good professional development look like? What approaches should
professional development leaders use with teachers? And what kinds of pedagogicalsupports can be put in place to ensure teachers’ ongoing professional development?
“In teacher education,” and professional development, “attention to pedagogy is
critical; how one teaches is part in parcel of what one teaches” (Grossman 2005, 425).
Pedagogy has the power to shape teachers’ “conceptual orientations towards teaching,learning, and learning to teach” (429). Pedagogy also influences the degree to whichteachers, “as their careers unfold…will expect to find ways to deepen their expertise in bothpractice and research as part of their professional development work” (Mehta, Gomez, andBryk 2012, 56). This makes the process of crafting the “best” pedagogical approach for theongoing professional development of teachers a difficult, but extremely important task.
As we entered the process of designing a new framework for educational betterment
in the schools that we worked in, we were immediately confronted by questions like these,
and the overall complexity of the mission. We knew that the philosopher’s pedagogy had
proved successful in our individual classrooms, but we wondered how could it be extended
as pedagogical model for teacher improvement and betterment for the school as a whole?
We also knew that wanted to “develop concrete solutions to the realities in education that[were] grounded in more than theoretical rhetoric” (Samaras 2002, 4). We wanted ourbetterment efforts to be lasting, but more importantly, we wanted the professional
development model that we created to be meaningful to ourselves, the teachers, students,
faculty, and the community at large. It is for these reasons that we turned to the methodsof self-study.
Self-study provides researchers with a framework for “systematic and criticalexamination of their actions and their context as a path to develop a more consciously
driven mode of professional activity” (Samaras and Freese 2006, 11) It is an approach toresearch that values personal and professional growth and development, and overall school
improvement. “The purposes are layered and multifaceted with overlapping objectives andwith the key purpose of refining, reframing, and renewing education” (14). In our process ofwanting to refine, reframe, and renew a model for professional development we knew that
adopting a self-study approach would help us ensure a habit of “reflective practice”(Loughran 1996) throughout the journey.
Our self-study took on the characteristics of a “personal-constructivist-collaborative
approach” (Beck, Freese, and Kosnick, 2004, 1262).
The self-study approach is personal because of its emphasis on the self, narrativeinquiry, and participant research. It is constructivist because it includes elements ofunending inquiry, challenging of prejudice and convention, respect for experience, and4

Journal of Academic Perspectives
personal construction of knowledge. And it is collaborative in that it stresses collaboration,community, social construction of knowledge, inclusiveness, and equity. (1266)
It was personal because we started with ourselves, and reflected on our own
teaching and learning experiences.3 It was constructivist because we were “constantly
inquiring,” about new ways to incorporate the philosopher’s pedagogy into our model andwe were “never content with present ideas, aware that knowledge is always partial and canalways be improved upon” (Beck, Freese, and Kosnick 2004, 1263). And finally, it wascollaborative; we developed communities of inquiry that encouraged philosophical dialogue(Lipman 1991; 1993; Jackson 2013; 2001), and partnered with multiple stakeholders sothat “the views of individuals” were “constantly brought into dialogue with the views ofothers” (Beck, Freese, and Kosnick 2004, 1265).

Aims/Objectives
The purpose of this research was to study ourselves (Beck, Freese, and Kosnick, 2004) as
we went through the process of developing a new approach to teacher professional
development. We wanted to explore what would happen if the philosopher’s pedagogy wasused as the foundation of both our planning process and the professional development
model we were working to develop. To focus our inquiry we asked the following questions:
How has the philosopher’s pedagogy been instrumental in developing a new approach toteacher professional development in the K – 12 setting? In what ways did the philosopher’spedagogy provide us with a framework for thinking through the model? How did thephilosopher’s pedagogy impact ourselves as we went through the process? What was theimpact of the philosopher’s pedagogy on the teachers, students, and administrators at ourmodel schools? And did the philosopher’s pedagogy change the culture of the schools we
worked with? Ultimately, we wanted to develop a professional development model that was
personally and professionally meaningful to ourselves and the people we worked with.
Methods
In this study we used a qualitative (Patton 2003; Creswell 2007) and constructivist
approach to grounded theory methods (Bryant and Charmaz 2007; Charmaz 2005; 2006).
Grounded theory helps researchers “remain close to their studied worlds” in the hope thatthey will develop an “integrated set of theoretical concepts from their empirical materials
that not only synthesize and interpret them but also show processual relationships”(Charmaz 2005, 508). This was important to us because we wanted to understand the roleof the philosopher’s pedagogy in the development of our new approach to teacher
professional development, and we wanted to use grounded theory methods to help us
generate a clearly articulated theoretical model for teacher professional development in theK – 12 setting.

3. There are connections to be made here between education and hermeneutics. Education and reflection
on education cannot be limited to discussion of methods but must address fundamental truths of education as it
pertains to human existence (see Kisiel 1993).

5

Journal of Academic Perspectives
Participants
The participants in this study were the two authors. We have known each other for over ten
years because of our involvement with p4c Hawai‘i. Amber Makaiau uses p4c Hawai‘i, andthe philosopher’s pedagogy to teach secondary social studies in the Hawai‘i State
Department of Education. Ben Lukey is a philosopher at large university in Honolulu. He is
also the first ever Philosopher in Residence in the Hawai‘i State Department of Education.
Over the years, both authors have developed a professional relationship built on
collaboration, inquiry, philosophy, and reflection.
Data and Procedures for Collecting Data
Data for this study came from a variety of sources and were collected in three distinct
fashions. First, we gathered meeting minutes, professional notes, electronic communication(e.g. emails between staff members and monthly updates to funders), workplace
documents (e.g., logic models, five-year plan, philosopher in residence memos, model
school professional development agendas, and professional development syllabi) andpersonal memos. All of these documents were produced over a seven-year period (2007 –2013) and totaled ninety-five pages. The decision to go seven-years back was madebecause we noticed explicit references to teacher professional development in our workplace
documents starting in 2007. Second, we audio recorded and transcribed the discussions we
had during our teacher professional development planning meetings. This process began at
the end of the seven-year period around the time when the ideas about our three-partprofessional development started to emerge. At the beginning of each our planningmeetings we made sure to have a digital recorder at hand and began to record when we,and our colleagues, began to engage in professional inquiry about the teacher professional
development model that we were developing. In total, we had about an hour and half ofaudio recorded discussion. Third, we wrote personal reflections throughout the seven-year
period and included these as data as well.
Methods for Analyzing Data
Using the method of constant comparison (Glaser and Strauss 1967) we analyzed the datain three phases, looking for recurring themes. In phase one, we analyzed the data
separately. Away from each other, we reorganized the data and developed initial open
codes (Strauss and Corbin 1998; Charmaz 2006). In phase two, to decrease researcher
bias, we came together and served as critical friends (Miles and Huberman 1994). We
looked over each other's initial open codes. Then, we worked together to develop theoreticalcodes (Charmaz 2006, 60 – 67), analytic themes, and a theoretical model (Strauss andCorbin 1998; Charmaz 2006) for teacher professional development. In phase three, wewrote up our findings. In this final stage of the analytic process (Richardson 1994) wecollaborated further to revise our thinking and tighten up the themes, and model we had
developed.
Findings
The discussion of our findings includes two parts: (1) an overview of the themes thatemerged from our analysis of the data and (2) the grounded theory model for teacher
professional development that grew out of the themes. In part one, the three main themes
were: grounded in personal experience, finding our focus, and philosophy as the general

6

Journal of Academic Perspectives
theory of education (Dewey 1916) reform. In part two, the three-part model included: an
educative experience, coaching/mentoring from a philosopher in residence, a meaningful
peer/professional community of inquiry.
Part One: Analytic Themes
In Part One we describe how our collaborative analysis resulted in three main themes. First,
the data shows how the philosopher’s pedagogy helped us ground our teacher educationand professional development model in our own experiences. Second, we describe how thephilosopher’s pedagogy helped us find our focus. Third, we explain how philosophy emerged
as the general theory of education (Dewey, 1916) reform.
Grounded in Personal Experience
The first commitment of the philosopher’s pedagogy is to live an examined life (see Plato
1961, 38a).4 In our previous work in classrooms this included incorporating wonder,reflection, introspection, curiosity, and critical analysis of life’s meaning into the curriculum
we designed and into our relationships with students. The analysis of the data demonstrated
that we approached the process of designing a new teacher education and professional
development model in the same way.
When we looked back on our personal memos and other workplace documents wefound ourselves reflecting on our own development as teachers. Early on in our process
Makaiau thought about her experiences learning to teach.
Combining my experiences given to me from my parents, with the formal
education I received, I developed an approach to teaching social studies that
centered around being: interdisciplinary…discussion-based, constructivist,
learner-centered, inquiry-driven, creative, reflective, philosophically rich, andbased on real relationships between teachers and students. The methods ofPhilosophy for Children and p4c Hawai‘i were also instrumental in giving
structure to my inquiry. I moved from attempting to implement
Lipman’s…version of the practice to combining Jackson’s approach…withinnovations of my own. Throughout the process I [was] an avid journal writer,constantly reflecting on my practice and seeing myself as a teacherresearcher. I…wanted to improve my practice, and capitalized in finding joy in
my own learning process. I became a teacher who is just as much a scholar in
the classroom as I am outside of it. (personal reflection 2007)
Lukey’s personal memos demonstrated similar reflective qualities: “Early on in my teaching
it was all about the texts/reading that was assigned. I knew from my own experience thatwhat I really wanted to do was philosophical discussion but I didn’t have anything in place
to make that happen” (personal memo 2013). These reflections on our earlier experiences
provided clarity about what we had learned through our experiences with p4c Hawai‘i.
Through the process of self-examination, and reflection we identified many of the“big ideas” and core values that we wanted to use as a base for our teacher education andprofessional development model. We then began to incorporate the core values such as,
philosophy, cultivating meaningful experiences, inquiry, creating intellectually responsible4. According to Socrates, the examination of one’s beliefs and conceptions of the world gives life purpose.
Teachers who are committed to the philosopher’s pedagogy share this belief as a fundamental value. For suchteachers, living an examined life pervades the work they do in the classroom and in turn lends teaching andlearning a philosophical purpose (Makaiau and Miller 2012, 8).

7

Journal of Academic Perspectives
communities, promoting democracy, reflection, and living an examined life into our
workplace documents (p4c Hawai‘i logic model 2007; p4c Hawai‘i vision and mission 2009;and solicitation to funders 2012). The data shows that as we got closer to finalizing ourmodel, the core values, which first emerged as we examined our life as a part of ourpersonal reflections, were now a part of our everyday speech. In a 2013 discussion withteachers Lukey stated, “…we are interested in bringing [a] community of inquiry andphilosophy and reflection…[to] really change the school. We’re going to change education”(transcript of a planning meeting). The core values internalized through self-reflection arethemselves values that cultivate an examined life. What was remarkable in our findings
was that these same values were identified as significant for teacher professional
development.
Eventually, the personal experiences that emerged from our process of selfexamination, and the core values we developed from them helped us structure the model
we created. This is evident in Makaiau’s personal memos.
Based on all of the conversations that we have had in the past year, thefollowing were all important in my development as a teacher (1) I read a lot.
By the time I had gotten to the University…I had read a lot of education
literature/theory… [which] gave me a solid conceptual foundation about thetype of teacher that I wanted to be…they really grounded me in terms of what
I valued in education. (2) I observed practices being modeled/experienced
practices that matched my theoretical beliefs…when I took PHIL 492 I got to
see Dr. J model practices that matched my beliefs…and for the first time in
my education I was being exposed to actual classroom practices that created
the type of learning environment I wanted to foster. (3) I practiced andreflected with a mentor/coach. My time with my university professor reallyrefined all of the day-to-day things that I did as a teacher. (4) I develop peer
communities of inquiry. Over the years I have cultivated a number ofprofessional relationships that have helped me become a better teacher.
(2013)
Elements that Makaiau identified in her own practice—elements that arose from hercommitment to live an “examined life,” and inquire into and reflect upon the content“composed of the beliefs and conceptions of the world that shape our ‘little p’ philosophy’”(Makaiau & Miller 2012, 12)—were instrumental in forming the model we developed to help
teachers and schools. While the first commitment of the philosopher’s pedagogy helped us
define our approach to improving teachers and schools, we also found that the philosopher’spedagogy helped us find our focus as we worked towards the actual application of ourapproach.

Finding Our Focus
The analysis of the data shows how the philosopher’s pedagogy helped us find our focus, sothat we could move forward and apply our approach to the teachers and schools that we
worked with. In 2007, in addition to naming ourselves, we started to find our focus byclarifying for ourselves that we wanted our education reform efforts to include philosophy
and education. Clearly committed to the marriage of these two disciplines, we recognized
the need for an institutional relationship between the department of education and theuniversity. We wrote in our 2007 p4c logic model “collaboration among university, school,8

Journal of Academic Perspectives
and community promotes rigor and excellence in education, p4c is a mechanism for 21 st
century school redesign.” We were beginning to see, in-line with the fifth commitment of
the philosopher’s pedagogy that we needed to find ways to make philosophy a “living
classroom practice” (Makaiau & Miller 2012, 14).
Model schools. To make philosophy a living classroom practice, we decided, in the spirit of
the “Dewey School” (Mayhew and Edwards 1965), to focus on creating two model schools.
“Locally there are…two major implementation sites on Oahu that serve as Model Schools.
Waikiki Elementary School (ten year involvement) and Kailua High School (five year
involvement)…” (grant application 2011). The model schools were important because they
were the physical representation of the relationship we wanted between the University andthe Department of Education. As the data shows, they also helped us concentrate ourbetterment efforts. We were able to invest all of our resources, including time, personnel
and intellectual ideas in two locations.
The success of these efforts has led to the development of two p4c Hawai‘iModel Schools where p4c is integrated into the school’s mainstream
curriculum. At the model schools, students and teachers are supported by a
PIR [philosopher in residence]. In addition, other professionals and university
students who are interested in p4c Hawai‘i have access to research
opportunities and training. Due to the success of this model, P4c Hawai‘i now
has the exceptional opportunity, encouraged by teachers, students and school
administrators, to expand throughout an entire district complex. (grantapplication 2010).
Out of the model school initiative the idea of a PIR (philosopher in residence) was solidified.
In 2008, Lukey wrote about his involvement with the PIR initiative in a report to thedean at the university where he worked.
It was decided that we would pilot the role of “philosopher in residence” at
KHS, someone who could become part of the KHS community, provide
support and guidance to teachers looking to implement P4C in theirclassrooms, facilitate the transmission of P4C lesson plans and insights among
participating teachers, and gather information on P4C at KHS for the benefitof P4C Hawai‘i. In order to carry out these roles, I needed to be a regularparticipant at KHS so that I would know the students, teachers, and issues
that the teachers were struggling with. So far the two main foci of P4C at
KHS have been the Ethnic Studies classes required of all KHS students andthe English Department.
Throughout the analysis of the data, the decision to focus on the model schools andto further develop the idea of a philosopher in residence were reoccurring themes ofphilosophy as a living classroom practice. So much so that the philosopher in residence
became a cornerstone of the three-part model that we developed.
From the bottom up and from the inside out. The other finding to come out of the data
relating to how we found our focus is our decision to frame school reform, or betterment assomething that happens from the bottom up and the inside out. This focus is an outgrowthof the second commitment of the philosopher’s pedagogy: view education as a sharedactivity between teacher and student. In a report to the dean Lukey explained,

9

Journal of Academic Perspectives
the growth of P4C within a school, particularly high school, requires acommitment of a community within that school. The values of P4C cannot be
implemented in a “top-down” program that provides teachers initial training
and leaves them to figure it out on their own. It is through their participation
in a community of inquiry that teachers experience and understand the
profound impact of philosophy — the practice of thinking more deeply about
our beliefs….To be sustained and grow as P4C practitioners, teachers benefit
most from being part of some other P4C community, whether it be facultycolleagues or people at the university (2008).
As veteran school practitioners we recognized that our professional development
model would never succeed if it was characterized by top-down decision-making and seen
as a quick fix. Instead, we realized that we needed to respond to the needs of teachers,
students and administrators by supporting the school betterment that they wanted. We alsoneeded to assure them that our support would be ongoing, and not just some programmatic
fad. We did this by fostering professional communities of collaborative, shared inquiry.
The results of focusing on professional communities of inquiry were considerable: “Asa result, p4c Hawai‘i now has the administrative support to become a complex-wide
initiative that has the potential to affect over 1500 students and teachers, fromkindergarten through graduation, in the Windward community” (grant application 2011). We
witnessed the growing interest in our emerging professional development model.
Importantly, despite the pressure to rapidly scale up in “shallow ways” (Elmore 2004, 2) themodel we were creating, the evidence shows that we remained true to the philosopher’spedagogy. We committed to a professional development model where education is a“shared activity between teacher and student” (Makaiau & Miller 2012, 11). We slowed
down, and made the effort to foster meaningful relationships between the teachers,
students, school administrators and ourselves during the professional development process.
This is evident in an excerpt from a questionnaire that was developed for teachers during
one of our planning meetings. We asked teachers, “Are you interested in working with the
Academy? If you are interested, please explain your level of commitment and enthusiasm”(questionnaire to KHS faculty 2013). Once distributed and collected, more than half of thestaff committed with enthusiasm to bringing community, inquiry, philosophy, and reflection”
into their classes (p4c update to KHS teachers 2013).
As we continued to find our focus, the data shows that the type of teacher
professional development model that we were developing was unique. We were defining
school improvement as a work in progress—an ongoing partnership between the school anduniversity. We weren’t interested in giving teachers or administrators a prescriptive path tofollow. We also weren’t interested in delivering one-day in-services where we would leave
teachers to further develop in isolation. Instead we wanted to build long lasting
relationships, cultivate deep thinking about the issues that most mattered to the school, andsupport teachers and administrators as they worked to create their own personally
meaningful paths to school betterment.

Philosophy as the General Theory of Education Reform
The final theme to emerge from the qualitative analysis of the data, which builds off of theprevious themes, is the idea that philosophy was our general theory of education reform.

10

Journal of Academic Perspectives
Philosophy, as it is explained in the fourth commitment of the philosopher’s pedagogy is anactivity. It “encourages individuals to examine their lives and experiences in order to cometo a deeper understanding of the world and their place in it” (Makaiau & Miller 2012, 6). The
data shows that it was this notion of philosophy that we used to design and implement our
teacher professional development model.
The data shows that we did our best to live the model we were creating. This started
with incorporating the “doing of philosophy” into our school betterment activities. As Lukey
experimented with the role of the philosopher in residence he asked teachers philosophicalquestions as a part of his feedback process. “How do teachers help students overcome
interaction inertia? How do teachers help students overcome teacher dependency?” It is
important to recognize that these were genuine questions of wonderment and not heuristics
to move teachers along a prescribed path; they inquired into topics of motivation,
responsibility, and the philosophy of teaching. Lukey also reflected on his own experience,“But I think this underscores an important fact: for someone to be a P4C teacher doesn’tmean that they overhaul their teaching practice. Rather, I would say it’s an awareness ofthe values that good teachers already endeavor to bring to fruition, and more importantly, a
process for mapping those values onto any teacher’s style” (PIR reflections to high school
teachers 2007). Philosophical reflection was part of Lukey’s approach to thinking about how
philosophical activity could help teachers and schools.
The data also shows how the philosopher in residence position was used to makesure that philosophical elements were incorporated into those structures that were alreadyin place at the school. For example, at a 2007 Language Arts department meeting theteachers brainstormed what they wanted to accomplish with their students, and then thephilosopher in residence helped cultivate a community of inquiry with the department sothat they could think through their ideas. By 2013, the idea that philosophy was a defining
feature of our school reform efforts was so ingrained that philosopher in residence referred
to teachers as “teacher-philosophers” (letter to high school teachers 2013).5
Embedded in this idea of philosophy was the importance of having meaningfulexperiences. Philosophical activity resists attempts to reduce the experience to easily
digestible and transmittable pieces of instruction. Instead, it is best understood as a gestalt.
This is evidenced in the syllabus of one of the professional development courses we offered
where at the top of the handout it stated, “Objective: That you have a GREAT experience asa part of a community of inquiry, which will be a resource for figuring out how you want toincorporate p4c into your classroom” (EDEP 411 class notes 2011). It was also seen in a
letter to funders (2010) in which Lukey explained a professional development workshop that
we hosted at the high school.
There were many good things that happened in the group I facilitated but it
was particularly gratifying to hear how each group had a genuine p4c
experience in their Plain Vanilla. Each facilitator had done things slightly
differently, and each group had made progress in their inquiry in different
ways, yet everyone had experienced both a sense of community and anenrichment in their thinking. … There was a sense that we had discussed
5

Philosophy as a defining feature of the school was also captured in KHS’s new Vision Statement of 2011,
created by a committee of faculty and students: Kailua High School students are mindful, philosophical thinkers
prepared to pursue their goals and create positive change in the world.

11

Journal of Academic Perspectives
something important and it was this sense of having an important experiencethat really opened eyes to the possibilities of p4c.
In this workshop the entire faculty and staff began to experience philosophy as activity that
could potentially transform their practice as teachers.
The data also shows that teachers who were supported in a philosophically richcommunity of inquiry became better equipped to reflect, take ownership, and be creative intheir efforts to better their school: “We are constantly reflecting upon and altering our dailytasks in order to meet our overall objectives. ….Too often theory never translates itself into
the actual classroom, but I feel that what I read and write about is directly translated into
the manner in which I conduct each of my classes” (English Teacher end of year department
reflection 2009).
It was not only teachers whose education betterment efforts benefited from aphilosophically rich community of inquiry; the efforts of participants themselves were alsosignificantly supported.
The data shows that early on in the developmental process we found it necessary tocreate our own community of inquiry. We used our community of inquiry to unpack complex
ideas and probe deeper into our underlying assumptions about teacher professional
development. This philosophically rich dialogue, which unfolded during the times we met as
a community of inquiry was instrumental in helping us translate theory into a “living
practice” (Makaiau & Miller 2012, 7). The following email chain demonstrates this:If our tri-part model includes having a 1. Expert 2. Community of Inquiry, and3. Coach (philosopher in residence) do we think that these need to be three
separate people/entities or as the philosopher in residence are you the coachand the expert? Do we see any specific distinctions between the Expert andthe Coach where it would be better to have two separate people? Also shouldeach of these three systems of support be explicitly transparent to theteachers at our participating schools? Maybe these are some things we canstart talking about at our next meeting (Makaiau, 1/10/2013).
I thought the three-part model had a different step…it involved a class orsome sort of education, like a workshop? Because teachers will need to havea foundational understanding of the theories and activities of p4c
Hawai‘i…(Chad Miller, 1/11/2013)
I think your original notes were correct but by my understanding the model
has been massaged a bit to underplay the idea of expertise…Even though as
I've written about it is seems like a linear or hierarchical relationship b/w theparts, I don't think it's necessarily the case. For example, a strong peer
community of inquiry that forms during the "educative experience" reallyhelps create the intellectual/learning experience, and it can really sustain theongoing collaboration with the PIR…(Lukey, 1/13/2013)
Throughout the design process we used the community of inquiry to work throughroadblocks in our thinking like these, and to sort out the practicalities of implementing a
new professional development model.
In summary, the data included in this first section of the findings help illustrate thethree distinct ways that the philosopher’s pedagogy influenced the theoretical model forteacher professional development that we eventually generated. The philosopher’s

12

Journal of Academic Perspectives
pedagogy helped us ground the model we were developing in our own experiences, find our
focus, and frame philosophy as our general theory of educational reform. In the second
section of the findings we articulate the three-part model for teacher professional
development that was produced from our self-study (Beck, Freese, and Kosnick 2004) andgrounded theory analysis process (Charmaz 2006, 123-39).
Part Two: Three-Part Teacher Professional Development Model
In 2010 Lukey wrote a letter to one of our funders,
In evolutionary theory there’s the idea of punctuated equilibrium that suggest
change does not happen linearly. Instead, things go for long periods of timewith little change and then there is some major event that catalyzes an
explosion of changes. Wednesday, to me, felt like one such explosion; we
could go from seven to nine teachers using p4c in only a few disciplines tothirty or forty faculty and staff using p4c not only across disciplines, but
throughout the school culture…we have been able to pilot this idea of aphilosopher in residence and we now have solid evidence that it offers aworkable model.
The efforts we had made to foster teacher education and professional development at themodel schools that we worked at were starting to build momentum, and we were beginningto form the model that came out of this study.
Since then, largely as a result of the data analysis process used in this study, the model has
been progressively refined to include three main components. The three parts of the modelthat emerged from this reflection and analysis are: an educative experience, mentoring andcoaching from a philosopher in residence, and a meaningful peer/professional community ofinquiry.
(1) An Educative Experience
The first part of the model requires that teachers have an educative experience. This is
usually a formal learning experience like a university course or professional developmentclass offered on the teachers’ campus. In our model the university where we worked offered
the courses. Reflecting on our findings, teachers ideally get credit towards a professional
degree or pay raise for their participation in the class, but the educative experience can still
be successful even when this is not the case.
As a part of their educative experience teachers read academic literature andpractitioner research related the philosopher’s pedagogy. They also experience thephilosopher’s pedagogy first hand by participating in class activities, which require teachers
to “live the examined life” in the context of their development as a teacher. While in class,
the teachers also see the philosopher’s pedagogy modeled by their instructor. The
importance of modeling is that it draws upon the personal experience of the instructor andprovides a context where the instructor and teachers get to experience the philosopher’spedagogy together. In addition to their experiences in class, teachers have opportunities toobserve the pedagogy in practice during excursions to model schools. On these excursions,teachers participate in student activities, reflect on their experiences, and think of ways toincorporate what they saw into their own theories and practices.
All of these activities included in the educative experience help to create an initialcommunity of inquiry for educators (and the professional development instructors) to think

13

Journal of Academic Perspectives
together about how to incorporate the philosopher’s pedagogy into the teachers’ practices.
This community of inquiry provides teachers with lifelines for staying connected to thepeople, and the content they learned in their educative experience. As they begin toincorporate what they learn into their own classrooms, teachers need access to ongoingprofessional development experiences, like these included in the initial educative
experience. The philosopher in residence, the second part of the model, helps to ensure
this.
(2) Mentoring and Coaching from a Philosopher in Residence
The philosopher in residence provides ongoing mentoring and coaching to teachers in theirclassrooms, helping teachers stay connected to their educative experience. The overall roleof the philosopher in residence is summarized below in the words of a high school Language
Arts teacher.
[The philosopher in residence] helps us create a classroom that is
intellectually safe and socially stimulating to teachers and students. In thisrole you are not here to judge, evaluate or even sell p4c to the teachers.
What you are here for is to see how inquiry, philosophy, community andreflection fit into their practice…our students say you are just anotherstudent, granted one who helps the class dig deep, who they all greatly
respect and admire. (2009)
The philosopher in residence must gain trust and be accepted by the schoolcommunity, students, and teachers if they he or she is going to make meaningful change.
The philosopher in residence also needs to support initiatives that have been started by theschool. It is not the job of the philosopher in residence to come into the school and tellteachers what to do or push a separate reform agenda. Instead the philosopher in residence
needs to listen, build relationships, participate in school activities and initiatives, and be
asked to give feedback.
The philosopher in residence is not an external “professional development guru”(Hess and Meeks 2012, 95-6) who plays a cameo role in the school community. Instead thephilosopher in residence is an integral, and as the teacher below put it, “essential” part ofthe school’s faculty,
Bottom line [the Philosopher in Residence]…is essential. The PIR keeps
the ball rolling and helps us dig deep into our inquiries…PIR offers ourdepartment a sense of unity; he is the only person who can reallysee/observe everyone teach, so he knows what works, what doesn’t and theteaching personalities of each teacher. This unique role has become necessary
in our efforts to truly change the manner in which the curriculum is delivered
to the students. The PIR’s insight and ideas have undoubtedly helped eachteacher become a more effective educator. (end of year department reflection
2009)
The “job description” of the philosopher in residence is not fixed. The philosopher inresidence must be open to changing their role in response to the needs of the school andthe growing capacity of the philosopher in residence as a person and a position. However,the philosopher in residence must support teachers as they establish, take ownership over,and maintain a peer/professional community of inquiry.
(3) Meaningful Peer/Professional Community of Inquiry

14

Journal of Academic Perspectives
The third part of the model is the establishment and ongoing efforts of a peer/professional
community of inquiry. It is best when the peer/professional community of inquiry is selfinitiated, but often teachers need the support of the philosopher in residence. Sometimes
individuals or departments initiate and maintain the communities of inquiry, but thecommunity of inquiry can be school-wide.
The peer/professional community of inquiry must be meaningful. That is, the teachers
needed to feel personally and professionally connected to their peers. They also need toknow that what they discuss in their community of inquiry will help them grow both
personally and professionally. In an excerpt to the dean, Lukey describes the Language Arts
Department’s community of inquiry.
Teachers were amazed that meetings were both more productive than they
had ever been and thoroughly enjoyable. Several stated that they felt
department meetings were now an essential part of their professional lives,
both because the community of the meetings reminded them of why theywanted to be English teachers and because the nature of the inquiries madethem feel that they were truly growing as teachers. It was pointed out that
the English Dept was now an emerging P4C community, which is what madethe inquiry so productive and rewarding. Those who have developed an
emerging P4C community in their classrooms recognized the parallels interms of engagement and learning. And those who are still trying to build a
P4C community in their classrooms are experiencing a model of thecommunity among the department faculty that informs their community
building in the classroom. (2008)
A meaningful peer/professional community of inquiry helps bring together the previous twocomponents of the three-part model. It provides a space for teachers to build off of theirprimary educative experience and keep in contact with the philosopher in residence.
Furthermore, the community of inquiry empowers professionals to think through thechallenges they face. Working in conjunction with one another, each part of the model
supports the others. Together, the three parts help to cultivate a teacher professional
development model that has the philosopher’s pedagogy at its core.

Reflection and Discussion“If we keep doing what we are doing, we are never going to get there”(Mehta, Schwartz, and Hess 2012, 5; on the future of school reform).
When discussing the history of public school reform in the united states Tyack andCuban (1995) write, “change where it counts the most—in the daily interactions of teachersand students—is the hardest to achieve…to do this requires…an accurate understanding ofschools as institutions” (10). However, as Elmore (2004) points out, it is rare that reform
agendas allow the time, human resources, and careful thinking required to know the people,
schools, and communities where the change is being implemented. Reform efforts,
especially at the local level are “typically characterized by volatility…and superficiality—
choosing reforms that have little impact on instruction or student learning and implementing
them in shallow ways” (2). The three-part model for school betterment that emerged fromthe data in this study was our best attempt to create a teacher professional development
model that did not succumb to these shortcomings.

15

Journal of Academic Perspectives
The results from the analysis of the data show that the philosopher’s pedagogy was
instrumental in making the model we generated different than traditional and usual reform
efforts (Elmore 2004; Tyack & Cuban 1995). The three-part model (i.e., an educative
experience, a philosopher in residence, and a peer/professional community of inquiry) works“from the inside out” (Elmore 2004, 3). At the model’s core is the idea that given the rightsupports, communities, schools, teachers and students are capable of creating educational
reforms that best meet their individual needs and contexts. It is a model that distributes
power equally between the “coproducers of learning” (City, Elmore, and Lynch 2012, 176)and offers supports characterized by community building, the cultivation of responsible andethical thinking, and commitment to the common good.
This three-part teacher professional development model is not a quick fix. Instead it
is a “gradual and incremental-tinkering with the system” (Tyack & Cuban 1995, 5).
Relationships take time to build. Efforts must be made to reserve time and space for thework to be done in. And thinking that is responsible, ethical, and rigorous must not berushed. School communities and universities have to commit to the model for the longterm, but this is often difficult in a culture obsessed with instant gratification and is
especially difficult in this troubled economic climate. But as Tyack & Cuban (1995) conclude
in their research, “over long periods of time such revisions of practice, adapted to local
contexts, can substantially improve schools…Tinkering is one way of preserving what isvaluable and reworking what is not” (5).
We are continuing to tinker with our model. For right now it seems like a “bestpractice” for incorporating the philosopher’s pedagogy into school wide reform efforts in theschools we work in. However, as Mehta, Schwartz, and Hess (2012) point out, “the ‘bestpractices’ approach only addresses the tip of the iceberg, and the failure of most such
efforts is due to the six-sevenths of the iceberg that lurks below the surface, encumbering
today’s school systems” (4). We are reminded that we must remain open to the continual
improvement and development of our model. The individuals, schools, and larger systems
that we work with and within are constantly changing and it is necessary that our efforts forschool betterment change with them.

Conclusion
James March (as cited in Levin, Schwartz, and Gamoran 2012) explains that “innovation isessential to improvement,” in schools, “but only if (a) innovations are well grounded incurrent knowledge and have a reasonable theory of action; (b) there is careful assessmentof impact; and (c) even more important, real efforts are made to scale up innovations thatare found to be effective” (pp. 28 – 29). This study helped us ground the design andimplementation of our innovative three-part teacher professional development model indata.
By studying ourselves, analyzing documents from the past seven years and recent
workplace discussions, we learned that the philosopher’s pedagogy has had a profound
impact on the professional development model that we have been developing because it
helped to create meaningful experiences for the faculty and staff at the schools where we
worked. Over the seven years examined in this study, what started out as an experiment

16

Journal of Academic Perspectives
with a handful of participating teachers became a school wide reform movement withcomplete administrative support and more than half of the faculty and staff at each of themodel schools volunteering their free time and involvement. It also appears as if the school
culture of the schools that we work with has positively transformed, but, as March points
out, we need a more careful assessment of the three-part model’s impact. We see the needfor future longitudinal research to examine the continued implementation of the model andits longstanding effects.
We are also cautious in our efforts to scale up this innovative model for teacher
professional development. In addition to needing more research, we are wary of educatorsand policy makers who are in a rush to immediately implement the model we created.
Underlying this rush “is the presumption that improving schools and systems is primarily amatter of learning ‘what works’; that the right mix of remedies is already known…and thechallenge is primarily a technical one of transferring it” (Mehta, Schwartz, and Hess 2012,3). Education and education betterment, as we understand it, is not primarily driven bytechnique and transference. Rather, the primary challenge of education is “living theexamined life” (Plato 1961, 38a).
With this as a foundation, we can meaningfully
implement grounded innovations and assess their impact.
We incorporate the activity of philosophy into the work that we do in schools because
it helps us challenge the contemporary narrative, which describes teaching as prescriptive
practice—easily packaged and transferred from one school district to the next. As Dewey
asserted nearly one hundred years ago, teaching is an “action intelligently directed” (Dewey
1916, 170). To engage in intelligent action in responsible way, educators need tools forthinking and relating to one another. As we look to find ways to further develop teachers,
schools, and the practice of education as a whole we must remember this, and act
accordingly.

References
Beck, Clive, Anne Freese, and Clare Kosnick. 2004. “The Preservice Practicum: Learning through Self-Study in a
Professional Setting.” In International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education
Practices, edited by J. John Loughran, Mary Lynn Hamilton, Vicki Kubler LaBoskey, and Tom Russell, 1259
- 1294. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Bryant, Anthony and Kathy Charmaz. 2007. “Grounded Theory in Historical Perspective: An Epistemological
Account.” In The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory, edited by Anthony Bryant and Kathy Charmaz, 31–
57. Los Angeles: Sage.
Charmaz, Kathy. 2005. “Grounded Theory in the 21st Century: Applications for Advancing Social Justice Studies.” In
Handbook of Qualitative Research; Third edition, edited by Norman Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln,507–
536. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. Los Angeles,
CA: Sage.
City, Elizabeth A., Richard F. Elmore, and Doug Lynch. 2012. “Redefining Education.” In The Futures of School
Reform, edited by Jal Mehta, Robert B. Schwartz and Frederick M. Hess, 151–76. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.
Cochran-Smith, Marilyn and Kenneth M. Zeichner. 2005. Studying Teacher Education: The Report of the AERA
Panel on Research and Teacher Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Creswell, John W. 2007. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dewey, John. 1916. Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York, NY: The
Free Press.
Elmore, Richard F. 2004. School Reform from the Inside Out: Policy, Practice, and Performance. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Press.

17

Journal of Academic Perspectives
Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Grossman, Pamela. 2005. “Research on Pedagogical Approaches in Teacher Education.” In Studying Teacher
Education: The Report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education, edited by Marilyn CochranSmith and Kenneth M. Zeichner, 425–76. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Kisiel, Theodore. 1993. The Genesis of Heidegger's Being and Time. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Jackson, Thomas. 1989. “Philosophy for Children: A Guide for Teachers.” Unpublished work.
———. 2001. “The Art and Craft of ‘Gently Socratic’ Inquiry.” In Developing Minds: A Resource Book for TeachingThinking, Third Edition, edited by Arthur L. Costa. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development.
———. 2013. “Philosophical Rules of Engagement.” In Philosophy in Schools: An Introduction for Philosophers andTeachers, edited by Sara Goering, Nicholas J. Shudak, and Thomas E. Wartenberg, 99-109. New York:
Taylor and Francis.
Levin, Ben, Robert B. Schwartz, and Adam Gamoran. 2012. “Learning from Abroad.” In The Futures of School
Reform, edited by Jal Mehta, Robert B. Schwartz, and Frederick M. Hess, 13 - 34. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Press.
Lipman, Matthew. 1988. Philosophy Goes to School. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
———. 1991. Thinking in Education. Victoria, Australia: Cambridge University Press.
———. 1993. Thinking Children and Education. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Loughran, John. 1996. Developing Reflective Practice: Learning about Teaching and Learning through Modeling.
Washington, D.C.: Falmer Press.
Makaiau, Amber Strong. 2010. Adolescent Identity Exploration in a Multicultural Community Context; An Educator’s
Approach to Rethinking Psychological Identity Interventions. PhD dissertation, University of Hawaii at
Manoa. Ann Arbor: ProQuest/UMI. (Publication No. 3415880.)
Makaiau, Amber Strong and Chad Miller. “The Philosopher’s Pedagogy.” Educational Perspectives 44 (2012): 8 –19.
Mayhew, Katherine Camp and Anna Camp Edwards. 1965. The Dewey School: The Laboratory School of the
University of Chicago, 1896 – 1903. USA: Atherton Press.
Mehta, Jal, Robert B. Schwartz, and Frederick M. Hess. 2012. “The Futures of School Reform.” In The Futures of
School Reform, edited by Jal Mehta, Robert B. Schwartz, and Frederick M. Hess, 1 -12. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Press.
Mehta, Jal, Louis M.Gomez, and Anthony Bryk. 2012. “Building on Practical Knowledge.” In The Futures of School
Reform, edited by Jal Mehta, Robert B. Schwartz, and Frederick M. Hess, 35 - 64. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Press.
Miles, Matthew B. and A. Michael Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Oakes, Jeannie, Karen Hunter Quartz, Steve Ryan, and Merton Lipton. 2000. Becoming Good American Schools:
The Struggle for Civic Virtue in Education Reform. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
Patton, Michael Quinn. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Plato. 1961. The Collected Dialogues of Plato: Including the Letters, edited by Edith Hamilton and Huntington
Cairns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Richardson, Laurel. 1994. “Writing: A Method of Inquiry.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K.
Denzin and Yvonna. S. Lincoln, 516–29). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Samaras, Anastasia P. 2002. Self-Study for Teacher Educators: Crafting a Pedagogy for Educational Change. New
York: Peter Lang.
Samaras, Anastasia P. and Anne R. Freese. 2006. Self-Study of Teaching Practices. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Strauss, Anselm and Juliet Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing
Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Tyack, David and Larry Cuban. 1995. Tinkering Toward Utopia: A Century of Public School
Reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Copyright © Journal of Academic Perspectives. All Rights Reserved. 2013.

18